Enter John Darby. In Darby's studies, he determined that all those prior to him had misinterpreted (or were simply unclear on) the Scriptures on this subject. The "Rapture1" was a shared belief with the Church fathers (1 Cor 15:52; 1 Thess 4:17; etc.) of a time when Christ would return and take His people with Him. Darby simply put that event at the start of the Tribulation (around 1820). Early Church fathers, however, believed they were in the Tribulation, so they believed in a post-Tribulation Rapture. (Some put the Rapture at the end, just before the final judgment.) Darby put it before the Tribulation. Prior to him, there are no records of anyone else holding that position.
There are several Scriptures that give us this quite certain "Rapture" -- this "taken up to be with Christ." Anyone who reads the Bible concurs that such an event will take place. The primary Scripture offered that would place it prior to the Tribulation is Rev 3:10 -- "Because you have kept the word of My perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth." This, however, doesn't require a physical absence, does it? And the pre-Tribulation Rapture concept has a few other difficulties. For instance, if God's people (and, as some claim, the Holy Spirit) are removed prior to the Tribulation, how are there believers in the Tribulation (e.g., Rev 7:1-8; Dan 7:21; Rev 14:12-13)? And why is the promise of Rev 3:10 (if that is the promise of Rev 3:10) kept from them? If Christ comes at the beginning of the Tribulation and at the end of the Tribulation (some like the "pre-wrath Rapture" that would occur at the midpoint of the 7-year period), isn't that a 3rd coming? So there are questions. Mine begins with, "What took the Holy Spirit so long to get this information across?" Who knows? Maybe the overbearing hold the Roman Catholic Church held on theology blocked Him. Maybe He did get it across ... but no one recorded it prior to Darby. Or ... maybe the pre-Trib Rapture isn't the correct understanding. I, for one, really like the idea of being "taken up" prior to the Tribulation described in Scripture, but that's primarily because I'm not keen on serious ... Tribulation. Maybe it will happen. I can see a version in which it does not ... and all God's Word and promises are still true. So I'm not going to make this my hill to die on. I'll just count on God to do what's right and look eagerly for His imminent return. If we end up going through the Tribulation, up to and including the possibility of martyrdom, I won't be standing in front of Christ saying, "You were wrong! You lied!!" I'll be okay with it. You'll have to decide that for yourselves.
________
1 The term, "Rapture," does not appear in the Bible. Mind you, that is not sufficient reason to reject the doctrine. The term, "Trinity," doesn't appear there either. The Rapture got its name from the Latin rapturo in the Latin translation of the Greek word, harpazō, translated "taken up" or "caught up" in 1 Thess 4:17.
8 comments:
I was brought to faith through the Navigators and was a pre-tribber for a long time. Then I really got to studying and decided that the tribulation comes first. I know most Reformed disagree but that's okay--I'm not dogmatic because I can't see the future!
I no longer know what I believe about the end time. I grew up a staunch mid-trib premillennialist. I had always struggled with the newness of the idea, and when the one verse I hung my hat on was shown to me didn't necessarily mean what I believed it to mean, the whole ideology fell apart for me. I know I reject Dispensationalism. I believe we are pre-millenium, but I don't think it needs to be a literal 1000 years. I now laugh at the "yo-yo Jesus" eschatology of Dispensationalism. I may not know where I land in the sequence, but I do know God wins in the end, and that's good enough for me.
Glenn, I don't think most Reformed are pre-Trib, let alone Dispensational. The pre-Trib view is almost exclusively Dispensational (and the Reformed tend to be Covanental). I absolutely agree with your last statement. Not something I can afford to be dogmatic about.
This struck me as well thought-out and well stated. I appreciate the time and effort you spent putting this together for us.
Stan,
You misunderstood. I meant by Reformed disagreeing that normal those I've known have no "dispensational" position, or it's at the end and, as David noted, don't believe in a literal 1000 years. I do believe that's literal. I made the statement because I know you're Reformed.
I see, Glenn. I'm not a "normal" Reformed, I suppose. I have no reason to think that the millennium isn't a ... millennium. I'm not Amillennial like a sizeable number of Reformed are. And I get my marching orders from the Word and not the "system," as it were. I've had too many Arminians and other non-Reformed who bothered to get to know what I believe tell me, "You're not like most of those that I've met." :)
The thing that changed my mind about a literal 1000 years was that in the only passage that speaks of the millennium is smack in the middle of other illustrative language. We don't take the verses immediately before and after as literal but figurative, yet the millennium must be literal? When I say I don't believe in the millennium, I don't mean that I don't believe in a kingdom at the end, but that it doesn't NEED to be a literal 1000 year kingdom. Even we often speak of something taking a certain amount of time to be figurative, not literal.
Like so many I spent a bunch of time investigating this, and now I tend to agree with y'all that the timing and details aren't as important as I once thought. I agree with Stan that the Pre Trib rapture is the moat pleasant alternative because I'd rather avoid the bad stuff. The more I focus on YHWH's sovereignty, the more I realize that He'll provide what we need to navigate the end times, no matter how things go.
Post a Comment