Posted on 05/21/2016 8:38:01 AM PDT by Salvation
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).
Just as the pre-trib rapture is an unbiblical teaching of Dispensationalists
[Speaking as a born & bred - now former - pre-tribber] This passage, which so many Evangelicals believe teaches the pre-tribulation rapture, teaches exactly the opposite. When, according to the verse, does the rapture occur? AFTER the resurrection - cp. v. 17: "after that..."
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.
Is this what pre-trib prophecy teachers are teaching? No. It shows how weak the standard "pre-trib rapture" theory actually is, if even the primary (and virtually sole) text they rely upon does not support the picture they paint of a sudden spiriting away of believers
Very good point!
And Tim LaHaye w/ Jerry Jenkins were right after him in the 90's. Some of the worse writing I have ever read.
I tried to read Left Behind ("available in fine garage sales everwhere!"). I stalled out about where the airline captain goes to visit the First Generic Evangelical Church of Mt. Prospect.
Anyway, after reading the first paragraph I looked at the wife and commented "it was a dark and stormy night..."
Amen! I believe that “most” of Revelation happened just as Jesus said it would: “very soon” and “this generation will see it all”.
Don’t forget - the Jews of Jesus’ day really thought they know how he would come, and they were so certain that they missed it. We will not miss this event, for sure, but getting our mind too firmly on what we expect could cause problems.
So God revealed the rapture secretly to Paul on Mt. Sinai? If the pre-trib rapture was true, we would find it clearly taught in Scripture, and accepted by the Early Church Fathers. We find no such thing (the usual text quoted by pre-tribs, I Thess. 4 - teaches no such thing).
My mistake, I apoligize. I mixed two posts up into one....new tablet I am just learning to navigate and type on this thing.
No worries
This is the key point regarding the Thessalonians passage that pre-tribbers somehow cannot seem to grasp. Why is this? From my own experience, being raised in a strong pre-trib denomination and graduating from a pre-trib Bible school, I know that unfortunately we often become entrenched in the peculiar beliefs of our denominational upbringing, and fail to do what we are commanded to do, which is to "search the scriptures to see if these things are true."
When I finally did this I realized that the pre-trib rapture was a 19th century doctrine with no Scriptural support, and which was unknown by the early Church and the Reformation.
In 1968 I read the Jack Chick tract “The Beast” & learned about 666, etc. A man scoffs at his wife’s belief in the Rapture, then comes home to an empty house & food burning on the stove. He cries out in panic,
“Oh my God, WHERE’S MY WIFE!!? The Rapture came, just like she said it would!!”
The guillotine on the police three-wheeler executing those without the number on the forehead was a hoot. And that was before Chick went off the deep end (Catholic Church founded Islam, death cookies, etc).
Nowadays, I trust in the Lord, ask for Christ’s saving grace, give thanks and study His word. Much simpler.
Which message will be easier to sell?
This helps to explain why the "pre-trib rapture theory" is a peculiar American teaching. The United States has thankfully escaped much of the warfare on its home soil that other countries have suffered. We haven't suffered under a Hitler, or a Stalin, or a Mao Zedung, and thus are "used to" escaping terrible devastation and persecution of Christians, etc. The pre-trib theory is a form of escapism. Let's not forget the words of our Lord: "In this world you will have tribulation."
For the preterist view of the rapture, see my article # B12 here:
https://prophecyquestions.com/2014/02/01/articles-by-charles-meek/
So by that criteria, we can then dismiss the unscriptural nonsense about the assumption of Mary which became official church doctrine in 1950.
The rapture certainly has Scriptural support as the article shows, as it quotes the verses on which it is based, which is far more than the assumption of Mary is based on.
It's always, *Do as I say, not as I do* with the Catholic church. They are great about applying a double standard to their teachings and everyone else's.
And besides, where does it get off being an authority on a teaching that it doesn't even believe in?
Hypocrisy all the way around.
This Protestant also agrees! The events spoken of in I Thess. 4 are part of the Second Coming of Christ - the "Day of the Lord" and the "last day."
Instead of this clear teaching, pre-tribs insist that the "last day" is far from the last day of human history, but will be followed by the Antichrist and seven years of Tribulation, followed by yet another "Day of the Lord," yet another "last battle," and another "Return of Christ," followed by 1000 years and finally yet another "final rebellion" and another final Coming of Christ on a White Horse as per Rev. 19.
These Evangelical Protestant eschatological "distinctives" are a confusing hodgepodge of conflicting teachings that many unfortunately are unwilling to challenge (as I myself was unwilling to examine for many years).
*Rapture theorists* don't rely on miracles to back up their teachings but rather Scripture.
Satan can masquerade as an angel of light and perform many wondrous works. The occurrence of something someone would call a miracle is no evidence that the person is from God.
Correct, Scripturally accurate teaching is.
And just what sort of preparations would you expect Christians who believe in the rapture to put into place when all the believers disappear?
When I and my family are gone, everything we owned is fair game. Anyone who is interested will be helping themselves to whatever is left.
Free house, new cars, lots of food, clothes, electronics, etc. What more do I need to do in your opinion?
Well, it’s nice to know when it’s NOT going to happen.
Not one single prediction of the rapture has happened yet on the day it was predicted for.
So, a translation of that is: “we who are alive and remain will be ‘rapturo’ed”I think you can see that this is not a new part of scripture.
That whole argument is a bit of a red herring.
The translation/transliteration issue is trivial. Yes, Latin rapturo would be the translation of Greek original Harpazo.
So what?
It's a bit of slight of hand misdirection to say that because "rapturo"/"harpazo" is there, to say then that Paul teaches the modern dispensationist's version of the "Rapture".
It seems to me that "the Rapture" seems to take first place in importance for many, rather than the resurrection on the last day.
I wish more people thought like you.
I also believe that the rapture is going to happen but am not dogmatic about when and if you disagree, it's not an issue that's going to damn you. It's not required to be believed by anyone for salvation.<
I do what God has called me to do, and leave the rest up to Him. When my time comes it comes.
Experiencing the rapture would be AWESOME. I would love to go out like that.
But if I don't, I'm not going to feel cheated. Whatever happens,I'm in HIS hands and NOTHING can pluck me out.
For me the "worst" part was when the second wife died. No crying or morning at all, just on to the next chapter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.