The Rapture Theory: It's Surprising Origin

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

It pretty clear from his words that Justin Martyr did believe in a thousand year reign of Christ on the earth.

And it is equally clear that there were differing opinions on this subject. This is why we have councils. It's the process by which we hash this stuff out. As much as we like Justin Martyr (and we do), his opinion does not trump an Ecumenical Council. Necessarily, it's the other way around.

Actually, there's more to the section than the piece I quoted, and you can check it out. However, first:

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

What is the "such will take place" to which Martyr readily admits?

It is this question of Trypho: 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?

Then, there is this capstone at the conclusion of the quoted section: 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.

It wasn't just Martyr, but there have been many teachings that have gotten a second and even a third look.

Grace is one that has been revisited a number of times.

All that aside, I revisited a beautiful Roman Catholic cathedral in the heart of historic Savannah, Georgia on Sunday afternoon. I had been there nearly 2 decades ago to conduct the funeral of a deceased soldier. (I was the unit chaplain and the priest asked me to participate.)

At that time he showed me the beautiful linden wood carvings of the stations of the cross. I had been in the Oberammergau region of Germany and returned on my last tour to Germany, so I wanted to see those German woodcarvings of the stations at least once more in my life.

So I went. (And took a digital camera.)

They were everything I had remembered.

Your separated brother in Christ, Chaplain X.

It wasn't just Martyr, but there have been many teachings that have gotten a second and even a third look.

Yup yup. I've seen some lengthy lists. And the occurance of differences are not as uncommon as some might want to believe. Right from the beginning, there was the issue of whether or not Gentiles should be circumcised like Jews. A council was convened to resolve the matter. Otherwise, we'd probably still be bickering about it. Ditto for the food restrictions, etc.

All that aside, I revisited a beautiful Roman Catholic cathedral...

For what it's worth, I'm Orthodox (formerly Presbyterian). But my wife is Catholic, so you were half right. :)

The Rapture is a false doctrine, but it certainly does not originate with sola scriptura.

It is a fact that the rapture theology was not born out of the Tradition held by either Catholics or Orthodox. In that respect, it is uniquely Protestant. Since a rejection of said Tradition in favor of "Scripture Alone" was part and parcel of the Reformation, I don't think Destro's statement can be fairly dismissed out of hand.

At that time he showed me the beautiful linden wood carvings of the stations of the cross. I had been in the Oberammergau region of Germany and returned on my last tour to Germany, so I wanted to see those German woodcarvings of the stations at least once more in my life.

So I went. (And took a digital camera.)

They were everything I had remembered.

What a nice story. I was expecting a "they told me they removed them during a 'renovation'" there.

So any crazy idea that any Protestant has can be attributed to trying to stick to the Bible? I don't buy it. Either the Rapture is in the Bible, or it's not. Since it's false, it's not. Therefore, the idea did not originate in Scripture, but in man-made corruption of Scripture. Man-made corruption of Scripture is not a "uniquely Protestant" phenomenon.

As I understand it, the Assumption of Mary is based on the fact that, since no one knew where she was buried, she must have been assumed directly into heaven.

"Way to argue from a position of ignorance."
" With logic like this it's no wonder there are protestants in the world."

Hey, if you guys don't believe your own stuff, how do you expect to convince anyone else?

At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, when bishops from throughout the Mediterranean world gathered in Constantinople, Emperor Marcian asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem to bring the relics of Mary to Constantinople to be enshrined in the capitol. The patriarch explained to the emperor that there were no relics of Mary in Jerusalem, that "Mary had died in the presence of the apostles; but her tomb, when opened later . . . was found empty and so the apostles concluded that the body was taken up into heaven."

Hey, if you guys don't believe your own stuff, how do you expect to convince anyone else?

At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, when bishops from throughout the Mediterranean world gathered in Constantinople, Emperor Marcian asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem to bring the relics of Mary to Constantinople to be enshrined in the capitol. The patriarch explained to the emperor that there were no relics of Mary in Jerusalem, that "Mary had died in the presence of the apostles; but her tomb, when opened later . . . was found empty and so the apostles concluded that the body was taken up into heaven."

Oh, so we are to believe that the apostles saw Jesus' empty tomb, to which the Scriptures ably testify, but then they failed to record anywhere (except in the mythical infallible church tradition) that they also found Mary's empty tomb. This is remarkable.

Perhaps if true it shows they didn't have such a high view of Mary after all.

Or perhaps the good partiarch was a bit tipped.

The patriarch explained to the emperor that there were no relics of Mary in Jerusalem, that "Mary had died in the presence of the apostles; but her tomb, when opened later . . . was found empty and so the apostles concluded that the body was taken up into heaven."

Bet that sets off the RCs. Their Assumption dogma insists that Mary was assumed bodily into heaven without dying.

The EO's and RCs can hash that one out.

So any crazy idea that any Protestant has can be attributed to trying to stick to the Bible? I don't buy it.

That is another argument, and a much longer one at that. Let's stick to the Rapture in particular.

Either the Rapture is in the Bible, or it's not. Since it's false, it's not.

Those who hold to the belief contend that it *is* in the Bible. And in defense of their position, they point to Scripture. This is an observable fact.

Therefore, the idea did not originate in Scripture, but in man-made corruption of Scripture.

That it is a man-made corruption of Scripture I will take as a given. However, in all fairness, it has just as much root in Scripture as does any other Protestant innovation, such as 'Faith Alone'.

Man-made corruption of Scripture is not a "uniquely Protestant" phenomenon.

No, but the Rapture most certainly is. And for the record, I did not say that "man-made corruption of Scripture" was "uniquely Protestant". What I said was that the rapture theology was uniquely Protestant. The belief is only espoused by those in the Premillennial camp. As I pointed out elsewhere (on this very thread), Millennialism (aka Chiliasm) was kicked to the curb in the 4th century. It was picked back up by Protestants. More to the point, it is their rejection of Tradition (Sola Scriptura) that has allowed them do do this. Had Protestants held to the Tradition of the Church, Premillennialism would not be a topic and, by extention, niether would the Rapture.

In short, Sola Scriptura is the root cause of any current Rapture debates.

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.