This Post
Navigation
Recent Comments
Archives
Part 2
Continuing to look at the ‘end-times’ biblical texts that are used by Dispensationalists to argue for a ‘Rapture’ of Christians, which leaves non-Christians ‘behind’ to face the final period of violent destruction. These texts have been provided not only by the Trotter, but by others who have written to the Editor off-line.
Firstly, we return to 1Thess 4:13-18, which—as we have seen—is the passage which contains, via the Latin, the term ‘rapture’.
A basic principle in interpreting a text is to consider its context. We are not attempting to write a commentary here, so will simply make pertinent observations. Firstly, in this letter Paul, the writer, is encouraging the young Christians in Thessaloniki in the face of persecution. He does not write at random, but addresses issues specific to their situation. One of the primary issues appears to be their concerns about the ‘coming’ (literally, ‘presence’; see Part 1) of the Lord. The first Christians, Paul included, expected Jesus to return within their lifetime. But, some had died, and there was concern that these would therefore miss out on everything they had hoped for. Paul responds with teaching concerning the resurrection. Those who died will be resurrected when Christ returns. Those who are alive, and those who have died, will all meet Christ at that point, and ‘be with the Lord forever’. So, this passage is about resurrection. There is no mention of what happens to those ‘left behind’ at this point. Secondly, when we look at the next chapter (the chapter and verse divisions are not, of course, part of the letter, but were added centuries later), we see that Paul goes on to speak of ‘the day of the Lord’. Again, see Part 1 for this. With this phrase Paul places the discussion in the setting of the day of God’s ‘visitation’ as proclaimed by the prophets (Amos, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, etc). For them, the Day of the Lord would be a time of darkness and destruction for those who had forsaken God; but, it would be a time of salvation and deliverance for the faithful. These are two sides of the same coin—salvation and judgement come together.
Thirdly, Paul ‘reminds’ them that this day will come unexpectedly. Here he uses the now famous ‘like a thief in the night’ phrase, which echoes Jesus’ words in both Luke 12 and Matthew 24: Jesus’ disciples will not know when this will happen, and even Jesus was not able to tell them when it would take place. This is one thing that is stated clearly and repeatedly—no one will know ‘the day and the hour’, it will come ‘unexpectedly’. In light of this, Paul, like Jesus, teaches his readers to live lives as though Christ’s presence is imminent, but be faithful as though he may not come for some time. In Paul’s language, ‘love one another…we urge you, do so more and more.’
In summary, this letter explicitly links the day of the Lord to the resurrection, and to the destruction of the wicked, which is expected at any moment but will be unexpected when it does occur.
The second text given in support of the Rapture is 1 Corinthians 15:50-54. The primary focus of the entire chapter is on the resurrection of the dead. When ‘the end’ comes (15:24, or, ‘the goal’), all authority opposed to God will be destroyed, including death. ‘Rulers and authorities and powers’ refer to systems of power rather than people; beyond this, nothing is clear regarding the fate of non-believers. The intent of this chapter is the positive statement of the centrality and reality of the resurrection It will occur at the ‘last trumpet’. As in 1 Thessalonians 4, Christ’s presence and the resurrection occur together, and the change will be instantaneous.
There is nothing here to imply that non-believers remain for any period of time.
Lastly, we turn to the famous ‘left behind’ text. Here we look again at the Trotter’s argument:
First, there are Jesus words in Matthew 24: 36-44 and the corresponding passage in Luke (17: 20-37), both affirming that the pattern of Jesus coming is as in the days of Noah and Lot. Viz. Noah saved BEFORE the flood, Lot BEFORE the fire, thus, we if indeed we are among the WE, before the final calamity. And, to take one example from several illustrations that Jesus gave; ‘two men in one bed, the one will be taken and the other left.’
This is a key text for Rapture belief. Jesus responds to the question from his disciples, ‘What will be the sign of your presence and of the end of the age?’, with an apocalyptic description. In some senses, it is ‘apocalyptic’ in the common usage of our day, referring to destruction and death on a grand scale; but is it primarily in the literary sense of a ‘revelation’ of the end in symbols and strange imagery. In terms of interpretation of this sort of literature, we have to keep in mind that the imagery represents a reality cosmic in dimensions; pursuit of ‘literal’ interpretations misses the big picture.
With this in mind, we can relate the outline of the narrative of this chapter: the disciples admire the Temple building, and Jesus says it will all be destroyed—as actually happens in A D 70. The disciples ask when this will be, and link it to ‘the end of the age’. Jesus then describes scenes of war, famine, and earthquakes, which might shake the faith of believers—but says these are only the beginning of the end. This will lead on to persecution, both from ‘the nations’ and from fellow Christians. Even with this, the Good News of the kingdom is still proclaimed. Then the end comes.
The end is then related by Jesus to the ‘desolating sacrilege’ of Daniel 11:31, the desecration of the Temple by Antiochus IV in 167 BC. Suffering will be great (24:29). Then, Christ (the Son of Man) comes ‘on the clouds of heaven’, and gathers his elect to him from all over the earth (24:30-31).
This can readily be seen to be in line with what we have already seen in 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians. A simple, natural reading will lead us to expect that this ‘gathering’ of the elect refers to the resurrection, and that it is the time of judgement on the wicked.
So it is no surprise to find this judgement explained in the following narrative. ‘About that day and hour no one knows…’ This is ‘Day of the Lord’ imagery. And, as the Trotter says, the pattern for comparison is the days of Noah (here in Matthew) and of Lot (Luke 17). In both of these Genesis stories judgement falls on the wicked, while a small but faithful few are saved. The Trotter, with Dispensationalism, places emphasis on these people being saved before the judgement comes, in order to allow for the period of time when the unbelievers, those ‘left behind’ in verse 40-41, will face a long period of tribulation.
Look closely at these verses. Where is there any indication that believers will avoid great tribulation? Look again at verse 29—the believers are still there when the great abomination takes place, and they are still suffering with all humanity when the Son of Man comes. Look again at the stories of Noah and Lot, and see how much time there was between the salvation of the ‘elect’ and the destruction which followed—Noah was in the ark seven days (Gen 7:10) before the flood waters began; but he and his family were ‘saved’ at the same time the whole world was drowned. According to Gen 19, the destruction of Sodom began as Lot and his family were escaping the city.
Look again now at verses 36-41, and see if there is any hint of a period of time between Jesus’ ‘taking’ of the elect to himself (salvation), and judgement on those ‘left behind’. The repeated ‘that day’ (Mat 24:36, 50) emphasises that these are simultaneous, just as in Paul’s letters. Jesus also emphasises repeatedly that the time of these things occurring is unknown and will be unexpected (24:36, 42, 44, 50).
This review of the proof-texts for a ‘Rapture’ has found no basis for the idea of the gathering of God’s elect preceding the judgement of the wicked. It is an idea that has to be inserted by unusual means of exegesis. This plain reading of the text clarifies what has been understood from the earliest days of Christianity:
- The New Testament writers expect the imminent return of Christ;
- No one knows the time when this will occur, including the Son;
- Christ’s return brings about the great resurrection, which is instantaneously and simultaneously salvation for the elect and judgement for the wicked;
- Believers, therefore, are to keep in readiness, to be found faithful in stewardship of what the Master has given them to do.
These are the essentials of Christian understanding. The Church has had to deal with the implications of the delay of the return through two millenia now, and have come to a wide variety of answers. But these remain the basics.
In the third part of this series we will explain why we consider the Dispensationalist approach not just to be poor exegesis, but to undercut the gospel itself.
I think it is unhelpful to pigeon-hole dialogue partners in these discussions. If, for example, the editor was known to be a conservative holiness theologian, within a denomination stream around 100 years old that stresses entire sanctification along Wesleyan lines – it may be true, but would not sum up the editor, nor mean he subscribed to every nuance of received Holiness tradition, nor do justice to the topic being ably discussed – yet for some, it may skew their appreciation of the evaluations offered. In the same way, there are truths in dispensational theological method, so called – as there are in covenant theological method and other approaches to the Bible – that some Christian readers – who are merely trying by God’s grace to understand the scriptural texts – may appropriate.
In essence, all I really want to stress, is that it is unfair to apply the worst traits of dispensationalism to a discussion of the ‘Rapture’. The Trotter and many others of a ‘Rapture’ understanding have very little common ground with Tim La Hayes perceived exegetical understanding in the Left behind series other than affirming a Rapture, an Anti-Christ and a Tribulation.
It is not true that The Trotter and others of similar belief ‘view the whole as an esoteric puzzle’ or that ‘the surface meaning is insufficient evidence to understand the Bible.’ Rather, we are trying, like anyone else, to establish a valid hermeneutic for, in the case of 1 Thessolonians, a first century epistle. It is not poetry or apocalypse, but a letter. If Paul, within the same letter, can say plainly: 1Thessolonians 3:6 ‘But now that Timothy has come to us from you, and brought us good news of your faith and love, and that you always have good remembrance of us, greatly desiring to see us, as we also to see you’ – a clear account of a recent visit to Thessolonika by Timothy and his reporting back to Paul, why should what Paul has to say about believers ‘caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air’ be any less plain an event –said within the same letter genre?
I did re-read F F Bruce’s WBC commentary on 1 Thessolonians 4: 16 (a conservative evangelical) who in his comment, did not dismiss a possible ‘Rapture’ reading and in his explanation had this to say:
[The Advent of the Lord is described in terms associated with manifestations of the divine glory in the OT. If an OT prophet could cry to the God of Israel, “O that thou wouldst rend the heavens and come down” (Isa 64:1), the answer to such a prayer is promised in Christ’s descent from heaven. The archangelic voice and the trumpet-call add emphasis to the shout of command which summons the dead back to life; the clouds in which Christ gathers his people to himself are the clouds which, in OT and NT imagery alike, envelop the radiance of the divine presence. There is no need to be overly concerned because the imagery is that of the tri-level universe. Anyone leaving the earth and its atmosphere must appear to be going up, and anyone reentering it must appear to be coming down. More importantly, “up” and “down” terminology is traditionally used to express transcendence and condescension. The imagery, which is especially characteristic of apocalyptic literature, becomes progressively less prominent in later Pauline’ letters, but the teaching which it conveys is maintained.]
It can be seen here that F F Bruce does not dismiss a Rapture reading, nor fully affirm it. It is to be hoped that if the Editor does dismiss a ‘Rapture’ reading of this text – that he will at least tell us clearly what he believes it means – without a litany of maybes.
One of my lasting beefs with those who tell us that we have made a poor exegesis is that they go to work on the mistaken reading WITHOUT offering their own alternative commentary – which is no help to Christianity at all. Hopefully, the third article in this excellent series will tie some of these loose ends.
thetrotter (Email) - 01 01 07 - 21:54