Posted on 05/31/2004 12:24:47 PM PDT by Destro
The Rapture Theory: It's Surprising Origin
February 1, 1976
Expanded Internet Edition - Posted March 30, 2003
Almost all Christians are interested in prophecy. This is especially so if the prophecies show what will happen to Christians themselves. There is nothing wrong in desiring such personal knowledge. Even our Lord gave a considerable amount of teaching about the circumstances to befall His people at the end of the age (Matthew 24:22-25). All of us share a common concern in wanting to know about the participants, the chronology, and the geography of those prophecies. To comprehend the full knowledge of them it is obvious that all relevant statements of our Lord and His apostles must be properly interpreted and placed into a coherent order. Many Christians have attempted to do this. As a consequence, the doctrine of the Rapture has arisen. So important has it become to many that the teaching is now sanctioned as the prime revelation from God to show what will happen Lo members of His church just before and during the second coming of Christ. Some even look on it as the heart and core of present Christian expectations! Because of this, it will pay us to review what the doctrine is all about.
The word "Rapture" is not found in the Bible. There is also no single word used by the biblical authors to describe the prophetic factors which comprise the doctrine. Its formulation has come about by means of induction. Certain biblical passages concerning the second coming (and the role that Christians will play in that event) have been inductively blended together to establish the teaching. The modern expression "Rapture" was then invented to explain the overall teaching and the term suits the subject well. The basic tenets of the doctrine are uninvolved. Simply put, it purports that Christ will come back to this earth in two phases. He will first return invisibly to rapture His church away from this world so that they might escape (or partially escape the prophetical tribulation to occur near the end of the age, then later Christ will return in a visible advent to dispense His wrath on the world's nations. This is the general teaching.
Many details concerning these prime factors, however, are hotly debated. There is especially much argument over the chronological features associated with it. Some think the time lapse between the two phases will be 3 1/2 years, others say 7 years. Some feel that the Rapture of the church occurs before the Tribulation, others about mid-way through, Many suggest that the church will be taken to heaven for protection, but a few have proposed a geographical area on this earth. There are those who feel that only part of the church will escape, while others say all will he rescued, These variations, along with others, have multiplied the interpretations to such an extent that many diverse secondary opinions exist among those holding the belief. But all are unanimous on one point: the central theme of the Rapture shows that Christ will return to earth in two phases.
The Newness of the Doctrine
It may come as a surprise to many Christians, but the doctrine of the Rapture is not mentioned in any Christian writings, of which we have knowledge, until after the year 1830 A.D. Whether the early writers were Greek or Latin, Armenian or Coptic, Syrian or Ethiopian, English or German, orthodox or heretic, no one mentioned a syllable about it. Of course, those who feel the origin of the teaching is in the Bible would say that it only ceased being taught (for some unknown reason) at the close of the apostolic age only to reappear in 1830 A.D. But if the doctrine were so clearly stated in Scripture, it seems incredible that no one should have referred to it before the 19th century. This does not necessarily show that the teaching is wrong, but it does mean that thousands of eminent scholars who lived over a span of seventeen centuries (including some of the most astute of the "Christian Fathers" and those of the Reformation and post-Reformation periods) must be considered as prophetic dunces for not having understood so fundamental a teaching. We are not denigrating the doctrine in mentioning these historical facts. That is not our intention. But we do feel that the Foundation should show the historical problems associated with the teaching. This lapse of seventeen centuries when no one mentioned anything about it must be a serious obstacle to its reliability.
Its Beginning
The result of a careful investigation into the origin of the Rapture has been recently published. The book is an excellent one which deserves to be read by all people interested in the subject. Its title: "The Unbelievable Pre-Trib Origin" by Dave MacPherson. He catalogs a great deal of historical material which answers the doctrine's mysterious derivation. We wish to review the results of his research. In the middle 1820's a religious environment began to be established among a few Christians in London. England which proved to be the catalyst around which the doctrine of the Rapture emerged. Expectations of the soon coming of our Lord were being voiced, This was no new thing, but what, was unusual was the teaching by a Presbyterian minister named Edward Irving that there had to be a restoration of the spiritual gifts mentioned in I Corinthians 12-14 just before Christ's second coming. To Irving, the time had come for those spiritual manifestations to occur. Among the expected gifts was the renewal of speaking in tongues and of spirit-motivated prophetic utterances. Irving began to propagate his beliefs. His oratorical skills and enthusiasm caused his congregation in London to grow. Then a number of people began to experience the "gifts." Once this happened opposition from the organized churches set in. It resulted in Irving's dismissal from the Presbyterian church in 1832. His group then established themselves as the Catholic Apostolic Church and continued the teachings of Irving.
These events were the beginnings of what some call present day Pentecostalism. Indeed Irving has been called by some church historians "the father of modern Pentecostalism." What does all this have to do with the origin of the Rapture doctrine? Very much indeed. Let us look at what happened in the year 1830 -- two years before Irving's dismissal from the Presbyterian church. In that year a revival of the "gifts" began to be manifested among a few people living in the lowlands of Scotland. They experienced what they called the outpouring of the Spirit. It was accompanied with speaking in "tongues" and other charismatic phenomena. Irving had been preaching these things must occur, and now they were.
On one particular evening. the power of the Holy Spirit was said to have rested on a Miss Margaret .Macdonald while she was in a state of illness at home. She was dangerously sick and thought she was dying. In spite of this (or perhaps because she is supposed to have come under "power" of the spirit for several successive hours during which she experienced the manifestations of "mingled prophecy and vision." The message she received during this prophetic vision convinced her that Christ was going to appear in two stages at His second coming -- and not one! The emanation revealed that Christ would first come in glory to them that look for Him and again in a final stage when every eye would see Him. It was this visionary experience of Miss Macdonald which represents the prime source of the modern Rapture doctrine as the historical evidence compiled by Mr. MacPherson abundantly shows.
The Influence of John Darby
Many people have thought that John Darby, the founder of the Plymouth Brethren, was the originator of the Rapture doctrine. This is not the case. Darby was a brilliant theologian with outstanding scholarly abilities. Even those who have disagreed with his teachings admit that he, and many associated with him, helped to cause a revival in biblical learning throughout the evangelical world (which even has been perpetuated down to our own present day). All who love biblical research ought to be thankful for what Darby and especially his associates accomplished for biblical scholarship. They particularly helped pave the way for the renewal of modern lexical studies of the languages of the Bible. The doctrine of "dispensationalism" was also a teaching they brought to the attention of the Protestant world.
It had long been thought by many Christians that the Rapture doctrine originated with ,John Darby. It is now known that this is not true. Darby only popularized it. Scofield and others who took over Darby's mantle later helped to make it respectable, Today, many of those in the evangelical sphere of Christianity are so certain of its veracity that it is accepted as the absolute truth of God. The fact is, however, John Darby received the knowledge of the doctrine from someone else. The source was the Margaret Macdonald mentioned above.
The studies of Mr. MacPherson show that her sickness during which she received her visions and revelations occurred sometime between February 1 and April 14, 1830. And by late spring and early summer of 1830, her belief in the two phases of Christ's coming was being mentioned in praise and prayer meetings in several towns of western Scotland. In these meetings some people were speaking in "tongues" and other charismatic occurrences were in evidence. These extraordinary and strange events in western Scotland so attracted John Darby that he made a trip to the area to witness himself what was going on. Though he did not approve of the ecstatic episodes that he witnessed. it is nonetheless significant that Darby, after returning from Scotland, began to teach that Christ's second coming would occur in two phases. MacPherson shows good evidence that Darby had even visited Miss Macdonald in her home. There can hardly he any doubt that the visions of Miss Macdonald are the source of the modern doctrine.
Visions and Dreams
While it is possible that visionary revelations can come from God, it is always prudent to be cautious in such matters. Near the same time that Miss Macdonald was receiving her visions, Joseph Smith in America was experiencing his apparitions which brought Mormon doctrines to the world. John Wilson also had his dreams which were the spark that started the false teaching of British realism. Not long afterwards Ellen G. White received her visions that resulted in many Seventh Day Adventist teachings. And remarkably, all these individuals received revelations of doctrines which were much at variance with one another. Such incidents bring to mind the warning that God gave to Moses.
"If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spoke unto thee, saying, let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul" (Deuteronomy 13: 1-3).
The teachings of visionaries also recall to mind what the apostle John tells Christians.
"Beloved. believe not every spirit. but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world" (I John 4:1).
And though some point to the prophecy of Daniel that "knowledge shall be increased" (Daniel 12:4) a proof that the revival of doctrinal truths will occur at the end of the age, this is not what Daniel meant. If one reads the prophet carefully. he will find that Daniel is speaking about the knowledge of his prophecies which will be increased. not the revival of general doctrines. In the original text of Daniel the definite article occurs before the word "knowledge." Daniel actually said "THE knowledge will be increased" and the text shows he means "the knowledge of his prophecies." Daniel is in no way speaking about renewing of doctrines at the time of the end. A further admonition is necessary concerning the origins of teachings which might happen near our own time. It is by the apostle Paul.
"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils" (I Timothy 4:1 ).
These warnings from God's word are given as a reminder that we ought to exercise caution in accepting the truthfulness of visionary revelations especially those that happen near the end of the age and are contradictory to themselves or the Bible.
Conclusion
While there are many suspicious factors conferred with the origin of the Rapture, it could be admitted that the doctrine may reflect a teaching found in the Bible. At least, many feel so. John Darby no doubt thought there was something to it because after his trip to Scotland he changed his mind from believing in a single stage coming and adopted the two stage doctrine which became known as the Rapture. Darby was certainly not a visionary and his teachings whether right or wrong) are almost always based on scriptural revelation. It was Darby who popularized the Rapture with the scriptural arguments which seem so convincing to some. It could be that the teaching is basically true, but we at the Foundation for Biblical Research in Pasadena have felt incumbent to show our readers the unbiblical source of the doctrine. Too many people have for gotten that it was Miss Macdonald's visions which introduced the doctrine to the world.
In our next Exposition in this series we to show the biblical evidences which tend to support the doctrine. In the one to follow. we'll show those which seemingly speak against it. Our desire to place into your hands the necessary evidence for you to make up your own minds on the In closing, we wish to state one word that no one can gainsay. Whether one believes in the rapture or not, it has nothing to do with the assured salvation that all Christians have in Christ. That is a fact!
Ernest L. Martin
Just say what the Bible says. When Christ returns His saint are raised from the dead or, if living, their bodies are changed to be like His, and we are with Him forever.
But that's so boring. You can't build a franchise empire on that kind of simplistic, straight-forward theology! ;-)
Yeah, Paul was a sucker. No residuals.
Those first century saints just didn't have a clue how to use the gospel to their advantage.
Nobody in Scripture is supposed to serve as a role model for our own lives?
Now you're gettin' goofy. The fact is there are no "special" saints in the Bible, designated, undesignated or otherwise.
The apostle Paul said, "Imitate me as I imitate Christ." Every saint has that calling; to be imitators of Christ. Some, by God's grace, do a better job than others. But the Bible does not call the Church to make special categories of such super saints.
Show me
Well, there are no special saints in the Church either. Just those we know about and those we don't. The Bible is full od those we know about. So is Church history.
Every saint has that calling; to be imitators of Christ. Some, by God's grace, do a better job than others.
Yep, and yep. In fact, some do such a good job we are able to know by their fruits that they acheived salvation.
But the Bible does not call the Church to make special categories of such super saints.
No special category here. I don't know why you keep saying that.
SD
Second Ecumenical Council
The roca.org has some notes on the Council. Here's an excerpt:
"One important heresy the Council refuted was. that of chiliasm or millenarianism, taught by a certain Apollinarius. This heresy, based on a misunderstanding of chapter 20 of the Apocalypse, taught that after Christ's Second Coming He would reign on earth with His saints for a thousand years. Some of the heretics described the life of these thousand years as one of bodily pleasures, while others taught of it in a more spiritual way; but all alike taught that it was to be distinct from the eternal Kingdom of Heaven, which would open afterwards."
http://www.roca.org/OA/15/15h.htm
The fine print helps.
I was hoping they weren't calling Justin Martyr a heretic since he, too, was a premillennialist.
It appears they've given themselves some wiggle room in the actual charge against it. "As taught by Apollonarius....bodily pleasures..."
No. It is a true doctrine based on ecumenical councils.
You have heard of them?
Arius and whatnot?
Are saying that the scripture is open to more than one interpretation and that God did this intentionally?
Scripture is extreamly compilcated, but that does not mean it is not clear. Even the invisible things of him are clearly seen.
I think you did not understand well a complex point I was trying to make.
God deliberately influenced every jot and tittle of Scripture else the Bible Codes would not exist.
The Scriptures include many passages which are mysteries and many more which are ambiguous at least to moderate degrees. There are evidently several reasons for this including flexibility in God's dealings with individuals and in support of free will. This aspect get's complicated to discuss.
Essentials are very clear.
Ideally, but not necessarily. ;)
I was hoping they weren't calling Justin Martyr a heretic since he, too, was a premillennialist.
I am not an expert on the writings of early church saints, so I can't argue whether or not Justin's use of the term "1000 years" qualifies him as a premillennialist. I know the term was for some time a popular way to express a long period of time. I'm guessing that, after this council, the term got dropped like a bad habit, to avoid any further misunderstandings.
If you assume the right things, then you get an Assumption.
Justin MartyrThe Second Apology of Justin for the Christians
Addressed to the Roman Senate
Chapter LXXX -- The Opinion of Justin with Regard to the Reign of a Thousand Years. Several Catholics Reject It
And Trypho to this replied, "I remarked to you sir, that you are very anxious to be safe in all respects, since you cling to the Scriptures. But tell me, do you really admit that this place, Jerusalem, shall be rebuilt; and do you expect your people to be gathered together, and made joyful with Christ and the patriarchs, and the prophets, both the men of our nation, and other proselytes who joined them before your Christ came? or have you given way, and admitted this in order to have the appearance of worsting us in the controversies?"
Then I answered, "I am not so miserable a fellow, Trypho, as to say one thing and think another. I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.
Moreover, I pointed out to you that some who are called Christians, but are godless, impious heretics, teach doctrines that are in every way blasphemous, atheistical, and foolish. But that you may know that I do not say this before you alone, I shall draw up a statement, so far as I can, of all the arguments which have passed between us; in which I shall record myself as admitting the very same things which I admit to you. For I choose to follow not men or men's doctrines, but God and the doctrines[delivered] by Him.
For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this [truth], and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians, even as one, if he would rightly consider it, would not admit that the Sadducees, or similar sects of Genistæ, Meristae, Gelilaeans, Hellenists, Pharisees, Baptists, are Jews (do not hear me impatiently when I tell you what I think), but are [only] called Jews and children of Abraham, worshipping God with the lips, as God Himself declared, but the heart was far from Him.
But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged,[as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.
But you don't know if it's right. Because I can't find a missing sock, assuming it has been lifted into heaven makes Occam cry.
Have you noticed how popular Occam has become on Free Republic of late?
Thanks for that quote. Since it's so clear, could you point out exactly where Justin says that Christ will be reigning on the earth during the 1000 years?
Occam popular on FR? If you mean blame everything on democrats, yeah. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.