More Rapture Nonsense
from the catching-away
dept.
I
wanted to clarify my view on the rapture. A great many Christians are caught up
in being caught up. Jesus spoke on the subject of paying taxes more than he
spoke about the rapture. We have our head in the sky far too much, while
unbelievers are experiencing their own rapture into damnation because of our
active complacency today.
So why this fixation? Why are we Christians so intent on leaving while God's work is obviously waiting for us to do? Are we really that overwhelmed by the corruption in the world?
Please note, all scripture links on this post will open in a new window so that they won't interrupt your read of the article. You can click on them, read the verses, then close the window. That will quickly return you back to this article.
Double Return
The main aspect to the rapture I have a problem with is the idea that Jesus will return once for his people, then a second time to judge the world. When Jesus came to earth to save the world, he only had to do it once. But for some reason, for him to dispose of the world, it requires two visits. That's nonsense, and it's not in scripture. In order to make it work, we have to split the rapture and the judgement of the world, which is also very difficult to do and keep the biblical inerrancy intact.
Triple Resurrection
Since the rapture idea means we would need two visits from Jesus, there must be a total of three resurrections. The first resurrection was at the time Jesus was crucified and came back to life. People came out of the grave at Jesus' resurrection. We have to count this as one of the resurrections, don't we? Oh, you don't remember this? Refresh your memory with this reference: Matthew 27:52-53. Ok, let's continue.
Forgive me, I just don't see three resurrections in my bible. I'm not sure what else to say about this. Let's make it simple and agree there's only two, hence no separation between rapture and Jesus Second Coming. There, simple.
Veiled Advent
Just like Jesus' original advent, his return is veiled in mystery. I think the mystery that surrounds the second coming is meant to intrigue us, but we can't make it into the center and focus of our faith and witness. The truth of the cross is foolishness by itself. We don't need to add more of our own made up foolishness on top of it.
Relatively New
Why is there a gap between the biblical teachings and the teachings from the 1800's when the doctrine started being widely mentioned in writings? Why did this topic evade mention until about 150-175 years ago?
I'll play devil's advocate here and say that one possible answer to this question is that God just didn't want people to worry about it until 150-175 years ago. Since the Holy Spirit brings understanding to the text we read, maybe everyone prior to the 1800's were blinded to the true rapture doctrine. I don't really like this explanation, though. If this is what happened, what other hidden doctrines are in store for us in the future? So much for playing devil's advocate.
Although I believe in some level of progressive revelation, for example, as it relates to Christ as the God of the Old Testament as seen from reading the New Testament passages, it's dangerous to expect this as the primary and usual method used to reveal the other truths we might need for day-to-day living. This is because we just don't know what's in store for us, and any old passage of the bible could have double meaning, which is extremely rare and not for us to assume.
The only time it's true is when it's revealed in scripture by scripture. And since scripture is closed to further modification, I don't see how it's possible for the rapture doctrine to develop when it wasn't there before.
Rapture
Do you know where "rapture" is in your bible? Let's do a word study on this mysterious word itself, shall we? The Greek word is most commonly "harpazo" and this form appears 16 times in the New Testament. It's never actually rendered in English as "rapture" though. We derived the word "rapture" from the Latin word "rapio" and assigned a meaning to describe a sudden "poof" of all Christians into Heaven, all at once.
Remember Star Trek transporters? Imagine that, only it takes 100 milliseconds and it leaves clothes, tooth fillings, pace-makers, prosthetic lips, and the like all left behind.
The most famous location to find the "harpazo" is I Thessalonians 4:17 where it's rendered as "caught up" in KJV. This one is famous because supposedly it describes the rapture in the most dramatic terms anywhere.
The next verse I've chosen is Acts 8:39. This time, the word "harpazo" is rendered as "caught away" in KJV. But we have a context to consider here. I will leave discovering the broader context as an exercise to the reader. In other words, please read verse 40 before getting excited about finding another "poof" rapture reference.
It gets better. There's Revelation 12:5, where it's rendered as "caught up" again in KJV. Wow! The book of Revelation uses the "rapture" word? We know from the verse alone that this is a reference to Mary and Jesus. This verse claims that Jesus was raptured. Was he? Not according to the "poof" definition of rapture, so the if definition doesn't fit even though we're using the exact same Greek word, could it be that the word we made up is just that, a fairy tale? It doesn't fit here even though the original language uses the same word as I Thessalonians 4:17. How do we resolve this conflict and keep the inerrancy of scripture? We must throw out our "poof" definition.
Then there's the experience purported to Paul, when he was "caught up" to the third heaven, specifically II Corinthians 12:2-4. It's unclear if this actually happened or if it was a dream. The text explicitly leaves that ambiguous. It doesn't matter if this counts or not since it was possibly a dream.
Then there's Matthew 13:19, where it's rendered as "catcheth away" in KJV. That one is scary because the rapture is into the hands of the wicked one. It's used in a somewhat similar manner in John 10:12. Yikes.
At this point, there's compelling evidence that "harpazo" doesn't mean "poof" at all. All I've done is grouped the "caught up" type verses together. Good thing there are more references to look at.
In Matthew 11:12, we find that "harpazo" has been rendered as "take" and also as "by force" in KJV. It's similar in John 6:15. In fact, I think it is rather compelling how similar they are. Then we have another similar rendering in Acts 23:10, but it's talking about Paul being taken by force by the soldiers. Definitely no "poofing" here.
It's rendered as "pluck" (KJV) in John 10:28-29 and "pulling" in Jude 1:23. The "poofs" just don't fit there.
All this to say that although "harpazo" is used 16 times in the New Testament, many of them are attributed to God's hand, but not all. Only one could possibly, maybe mean "poof" and in light of the other references I think this meaning is dubious.
Instead of thinking "poof" every place we see "harpazo," may I suggest a more appropriate way to think of it is "to seize." It works in all of the above references much better than even "rapture" does.
Solas Dysfunctionalas
In order to make the rapture notion more appealing to worried parents, preachers inappropriately use I Corinthians 7:14 to help explain how children will be raptured along with one or both parents.
This interpretation really disgusts me. The interpretation is that children are saved when the rapture comes as long as one or both of the parents are saved. The problem I have with this is we already know that salvation is by faith alone. I have no problem with children having faith that saves. But how can the parent's faith be imputed on the children that do not have faith as this verse supposedly suggests? This is a perfect example of how some pastors make stuff up to help get people on-board with their wacky ideas.
Please understand that this verse is not related to rapture at all. It's referring to the fact that marriage is sacred in God's eyes and that where at least one person in the family is saved, all will have a better chance to come to a saving faith. It's similar to Noah pronouncing a curse on Ham's son. It wasn't that Noah made Ham's son into a bad person with a curse. Noah was just stating a fact that Ham would train up his own child to be a creep, just like his old man.
Conclusion
Just read your bible and love Jesus. Don't worry about helicopters and flying people. The Kingdom of God is both "already/not yet" here. If you can accept the trinity, then you can accept the concept of God's Kingdom being both "already/not yet." Whatever happened to letting tomorrow take care of itself?
So why this fixation? Why are we Christians so intent on leaving while God's work is obviously waiting for us to do? Are we really that overwhelmed by the corruption in the world?
Please note, all scripture links on this post will open in a new window so that they won't interrupt your read of the article. You can click on them, read the verses, then close the window. That will quickly return you back to this article.
Double Return
The main aspect to the rapture I have a problem with is the idea that Jesus will return once for his people, then a second time to judge the world. When Jesus came to earth to save the world, he only had to do it once. But for some reason, for him to dispose of the world, it requires two visits. That's nonsense, and it's not in scripture. In order to make it work, we have to split the rapture and the judgement of the world, which is also very difficult to do and keep the biblical inerrancy intact.
Triple Resurrection
Since the rapture idea means we would need two visits from Jesus, there must be a total of three resurrections. The first resurrection was at the time Jesus was crucified and came back to life. People came out of the grave at Jesus' resurrection. We have to count this as one of the resurrections, don't we? Oh, you don't remember this? Refresh your memory with this reference: Matthew 27:52-53. Ok, let's continue.
Forgive me, I just don't see three resurrections in my bible. I'm not sure what else to say about this. Let's make it simple and agree there's only two, hence no separation between rapture and Jesus Second Coming. There, simple.
Veiled Advent
Just like Jesus' original advent, his return is veiled in mystery. I think the mystery that surrounds the second coming is meant to intrigue us, but we can't make it into the center and focus of our faith and witness. The truth of the cross is foolishness by itself. We don't need to add more of our own made up foolishness on top of it.
Relatively New
Why is there a gap between the biblical teachings and the teachings from the 1800's when the doctrine started being widely mentioned in writings? Why did this topic evade mention until about 150-175 years ago?
I'll play devil's advocate here and say that one possible answer to this question is that God just didn't want people to worry about it until 150-175 years ago. Since the Holy Spirit brings understanding to the text we read, maybe everyone prior to the 1800's were blinded to the true rapture doctrine. I don't really like this explanation, though. If this is what happened, what other hidden doctrines are in store for us in the future? So much for playing devil's advocate.
Although I believe in some level of progressive revelation, for example, as it relates to Christ as the God of the Old Testament as seen from reading the New Testament passages, it's dangerous to expect this as the primary and usual method used to reveal the other truths we might need for day-to-day living. This is because we just don't know what's in store for us, and any old passage of the bible could have double meaning, which is extremely rare and not for us to assume.
The only time it's true is when it's revealed in scripture by scripture. And since scripture is closed to further modification, I don't see how it's possible for the rapture doctrine to develop when it wasn't there before.
Rapture
Do you know where "rapture" is in your bible? Let's do a word study on this mysterious word itself, shall we? The Greek word is most commonly "harpazo" and this form appears 16 times in the New Testament. It's never actually rendered in English as "rapture" though. We derived the word "rapture" from the Latin word "rapio" and assigned a meaning to describe a sudden "poof" of all Christians into Heaven, all at once.
Remember Star Trek transporters? Imagine that, only it takes 100 milliseconds and it leaves clothes, tooth fillings, pace-makers, prosthetic lips, and the like all left behind.
The most famous location to find the "harpazo" is I Thessalonians 4:17 where it's rendered as "caught up" in KJV. This one is famous because supposedly it describes the rapture in the most dramatic terms anywhere.
The next verse I've chosen is Acts 8:39. This time, the word "harpazo" is rendered as "caught away" in KJV. But we have a context to consider here. I will leave discovering the broader context as an exercise to the reader. In other words, please read verse 40 before getting excited about finding another "poof" rapture reference.
It gets better. There's Revelation 12:5, where it's rendered as "caught up" again in KJV. Wow! The book of Revelation uses the "rapture" word? We know from the verse alone that this is a reference to Mary and Jesus. This verse claims that Jesus was raptured. Was he? Not according to the "poof" definition of rapture, so the if definition doesn't fit even though we're using the exact same Greek word, could it be that the word we made up is just that, a fairy tale? It doesn't fit here even though the original language uses the same word as I Thessalonians 4:17. How do we resolve this conflict and keep the inerrancy of scripture? We must throw out our "poof" definition.
Then there's the experience purported to Paul, when he was "caught up" to the third heaven, specifically II Corinthians 12:2-4. It's unclear if this actually happened or if it was a dream. The text explicitly leaves that ambiguous. It doesn't matter if this counts or not since it was possibly a dream.
Then there's Matthew 13:19, where it's rendered as "catcheth away" in KJV. That one is scary because the rapture is into the hands of the wicked one. It's used in a somewhat similar manner in John 10:12. Yikes.
At this point, there's compelling evidence that "harpazo" doesn't mean "poof" at all. All I've done is grouped the "caught up" type verses together. Good thing there are more references to look at.
In Matthew 11:12, we find that "harpazo" has been rendered as "take" and also as "by force" in KJV. It's similar in John 6:15. In fact, I think it is rather compelling how similar they are. Then we have another similar rendering in Acts 23:10, but it's talking about Paul being taken by force by the soldiers. Definitely no "poofing" here.
It's rendered as "pluck" (KJV) in John 10:28-29 and "pulling" in Jude 1:23. The "poofs" just don't fit there.
All this to say that although "harpazo" is used 16 times in the New Testament, many of them are attributed to God's hand, but not all. Only one could possibly, maybe mean "poof" and in light of the other references I think this meaning is dubious.
Instead of thinking "poof" every place we see "harpazo," may I suggest a more appropriate way to think of it is "to seize." It works in all of the above references much better than even "rapture" does.
Solas Dysfunctionalas
In order to make the rapture notion more appealing to worried parents, preachers inappropriately use I Corinthians 7:14 to help explain how children will be raptured along with one or both parents.
This interpretation really disgusts me. The interpretation is that children are saved when the rapture comes as long as one or both of the parents are saved. The problem I have with this is we already know that salvation is by faith alone. I have no problem with children having faith that saves. But how can the parent's faith be imputed on the children that do not have faith as this verse supposedly suggests? This is a perfect example of how some pastors make stuff up to help get people on-board with their wacky ideas.
Please understand that this verse is not related to rapture at all. It's referring to the fact that marriage is sacred in God's eyes and that where at least one person in the family is saved, all will have a better chance to come to a saving faith. It's similar to Noah pronouncing a curse on Ham's son. It wasn't that Noah made Ham's son into a bad person with a curse. Noah was just stating a fact that Ham would train up his own child to be a creep, just like his old man.
Conclusion
Just read your bible and love Jesus. Don't worry about helicopters and flying people. The Kingdom of God is both "already/not yet" here. If you can accept the trinity, then you can accept the concept of God's Kingdom being both "already/not yet." Whatever happened to letting tomorrow take care of itself?
Posted: Thursday - September 28, 2006 at 09:30 PM |
Distractions