Against the Rapture (Surprised by Hope #6) July 10, 2008
Posted by Damian in Eschatology.Tags: amillenialism, christ, coming on the clouds, Corinthians, Daniel, Eschatology, greek, Matthew, parousia, Paul, premillenialism, rapture, Surprised By Hope, Thessalonians, Tom Wright
trackback
The rapture as a concept has always bothered me. I could never figure out why, but Wright tells a story which illustrates one point:
“I was giving some lectures in Thunder Bay, Ontario, in the early 1980’s. I was talking about Jesus in his historical context, and to my surprise almost all the questions afterward were about ecology – about trees and water and crops, which is after all what there mostly is at Thunder Bay. It turned out that many conservative Christians in the area, and more importantly, just in the south in the United States, had been urging that since we were living in the end times, with the world about to come to and end, there was no point worrying about trying to stop polluting the planet with acid rain and the like. Indeed, wasn’t it unspiritual, and even a sign of a lack of faith, to think about such things?”
There are many such reasons one can search for to dislike rapture theology, but there’s certainly evidence that there will be no rapture, aside from the fact that it makes no sense in a theology that includes bodily resurrection.
1. Matthew 24:30, “The son of man coming on the clouds”, has been used as Jesus predicting rapture. But it alludes to Daniel 7, and hence is about the vindication of Jesus’ suffering rather than his return. And in Daniel the ‘coming’ is toward, rather than from heaven.
2. Jesus’ parables such as Matthew 25 (The parable of the Talents) and other similar parables, refer not to Jesus second coming, but to his first. That is to say, when they were told, they were in the Jewish context about God having left the Israel at the time of the exile, and would return as the prophets foretold. This is important, as it means that these parables are not perfect analogies for the second coming. That is, nowhere in the New Testament is it said that at Jesus’ second coming, actual believing Christians will be judged harshly for hiding his talents away. This referred to the first century nation of Israel.
3. Parousia is translated as ‘coming’, in some key passages (1 Thessalonians 4:15, 1 Corinthians 15:23 particularly, but many more). But in first century discourse, parousia was used in two specific ways. The first was ‘the mysterious presence of a god or divinity, particularly when the power of the god was revealed in healing’, and the second was ‘when a person of high rank makes a visit to a subject state, particularly when a king or emperor visits a colony or province’.
Now, given that Paul might have wanted to say that Jesus was absent but that one day he would be present, and that the whole would would be aware of this, the first sense of this word would make this a good choice. And if Paul wanted to say that Jesus, who had been given all authority in heaven and earth, was the rightful Lord of all creation, and that he would one day appear to rule in person, the second sense of the word would, again, make this a good choice of word. Neither of these parousia involve Jesus flying in on a cloud, nor the destruction of the earth.
4. However, confusing this further is 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, “For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.“. It certainly sounds like Jesus is flying. But if you draw lines between 1 Corinthians, it is obvious Paul is speaking of the same event. After all, there are similar trumpets, similar resurrections.
The main difference is that where one speaks of being snatched up into the air, the other speaks of transformation (as does Philippians 3:21). What Paul is doing here is mixing metaphors, as he is prone to do: When an emperor visits a colony, the citizens would always go to meet him at a distance from the city, then they would escort him back to the city again. He wouldn’t see them and invite them back to his place, they would royally escort him into his domain.
I certainly find these arguments against rapture convincing, although admittedly I never believed it in the first place. At least I’m relieved at scriptural evidence against rapture.
Update: I looked further into this topic, and posted at far more length, here.
Damian, debating the Rapture is a tall order. Have you read the arguments for the Rapture? Have you given the concept a fair day in court?
Many of the texts used against the Rapture fail to take into consideration the time-sequence and chronological order of many eschatological evens. One must do some systematizing as with many other biblical topics.
TC, I freely admit I haven’t researched extensively on the topic – I’ve always had a moral objection to Rapture.
From my own bible reading I haven’t found the evidence compelling, but if you believe that it is I’d be very happy to do more reading, especially if you can point to an article (or post, or book) defending it.
I think the purpose here (as much as what I write has a purpose) is to defend my own beliefs, rather than try to convert others to it. But I’d be very happy if someone decided to debate the Rapture here – it’d force me into a more systematic study.
It is refreshing to me rather than surprising to know that more and more Godly men and women are beginning to “get it”. I have been allowing myself to be discipled by Dr. Robert Thompson who preaches the Kingdom better than anyone I know; he’s still learning and is well worth looking in to if you loved Wright’s book. My youtube channel has some of his video messages which will lead you to his website. Check it out; you may be surprised once again. http://www.youtube.com/user/KingdomUploader
Love and blessings,
kevin
I thank God for your ministry.. Continue to fight the good fight of faith.
http://joeland7.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/the-rapture-secrets-its-influence-and-secret-connections-2
Thanks for the comment Joe – I read your blog, and I think it’s a bit far out there for me, but I’ll stand with you that it’s misinterpretation.
Kevin, I haven’t checked out your links yet, but thanks for showing interest.
T.C. I think you’ll be happy to know that I’m looking into doing a systematic for premillenialism/rapture, at your advice. I’m not sure what’ll show up, but if it surprises me, I’ll let you know. Anyway, I’ll certainly be posting here with my results in a few months, I’m sure, although my schedule is hectic for such an in depth study.
I find this to be a very compelling argument against the rapture. also the Bible does not contradict itself and it says (sorry i forget what book and verse) “the meek shall inherit the earth”. So why would God take us away and leave the evil (bad) people to stay and reside on earth? Also they say that it is Jesus’ second coming, but it would be his fifth. first time being when God created the world, he did so by speaking a word, the word being Jesus. Second, when the “Angel of the Lord” term is used, its referring to the spirit of Jesus and the Angel of the Lord is called to earth by God I think in one of Ezekial’s visions; but don’t quote me on that. Third would be when Jesus was made man. Fourth was when he descended into hell after being crucified and hen rose again three days later, returning to earth, before moving on into heaven. So he’s going to come back a fifth time? sounds fishy. Also the idea of the Rapture hints that God is basically condemning mankind (the ones he leaves on earth), man, the thing he made in his own image, the thing he loves and cares for, is going to be forced to bow down to the devil? That’s my take on it. and sorry again for not being able to actually put books, chapters, and verses up, I can remember them but I am horrible at remembering where there are located.
Will,
You’re entirely correct about there being a lot of evidence against this interpretation both on the grounds of God’s character and inconsistencies of interpreting Revelation literally.
I’m not entirely sure about your ‘fifth’ coming idea, I’m afraid.
But I’m bad at remembering verse and chapter numbers as well – so I understand totally.
Anyway, thanks for commenting – I’m glad my ideas have gelled with you. I’ve posted more completely on this topic since then, here:
http://castleofnutshells.wordpress.com/2008/08/19/investigating-the-rapture-by-tim-lahaye/
I hope you enjoy it.
Damian
I think another important part of the matter of rapture is whether one believes that God’s Creation will be restored, i.e. that God will end the “pains of childbirth” as Paul talks about in Romans 8:22.
If one believes Creation will be restored, then it most certainly will not be the non-believers who are “left behind”; they will be sent away as stated in Matthew 25:41. Those who are in Christ will be left behind with Him; and the concept of a “rapture” does not make sense.
If ones does not believe Creation will be restored, but that we will be taken to heaven, i.e. God’s dwelling separate from Creation, and Creation will be sent into the abyss, then the rapture seems a little more believable.
I, however, believe Romans 8:21 “…that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.”
I don’t believe that believers will be spared the tribulation either, as the early Christians were not spared from the persecution of Nero and the “abomination that causes desolation” i.e the Roman army with their worship of the emperor.
My personal belief is that the rapture is a figment of the modern cinematic imagination. It seems to have not been popular in the whole of Christian religion until recently. I mean something so mundane as Christ coming with glory with the heavenly host and the sound of trumpets to judge the living and the dead would definitely not make a good movie or book.
Hi Damien. My name is Stephen. God bless you for your forthright views on the Rapture. It’s good that iron should sharpen iron.
I do feel, however, that you haven’t really given ‘rapture’ theology a real chance here! I Thessalonians 4, taken with 1 Corinthians 15, describe and event referred to as a ‘mystery’ (musterion being something hidden but now revealed [Eph.3:5]). The seventy ‘weeks’ of the Daniel 7 prophecy are specifically stated to be in connection with the people of Israel and the Holy City. The sevientieth heptab has been postponed and the interim has been occupied by the Church age. We function as light and salt. 2 Thess.2 says that “He that hinders, will hinder, until he is taken out of the way. Then that wicked shall be revealed whom the Lord will destroy with the brightness of his coming’. The one hindering the appearing of the man of sin is the Holy Spirit. Read Revelation 2 and 3. A history of the church. Then Rev.4:1 ‘After this I looked and there before me was a door standing open in heaven and the voice I hadfirst heard speaking to me like a trumpet (c.f. 1 Thess.4) said ‘Come up here and I will show you what shall take place after this’. ‘After this’ only makes sense in reference to the 7 churches. Then we have a scene in Heaven. The 24 elders are there – and wearing their crowns – something not given to us until the Lord comes (Rev.22:12). The Spirit (7-fold) is also there. And he can only be there if we’re there! He came to abide with us forever! Notice that the church is not mentioned again until the end of the book with a general exhortation to believers (the Spirit and the bride say come). Instead, Israel is brought before us again. 12.000 from each tribe. Notice that when the ‘woman’ (clearly Israel according to Revelation 12) is told to flee and is protected in the wilderness for time, times and half a time (36 months; 1260 days), she flees from Jerusalem and hides in the wilderness of Seir (Matthew 24). These are believing Jews who refuse to bow down to the image. They’re mentioned in Daniel as the ’saints’. The saints in Daniel can’t be the church because we know the church is nowhere the subject of Old Testament prophecy. Besides, we’re at the marriage supper of the Lamb during the Tribulation. We return with the Lord at the end.
Notice two promises. In the last book of the Old Testament, the promise is given to Israel ‘But for you who revere my name, the sun of rightousness will rise with healing in his wings’. Fair enough; the Lord comes as the sun – every eye will see him (2 Thess.1). But now look at the promise in the last book of the New Testament! ‘I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright, Morning Star. The Spirit and the bride say ‘Come’…. The morning star rises before the Sun. Only those awake will see it! We believe that to be when Christ comes for his bride (as the Bride-groom – not as the Son of Man in judgment).
Could I say that the argument that runs ‘Why should we be spared from the tribulation’ simply doesn’t hold any theological water. Why not? would be a better question! The Bible says that those that would live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. And the church has done so in every age! But the Tribulation isn’t persecution as such. It’s the pouring out of God’s wrath upon the inhabitants of the earth!!! We suffer persecution just as every age suffers persecution. Two thousand years of saved generations of Christians have lived and died – without passing through the Great Tribulation! So how can we say ‘Why should we miss out??’ They did!! What we can’t miss out on is persecution for the name of Christ. But God’s specific promise in 1 Thessalonians 5 is that he will save us out of (ek) the coming wrath. Why? Because it’s not relevant to us! It’s the reclaiming of the earth back by the Lamb who breaks open the seals, and it’s specifically linked to the final outpouring of wrath on both Israel (see the curses of Deuteronomy) and the inhabitants of the earth.
Unfortunately I’ve had to be very brief here. There is much, much more but what I really wanted to convey is that the rapture position is based on sound theological interpretation. You certainly may disagree with that interpretation (and many scholarly, godly men have done so), but equally, there appear to be sound reasons why it should happen this way. If the church is a mystery, the rise of evil culminating in the Antichrist a mystery (the ‘mystery of iniquity’) and the coming of Christ for the church a ‘mystery’ (1Thess 4), then it may be reasonable to suppose that the coming of Christ to the air for his church will be something unforeseen and unpredicted in the Scriptures before the ‘mystery’ was revealed to Paul.
God bless you in your evident search for the truth in His word.
Stephen Smith
Thank you for taking the time to reply to me, Stephen.
Firstly, I wrote further on the scripture behind this here. I’m not sure it goes into too much detail on your expertises (seemingly Daniel and Revelation), but it does go into more detail.
I freely admit not being an expert at OT or NT apocalyptic literature, but I think it’s fair to admit that whether you’re speaking of Daniel or Revelation, neither’s meaning is plain, nor is it intended to be plain (or they would speak in plainer language). I’m not sure what you’re trying to say in regards to Daniel 7; I suspect this is why. I’m no expert in Daniel nor in Revelation, and one day I intend to study it in enough detail to be able to discuss it with you in more detail. I’d rather not attempt what will probably be an infuriating discussion for you, because of my lack of knowledge on the subject. I’ll post again when I’ve studied revelation in detail (but as you can see from the date of my post, that may still be a while yet).
I will point to what I did mention about Daniel 7. Most of the Old Testament allusions and quotes in the New Testament (in fact all that I’ve looked at) are presented as evidence of Christ’s messianic status. In this case, they are referring to Christ’s sacrifice, not his eschatological return.
So, I’ll stick to speaking of the parts of the bible I know well – unfortunately not the larger part of your comment (I’m sorry about that). I’m not convinced that Ephesians 3:5 refer to the same subject as the two parousia passages. I understand how you might think that; however, there are plenty of mysteries referred to in the New Testament, and I see no reason that this would refer to parousia. I’d suggest that the subject being spoken of is the reality of who Christ is. Neither am I convinced that 2 Thessalonians 2 refers to anything like a rapture. It certain speaks eschatologically, but the verses that suggest rapture are far more limited, and I think you’re reading that into the text here.
Once again, thank you for commenting, and God bless.
Hi Damian.
Thanks for replying.
Two things I’d like to clear up.
I was referring to the Daniel 9:27 prophecy in my note – not Daniel 7. Sorry about that! Late at night and all!
Secondly, I wasn’t suggesting that Ephesians 3:5 had any eschatalogical implications. The following verses make it quite clear that the mystery there refers to the union of Jew and Gentile in one body. I was merely referring to it as an example of the use of the word ‘mystery’. Something previously hidden but now revealed. The anti-church movement is, of course, similarly referred to as a mystery – the ‘mystery of iniquity’ (2 Thess). The word ‘musterion’ is only used of the Rapture in 1 Corinthians 15:53.
I commend you, Damien, on your obvious interest in prophecy. We may disagree on details but it great to see your passion when so many believers have little interest in really coming to terms with God’s Word.
I believe you may have dismissed my comments a little too hastily (or perhaps that’s just my ego!) and I really look forward to hearing from you when you’ve made a closer study of the two principle eschatalogical books (and of course Matthew 24 &25, Luke 13, Joel and Zechariah.
God bless, my friend.
Talk to you soon
Stephen
I’m sorry for the areas in which I misunderstood you. Regarding Ephesians, I agree totally! It’s one reason why I don’t feel it’s a reference to rapture in Corinthians – there’s a totally lack of other use of the word to describe it anywhere else.
I appreciate your interest, Stephen. I’m sorry if I dismissed your comments too hastily (perhaps try the link I referenced – I have looked at this in more detail here on my blog than this post, and it felt silly of me to re-type it all in the comments here) – I’m genuinely interested in what you have to say. I really do need to make a closer study of the eschatological books, especially Revelation, but it’s a big project and one I don’t have the time for at this point in my life. I’ll be sure to post here when I do!
God bless,
Damian
Matthew 24- 29: Immediately AFTER the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31: And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
Mark 13- 22: For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.
23: But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things.
24: But in those days, AFTER that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,
25: And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.
26: And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.
27: And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.
The rapture theory is a plot by Satan to deceive Christians into thinking there is an easy way out. It is a new idea that started about 1830. One must ask of themselves, do I deserve a rapture? Compared to the Christians we find in the bible, no we don’t. They weren’t raptured. How well one thinks of himself to believe he deserves a rapture where stronger Christians didn’t. How many will fall out of belief of God when their rapture does not happen?