Messianic Congregation Shema Yisrael Boise Idaho Article A Short History of the Rapture

Congregation Shema Yisrael

Articles

Back to the Articles Page

Download this article as a PDF

A Short History of the Rapture

by James Pyles

Then there will be two men in a field - one will be taken and the other left behind. There will be two women grinding flour at the mill - one will be taken and the other left behind.
-Matthew 24:40-41 (The David Stern translation of the Complete Jewish Bible - CJB)

When we say this, we base it on the L-rd's own word; we who remain alive when the L-rd comes will certainly not take precedence over those who have died. For the L-rd himself will come down from heaven with a rousing cry, with a call from one of the ruling angels, and with G-d's shofar; those who died united with the Messiah will be the first to rise; then we who are left still alive will be caught up with them in the clouds to meet the L-rd in the air; and thus we will always be with the L-rd.
-1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 (CJB)

For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body, according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself.
-Phillipians 3:20-21 (New King James Version - NKJV)

In case of rapture, this car will be unoccupied.
-Bumper Sticker

I was reading Matthew 24 and 25 and came across 24:40-41 as quoted above. The words "left behind" cause the Tim LaHaye series to come to mind the way any word or phrase made famous by a well known publication would occur to you every time you read it. I've never read any of LaHaye's books or seen the movies made from them, but I have for years held a general opinion that the concept of the rapture may not be quite what it seems to be in modern Christian theology. I realized though, that I'd never researched the topic and so didn't have a particularly valid foundation for holding an opinion of any kind. Thus, this article was born.

The rapture in general is an accepted Christian belief that states that all Christians alive at the time the Messiah is about to return to the Earth will bodily be taken up into heaven, leaving behind those people who are not believers. Then a great tribulation will occur as largely described in the Book of Revelation, where these "left behind" people will have the opportunity to repent and become believers, but nevertheless, suffer the difficulties that will occur during this time.

There is some disagreement as to exactly when the rapture will occur with some saying that it will occur before the tribulation begins and the rise of the AntiChrist and others stating that it will occur about halfway through the tribulation but before the worst part of it. There is a group that does believe that the rapture will not occur pre or mid-tribulation and that everyone will endure the troubles at the end of times before witnessing the return of the Messiah.

The last is a minority point of view and I suppose for good reason. After all, it's human nature to want to avoid anything that's painful and to desire rescue. The tribulation and rapture is preached in many, many churches as a valid, Bible-supported theology so why not believe it's true? The real question though is, where did this theology come from?

My "litmus test" for any theology is the Bible. That is, given a particular theology, can it be supported by Biblical reference? I know what you're thinking. Just about anything can be supported by the Bible if you bend the interpretation far enough. That's true, however beyond a certain point, these far out interpretations lose all credibility to what we think of as the "mainstream" church, which is why we don't fall for the lines and predictions of every "fly-by-night" prophet who says the Messiah will return on this date or that.

So where is the Biblical evidence for a pre or mid-tribulation rapture? First of all, let's revisit 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17. I have no trouble believing in the return of the Messiah out of the heavens just as described here and that we believers will be lifted bodily to meet him. That said, all by itself, I can't see where it says that we are all immediately taken into heaven nor see that the timing must be such that we will escape all or most of what is called the tribulation, leaving the rest of humanity behind. The rest of the chapter and book goes on, but doesn't describe what actually happens immediately after this event. Is all this information found elsewhere in the Bible?

Let's take a look at the rapture itself first in terms of scripture and then see if we can find a Biblical basis for it's timing. The commonly accepted Biblical references in support of the rapture are:

The passage from John is Yeshua describing his Father's house having "many mansions" and how he is going to prepare rooms for us. 1 Corinthians describes our "resurrection bodies" and the passage from 2 Thessalonians is as follows:

Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way.
-2 Thessalonians 2:1-7 (NKJV)

This doesn't seem to particularly describe the rapture but does describe the coming of the "man of sin" (which is also translated as "man of lawlessness"). While these passages do support events that will occur soon before the return of the Messiah, they don't seem to be directly associated with any sort of escape from the tribulation; at least in terms of the direct meaning of the text. The timing for the tribulation is largely taken from the "70 weeks" prophesy from Daniel 9 and 12 and is mentioned in Matthew as follows:

For there will be trouble then worse than there has ever been from the beginning of the world until now, and there will be nothing like it again. Indeed, if the length of this time had not been limited, no one would survive; but for the sake of those who have been chosen, its length will be limited.
-Matthew 24:21-22 (CJB)

Matthew is what really ties these two concepts together and we'll get to that in a moment, but now that we've established the basic Biblical support for a pre or mid-tribulation rapture, it's time to look at its history. Just how long has the church held this belief?

As it turns out, not very long in terms of the overall history of the church. The doctrine of the rapture first gained popularity in the 1830s and in more modern times, really took off in the 1970s, thanks to books such as Hal Lindsey's "The Late Great Planet Earth" (sort of the "Left Behind" of its time). That's kind of surprising if the evidence has been available in the Bible for thousands of years. That means that the rapture concept has only been in existence as a doctrine for about 175 or 180 years and has enjoyed a resurgence in the church only for the past 30 years or so.

One of the classic "tests" for a doctrine is whether or not it was supported by the early church fathers and as far as I can tell, this one wasn't (although, I don't agree with all of the doctrines supported by them...such as their stance on the Shabbat). Actually, whether or not any of the church fathers supported this doctrine is hotly debated in theological circles which tells me that it's not a foregone conclusion. That being the case, combined with the fact that the established history of the doctrine is so recent and that the Biblical support isn't particularly concrete...especially the pre or mid-tribulation parts, I think that this belief at the very least, need a lot more investigation before any one just accepts it out-of-hand (and ends up putting a bumper sticker on their car).

The main argument against a pre or mid-tribulation rapture seems to be what one source refers to as the "yo-yo effect". The idea of meeting Yeshua in the air is that he has to come first. Yet, the timing of the pre-tribulation rapture is stated as "before" the coming of the AntiChrist (man of lawlessness) but that's long before the coming of the Messiah. Does he have to come twice, first to take us up and then to go into battle?

Modern doctrine states that the tribulation is a seven year period with the pre-tribulation rapture occurring just before the tribulation begins and the mid-tribulation rapture occurring after the first 3 1/2 years of the troubles, which would be after the Seventh Seal is broken and before the death and resurrection of the two witnesses. The Messiah isn't supposed to return until somewhere in that second 3 1/2 year period and there's no Biblical record that his second coming happens twice. Also, in Revelation 6:9-11 (just after the Lamb breaks the fifth seal), who is under the altar saying "Sovereign Ruler, HaKadosh (literally "the Holy"), the True One, how long will it be before you judge the people living on earth and avenge our blood?" If all of the believers were taken up in a pre-trib rapture, there shouldn't be anyone left on earth to martyr themselves for the sake of the Messiah (though this doesn't rule out a mid-trib rapture).

Actually, I suppose it could be people who were "left behind" originally that came to faith afterwards, but it is a glaring inconsistency nonetheless. Speaking of "left behind", we have yet to address the passages in Matthew that directly use that phrase. From the plain meaning of the text, it does seem that some people will be taken and others will be left behind. What was Yeshua talking about when he said that?

The answer is in the context of Matthew 24 and 25. If you'll read those two chapters, you'll realize that this is one, long, unbroken narrative given by the Messiah to his disciples.

When he (Yeshua) was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the talmidim (disciples) came to him privately "Tell us", they said, "when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that you are coming, and that the 'olam hazeh' (the present world) is ending?"
-Matthew 24:3 (CJB)

Let's take chapters 24 and 25 apart and see what we can make of what the Master is saying within the context of his entire narration.

Why take the passage of 24:36-44 (the basis for the rapture in terms of the phrase "left behind") and separate it from the context of Chapters 24 and 25? The sequence in these two chapters describes Yeshua speaking at one place and one time. There's no interruption between any of the words he speaks in any of the verses of these two chapters. It seems reasonable then to say that he's saying the same thing, over and over, in different ways, trying to get his disciples to understand. So if he's talking about one person being taken and the other left behind and just a minute or so later, talking about people being separated to the right and to the left, why can't these be the same acts and the same people? Read these two chapters yourself in the context of what I've written here in this article and see if you don't view what is being said in a different light.

Am I stirring up trouble? Probably. Well...maybe not as much as you might imagine. The doctrine of a post-tribulation rapture is a valid one in the church, so perhaps I'm not saying anything different than what these folks are saying. Still, I don't see any bumper stickers out there that say "In case of rapture, the Messiah will have already come and the tribulation will be over with", so perhaps a few people might have some concerns about my position.

Am I right? Or, more to the point, does the information and references cited in this article successfully refute a pre or mid-tribulation rapture? I think so, but I'm also willing to believe that I can be wrong. If I can be wrong, we do I bother writing this?

There are a couple of reasons. The first is that, my way of understanding my beliefs is within the context of the Bible. I have to be able to find it in the Bible and Biblical support of my beliefs has to be such that I don't have to bend the rules of logic completely out of shape to see the belief represented in text. The pre and mid-tribulation rapture just doesn't seem to be completely evident relative to the text, at least not without having to read a great deal between the lines.

The second reason for writing this is that I'm worried. I'm worried about who knows how many believers who are hanging their faith on this doctrine. What happens when the troubles Yeshua talks about in Matthew begin to occur and those who have been counting on a pre-tribulation rapture are still here. What happens when they (and we) begin to really suffer? What will happen to their faith? What happens after the Seventh Seal is broken; after the AntiChrist defiles the Holy Temple in Jerusalem and declares that he is the Almighty; after the fall of Babylon? These are all events that take place during the second 3 1/2 year period of the tribulation (assuming we have that part right) and if we're all still here, it shoots down the mid-tribulation rapture doctrine.

I'd like to think that the faithful will remain the faithful, regardless of the destruction of such a popular doctrine but people have lost their faith for less. It's important for us to challenge our own beliefs by critically examining them through the lens of the Bible. If our beliefs are sound, then they'll be in the Bible and if they aren't, we need to seriously re-examine what we truly believe. Questioning the validity of a pre or mid-tribulation rapture is hardly the same thing as questioning your faith in the Messiah. After all, we study the Bible for a reason beyond just intellectual curiosity or spiritual wish-fulfillment.

While doing the teaching for Parashot Vayechi during a recent Shabbat service, I said that the reason we study Torah is so we can learn to recognize the Messiah when he comes again. In the portion of this parashot, when Jacob is blessing Judah, he gives a wonderful Messianic prophesy that you can see repeated in other parts of the Tanakh and fulfilled in Matthew and Revelation (read the teaching notes for all the details). We study the Bible so we can be prepared. Like the bridesmaids and their oil lamps Yeshua talks about in Matthew 25, we have to be ready and not "asleep at the switch", so to speak. We also have to make sure our children are ready.

After all, who says we are the generation who will be alive when the Messiah returns? What if it's our children's generation instead? Part of the Shema says to teach the Torah to our children "when we sit in our homes, when we walk on the way, when we retire, and when we arise...". When the Torah is read in our congregation, our children are there. Sure, they are coloring in coloring books or playing with toys but don't be fooled; they're also listening. This last Shabbat, the person who teaches our children's class wasn't available so the children listened to the teaching as well.

Whether it's us or our children or our children's children, the time will come for the Messiah to return. Many difficult days are ahead for that generation and they have to be ready. We must study the Bible and teach others to study as well. We must not only teach our children the Bible but we must teach them to study and teach them how to study. Many will fall away and if we want to be the faithful remnant, we need to make sure our faith hangs on solid information and not just the doctrines that happen to be popular at the time. If I'm wrong and there is a pre or mid-tribulation rapture, I'll be pleased and relieved, of course. If I'm right then at least I (or my children or their children) will be prepared, with the Almighty's help and it being His will.

A Note About Sources

As you scroll down, you'll see that Wikipedia is my primary source for this article (the other sources are all Biblical and have been cited in the body of this work). Why Wikipedia and no "theological" sources? Frankly, there's a certain "ease of use" in terms of accessing Wikipedia. It's also generally well respected and accurate. When sources cited by Wikipedia are sketchy, they make it plain, so you know when they're rock solid and when information is a tad soft. Also, Wikipedia doesn't have a theological bias. Citing theological sources involves working through their theologies and doctrines to get to the core information. If you come across sources for this information that you believe are more accurate, please email me and let me know. I'd love to view them.

Sources

 

Back to the Top

Back to the Articles Page