I was challenged by T.C. Robinson to look more carefully into the premillennial theology of rapture, so I found a copy of Tim LaHaye’s book on the subject, being told his understanding is fairly standard.

LaHaye draws most of his theology from 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18:

But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.

The highlighted bits are the ones that he considers most important. It’s fairly obvious why – taken at face value, it seems to say exactly what premillenialists say it means. However, I still disagree. I think the key to this comes from another letter of Paul on the same subject, that is, 1 Corinthians 15. Specifically:

But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.

Now, if one reads the rest of 1 Corinthians 15 (It’s a long chapter, so I’ll let you do that yourself), it seems pretty clear that they are speaking of the same event. This event involves resurrection, the return of the Lord, involves trumpet-playing, and perhaps other things. But they speak of this event in different terms – Thessalonians speaks of translation, or rapture in the latin, and Corinthians speaks of transformation, in respect to the same event.

An argument of translation is often a flimsy one, but in this case it is part of the reason why I choose the Corinthian transformation version of the event over the Thessalonian translation. The key word in describing Christ’s return is parousia, translated in both these sections as ‘come’ with regards to Christ’s return. However, the use of this word in contemporary greek texts is very specific, far more specific than the simple translation ‘come’. It was the word used when a person of high rank – a king or a lord – made a visit to a province he ruled. It was also used in another context, that of the presence of a god, particularly when that presence was made manifest in healing.

This brings to mind Phillipians 3 which speaks of us as recipients of Citizenship of heaven in the context of resurrection:

For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself.

Citizenship in the Roman empire was a very specific thing. As Rome conquered more and more of the ancient world, it became more and more difficult for it all to be controlled centrally. What’s more, the huge numbers of native Romans who were trained as soldiers – and hence potentially violent – made retirement back to the capital a dangerous idea, not to mention overcrowding Rome further. The solution was to give Roman soldiers property in the provinces – this was the reward of citizenship that a soldier received at retirement. A Roman citizen was sent forth into the provinces, they didn’t return to Rome. This way, the influence of Rome was extended. When a lord came (parousia) from Rome out to the provinces, the citizens didn’t simply come go on with their business. It was a huge deal. The entire inhabitants of the area would go out to greet him, there’d be a great gathering in his honour, and they’d escort him back to their town or city.

We are citizens of heaven, our province is the earth; hence we are sent to spread heaven’s influence on earth. Thessalonians speaks not of translation, but speaks metaphorically (as Paul does so many times) of what we as Christians will do when Christ comes: That is, go out to meet him and give him glory. The vertical theme is simply there due to the worldview at that time – they beleived in an underworld of the dead below, a firmament holding back the waters of the heavens above, and above that, the heavens where dwelt the Gods.

This is why I feel the LaHaye’s understanding of 1 Thessalonians is not correct. Many will recognise this argument as Tom Wrights, and they’d be correct. I admit I haven’t seen his parousia evidence, however considering his academic integrity in general, I’m inclined to believe him. The parts involving Roman culture, however, are well-known historically.

One thing that puzzles me is the placement of the resurrection pre-rapture. He explains that the renewal of our bodies as spoken in 1 Corinthians 15 is immediately followed by a rapture. Now, I know that, Jesus being the first fruits of resurrection, it’s fair to assume ascension as well. This seems to be because he interprets verses 51 and 52 as being conditional for ascension. However, I think this is a little inconsistent, as there is biblical precedent (Elijah is 2 Kings 2 and Enoch in Genesis 5) for ascension without renewal of the body, which he uses as scriptural precedent himself.2 Corinthians 5:8 is a difficult verse, because it speaks of being ‘at home with the Lord’, which, taken at face value, is a very gnostic concept that I disagree with, which is that of the earth being dirty and something worthy only of escape, and that heaven is clean and something we with to return to, as if we came from heaven in the first place. Within LaHaye’s eschatology, this is the only way to interpret this. However, given the use of the word ‘home’, and the context of the chapter as a whole, I think it refers instead to dealing with the difficulties of daily living and sin, and the fact that it is easier to live in Christ when struggling against sin. It doesn’t seem to have an eschatological context at all, and even the next section, on the judgement seat of Christ, still focuses on current deeds and not on future events. I certainly don’t believe it says anything significant about resurrection, renewal nor rapture.

LaHaye also uses a lot of other verses in less important parts of his argument. John 14:2 is one, which he misunderstands as meaning we have permanent residence in heaven rather than temporary rest there. This is something a look at the greek would correct. I think his use of 2 Peter 3:8/Psalm 90 to ascertain the precise date of the return of Christ according to the ‘days’ in of creation in Genesis is a little absurd, especially considering that verse 9 interprets the preceding verse as referring to God’s timing and patience.

Finally, the larger amount of the book is spent on the Tribulation, based on Revelation’s prophecies. It seems LaHaye wants to rub in the horrors of the Tribulation, to sell the concept that the church is absent through it. I don’t deny the prophetic nature or Revelation, but by definition apocalyptic literature is cryptic, with vivid symbolic imagery that is not intended to be taken literally. Whilst I’m no expert on Revelation (I intend to buy a few good commentaries and spend time studying it, but unfortunately that’s a time commitment that I can’t commit to just yet), I find his interpretations a bit too literal to take seriously. What’s more, he tends to ignore the more vivid symbolism (especially that of the tribulation, with dragons and apocalyptic horseman) whilst accepting at face value other symbols (especially lengths of time).

One thing he makes a very big deal of is the absence of the church in Revelation 4-18, and I have to admit I don’t have an explanation for that. But I understand that in a cyclic reading of Revelation, this is simply one of a number of different ways of looking at an entire series of events. He says that this absence lends credence to rapture, because it is the removal of the church from trials (quoting Titus 2:13), and only Israel and the gentiles remain. He didn’t refer to a verse when saying this, but I understand the church as grafted on to the tree of Israel, so from where I stand this infers that we indeed will be there, rather than excusing us. He also interprets many verses outside Revelation as referring to the tribulation and rapture (1 Thessalonians 10, and Titus 2:13 for example), when I think it’s reasonable to assume they refer to the tribulations and hopes found in in daily life in Christ.

So, that’s my look at the scriptural basis for (at least) LaHaye’s rapture. It’s basis is in three pieces of scripture – John 14, 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15 – with the help of other smaller bible verses. I maintain flaws in his interpretations of these verses, and I feel most of the smaller verses don’t speak about what he claims they do. His extended study of Revelation I admit is beyond my knowledge, but seems to be a literal interpretation of a symbolic genre, which to me is a fundamental error. I maintain my rejection of rapture theology.