Let me talk about the "rapture" with you. Bear with me if it takes a while to get to the topic of this entry's title; we must understand the base theology first.
The rapture is a doctrine that is fairly basic to anyone of a pentecostal background. The idea is that Jesus will snatch believers up to heaven either before, during, or right after the reign of the Antichrist, which is called the great tribulation in the book of Revelation. For all intents and purposes, though,
when people refer to the "rapture," they're most likely referring to a pre-trib or
mid-trib rapture, as the post-trib rapture is significantly different. The word itself literally refers to being "carried off;" figuratively, it is seen as a state of ecstasy on par with entering a new plane of existence that is one with happiness itself.
One might, say, feel "rapture" after being reunited with their long-lost spouse or child, who was believed to be dead.
"Rapture" itself isn't in the Bible (most theological terms are not, explicitly), but English speakers apply it referring to various scriptural passages because:
1) the obvious joy any believer would feel upon meeting Jesus Christ in all his glory
2) the very literal act of being carried off to be in heaven.
3) becoming one with the Lord in heaven would represent a new state of being, undoubtedly one that is perfect happiness
Argument of reason for the pre-trib rapture:
God would not want his church, his beloved bride, to be subject to the tribulation whatsoever. The church does not belong on Earth while the Antichrist is in power.
Argument of reason for the mid-trib rapture:
The rapture will occur once the second half of the tribulation begins (the trib is 7 years, altogether). The second half is far worse, as the Antichrist has seized total power over the Earth, and begins executing Christians left and right.
You know what's crazy? Pentecostals argue on these points quite thoroughly, and as I have always seen it, for no apparent reason. How does it affect our lives as Christians? Not at all, and yet . . . we're no better than Paul's Corinthians when it comes to the rapture, which is
itself a unique and somewhat questionable doctrine, based in the pre-millenialist view of Revelation. I didn't always know that there were other ways of looking at Revelation, let alone that they were widely accepted within certain groups, and throughout certain periods of history. Among them are:
Symbolic- The events and descriptions in Revelation are entirely symbolic, and are intended to teach us things about good and evil, God's nature, our purpose on earth, and so forth. I can't espouse this idea, as it makes scripture lie when it says things like "this is yet to come, and the time is near," or generally speaks of the writings as prophesy: i.e. it will happen eventually. Scott Hahn, a famous former pastor, now Catholic theologian, suspects Revelation is all about the Mass, which I find absurd and somewhat useless for our sake.
Post-Millennialism- A view that believes we are living after Jesus' 1000-year reign, when God at last dwells on the Earth. Some reasoning for this is that there are a number of passages in Revelation that fit perfectly with what happened in the Roman Empire several decades after Revelation was written, including some very interesting similarities between Flavian Dynasty Roman emperors Vespasian, Domitian, and the Antichrist, among other things. I don't accept this theory for a number of reasons, though I'm interested that a lot of people have believed/are believing it.
Amillennialism- Everything in Revelation has already happened up till the final judgment. This also uses the reasoning of the Roman Emperors with the Antichrist and so forth, just as post-millenialism does. We are currently living in the (not literal) 1000-year reign of Christ, after which will come the final judgment, and then heaven on earth forever. The Catholic Church leans toward this, but doesn't endorse any theory officially.
Now I want to get back to the rapture, specifically. It's based, again, in a pre-millennialist view of the book of Revelation, that being that we are currently awaiting the millennial reign of Christ (i.e. Jesus has not yet come back). I must tell my Pentecostal brethren the truth about this theology, and perhaps you already knew what I'm going to say, but I'm guessing you probably didn't.
I know
I sure didn't know it, and to boot, I've never heard it talked about among Pentecostals at all: the rapture, theologically speaking, is a new concept. When I say new, I mean
very new.
e rapture is a new idea. Actually, inew in the grand scheme of Christian Theology. How new? Try "the early 19th century" new. new
Call me old-fashioned, but new theology is usually
not a good thing.
When I say "new theology," I'm
not talking about new revelations, or God speaking to people with new ideas of spreading the gospel or dealing with various issues, or even new outpourings of the Holy Spirit. Those things are good,
great, and I hope they keep on coming. When I say "new theology" I'm talking about new ideas concerning God, Jesus, scripture, salvation, and so forth. There aren't many new ideas when it comes to that stuff, and when there are, they're usually pretty messed up outright, or otherwise very sneaky and subtly wrong. The funny thing about new ideas: the same goes for heresies. When people today have a new idea about Jesus, and suddenly, they have to show humanity how we've been thinking about it wrong all this time, it's always something that (coincidentally) came up like 1500 years ago, and was dealt with back then. Gnosticism, for example, comes back every few hundred years or so, but those who believe it always think they've finally figured it out. Ridiculous.
What always defeats heresy is orthodoxy, literally, "correct belief." Orthodoxy has been around for a lot longer than most people realize. The applications of orthodoxy in contemporary culture are always being sought, most certainly, but orthodoxy itself was dealt with long, long ago. Don't believe it? I didn't either. But I can't tell you how
shocked I was the first time I read Augustine; I couldn't believe how insightful he was, and how easily he dealt with questions that are
still popping up today. Really, it was especially humbling for an American Evangelical-Pentecostal like myself, as I think we tend to see Christian History as beginning 100 years ago or so. It's true that we Pentecostals were the first to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit since it faded away well over a millennium ago
,
(sorry Catholics, but it was 1906 for what would become the various pentecostal denominations of today-- the Catholic Church would have to wait until the 1960's to receive the same outpouring of the Holy Spirit.)
but that doesn't mean that all Christian History and Theology up till that point was null. On the contrary, the foundations of Christian Theology were laid and finished, I would say, by the close of the 4th century. There has been the occasional touch-up every few hundred years or so, but that was just maintenance or a new paint job--
never a reconstruction. You may think, for example, that the Catholic Church's steady stream of official documents has been creating new theology for the past 1700 years, but you'd be surprised to see just how much of
those official documents are devoted to citing
old ones and reiterating the ideas of 1000-year-old saints: they're almost
BORINGLY devoid of new ideas. Still this can teach us something, I think.
Did you recently get a really awesome revelation? GREAT! Now go and find out how many people had it before you did-- I'm not kidding! The more ancient theologians that agree with you, the better. Really, if no one else does, you should be worried. Nothing humbles me more than reading from Augustine or Thomas Aquinas. In one sense, it's edifying, as I often find myself with a like mind to these great pillars of the Lord, but in another sense, it's so very, extremely humbling, as I see how big God has been throughout history, and how small I am in the grand scheme of things.
So the rapture is new theology, which I hope you've come to agree with me, is not a good thing in and of itself. The rapture was first explicitly formulated in the 1800's by John Nelson Darby, the father of Dispensationalism, which is a set of ideas concerning eschatology that includes pre-tribulation rapture. Amazingly, Dispensationalism and the rapture are almost universally accepted by Evangelicals today, which I find astounding and very hard to explain, given its relative newness in the history of Christian Theology, as well as how the rapture somewhat contradicts commonly-held Evangelical principles concerning Biblical interpretation.
You see, if there's something Protestants can accuse Catholics of, and rightly so oftentimes, it's strrrrreeeeeeetching scriptures to fit certain doctrines and theologies that aren't necessarily or explicitly in the Bible (I call it shoehorning scripture). Catholics are also notorious for formulating extremely lengthy and complex systems based off of a single verse (you could fill many libraries with Catholic writings on Matthew 16:18, which is also likely to be the topic at hand if you randomly tune into any Catholic radio show at any given time (that or annulments)). The funny thing is that pre-tribulation rapture is a case where the shoe/shoehorn is most definitely on the other foot.
(ha!)
You know what I was scared to look into once I started the process of becoming Catholic? The Catholic Church's thoughts on the rapture. You know why? Because it's not really scriptural, and I knew it, too. Really, I had thought as much for a long time, but it didn't bother me a whole lot, and I had just dismissed it as "something I'm sure someone smart enough could explain if I asked them."
But no one ever did, or at least not very well.
The thing is, the verses used in defense of rapture theology are very few, and among those verses, there is not one that couldn't just as easily (actually, easier) refer to the resurrection of the dead at Jesus' second coming. I say it would be easier to interpret those verses as occurring at Jesus' second coming because, really, in order to believe 1 Thessalonians 4 is its own separate event, you have to believe in 3 (3!?) comings of the Lord Jesus.
1) Bethlehem
2) Clouds (rapture)
3) Clouds (the white horse and rider, whose name is faithful and true)
Now, if Revelation is supposed to be our (and I'm still a pre-millenialist, so you know) step by step handbook for what to expect in the last days, why does the Lord only come once (Rev. 19)? That's not the only reason, but let it suffice to say that I found myself no longer believing in what I would have once defended when I examined its scriptural support, and found it lacking.
Sorry, faithful, but if these really are the last days, we're in for the long-haul here on Earth. There's no getting out of the tribulation for us (maybe that's why the rapture became popular?), but really, that's not so bad. Look at it this way: God always purifies his Church through suffering, so what better vehicle for end-times soul-winning than the horrible, horrible tribulation? Really, where Christians are tremendously prosperous and free, you tend to find a lot of hidden sin and complacency (hello, United States!). What holier church is there than a persecuted and poor church? Even we rich Americans know that's a true idea-- so why is it so hard to believe that that works both ways (i.e. a prosperous, comfortable church=not so holy)?
So, what is left when you don't believe in a pre or mid-trib rapture? The post-tribulation rapture, which is at the second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, though you don't usually use the word "rapture" when talking about that one. This is called Historic Premillennialism, as it has been taught since the days of Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, a disciple of the Apostle John, and upheld in the modern era by Charles Spurgeon, and yours truly.
This makes more sense, scripturally. Consider it. Let me know what you think. Remember: let the scriptures form your echastological viewpoint, not the other way around.
