Is the Doctrine of the Rapture Scriptural?

[David Koot]

On another thread, Bravus suggested that there may be Biblical support for the doctrine of the rapture. By 'rapture' we mean the doctrine as taught at Dallas Theological Seminary and Moody Bible Institute, etc. IOW the believers are 'raptured,' those left behind endure seven years of tribulation, and at the end of the seven years Christ returns in glory. Several variants of the doctrine exist: the pre-trib rapture (most popular in Christian circles) mid-trib and post-trib. All three of them include the teaching about the seven years of tribulation.

So, how about it? Is this doctrine (or genus of doctrines shall we say--genus raptura, species pre-trib, mid-trib and post-trib; and lets not forget order Romanus Catholicus, family Trentae) At any rate, is the doctrine of the rapture Scriptural?

[Robert]

No!

Rev 1:7 Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him.

[David Koot]

That is a standard text we use, Robert. But, keep in mind that the rapturists believe that one too. They think it refers to the Second Coming, as opposed to the rapure. IOW the rapture occurs first, then the tribulation and THEN the Second Coming, when 'every eye will see Him.'

Dave

[Robert]

Matt 24:36 “But of that day and hour [the 2nd coming] no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. 37 As were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of man. 38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, 39 and they did not know until the flood came and swept them all away, [:"red"]so will be the coming of the Son of man.[/]

Okay, we must keep the above in mind as we read the rest of the context. Since no one knows the day and hour, many will be caught off guard...they will not know.

40 Then two men will be in the field; one is taken and one is left. 41 Two women will be grinding at the mill; one is taken and one is left.

That is, one will be delivered the other, lost.

42 Watch therefore, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. 43 But know this, that if the householder had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have watched and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 Therefore you also must be ready; for the Son of man is coming at an hour you do not expect.

Rob

[olger]

The rapture is of Roman church counterinterpretation origin. It makes about as much sense as the rest of their ideas.

gcw

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Matt 24:40 Then two men will be in the field; one is taken and one is left. 41 Two women will be grinding at the mill; one is taken and one is left.

---

The Rapture is based on that scripture, and, as indicated, one is saved, one lost.

The Rapture assumes that the one "taken" is taken to heaven. However, they ignore the parallel passage in Luke.

Quote:

---

ever tries to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it. 34I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. 35Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left."

---

But in this telling, the disciples inquire as to where:

Quote:

---

37"Where, Lord?" they asked.

He replied, "Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather."

---

Now, there's no mystery about the ones who are left. They remain "in bed," "grinding grain," etc. The only question is what happens to the ones "taken." Where are they taken?

To a place of dead bodies and scavengers.

So the Rapture has it backwards. You don't want to be taken, you want to be left.

[Bravus]

Just by way of saving too much energy and attention on this topic, I don't think I suggested that the rapture doctrine was scriptural.

What I did suggest, in relation to this and a number of other topics, was that there is *some* level of support for them in the Bible... even as little as the one text that is usually cited as the basis of the rapture doctrine. There has to be some scriptural support, because there are serious, devout Christians who have searched the scriptures and hold these doctrines.

The focus of the discussion was on whether Adventist doctrines are 100% correct in all particulars and have no further room for growth or understanding of scripture, and any Christian doctrines that differ in any way from Adventism are unscriptural.

I believe Adventists have studied hard and long, with the guidance of the Spirit, and that their doctrines are scriptural, but the larger claim that their/our understanding is perfect is one I'm not prepared to make. So I don't myself believe that the rapture is scriptural, but I can see where other Christians can find support for it.

There's room for assurance, but also for humility.

[olger]

"There's room for assurance, but also for humility."

I understand. There is also room for gratitude, as the Advent truths are given to us by God. They are not man's invention.

gcw

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

Bravus said:

Just by way of saving too much energy and attention on this topic, I don't think I suggested that the rapture doctrine was scriptural. What I did suggest, in relation to this and a number of other topics, was that there is *some* level of support for them in the Bible.

---

Correct. And that is what I referred to in the initial post. However, if true, then that suggests the possibility that the doctrine may be correct. THAT is worth tracking down!

Quote:

---

... even as little as the one text that is usually cited as the basis of the rapture doctrine. There has to be some scriptural support, because there are serious, devout Christians who have searched the scriptures and hold these doctrines.

---

It's not that easily resolved. Actually, the 'rapture' doctrine is the direct result of a campaign of disinformation started in the late 1500's, Council of Trent. I have been on the firing line with this issue, I know the various justifications given (including 1 Thess. 4, Rev. 1 - 3, Dan. 9, Mt. 24) and I have rarely seen such a convoluted scheme of misinterpretation. Another fundamental belief underlying the rapture, is the unconditional calling of literal Israel. Yup. It aint just one text. It is a whole framework, based on the doctrine of eternal security, as evidenced by the purported Biblical teaching about the unconditional election of Israel. THAT is what one must truly deal with, in order to help people see the truth. But, on one level, the question is easily resolved in terms of the manner and timing of Christ's return.

Dave

[Robert]

Quote:

---

David Koot said:

Another fundamental belief underlying the rapture, is the unconditional calling of literal Israel.

---

I can't believe that Christians believe in this heresy! Shall we have God saving those who persistently reject the only means of their salvation, i.e., Jesus Christ?

I'll start another post on this subject!

[Gerr]

Bravus, can you please provide the Scriptural passages that provide *some* level of support?

Gerry

[Bravus]

They've been canvassed here before - the 'one shall be taken and the other left' texts are the main ones. Please note again that i never claimed the doctrine is scriptural. I simply said that there are texts that can be interpreted that way. What I'm trying to counsel is humility and attentiveness to scripture, rather than to challenge any particular doctrines. You're all fully convinced in your own minds that the Rapture is unscriptural, and so am I: my point was that I can see why some other sincere, Bible-believing, prayerfully studying Christians believe differently.

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

Bravus said:

They've been canvassed here before - the 'one shall be taken and the other left' texts are the main ones. Please note again that i never claimed the doctrine is scriptural. I simply said that there are texts that can be interpreted that way.

---

I happen to have researched those passages, and no, there is no way they could be interpreted to support the popular doctrine of the rapture. However, if you believe there is, then please do present the basis for your position.

[Bravus]

Arrghhhh. My good friend, please read once more what I said.

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

David Koot said:

I simply said that there are texts that can be interpreted that way.

---

Yeah, I did, again, and I read the same thing. 'can be interpreted that way' means what, according to your understanding?

[Bravus]

I was thinking about this and figured out the point of our confusion: and you just asked the perfect question to complement that!

By 'can be interpreted that way', what *you* mean is 'can be correctly interpreted that way'. That wasn't what I meant at all. By 'can be interpreted that way', I simply meant 'some people interpret them that way': and that statement is trivial.

Clearer?

[David Koot]

Ahhh, okay. that makes more sense. Indeed, many people interpret Scripture passages in various ways. That raises two distinct issues: firstly, when it comes to Bible doctrine, is there a 'more correct' interpretation, or are they all on the same plane; and, second, if there is a 'more correct' interpretation, on what basis would one determine which it was? Personally, I do believe that there is Bible truth. As to how it is determined, that is a somewhat more involved issue.

[jasd]

The following are attempts to obliquely address the “…etc.” of David Koot’s

>>By 'rapture' we mean the doctrine as taught at Dallas Theological Seminary and Moody Bible Institute, etc.<<

and

>>…there is *some* level of support for them in the Bible...<< --statement by Bravus.

It might be said that Enoch was translated or raptured (hmm, antitype?), as was, according to some traditions… Elijah, as was Philip in

Acts 8:39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away {726} Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

#726 harpazo; from a derivative of 138; to seize (in various applications):--catch (away, up), pluck, pull, take (by force).

(The Latin Vulgate translates various conjugations of rapere, such as raptum, raptus, rapiunt, etc, in place of the Greek harpazo and its various forms; whence, our derivative use – rapture)

Looking further,

1 Thess 1:10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, [even] Jesus, [:"red"]which delivered[/] {4506} [:"red"]us from the wrath to come[/].

#4506 rhoumai; middle voice of an obsolete verb, akin to 4482 (through the idea of a current; compare 4511); to rush or draw (for oneself), i.e. rescue:--deliver(-er).

(Note that the idea of ‘to hide’, as in the cleft of a rock, is not present… instead, there is indicated the sense of an absolute rescue or deliverance – from)

And, regards the tense of “…which delivered us from the wrath to come” – how might the principle in

Rom 4:17 and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

obtain?

How might one reconcile the above 1 Thessalonians 1:10 with

Gen 18:23 And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?

There seems to read in the exchange following between Abraham and Gd in subsequent verses – a demurrer by Gd that where He pours out His wrath… provision is made to spare the righteous.

The wrath of Gd is made manifest from the sixth chapter of Revelation – forward. Almost the entirety of the book of Revelation seems to bespeak the wrath of Gd poured out upon mankind.

Revelation 14 depicts the 144,000 singing the song of the redeemed before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders (that’s in heaven, right?). For those who subscribe to the ‘translation’ of the 144,000… there seems to have been

a translation/rapture of the 144,000 sometime prior to Revelation 14:3 – with another number of chapters remaining in which earthly events are transpiring before the closing of time.

And a couple of other items…:

>>The rapture is of Roman church counterinterpretation origin. It makes about as much sense as the rest of their ideas.<<

Come, come…, before there is too much bullhubris spread about – does the idea of AD 1843-44 as the prophetic terminus ad quem of Daniel 8:14 cum Daniel 9:25 …from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem…

find its terminus a quo in the book of Ezra? I suggest not. If not, how then is AD 1843-44 arrived-at?

The commandment to rebuild Jerusalem is nowhere found in the book of Ezra (he was given only the decree to rebuild the Temple – hardly Jerusalem proper); however, it is encountered about a decade later than advanced by the .Org – in the book of Nehemiah… and coincides with the need of the Persian King to have a ‘frontier’ fortress after having suffered a great naval loss to the Greeks and forced to sign a treaty denying him a 'presence' in the ports and waters of the Levant, Egypt, and the Aegean.

Given that, should one then feel free to append the

statement , “It makes about as much sense as the rest of their ideas” to the SDA .Org? It is my experience that all .Orgs hold to a few queer little shibboleths.

>>…a campaign of disinformation started in the late 1500's,…<<

From the sermon: On the Last Times, the Antichrist, and the End of the World

“All the saints and elect of God are gathered together before the tribulation, which is to come, and are taken to the Lord, in order that they may not see at any time the confusion which overwhelms the world because of our sins.” --Pseudo-Ephraem's Sermon

Pseudo-Ephraem claims that his sermon was written by Ephraem of Nisibis (306-73). Wilhelm Bousset dates it to AD 373. while Caspari estimates its writing sometime between AD 565 and AD 627; however, it is otherwise attested that Caspari believed it was written by the genuine Ephraem in AD 373

>>…the unconditional calling of literal Israel.<<

With the exception of the lawgiver and the sceptre, all the unconditional promises, covenantal or otherwise, by word of Gd – were given to Joseph/Epraim as firstborn. It hardly does…, notwithstanding

Acts 10:34 …I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

to presume upon Gd – to arbitrarily designate those unconditional ‘promises’ given to Joseph/Ephraim (remember also, that Ephraim was half-Egyptian) – as now belonging to a replacement ‘spiritual Israel’. There is absolutely no constructive for that dogma in Writ. Mebbe, ‘added, adopted, engrafted Israel’ – but never, a ‘substitution theology’. Matter of fact,

Writ is replete with the doctrine of dispensationalism towards the COI (that is not to identify Gd’s discretion to elect dispensationally… with Darbyesque formulisms nor with the Fundamentalist’s embrace of Zionism’s aspirations, etc. As for Scofield… well, even the Baptist have quietly shelved him, yes?).

“Jacob I loved, Esau I hated” --Gdspeak. Though it is advanced that none of us have been given license to favor this person or that… that same constraint cannot be said to apply to Gd. He does as He wills – His purpose to fulfill.

>>I can't believe that Christians believe in this heresy!<<

Gen 21:12 …for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.

Rom 9:7 In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

Rom 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these [are] not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

What does “In Isaac shall thy seed be called” foretell? Any Abrahamites in the world today called by Isaac’s name? or is Xtian a derivative of Isaac? mebbe, spiritual-Israel? spirtualXtian? That,

will not compute.

How about the ancient Sacae, the plural of (I)Saac? the Armenian Sacsina? The modern Saxons? (interestingly, every throne throughout Europe and Transcontinental Russia contained Saxon blood)

Amos 7:16 Now therefore hear thou the word of the LORD: Thou sayest, Prophesy not against Israel, and drop not [thy word] against the house of Isaac.

Sacae-sunas. Isaac’s sons.

Jer 31:37 Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.”

Oh, by the way, I’m not a rapturist