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
Thank you for the book titles. I haven't read those but I sure will! I love to read those kinds of books. I was just cleaning out some of my book shelves today as I am getting ready to move and found some I hadn't read in years. They are in the pile to be reread!
Excellent way to explain the Trinity.
Ping
It is the word used to describe the process found in 1 Thess 4: 17After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18Therefore encourage each other with these words.
In that verse, the word for "caught up" is the Greek word harpazo (harpgesometha). That Greek word in Latin is rapiemur....and it's obvious how the English rapture is related to the Latin "rapiemur."
So, it's inappropriate to say that "rapture" does not appear in the bible. It certainly does.
What you might want to say is that you disagree with a premillennial doctrine of the rapture, because you, as a Catholic, have been primarily taught an amillennial doctrine.
I am not Catholic and I don't accept them.
The "sola scriptura" of your average American evangelical is NOT the actual sola scriptura taught by the 16th Century Reformers.
The original sola scriptura respected and obeyed tradition--when it supported or at least did not contradict scripture. The idea was scripture alone is infallibly authoritative--which logically doesn't say scripture alone is the ONLY authority, just the only infallible one. You see this idea reflected in the more traditional of Protestant churches....Lutherans, Anglicans, and Presbyterians (especially evangelical ones) all honor various ancient traditions (the word "trinity" is one...) which are supportive of (and supportable by) scripture.
The modern Roman idea of Tradition, on the other hand, makes it into a competing "infallible" authority--which they follow many times even in spite of clear scriptural teachings to the contrary.
Modern American evangelicals however, tend to throw the baby out with the bath-water however--giving no heed or honor to tradition, ignoring what Christians have done and taught throughout the last 2000 years. This distortion of "sola scriptura" is typically what Roman Catholics criticize (often rightly).
I prefer the original definition of sola scriptura--as taught by the Reformers, and the idea taught and practiced in the patristic era of the Church.
Sorry about that.
So the rapture gets the series of events wrong and put the cart before the horse?
Ahhhhhhhh, yes, they did such a good job of that during the Inquisition.
And, they did such a good job of that during the reigns of the corrupt and immoral Popes.
And, they did such a good job of that all the times they adjusted doctrine and practices to insure more income; more political power; more land grabs; more idolatry; . . .
And that doesn't begin to get into their daring to ascribe to Mary the status of co-redemptrix as though Chris't Blood was insufficient or her life equal to His Blood shedding on The Cross.
The list of examples of their travesties in such matters is quite a long one.
I can't imagine remotely beginning to respect your logic in such matters. It's built on sand--and quicksand at that.
Oh that hurt because it is so in error. The ecumenical Those 7 councils were where the bishops of the all the churches met to discuss, debate and vote on doctrine - even those that were in the minority (like Arian) were given a chance to prove their position and put it to a vote. If they lost the vote they accepted the verdict of the majority (as Arian did). It had nothing to do with those issue you brought up.
In 784 the imperial secretary Patriarch Tarasius was appointed successor to the Patriarch Paul IV, he accepted on condition that the intercommunion with the other churches should be reestablished, that is, that the images should be restored. However, as a council claiming to be ecumenical had abolished the veneration of icons, another ecumenical council was necessary for its restoration. Pope Adrian I was invited to participate and gladly accepted.
Kind of resembles the amendments to the constitution in regard to ending prohibition does it not?
The Council numbered about 350 members; 308 bishops or their representatives signed. Tarasius presided, and seven sittings were held in Nicaea. Proof of the lawfulness of the veneration of icons was drawn from Ex. xxv.17 sqq.; Num. vii. 89; Heb. ix. 1 sqq.; Ezek. xli., and Gen. xxxi. 34, etc.
So you see to get the doctrine changed those present had to prove it using facts from the bible and convince the assembled and then put it to a vote. Very democratic - very republican.
It does not explain Trinity. Trinity is beyond our comprehension. It also does not suggest how the three Hypostases interact, the monarchy of the Father, the precedence of the Holy Ghost, the Divine Economy of the Three.
It merely states out-of-context phrases. These phrases can be read and interpreted in various ways. The fact remains that the word "Trinity" does not appear in any shape or form in the Bible and is therefore not biblical.
All the heresies that sprang up in the early 2nd century and continued onward about the nature of Christ only testify to the confusion that existed among many believers as to the nature of God, even after the Bible was canonized.
Trinity was defined by the Church, not by Rome. The Church was not ruled by Rome (better yet the Roman bishop and patriarch) as is the case with Roman Catholic churches today.
What the church canonized as scripture means nothing to me. The " assembling" of the books means nothing to me
The "assembling" was not some meanial clerical work of soemone collecting ready-made material and sowing them into one neat book. The process involved centuries of active selection of multitudes of texts and deliberately selecting those deemed inspired while rejecting those deemed profabe with equal certitude.
Those who assembled the Bible, so that you can now quote from it, knowing that it contains only true and inspired sources of knowledge, but by no means all there is to know, had to know that which is true and that which only appears true.
There were many, many "gospels" and various Gnostic and pagan works and other heresies. Somone had to distinguish betwen the heresy and the true teaching, accepting without a fail that which was orthodox and rejecting without a fail that which was not.
I don't for a minute think that all the Councils and all their actions were Spirit Led.
I believe God essentially had His way with the Canon.
But even the disciples did not vote on a new replacement for Judas. They cast lots.
I'm not at all convinced that democracy is how God's will is to be decided.
But, as you should probably know, I was not speaking of the councils particularly or only. I was speaking of a vast sweep of centuries of the actions and traditions of the Roman group. The Inquisition didn't have anything to do with the councils.
If one can't face the historical truths of one's primary reference group . . .
how on earth
can one BEGIN to discern when that primary reference group abides by GOD'S TRUTH and when it takes a flying leap into error or rank heresy???
It's a little bit like facing the truths of one's family of origin. If one grows up in a dysfunctional family [and who doesn't these days?]; One is not likely to become a full fledged adult fully functioning in reality and THE TRUTH
UNLESS AND UNTIL
ONE HAS FAIRLY FULLY FACED THE FLAWS, ERRORS, LIES, TRUTHS OF ONE'S HORRID CHILDHOOD.
Destro
Well, now that I know that you’re not Catholic (several times) you do raise an interesting point. Some people interpret the scriptures one way (those who posted on believing the rapture). Some posted on interpreting scriptures another way (those who posted on not believing the rapture). Some posted on not accepting certain traditions (like you who posted against indugents and purgatory). And I’m sure our Catholic friends would say that these traditions (indugents and purgatory) are true.
The bottom line in all of this is that there are some things which are very clear (like our Lord Jesus is the Son of God) and some things not so clear (like the rapture). Hopefully, we all have the clear things down.
AMEN!
I still believe that it is highly unlikely for an all knowing, almighty God to
make an eternal life or death issue
out of something He left ambiguous in His Word.
Just doesn't fit His nature, His character.
And people who get on their pharisaical soap boxes about how ambiguous word meanings
JUST HAVE to fall down on THEIR side of things [without any significant definitional, grammatical, linguistic support for such]
are allowing far too much of their arrogance to show.
imho, of course.
I’m sorry but I have to agree with Quix on this one. In the very early formation of the church the vote was by majority. Everything had to be approved unanimously. This is how the books of the New Testament were pass-by a unanimous vote. It was later changed to a majority rule vote-something that is not proper in the church. In fact as posted on another thread here, the Nicene Creed, something the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church has some contentions about, was passed by a majority vote as early as 350+AD against the wishes of the Eastern Orthodox.
I know only a small amount of about the Orthodox beliefs. But there is sufficient proof that many of the Council's theological decisions (especially 1000+ AD and on) were made to keep people attending and to keep the funding coming in.
That should be:
In the very early formation of the church the vote was by NOT BY majority. Everything had to be approved unanimously.
Purgatory in itself is not really different form the Partial Judgment except that it is unthinkable for an Orthodox Chirstian to think that souls of the deceased would be tortured by flames to God's "satisfaction." The Orthodox do not dwell on Jesus' suffering as much as on His triumphant Resurrection. We do not see God returning evil with evil but rather to the last breath of each human being extending a chance to save him, and so on. Indulgencies exist in the Orthodox Faith, but they are not redeemable with money. They are intended to help a person repent -- and never repeat the sins by changing his life.
There was no Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic when the Creed was put together in the 4th century. The Church was one, and catholic in its worship and teaching, not Roman Catholic as you know it today. The pope (the patriarchal title of the bishop of Rome) was one of the five patriarchs of the Church. He did not rule the Church, nor did he have juridical power over other bishops or patriarchs. He did enjoy the place of primacy of honor.
The dispute of the Creed started to take shape early. The Latin side of the Church and some Greek theologians started to refer to the Holy Ghost as proceeding from the Father and the Son (the famous Filioque) which was not part of the Creed as set by the first two Ecumenical Councils. There was a good reason for that: the Greek distinguishes procession from the fource (well, spirng) as opposed to proceding through. To the Greeks, the Filioque seems to suggest two causes two sources, which directly changes the monarchy of the Father, Who is the cause of all.
The Church never voted by majority against the original Creed, as it was finalized before 350 AD, as you seem to suggest. Your facts are incorrect. The practice of inserting "and from the Son" continued in the West and was made pulic at the (local, not ecumenical) Council of Toledo in the 6th century. The popes never sanctioned the use of that change of the Creed until after the Church split.
In the 9th century the 8th Ecumenical Council was held in whic, on the urging of the Frankish zealots, the Filioque was endorsed and the bishop of Constantinople (Photius) condemned. Ten years later the same Eight Ecumenical Council was held because the first one was annulled, Photius was restored and the Filioque rejected. Both the latin and the Greek side of the Church agreed on that, including the pope. To this day, theere is a Greek language Creed on the walls of the Vatican -- without the Filioque.
The Potestants often bring up Inquisition, indulgencies and papal immorality. The Church never held that its individual lay members and clergy are sinful and some gravely sinful at that. These individuals do not make the entire Church corrupt and sinful.
We disagree with the Vatican on the papal authority, which is not historically defensible. The Church Synods (Councils) were passed despite papal objections in the united Church. The princly position of the pope is unknown to the primitive and united church.
The East has not been influenced by St. Augustine (thank God!) or by humanism and/or Rennaisance. Our concept of God is different from the western, which is heavily influenced by pagan Greek philosophy, when God's "pride" is offended (!) by our unworthy transgressions. In the East we tend to see God as hurt the way a parent is hurt seeing his child, with great potential, go astray.
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.