Alibris Secondhand Books Standard

Monday, September 10, 2007

why i will not be raptured, part ii

In part i, four months ago, I erroneously said that rapture proponents claim Matthew 24:37-42 as support for the rapture doctrine. That was incorrect. Rapture proponents do not claim that Matthew 24:37-42 supports the rapture. They do, however, claim that Matthew 24:32-34 does. (This is just one of the reasons I can't buy into the whole rapture thing. What kind of theology builds doctrines on isolated snippets forcibly removed from their original context?)


Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near--at the doors! Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.

- Matthew 24:32-34





There are two sets of "these things" in Matthes 24:33-34. If you fail to distinguish between them, you will not understand what our Lord said. They are definitely not the same. The first "these things" in verse 33 refers to the tumultuous events begun by verses 7 and 8. The second "these things" refers to the prophetic future, including the Tribulation and the glorious appearing of Christ.

- Tim LaHaye, Are We Living in the End Times? p. 57




Why does LaHaye believe this?


The key is found in verse 34. Jesus said, "This generation will by no means pass away until all these things [the second "things"] are fulfilled." The crucial issue concerns the meaning of "this generation," for whatever generation He had in mind would not pass away until the Second Coming occurred.

In Greek, the demonstrative pronoun haute (this) always refers to the person or thing mentioned immediately before it. The thing mentioned just before "generation" involves those who see the sign of Israel as she either becomes a recognized nation or when she takes possession of most of Jerusalem.

- Tim LaHaye, Are We Living in the End Times? p. 58




How does LaHaye get all this from Matthew 24:32-34?


Many prophecy students interpret this passage to mean that when we see the rise of Israel as a nation (as we did in 1948), we will know that the time of the end is "near--at the doors." They reason that when a fig tree is used symbolically in Scripture, it usually refers to the nation Israel. If this is a valid assumption (and we believe it is), then when Israel officially became a nation in 1948, that was the "sign" of Matthew 24:1-8, the beginning "birth pains"--it means that the "end of the age" is "near."

- Tim LaHaye, Are We Living in the End Times? pp. 56-57




How does LaHaye extrapolate all this from "fig tree"?


chirp, chirp, chirp

- crickets



A quick Bible search on the phrase "fig tree" turns up a number of different symbolic uses, some of which clearly refer to Israel, and some of which just as clearly do not. But none of them, as far as I can tell, mention the modern secular Israel founded in 1948. So to recap, LaHaye is saying, essentially, that "these things" in Matthew 24:34 refers to a different "these things" than the same words in verse 33, and that the fig tree in verse 32 refers to Israel, but to a different Israel than the one of Jesus' day.

This is the same guy, recall, who has said, "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense, but take every word at its primary literal meaning, unless the facts of the immediate context clearly indicate otherwise."

Common sense would tell me that the phrase "these things" used twice in consecutive sentences refers to the same things both times. Common sense also tells me that the words "fig tree," in a literal sense, refer to a fig tree. But I don't have LaHaye's sophisticated theological training.

So much for Matthew 24. On to the biggies.


Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

- 1 Corinthians 15:50-52



Of all the verses we've looked at, this appears to be the most promising yet as support for the rapture doctrine. With its talk of the dead being raised and such, it sounds very much like an end times verse.

And indeed it is. The problem for LaHaye's theology is that this passage cannot refer to a secret rapture.

Recall LaHaye's rationale for splitting Christ's second coming into two events:


The first is the Rapture, when all living and dead Christians will be snatched up to be with Christ in the Father's house. The second is for all the people of the world, who will be judged for rejecting Christ. The first is secret, for a special group; the second is public, for everyone left on the earth. They are entirely distinct events!

- Tim LaHaye, Are We Living in the End Times? p. 104




LaHaye insists that the rapture is "secret, for a special group," yet 1 Corinthians 15:52 speaks of a trumpet -- twice. (Presumably in LaHaye's theology these are two distinct trumpets, but that's another issue for another time.) An event heralded by a trumpet blast is not a secret.

What's more, the larger passage clearly indicates (verse 42) that this is the resurrection of the dead -- not a secret snatching away of the faithful. The passage ends with the promise, "Death has been swallowed up in victory." In LaHaye's theology, the rapture marks the beginning of seven years of tribulation -- hardly a time for a victory celebration.

No rapture yet, and we've only got one verse left.


But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, about those who have died, so that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have died. For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have died. For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel's call and with the sound of God's trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord forever. Therefore encourage one another with these words.

- 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18



Surely, if the rapture is taught anywhere is scripture, it is taught in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. The very word rapture comes from the Latin translation of harpazo ("caught up") in verse 17.

Unfortunately for Tim LaHaye and other rapture proponents, this passage suffers from the same problems as 1 Corinthians 15:51-52. The phrase, "with a cry of command, with the archangel's call and with the sound of God's trumpet," hardly sounds like the way to keep a secret. But then there it is: "we... will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will be with the Lord forever." So the Bible does teach the rapture after all.

Or does it?

If Christ is returning to earth, and believers meet him to "be with the Lord forever," then regardless of what it means to be caught up in the clouds, the believers must be planning to return to the earth with Christ.

There's more. Bible scholar Barbara Rossing puts it this way:


Paul's description of "meeting" the Lord in the air employs a very specific Greek word for greeting a visiting dignitary in ancient times: apantesis, a practice by which people went outside the city to greet the dignitary and then accompanied him into their city. The same word is used in Matthew 25:6 to describe the bridesmaids who go out to "meet" the bridegroom and then accompany him into the feast, and also in Acts 28:15 to describe the Romans who go out to "meet" Paul as he arrives in their city.

- Barbara Rossing, The Rapture Exposed p. 176




In both Matthew 25:6 and Acts 28:15, those who "meet" the arriving person then turn around and escort him to their home. So 1 Thessalonians 4:17 ought to be understood in the sense of believers leaping up into the clouds -- perhaps in ecstasy at his return -- to welcome Christ and accompany him back to earth.

Here's how Orthodox archbishop John Chrysostom put it:


If He is about to descend, on what account shall we be caught up? For the sake of honor. For when a king drives into a city, those who are in honor go out to meet him; but the condemned await the judge within. And upon the coming of an affectionate father, his children indeed, and those who are worthy to be his children, are taken out in a chariot, that they may see and kiss him; but those of the domestics who have offended remain within. We are carried upon the chariot of our Father. For He received Him up in the clouds, and “we shall be caught up in the clouds.” (Acts i. 9.) Seest thou how great is the honor? and as He descends, we go forth to meet Him, and, what is more blessed than all, so we shall be with Him.

- John Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 Thessalonians, Homily #8



Chrysostom clearly understood this passage to refer to a king returning to a city to pass judgment. To those "who are in honor," the king's visit is a happy occasion, but to those who are condemned, it is a somber one. There is no need to invent a second return of Christ: The same occasion can seem very different to people who have different perspectives.

John Chrysostom understood the New Testament in a way that Timothy LaHaye -- or you and I -- never could. LaHaye may have studied NT Greek in seminary, but Chrysostom learned it as an infant. As a native speaker of ancient Greek, Chrysostom -- like the other leaders of the early church -- was more in tune with the thought processes of the New Testament writers than we will ever be. And not one of the ancient Greek-speaking Christians ever suggested that there would be a secret rapture of the faithful before Christ's ultimate return. I'll take their word above a modern self-styled prophet any day.

The Left Behind series has proven to be wildly popular fiction. But personally, I'm not going to get caught up in all that hype.

Labels: , , ,

8 Comments:

At 9/11/2007 2:47 PM, Blogger mom huebert said...

Thank you; that was well done. You laid it all out nicely and I enjoyed following your train of thought.

I was raised on the theology of the Rapture-- in fact, I can remember going home from church on many Sunday evenings scanning the night sky, scared to death, because the pastor had said "Jesus might come before you get home tonight."

I also remember once coming home from school to an empty house-- unusual, since my mother was always home-- with unfinished cake batter on the counter, and being sure that the Rapture had occurred and for some reason I had missed it.

As an adult I learned that there are several sides to this issue and I began studying it for myself. My conclusions are inconclusive, and I am not sure what to believe, but I figure, when it happens I'll know which is right!

 
At 9/14/2007 12:40 PM, Blogger Andy said...

In Greek, the demonstrative pronoun haute (this) always refers to the person or thing mentioned immediately before it.

It always gets my hackles up when people refer to the Greek when addressing an audience that, for the most part, doesn't know Greek. With a lot of preachers it seems to me that it means "I played around with a concordance and drew the following conclusion". For all I know, LaHaye knows Greek better than that, but what he says here is nonsense.

The Greek word "haute" means (mostly) the same thing as the English word "this". It is, as he says, a demonstrative pronoun, and exactly like demonstrative pronouns in English, the writer has a pretty fair amount of freedom in what it refers to. The reader generally has to use context to figure it out. Or, in LaHaye's case, they can use pre-conceived theological frameworks and ignore context, but in that case, they're likely to be wrong.


Excellent analysis on your part, Bruce. That quotation from Chrysostom really nails it.

Of course, the introduction of the ancient Greek Christians does bring with it the issue of chiliasm in the ancient Church....

 
At 9/14/2007 12:43 PM, Blogger Andy said...

BTW, my wife was raised in a church that taught rapture, and she has stories exactly like the one Mom Huebert relates about coming home to an empty house. She says it terrified her.

 
At 9/15/2007 4:52 AM, Blogger Monk-in-Training said...

At the core, Rapture theology is built on fear, and control of people's actions. A poor foundation for a deep, living spirituality.

I have never understood how a literalistic reading of "this generation" doesn't mean the generation that Jesus was talking too! And what a wonderful fulfillment of prophecy the 70 AD destruction of the Temple was!

 
At 9/21/2007 9:05 PM, Blogger Timothy said...

Good post, well written. I remember when I first began being interested in Christian theology (around 14-15) I read Tim Lahaye's "the rapture". Even though back then I 100% believed in pre-tribulation rapture and all that stuff, I remember thinking the book must be written for stupid people (i was more blunt back then haha), full of assumptions and empty rhetoric.

By the way, I apologise for not linking back to your blog, I only just realised you were linking to mine, it should be fixed now.

 
At 10/23/2007 2:46 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am one of "Those" people you all are speaking of. I believe in a rapture and am not stupid, fearful, controlled, or lacking a firm foundation for deep spiritual living.

I have different beliefs than you do, but that does not make my personal relationship with God any less real, or sound than yours.

From what I have read in these comments, it seems that all of you (with your namecalling) are just as in need of a firm spiritual foundation as I am.

That being said, I am not afraid to be raptured or to be left behind. I figure that God pretty much knows what he's doing so it's okay to trust Him regardless of what or how it happens, much the same as life on this earth regarding the possiblity of good or bad happening.

Also, I believe it is very possible that scripture can have layers of meaning. Maybe it was immediately fulfilled back then. However, it is okay to believe that there could be another fulfillment to come. If we can be clever with words, why couldn't God have given these words to represent more than one instance?

In answer to "Monk in training," "this generation" is often seen as post-Christ by conservative churches. Therefore, it would include all the people from Jesus time until now that are believers--if that helps.

Side note: I also don't know any conservative Christians who actually take the Bible 100% literally. It is not so black/white, it's more of a spectrum that some people fall closer to one end and others closer to the other end. Maybe that info will help you feel less polarized from believers who are down the spectrum from you.

Anyway, hope it helps to hear the perspective of someone with a bit of a different view.

Meant to be respectfully,
NAA

 
At 10/25/2007 11:31 PM, Blogger BruceA said...

Also, I believe it is very possible that scripture can have layers of meaning. Maybe it was immediately fulfilled back then. However, it is okay to believe that there could be another fulfillment to come. If we can be clever with words, why couldn't God have given these words to represent more than one instance?

I agree with you; in fact I think Christians must believe that some parts of the Bible have more than one application. Unfortunately, this is exactly what Tim LaHaye says we cannot do. His first rule of interpretation is, "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense, but take every word at its primary literal meaning, unless the facts of the immediate context clearly indicate otherwise." (emphasis added)

A Bible passage ought to be understood not just in its own immediate context, but in the larger context of Scripture, and in the still larger context of the culture in which it was written, and in the even larger context of the whole of God's interaction with humanity.

I'm glad you can see multiple meanings in a single Bible passage; my criticism is not of you but of those who refuse to do so, and who assign literal or figurative meanings at whim in order to suit their preconceived theology.

In my opinion, that's what "secret rapture" proponents do.

 
At 1/19/2009 11:56 PM, Blogger Robert said...

The Church with its pagan practices [x-mas, easter , haloween etc. etc.] will be taken to heaven as a bride? You must be blind !

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home