Look Up

As I'm sure you all know, a fire ravaged the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris on Monday, April 15, damaging an undetermined number of priceless works of art and relics of various types, and utterly destroying its thirteenth-century wooden roof. In the process, the cathedral's towering spire was also destroyed as it came crashing down in the midst of the blazing inferno.

According to reports, the fire started at 6:20 p.m. local time, and it took about nine hours for firefighters to put it out. But by the time the literal flames had been extinguished, the flames of speculation had already been kindled.

Hours before the fire was even under control, French authorities had officially declared the cause of the blaze an "accident." Absolutely no evidence whatsoever of arson—absolument aucun. Certainly an accident. The roof and spire of the church had been undergoing a long-planned renovation, and so it was presumed that the fire must have been caused by a careless construction worker (all of whom had gotten off work and left the site well over an hour before the fire started).

What most people around the world were not aware of (and still aren't if they depend on the mainstream media for "news"), is the fact that during the past year France has been experiencing a torrent of church burnings and desecrations, some of which can only be described as satanic in nature, and many of which have been tied directly to Muslim terrorist activity.

This didn't get much coverage in the mainstream media, and it is now being whitewashed by that same media like few things I can recall. Mere hours after the fire, Fox News anchor Shepard Smith was interviewing French media analyst and former elected official Philippe Karsenty, who attempted to bring up the fact that there had been a rash of church burnings and desecrations throughout France during the past year (which is not merely a fact, it is a relevant fact—not a conspiracy theory), and Smith shut him down cold—cut him off and ended the interview. Cut to commercial.

Naturally, such ham-fisted media tactics invariably backfire, because this just puts the politically correct media bias du jour on full display, thus fanning the very flames they wish to douse—you can count on it. It's like I always say:

The surest way to make the truth shout out loud is to try to silence it.

Now, I'm really not trying to sound all conspiratorial or anything, but anyone with any sense of what is going on in the world can see there is a distinct possibility that the fire may have been set by Muslim terrorists because there is a clear pattern, plus it wouldn't have been too difficult. Where there's smoke, there's fire and all that (no pun intended, but I'll take it). But the issue cannot and will not be addressed—not now, not ever. No doubt some type of investigation will take place at some point, and the cause of the fire will be revealed to be something fairly innocuous: a faulty power tool, some flammable materials that were improperly stored, etc.

Trust me...anything suggesting otherwise will remain buried in the ashes of that thirteenth-century roof, never to see the light of day.

What are the odds: I'm not going to get into it in this article, but strangely enough, a fire broke out at the Al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem at the exact same time as the fire in Paris. That's one thing that really makes me wonder—you sure can't pin that one on Muslim terrorists.

In reality, it makes no difference whether the fire was caused by Islamic jihadists or a jigsaw with a frayed power cord. In spite of any evidence anyone produces one way or the other, I'm not going to waste my time pushing this or that conspiracy theory because I believe that to do so is to miss the point.

And what is the point? I am fully satisfied that such events are ordained by a sovereign God to carry out His will, and part of that will is to give those with ears to hear a crystal clear message concerning events that are about to come upon the world.

And for those with ears to hear, the message from the fire in Paris could scarcely be any clearer.

The fire started about 1:20 a.m. Tuesday morning Taiwan time, and by the time I got up and got going Tuesday morning, it was nearly extinguished. The following day, Wednesday, my first class is one where I receive a fresh, two-page news article to teach to an adult class. The topic? You guessed it.

The branch of my school where I teach on Wednesday is about 20 minutes away on the Taipei City Metro, and I normally use that time to look over the news article and briefly prepare for my two other classes. As I scanned the article about the fire in Paris, there was a paragraph about how the church had been undergoing renovation. Something about statues. Of apostles. Something about them being removed. Something about them being...

And then I saw that word. It's hard to describe what I felt the moment my eyes hit that word, but it was as if the Holy Spirit nailed me with a spiritual joy buzzer and I went into another dimension for about a full second. It said the statues of the apostles had been...

AIRLIFTED.

After I returned to this dimension and regained my aplomb, I read how on Thursday, April 11, only four days before the fire, the 16 bronze statues of the 12 apostles and the four evangelists that adorned the base of the spire had been removed one by one by being hoisted high into the air with a 100m crane. The statues were going to be taken to a location in the Dordogne area of southwest France for restoration work while the roof and spire were being renovated, and the plan was to return them to their lofty positions around the newly refurbished spire by 2022.

And in a flash, the Holy Spirit had given me a new topic. This has happened to me on a couple of occasions, where something has happened and the Holy Spirit is like "Listen up: The topic I had you working on can wait till next time—WRITE. THIS. NOW." And I go with it. Oh, the topic?

I'm hard-pressed to view this as anything other
than a compellingly clear picture of the Rapture.

Now, for a few brief, giddy hours, I reveled in the fantasy that perhaps I was the only one who had noticed this. Of course, that silly little bubble was burst in no time when I saw that Brad over at Revelation 12 Daily had noticed the same thing, as had numerous other watchmen, no doubt. I should have known better—the Holy Spirit doesn't play those games. When there's a word to get out, He gets it out.

I figured Well, if you can't be the first, all you can do is try to be the best. I began to pray Show me, Lord, show me, and began to dig. And the deeper I dug, the clearer and more compelling that picture became. So, what I want to discuss in this article is some of the reasons why I am totally convinced this event in Paris is indeed a clear picture of the Rapture.

But first, a few words about the statues themselves.

Lion, ox, man, eagle

Many news reports about the fire and the removal of the statues prior to it said that the 16 statues were of the 12 apostles and the four evangelists (Catholics capitalize this, but I will refrain). Honestly, I had no idea what they were talking about, and I suspect anyone reading about the fire who was not Catholic felt equally befuddled. Time to do some homework.

Well, the 12 apostles are pretty straightforward—these obviously include the men who walked with Christ during His earthly ministry, minus Judas, and in place of the devil who betrayed Him is the apostle Paul. But the so-called "four evangelists" had me stumped.

For the uninitiated and non-Catholic among you, the four evangelists are the writers of the four Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But that's what confused me at first—Matthew and John are already among the 12 apostles. So, why 16? Why wouldn't there be 14 statues? Are there two statues of both Matthew and John, or what?

Roman Catholic theology identifies the four Gospel writers (i.e. evangelists) not only as the men they actually were, but also symbolically as four creatures mentioned several places in Scripture that are described as bearing some manner of resemblance to a lion, an ox, a man, and an eagle. These are referred to in many English translations of the Bible as the four "living creatures," and are mentioned in a number of places in Scripture. Probably the three most detailed descriptions, however, are two found in the book of Ezekiel (Ezek. 1; 10) and one found in the book of Revelation (Rev. 4). First, Ezekiel's vision in chapter 1:

The second is in chapter 10:

Although many translations have Ezekiel referring to the face of the ox as that of a cherub in 10:14, a few verses later he makes it clear that he is describing the same creatures he saw in chapter 1, since he goes so far as to specifically connect the creatures in chapter 10 with those he saw "by the river Chebar" (Ezek. 10:22), which is a reference to the creatures he saw in chapter 1 (Ezek. 1:3). In all fairness, scholars are divided on this and there are many opinions as to what's really going on here. I am going to refrain from getting involved in that, however, and do what most others do and just stick with lion, ox, man, and eagle.

So that's what Ezekiel saw. This is what John saw:

Now, it's one thing for scholars to quibble over the minor ox/cherub issue in Ezekiel, but trying to say that the creatures John saw are the same ones Ezekiel saw is another thing. Opinions vary widely, and many commentators are content to leave the issue as unresolved. In my personal opinion, however, it is reasonably clear from a straightforward reading of the text that the four creatures mentioned by Ezekiel in the Old Testament are not the same as the creatures mentioned by John in the New. Either that, or they are the same four living creatures but have simply changed form in the transition from the Old Testament to the New, which is a distinct possibility that few people seem to have considered.

Although both sets of creatures do share the same lion/ox/man/eagle motif, the chief difference that leaps out at you is the fact that Ezekiel describes each of the four creatures as resembling a man, each of whom has four faces—that of a lion, an ox, a man, and an eagle. On the other hand, John describes the four individual creatures as one creature resembling a lion, one creature resembling an ox, one creature resembling a man, and one creature resembling an eagle—each with just the one face, not all four faces together. In addition, Ezekiel's creatures all have four wings, while John's have six. Again, not the same.

There is no shortage of speculation as to why Ezekiel and John appear to describe two different sets of living creatures, with some scholars straining to somehow reconcile the two from a linguistic standpoint and others speculating about how they must be two different but related sets of powerful angelic beings with similar functions, etc.

Well, I reckon I can speculate with the best of 'em, so here's my take:

I'll take God at His Word, thank you very much, and assume the four creatures Ezekiel describes in the Old Testament are four beings that appear as men, each having the four faces of a lion, an ox, a man, and an eagle. And I am content to assume that John describes one creature that resembles a man, one that resembles a lion, one that resembles an ox, and one that resembles an eagle.

I believe it is possible that the four living creatures all appear as men with four different faces in the Old Testament because at that point they are still looking forward to the incarnation of the Son of God into the world as a man—a man whose essence can be characterized by four different, fundamental facets:

(a) The Lion: The Lion from the tribe of Judah. Matthew's genealogy establishes that Jesus is both a descendant of Abraham and in the line of inheritance to sit on the Throne of David as Israel's King, as the Gospel of Matthew emphasizes Christ's qualifications as the Jewish Messiah.

(b) The Ox: He is likened to the most servile of beasts in that He came the first time not to be served, but to serve. Giving no genealogy at all (since no one cares about the genealogy of a slave), the Gospel of Mark emphasizes Christ's role as the Suffering Servant.

(c) The Man: Jesus—the Son of Man—was fully a man, and thus qualified to redeem sinful men. Luke's genealogy (which establishes Christ's requisite blood relationship to King David through His biological mother Mary) goes all the way back to Adam as the Gospel of Luke emphasizes Christ's humanity.

(d) The Eagle: He came from above, fully possessing the divine nature of God, and will return from above a second time as the Conquering King. John's "genealogy" is simply that Jesus is the Son of God, as the Gospel of John emphasizes Christ's divinity.

Hands down: Don't ever forget that the incarnation of God the Son into the world as a man—a man who would willingly shed His blood to express God's grace and mercy to His most beloved creation—is hands down the single most important event in the history of the universe.

But when John in the New Testament describes the four creatures as resembling a lion, an ox, a man, and an eagle, with each creature possessing just the one face, I believe it could be because now they are looking back at Christ's incarnation as a fait accompli. Since Christ has already taken on the form of a man for eternity, the creatures no longer need to present themselves in a form that anticipates that incarnation. That's done—now they don't need to appear as men as they did prior to the First Advent. Now that He has taken on the form of a man, they need only present themselves in a way that represents the four fundamental attributes of His nature: the Lion of Judah, the Suffering Servant, the Son of Man, and the Son of God—the Conquering King.

In other words, I am of the opinion that John did see the same four living creatures that Ezekiel saw, the difference being that after Calvary their form and appearance changed to reflect the staggering new reality that existed in heaven after the physical birth, death, resurrection, and ascension of the Creator incarnate, a sequence of events with significance beyond our human comprehension.

Just my two shekels.

As far as which creature is supposed to represent which Gospel writer is concerned, note that I (in agreement with most Evangelical Bible scholars) have pegged the lion as being Matthew, the ox as Mark, the man as Luke, and the eagle as John. This, however, flies in the face of Roman Catholic theology. Within Roman Catholicism, opinions differ widely—at least they did early on. I can almost guarantee you that some early Church theologian in what was beginning to morph into the Roman Catholic Church has argued for virtually every possible combination. Here are a few examples:

This final arrangement taught by Jerome has become the standard in Roman Catholic theology today. But as you can see, the early Church fathers couldn't agree on which creature represented which Gospel writer, and I suspect part of the problem was that they erroneously tried to read Israel out of the New Testament. But none agree with the way nearly all Evangelical Bible scholars today identify them, which is as I have stated:

Any statues on any Roman Catholic cathedral that are referred to as the four evangelists either appear as these four creatures or as four men, each with one of the creatures at his feet: a lion with Mark, an ox with Luke, a cherub or angel with Matthew, and an eagle with John.

And the statues that were airlifted from the the Cathedral of Notre Dame just four days before the roof and spire were destroyed in a fire are no exception.

But regardless of the details of how anyone interprets the statues of the four evangelists, one thing is clear (and will shortly become even clearer):

The 16 statues clearly represent the Church.

Period. I don't see a lot of wiggle room on that one.

Now, back to that airlift thing...

That airlift thing

As I said, I believe the removal of these 16 statues gives us a compellingly clear picture of the Rapture, and in the remainder of this article I want to share with you seven reasons why I am inclined to say that.

All 16 of the statues were removed in a single day, which was no small task. A 100m crane—among the world's largest—was used, and all 16 statues were lifted up, up, and away one by one, just four days before the fire.

Marie-Helene Didier, who was in charge of the renovation project that was brought to a screeching halt by the fire, gushed over this engineering feat:

This, of course, is suggestive of the fact that the entire Church will be removed quickly—in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye.

Only we won't need a crane.

From 1844 to 1864, the roof and spire of the cathedral were redesigned and renovated, and in the process the 16 bronze statues were added around the base of the new spire. Since that time, they have never been removed as a group (although in the summer of 2015, at least one of the four evangelists was temporarily taken down for maintenance). But the statues, as a group, have stood where they were planted for over 150 years. Marie-Helene Didier commented on this rare opportunity to get a close look at the statues:

How like the Church—conceived two millennia ago, and ever since then believers both living and dead have been eagerly awaiting the trumpet that will signal our opportunity to see our Lord and Savior up close.

I thought this was hysterical when I first read about it, but it didn't take the Holy Spirit long to make me see something deeper. During my research for this article, I discovered one fascinating thing about these statues of the apostles that I suspect many people do not know.

After the publication of Victor Hugo's extremely popular novel The Hunchback of Notre Dame in 1831, Paris' iconic cathedral began to become a major tourist magnet. Unfortunately, Notre Dame had fallen into a sad state of disrepair, and in fact still bore the scars of the French Revolution in the 1790s. Something had to be done, and Paris was essentially shamed into planning a much-needed renovation of its most treasured icon.

A young French architect named Eugène Viollet-le-Duc was chosen to head the project, which, as I mentioned, began in 1844 and took two full decades. When the 16 bronze statues of the 12 apostles and the four evangelists were finally put in place around the newly designed spire in the 1860s, it was discovered that the apostle Thomas had been deliberately given the facial features of none other than Viollet-le-Duc himself to honor the man who had restored the beloved cathedral to a new level of splendor. I'm not sure if it was actually Viollet-le-Duc's idea or not, but when you see photos of him, it's awfully hard to miss the resemblance.

But why is this significant?

To me, this speaks to the idea that these bronze statues represent more than just the apostles—these statues don't merely honor the men who walked with Christ and who spread the gospel throughout the known world. This emphasizes the fact that these statues are the embodiment of the untold millions of average people that make up the entire Church.

This sends a clear message that it was the entire body of Christ that was airlifted off that cathedral—every single believer in the gospel, from the big names to the little guys. This is the Church in its entirety, from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to Mike, Mandy, Larry, and Janet.

And Greg.

That French architect's face slyly concealed among those of the apostles tells me the coming "airlift" will include every person who has heard the gospel and trusted Christ for the forgiveness of sin and their salvation.

It will include me, and I pray it will include you.

Incidentally, not only did the apostle Thomas receive Viollet-le-Duc's facial features, but he was placed in a pose that shows him turning around and looking up, reportedly to represent Viollet-le-Duc turning around and looking up to admire the beautiful new spire he had designed.

Rather than admiring his own work, I see this Everyman member of the body of Christ looking up for another reason:

This is the big kahuna, and there's not a lot to add to this one. Since the entire roof and spire burned and crashed in a raging inferno, all 16 of these bronze statues that surrounded the base of the spire would have been completely destroyed. They would have been reduced to broken, twisted chunks of charred scrap metal with no hope whatsoever of being restored.

This is a frighteningly clear picture of the wrath of a holy God that is soon to be poured out on a Christ-rejecting world during the horrors of the Tribulation. And what, pray tell, might point no. 4 be a picture of? Go ahead, take a guess. OK, I'll help you out:

THE. CHURCH. WON'T. BE. HERE.

Get the picture?

Before the statues of the 12 apostles were airlifted off the cathedral, the head of each one was removed so that each statue could be lifted off the cathedral without its head, presumably to prevent damage in the moving process. Later, the statues will be united with their heads offsite.

This one really threw me for a loop initially, because it brought to mind the Tribulation saints who get beheaded for their faithful testimony during Daniel's 70th Week. But if that's the case, the wheels begin to come off. How on earth can the apostles represent the Tribulation saints? And even if they did, the Tribulation saints are beheaded during the Tribulation, not before it. Nothing fits any more. Nothing makes any sense. In fact, this one gnarly little point almost discouraged me from writing this article. I hesitated. I prayed. Show me, Lord, show me. I prayed for wisdom, because I knew in my spirit there was something significant to all of this.

And then it hit me.

Christ is the head of the Church, and after the Rapture, we will be eternally united with our head.

And I'm sure you'd agree that it's an understatement to say that it's going to happen offsite.

These statues of the 12 apostles and the four evangelists were removed from the base of the spire of the Cathedral of Notre Dame. My, what better symbol of the house of God—surely a place where God is worshiped, His Son is glorified, His Word is honored, and the gospel is preached, right?

So one might innocently inquire:

"Gosh, how can it be that removing these statues from this hallowed cathedral is a picture of the Rapture, of all things?"

Pop quiz: In all the news reports and interviews aired on television in regard to the fire at Notre Dame, people invariably spoke in glowing terms of the cathedral's beauty, history, architecture, and its status as a French icon. How many times did you hear someone express regret over the fact that a place had been damaged where the gospel of Jesus Christ—salvation only through repentance and faith in the atoning sacrifice of the Son of God—was being boldly proclaimed to a lost and dying world? (Uhh...cut to commercial).

A Roman Catholic cathedral...as a picture of the house of God?

Let's face it: The Cathedral of Notre Dame, along with St. Peter's Basilica in Rome and every other monolithic monstrosity claimed by the Roman Catholic Church, is about as much the house of God as a Las Vegas brothel.

The Cathedral of Notre Dame, with all its striking beauty, storied history, architectural magnificence, and iconic status, represents an utterly apostate, spiritual whore of a corporate church that's about to go sailing into the Tribulation on cruise control, right along with the fallen world in which it is so deeply entrenched, with its membership largely undented by the Rapture.

Of the real Church.

The bottom line is that these statues were removed from a place that is fully representative of a sin-infested world that has spat in the face of a holy God and spurned His grace and mercy, and is equally representative of an apostate church that has been a most useful tool in the hands of Satan in his indefatigable efforts to blind men's minds to the truth of the gospel.

And I know I'm dreaming here, but if I am somehow able to watch from heaven's mezzanine as every Roman Catholic cathedral on earth burns to the ground during the Tribulation, I will only have one thing to say:

Que Dieu soit loué! (Praise be to God!)

I mentioned earlier that according to reports, the statues were slated to be taken to the Dordogne area in southwestern France for restoration.

(Wait for it...) So what?

Well, you know me. I teach English for a living, and have always had a love affair with words. I enjoy digging into the etymology and root meanings of words, and I couldn't help but be curious what the name Dordogne meant. Nothing jumped out at me and it seemed like a long shot, but the Holy Spirit just kept nudging me, trying to tell me there was something there. So, I strapped on my two whole years of high school French and dug into it.

Surprise...the Holy Spirit was right.

The first part of the word Dordogne is dor, which is a shortened form of the words mont d'or, or "mountain of gold." The second part, dogne, is formed from dord ("babbling") combined with the word aven. In modern French, aven refers to a vertical shaft leading to a cave, but its archaic meaning is "river." So, a "mountain of gold" and a "babbling river." Ooh-kay.

Gold. A river.

And again with the joy buzzer.

A couple of lines from John's description of the New Jerusalem should fill in the blanks for anyone who hasn't caught it yet:

In Revelation 21:9–22:5, John is being given the fifty-cent tour of the New Jerusalem, the future home of the Church, and two features that he happens to mention are a street of gold and a river of the water of life.

Gold. A river.

Pardonnez-moi, but this ol' boy's about to start shoutin'.

It's almost time for the airlift

So, what does all this leave us with?

It leaves us with 16 statues that are a fitting representation of the entire body of Christ that were quickly airlifted out of a place that is an equally fitting representation of a fallen world under the control of Satan, just before destruction fell upon that place. They were snatched up in order to be taken to a place far away where they will be united with their "head"—a place characterized by gold and a river, as is the New Jerusalem, the future home of the Church.

And if that doesn't make you start shoutin', I don't know what will.

Of course, it goes without saying that nobody is setting or sensationalizing any dates here. If you've read many of my articles, you know I refuse to get caught up in the unbiblical futility of all that. But I do know—and I want you to know—that God does give us signs. The stellar-planetary alignment of September 23, 2017 that confirmed John's great sign of Revelation 12:1–2 was a big one, and arguably there have been others as well.

But I am convinced beyond unconvincing that this terrible fire at the Cathedral of Notre Dame is one, too, and all these signs are telling those with ears to hear the same thing, again and again:

Look up...it's almost time for us to be airlifted.

Greg Lauer — APR '19

Top of the page

If you like this article, share it with someone!

 APR '19 

Site Search

Powered by:
JavaScript Kit