The Rapture?

OSV.com ^ | 04-29-16 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[Salvation]

The Rapture?

Q. Many of our Protestant brethren say that, before Jesus comes, there will be a rapture wherein all the faithful will be taken up, I guess, to meet Him in the sky. When I tell them that the Bible says we will “see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of heaven” (Mt 24:30) and “he will send his angels ... and they will gather his elect from the four winds” (Mt 24:31), and then ask them who will be left to “gather” if everyone has previously been “raptured,” they say it will be the Jews. What is the Church’s teaching on this? Will there even be such a thing as the rapture? I’m confused! Any light you can shed on the subject will be greatly appreciated!

Rich Willette, Springfield, Vt.

A. The notion of rapture (a Latin word that means to be snatched away) is a very novel concept among certain (not all) evangelicals. It is a notion less than 150 years old and finds no real support in the biblical text as you point out. Fundamentally, the theory asserts that before the final tribulations of the last times, faithful Christians will be snatched away. Rapture theorists disagree about the exact moment of the snatching. Some say it will be pre-tribulation, others midway through the tribulations, and some even say post-tribulation.

The root text for evangelicals who hold rapture theory is a text from the First Letter to the Thessalonians: “Indeed. we tell you this, on the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will surely not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Thus we shall always be with the Lord. Therefore, console one another with these words” (4:15-18).

The context is the second coming of Christ. There are not two second comings taught in Scripture, but rapture theory posits two — the one described in First Thessalonians and another one, some 1,000 years later. Note, too, that in First Thessalonians there is no mention of some people being left behind. There is no mention of a 1,000-year reign. Nor does St. Paul indicate that what he is describing here is a different coming of Christ, distinct from other texts in the Gospel wherein Christ describes His own second coming.

Thus we are left with a text that simply does not support what rapture theorists say. They further strive to unnaturally stitch this account with other texts in the Book of Revelation. The result is a highly debatable account of the last days that even rapture theorists hotly debate in terms of the details. The whole enterprise amounts to an attempt to shoehorn biblical passages into rapture theory that more clearly call it into question. To say the “elect” are merely the Jews is speculative at best and fanciful and contrived at worst.

As for Catholic teaching on these matters, the Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes it as follows: “Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers [see Lk 18:8; Mt 24:12]. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the ‘mystery of iniquity’ in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh. [see 2 Thes 2:4-12; 1 Thes 5:2-3; 2 Jn 7; 1 Jn 2:18-22]” (No. 675).

[MHGinTN]

Here is a sentence which needs to be stated more accurately, or rather the notion should be framed more accurately: "Many of our Protestant brethren say that, before Jesus comes, there will be a rapture wherein all the faithful will be taken up, I guess, to meet Him in the sky." Many of those snatched away will not have appeared so 'faithful' as implied in the sentence. But as members of His family, having been born from above, they will be removed from the scene to arrange the seventieth week of Daniel.

One second after the Rapture, there will not be even ONE believer left on the Earth. By 'believer' I mean a human being who has done what Jesus proclaimed as the Gospel which defines the 'Church Age'. By faithing in Jesus as Savior, they have been born from above.

The thing that Jesus said must be done for membership in the 'Ekklesia' is believing (an action word, not a noun) on Him Whom God sent for birthing people from above. Jesus explained it to Nicodemus (John 3:14-18), connecting it for Nic to what happened in Numbers 21:4-9.

The word translated into English as 'believe' and at other passages as 'faith' is the key. With the heart man believes unto righteousness (Abraham believed God and it was couinted for him righteousness) and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation (with the mouth a man states what he believes, that Jesus is The Savior, his Savior, the One Whom God raised from the dead to show His acceptance of the means for God's Grace to be real for sinful man).

Those who believe, faithe, really confess that Jesus is Lord and Savior will be snatched away from this Earth and with them the indwelling Holy Spirit spark in each human spirit. It is that spark of His Holy Spirit, put in the cleansed human spirit, that marks every person who has been 'born from above' as Jesus told Nicodemus is essential. It is also that collective spark which will stop restraining the lawless one ... the Rapture ends the Church Age, the age of The Ekklesia receiving an internal spark of Holy Spirit life upon being born from above.

Oh yes, and the Rapture of the born from above dates back to Paul revealing that hidden mystery. Jesus introduced the Truth of it in John 14, in the Great Upper Room Discourse, AFTER Judas left their company to go and betray Jesus.

[sport]

Mark

[MHGinTN]

BTW, the following is not accurate, but the Priest may not be aware of the many reference to The Rapture' that have been found in the early writings of 'church fathers': "It is a notion less than 150 years old and finds no real support in the biblical text as you point out." Not only are there many references in early church writings, but the pre-trib notion is also found early on in church History, though the Catholic Church rejected the idea and seeks to establish it as a recent notion.

But lest we get arrogant, just because a notion is new does not mean it is false. A mystery in scripture is always a revelation but also plan A oriented notion, like what Paul wrote in 1 Cor 15:51-56. God does not have 'Plan B's' ... He knows the end from the beginning.

[MHGinTN]

"There are not two second comings taught in Scripture, but rapture theory posits two — the one described in First Thessalonians and another one, some 1,000 years later." This is also an error: the Rapture is not 'The Second Coming', not The return of Jesus to planet Earth. The Rapture happens in the air and those raptured do what Jesus Promised in John 14, we return with Him to the Father's House. But those Raptured do return with Jesus at the end of the Tribulation, Daniel's seventieth week, before the start of the millennium.

[MHGinTN]

"Nor does St. Paul indicate that what he is describing here is a different coming of Christ, distinct from other texts in the Gospel wherein Christ describes His own second coming." This is also an error, since Paul wrote in his letters that the Tribulation will not begin until the Bride of Christ is first removed so the man of lawlessness can be revealed. Paul taught that the Tribulation precedes the Second Coming of Jesus to The Planet. So the Rapture happens before the Millennium and that is what Paul taught his newborns in Christ.

[MHGinTN]

As far as I can tell, it was Jerome who was first in the Catholic faith to point to a snatching away ... he used rapturo to translate harpazo.

[MHGinTN]

To whom was Jesus speaking in John 6? ... In the Church Age there is no distinction between Jews and Gentiles. But after the Rapture of believers born from above during the Church Age, it is again the Jews who are evangelizing the world.

[MHGinTN]

“A guy by the name of Darby conjured it up using vague references in the NT.” That is simply and demonstrably false.

[MHGinTN]

You really could benefit from reading what JESUS taught in the Upper Room Discourse the night before He was crucified. HE says He will come and take us to Himself returning to The Father’s House.

[MHGinTN]

“Note it does not say caught up and taken to heaven.” Jesus said so in John 14. He said He goes to prepare a place that where He is we may be also, that if He goes He will come again to take us to Himself, in the Father’s House.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Metmom, if it’s *me* you’re referring to when you say that a Catholic “admitted” upthread that there’s “not a shred” of Scriptural evidence for the Assumption of Mary, you are mistaken. I must blame myself for not communicating clearly.

What I linked to was “Munificentissimus Deus” and I said it’s not Scripture, it’s history.

What I meant is that MD itself is not Scripture but it cites both Scripture and Apostolic Tradition, which is to say, teachings and practices which were handed on to us from the Apostolic era.

There’s a good deal of evidence, principally from the OT, where Mary’s Assumption/Rapture is prefigured or foreshadowed. This does not mean there is dispositive proof: it does mean that there are points of evidence or lines of evidence which make sense as pointing to the Assumption.

You really can’t *deduce* the Assumption from the Queenship foreshadowing in the OT, but once you have strong historic testimony that the early Christians believed it, the OT types and figures come into focus and make sense.

Enoch and Elijah, for instance, prefigure Mary, because they show his God lifts up His favored ones. So we see how fitting it is that Christ does the same for his own mother, His Kecharitomene, *most* highly favored one.

[Salvation]

Shouldn’t that be Enoch and Elijah?

[MHGinTN]

You expounded: "If pre-tribbers were consistent with Scripture, instead of teaching a sudden, instantaneous rapture, they would be teaching that the FIRST event will be the opening of graves all around the world, and the bodies of the dead in Christ ascending to heaven. Only AFTER this earth-shaking event witnessed by people everywhere, would the rapture occur."

Look in Daniel Chapter Five, could those attending the palace party central winefest see the body to which the hand writing on the wall was attached? Does the Bible tell us that when He appears we shall see Him as He IS, because when He appears we shall be like Him? Does Paul reveal that we shall not all sleep, BUT we shall all be changed, in a moment, int he twinkling of an eye?

When Jesus comes in the air to take away His Bride, those who have been born from above since The Day of Pentecost preaching by Peter (and of course His Apostles), the alive at that moment and the dead who have been given bodies again, will ALL be changed such that those not Raptrued won't even be able to see them, any more than the folks in palace party central could see the being whose hand was writing on the wall.

[SkyDancer]

Right - at the Second Coming. If you want to say the Rapture then it’ll be Three comings.

[SkyDancer]

Really?

John Nelson Darby (18 November 1800 – 29 April 1882) was an Anglo-Irish Bible teacher, one of the influential figures among the original Plymouth Brethren and the founder of the Exclusive Brethren. He is considered to be the father of modern Dispensationalism and Futurism ("the Rapture" in the English vernacular). Pre-tribulation rapture theology was popularized extensively in the 1830s by John Nelson Darby and the Plymouth Brethren,[1] and further popularized in the United States in the early 20th century by the wide circulation of the Scofield Reference Bible.

[MHGinTN]

Um, no: “ Matthew 24:29-31 is a clear, unanswerable refutation of the pre-trib rapture teaching from our Lord Himself. “ The question posed to Jesus was specific. He answered specifically regarding The END of the Age, at the end of The Great Tribulation. Take a study of the differences between the Temple Discourse found in Luke and the Olivet Discourse given that same evening, after a few asked a specific question over what Jesus brought out in the Temple Discourse.

[xzins]

However, harpazo does mean ‘catching away’

The word used to translate it is an innocent victim of the many doctrines that have sprung up to explain it’s place in eschatology.

[tjd1454]

It is you who is in error! You speak of the teachings of the Apostle Paul on this matter? In 2 Thessalonians chapter 2 the apostle clarifies his teaching regarding the "rapture" spoken of in his earlier letter to the Thessalonians: "Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, 2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come. 3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction."

The "rapture" will NOT occur BEFORE the following has transpired: Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.

NOTE here that "that day" is a reference to the Apostle's earlier teaching in I Thess. 4, where he talks about the revelation of Jesus Christ and the "gathering together" (rapture) of his saints, (which occurs AFTER THE RESURRECTION, by the way...)

Can Paul's teaching be any clearer? This was his stated intent in this passage - to clarify regarding the "rapture." He states that the "rapture" will not happen UNTIL the "rebellion" happens and the "man of lawlessness" is revealed...

Is this what you and your fellow pre-tribs teach? NO! You insist that "the Church must be taken out of the way" before the Antichrist is revealed and begins his evil program.

I repeat - you are in error, and are as "the blind leading the blind" into theological error.

I speak as one "born & bred" into pre-tribulationism and Dispensationalism. I have studied in pre-eminent Evangelical, Dispensational colleges, and have an earned BA, MA, and PhD in Theology. I spent many years in unquestioned acceptance of the pre-trib view - that is, until I decided to examine the evidence.

I have no interest in becoming involved in "endless disputes." "Let each be persuaded in his own mind." I will only challenge you to set aside your preconceived notions and ask God to show you the truth about this teaching.

[MHGinTN]

In 2 Thess 2 the definite article is used with apostasia. The verb from which that noun used in 2 Thess 2 arises is found fifteen times int he New Testament. Twelve of those fifteen refer to a departure or a happening where something is disappearing over the horizon.

There are three places where the noun apostasia appear int he New testament, the other two places, where it is used to accuse Paul of encouraging Jews to depart from the faith of Judaism have an antecedent accompanying the use. I leave you to decide what you want to believe.

The first 8 translations of the Bible from Greek translated apostasia (ἡ ἀποστασία) as 'departure' or 'the departing', as in The Departure. The Rheimes Bible changed to 'revolt', in 1582.

Have nice day.

[MHGinTN]

Naw, that’s silly. Did Saul see Jesus on the Road to Damascus? Where was Jesus when Saul saw Him? Would that sighting make it four sexond comings? See, silly. There are TWO advents of Jesus setting foot upon the Planet Earth. The Jews didn’t see the first advent coming, bacause they refused the Prophecy of Daniel and Isaiah.