The Rapture

The reason the term and its meaning is important is that if you deny it, you deny Scripture.

I will grant that as the term is used, it almost always refers exclusively to the Church, whether you hold to pre, mid, or post trib views. I would suggest that 1 Thessalonians 4, which clearly teaches the rapture, is not necessarily making that restriction on this point, but the context would tend to favor that view.

Regardless, it is an important aspect of eschatology, and as such can’t be denied by Bible believers. Those of us anticipating the Lord’s return will rise to meet him in the air. That is indisputable. That’s my point. The word rapture refers to that event. Our understanding of the timing and those involved requires additional descriptive words.

So don’t just dismiss the term because you are prejudiced against dispensationalism.

As Don mentioned, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 features Paul teaching about the hope that believers have in the physical return of Christ to the earth. When He returns, He will bring back with Him the resurrected believers who have died (v 14). Those who are still alive when this happens will meet those who have died previously (v 15). A trumpet call will happen and the dead in Christ will rise from their graves anew (v 16). Then, all the believers will meet the Lord in the air and be with the Lord forever (v 17).

Now, you can call that whatever you like. You can time it whenever you like, but that is by definition a “catching away” to be with the Lord. Hence, Paul taught a rapture. The word harpazo is even used in v 17.

So, the Bible clearly teaches a “catching away” of believers to be with the Lord bodily. Thus, a rapture is biblical doctrine. I personally couldn’t care less what any creed says or does not say. That is the plain teaching of Scripture.

I’m still with Don on this one, Steve. I understand what you are saying, but you are reading more into the term “rapture” than the term requires. Yes, it is often be used the way you describe by Dispensationalists. But from my standpoint, the rapture means believers alive when Christ returns are caught up to meet Him in the air along with saints who are resurrected at the same time. So if someone asks me, “Do you believe in the rapture”?, my answer is “yes.” If they continue by asking about the pre-tribulation rapture of the church, my answer is “no.” Don’s original point is that since I Thessalonians four teaches the doctrine of the rapture, all Bible believers believe in the rapture. I agree.

When we consider the declared position of Israel My Glory I think it’s safe to assume that they are referring to the Rapture as an even that precedes the Tribulation. So, is the pre-tribulational rapture a major doctrine?

Responses to Tyler:

“The pretribulational rapture is not the subject of any deliberate teaching in Scripture. You cannot make the case that Paul’s point in 1 Thess 4:13-18 is to teach the rapture.”

I, too, have studied this passage for years, and could not disagree more strongly with this statement. What am I missing?

“If Christians re-allocated 1/10 of the time they spend on eschatological musings to, say, the doctrines of Christ, God, salvation, sanctification (etc.), they’d have much richer lives for the Lord.”

I agree. That is why I have spent much of my ministry explaining that dispensationalism is a development within historic, orthodox Christianity, not some weird rewriting of the Bible. Yet, without it we would be much the poorer. The great dispensational teachers that I have personally sat under (e.g., McCune, Houghton, Whitcomb, Walvoord, Ryrie, Breese, Ice, Showers, etc.) all embody this in their personal lives and ministries.

Response to Ron:

“Hal Lindsay, Tim LeHaye, and Nicholas Cage didn’t do the position any favors either. “

If you please, it is LaHaye. Not sure I would group those three men together, necessarily, and not sure what more LaHaye could possibly have done to advance dispensational eschatology. You may not agree with everything he did (as I also do not), but he was a great and godly man. I had the privilege of interviewing him once, and met him at the Ark Encounter just a few weeks before he died. He was the kind of character that appears once every generation or two.

__________________________________________

I have to say, I am just sort of shocked at the reaction this concise article on the rapture has received here. As one who was drawn out of Lutheranism, with all of its emphasis on creeds, confessions and councils (as well as amillennial eschatology, which you can have, if you want it), primarily by dispensational and prophetic Bible teaching, it is not a good sign (no pun intended) for the future of fundamentalism.

If we want precision then let’s say the I Thess. teaches the Second Coming of Christ. Those who believe this event is for the NT Church only to the exclusion of Israel will call it the Rapture. Those who believe that the Second Coming includes OT and NT believers rarely use the word Rapture. Even Don admits the word is used almost exclusively for the Church. Denying the Rapture as understood by Don and others is not denying biblical eschatology. The article in question clearly was treating the pre-tribulational Rapture of the Church as a major doctrine. Don changed the topic in arguing for something more nebulous.

So then the sense of Rapture is enlarged to justify the term regardless of who is included? To me, that is not precision. Per Don, it has nothing to do with being prejudiced against Dispensationalism. I taught it for years and still could as a system of interpretation. Per GNB, if someone asks about the Rapture, you can almost be sure they are not referring to simply resurrection and meeting Jesus in the air of all believers. It is used for the Church and not for OT believers. Per Mark, you’re not dim-witted. If you are talking generally about believers rising to meet the Lord in the air then, there is no argument about a catching away. However, the point of the article is the pre-tribulational Rapture of the Church as a major doctrine. Again as Don observes, the term is used almost exclusively for the Church. Believers who hold that the coming of Christ is for both OT and NT saints do not generally use the term Rapture. The Rapture is considered the first stage of the Second Coming. The Rapture is the secret coming followed by the glorious appearing at the end of the Tribulation. Those who see a single coming and general resurrection do not use the term (to my knowledge). It’s not a question of who’s right or wrong at this point. Theologically, Rapture is loaded and more precise then a generic meeting the Lord in the air. Per Paul, sorry that you are shocked. From what I recall the Rapture was not historically considered a fundamental of the faith. The Second Coming is and remains a fundamental of the faith.

Anyway, I’m glad the article got a little action. I debated whether to comment. Thanks for the feedback/pushback. Let us rejoice that Jesus is coming again! May be morning, may be noon, may be evening, and may be soon!

[Steve Davis]

If we want precision then let’s say the I Thess. teaches the Second Coming of Christ. Those who believe this event is for the NT Church only to the exclusion of Israel will call it the Rapture. Those who believe that the Second Coming includes OT and NT believers rarely use the word Rapture. Even Don admits the word is used almost exclusively for the Church. Denying the Rapture as understood by Don and others is not denying biblical eschatology. The article in question clearly was treating the pre-tribulational Rapture of the Church as a major doctrine. Don changed the topic in arguing for something more nebulous.

Steve, I don’t really have much more to add to this discussion. However, a couple more things

1. Yes, Rapture is a term that generally only dispensationalists use. No problem admitting that.

2. But, Yes, Rapture as defined is something ALL Bible believing Christians believe.

3. Often people hear the word “pre-tribulational” when you only say Rapture. But that merely illustrates my point. The term Rapture communicates nothing about pre-tribulational, or any other view of the rapture.

The quote at the beginning of this thread said:

The Rapture of the church is a major doctrine in Scripture

That statement, by itself, is true. Yes, I know that Friends of Israel goes on in their article to argue for pre-tribulational. Of course. But the quote that started this off said simply, “the Rapture” without qualification.

You have to believe it if you are going to believe the Bible.

[TylerR]

re-trib rapture

Man, you think the post-tribbers have to go through it twice??? Poor guys

The nice about being pre-trib is that we are the only ones who can change our position if we are wrong.

This edition of Israel My Glory …

• We support FOI financially and receive the mag
• [as an aside - I am unashamedly pre-trib and have been for 4+ decades!]
• The context of the article is Pre-Trib Rapture (and in the mag classical dispensationalism)

The 2nd coming is an absolute (the image above with the concentric circles)

The details of the 2nd coming is not an absolute!

just eliminating the chapter and verse divisions and reading straight through and arriving at the conclusion that the Day of the Lord logically follows the catching away/rapture of those believers? It truly does seem that Paul’s use of the Day of the Lord terminology would refer to the time after the catching away. So, contextually doesn’t that argue for a tribulation/Day of the Lord series of events after the rapture? You would have to go through exegetical gymnastics to arrive at something else, it seems. Going further, this was part of the great doctrines of the 1st century church, a major component of Paul’s teaching to the Thessalonians, and a source of great comfort and hope, as the doctrine of the resurrection and the rapture of living believers are linked. I do wonder how it gradually seemed to phase out in emphasis through the centuries.