I am posting the following after watching a series of videos on the subject of competing Rapture Theories and eschatology (study of last days or end times). There are a number of notions or ideas that become glaringly visible:
1. Each of the "theories" or doctrines is complex and convoluted. Each have their issues and honesty seems to go out the window once those issues are pointed out.
2. There are a number of agreements that all of these theories share. I would hope that as Christians we could take a strong and long look at that list of agreements and land on our feet with each other in unity rather than division.
3. Some people want to lift their theory so high that their view on whether a person is saved or not is determined on if they agree or disagree with the theory. This breaks the unity of the Church of Christ and is simply untenable.
I hope that you will read this through and find your favorite pet rapture theory and read with honesty the problems with it. My hope is that you can dial-back your own internal pressure to believe one way or another and focus on the only Person who matters: Jesus Christ and Him in us and in each other, including you.
RAPTURE DOCTRINES OR THEORIES
----
1. Pre-Tribulation Rapture Theory
2. Mid-Tribulation Rapture Theory
3. Post-Tribulation Rapture Theory
4. Partial Rapture Theory
5. Pre-Wrath Rapture Theory
6. Pan-Tribulation Rapture Theory
7. No Rapture Theory
8. Dispensational Theory
----
BULLET LIST OF COMBINED PROBLEMS
- Lack of explicit biblical support
- Discrepancies in chronological interpretation
- Differentiation between wrath and tribulation unclear
- Unresolved debates around the sequence of end-time events
- Theory may encourage complacency among believers
- Undetermined criteria for 'partial' rapture
- Disagreements over 'literal' vs 'figurative' interpretation of scriptures
- Assumes divine favoritism or partiality
- Departs from traditional eschatological understanding
- Overemphasis on Israel in Dispensational Theory
- No compatibility with historical church teachings
- Contradictions between theories regarding timing
- Challenges in linking Old Testament prophecies and New Testament teachings
- Difficulty in reconciling suffering and God's promise of deliverance
- Inability to justify the absence of church in Revelation-tribulation
- Contradicts believers' persecution expectation in No Rapture Theory
- Pan-Tribulation Rapture Theory's non-assertive stance criticised.
- Overlaps and contradictions among different theories.
----
BULLET LIST OF COMBINED AGREEMENTS
- Belief in Christ's second coming
- Perspective of end times as prophesied in the Bible
- Existence of a period of tribulation
- Faith in divine judgment and rewards
- Belief in a real, historical, future event, not symbolic
- The centrality of Christ in the end times
- Belief in resurrection of the dead
- God’s ultimate victory over evil
- Jesus will establish His kingdom on earth
- Agreement on the importance of individual readiness and vigilance
- The concept of rapture, except for the No Rapture theory
- Certainty of God's sovereignty over end times.
----
OVERVIEW
The rapture is a concept in certain strands of Christianity, particularly within branches of American evangelicalism, consisting of an end-time event when all Christian believers who are alive, along with the resurrected dead believers, will rise in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air. The main theories of rapture include:
1. Pre-Tribulation Rapture Theory: This is the most popular belief about the rapture among modern Christians. It explains that Christians will be removed from the earth before the period of tribulation, often associated with the reign of the Antichrist and the widespread suffering of innocent people.
2. Mid-Tribulation Rapture Theory: This doctrine believes that the rapture will take place in the middle of the tribulation period. Proponents often cite 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 and interpret the 'Great Tribulation' in Revelation 7:14 as the second half of the Tribulation.
3. Post-Tribulation Rapture Theory: Post-tribulationists believe that Christians will not be taken up into Heaven, but will be received or gathered by Christ into the Kingdom of God on earth at the end of the Tribulation. They will be protected throughout the whole tribulation.
4. Partial Rapture Theory: This theory suspects that not all Christians will be raptured before the tribulation period. Only those who have been faithful and obedient to Christ would be saved before tribulation.
5. Pre-wrath Rapture Theory: This is a relatively new view that proposes the rapture will occur during the tribulation period before the seventh seal is opened, which marks God’s wrath.
6. Pan-Tribulation Rapture Theory: This theory suggests that it will all pan out in the end, with the general idea being that believers should live faithfully and leave the details to God. They believe that the exact timing of the rapture is not as important as maintaining a faithful Christian walk.
Each of these theories depends on different interpretations of prophetic scriptures, mainly from books like Daniel, Thessalonians, and Revelation. Some Christians also do not believe in a rapture, viewing it as a misinterpretation of biblical prophecy.
The six theories provided above are the main recognized viewpoints regarding the doctrine of the rapture in Christian eschatology. However, within these broad categories, there can be variants and interpretations based on different theological viewpoints or denominational teachings. It's also important to note that not all Christians subscribe to a belief in the rapture.
In addition to these six, there's also the:
7. "No Rapture" Theory: This theory holds that the rapture isn't literal but symbolic, or that it was a doctrine that emerged in more recent Christian history and doesn't have biblical support. It's important to note this view, as it represents a significant part of Christianity, including most of the Catholic, Orthodox and mainline Protestant traditions.
8. Dispensational Theory: While this isn't a rapture theory per se, it's significant because this viewpoint introduced and helped popularize pre-tribulation rapture theory in the 19th century through the Scofield Reference Bible. The dispensational view of biblical history divides it into (typically seven) "dispensations" where God tests humans' obedience to his revealed will.
Remember that these theories often overlap, and believers may hold views that combine elements of multiple theories. Beliefs vary widely and can depend on factors such as denomination, region, and personal interpretation of the Bible.
----
HISTORY
The doctrine of the rapture does not appear in Christian teachings during the initial centuries following Jesus Christ's life. The concept, especially in its pre-tribulation form, mainly originated from the interpretations of Bible prophecy made by John Nelson Darby, a 19th-century theologian.
Darby was a prominent figure of the Plymouth Brethren movement in Ireland and England. He propagated his version of premillennial dispensationalism, which taught that Jesus Christ would return twice: first to "rapture" his church, and secondly to establish an earthly kingdom. This view was relatively new, with no clear or specific expression in church history before Darby.
In the U.S., the doctrine of the rapture became popular in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, due in a large part to the publication of the Scofield Reference Bible, which included commentary promoting dispensationalism and the pre-tribulation rapture.
Opinions differ on whether there are authentic traces of a "rapture" doctrine before Darby, with some rapture proponents claiming to find precursors in earlier writings, while others unquestioningly date the doctrine’s emergence to Darby or his contemporaries. Either way, most would agree that its popularization occurred primarily in relatively recent Christian history.
MOREOVER ...
While the idea of "rapture" in Christian theology is believed to have originated in the 19th century with John Nelson Darby, a prominent Irish evangelical preacher and a central figure in the development of Christian fundamentalism—prior to Darby, there indeed seem to be some instances where similar notions might be identified, but they do not appear to constitute a comprehensive doctrinal stance or theory.
For example, a form of "rapture" appears in the teachings of certain sects of medieval Christianity. The 12th-century group known as the Cathars believed in a form of spiritual ascension, akin to a "rapture". Yet, this was not identical to the modern idea of the rapture as generally understood, which involves quite specific beliefs about the end times and the second coming of Christ.
There is evidence among early Christian writers such as Irenaeus of Lyon and Hippolytus of Rome who wrote about a bodily assumption into heaven, similar in broad strokes to what later would be called the "rapture". Once again, though, these examples are a far cry from a comprehensive "rapture theory". They simply suggest that elements of such a theory may have existed prior to Darby without being fully developed or synthesized into a cohesive theology.
In the 16th century, a puritan theologian named Increase Mather, though not explicitly using the term 'rapture', discussed a concept that was very similar, arguing that believers would be caught up in the air to meet Christ.
Furthermore, in 17th century England, a puritan preacher named Morgan Edwards proposed a theory closely resembling the modern doctrine of a pre-tribulation rapture, although it is much debated whether Edwards was indeed discussing the "rapture" as it is understood today.
On a closer examination of writings before Darby, it is apparent that certain elements of the rapture theory did exist, though they varied widely and were often piecemeal, isolated, or associated with other beliefs. The foundation for belief in the ‘rapture’ as we understand it now, was laid by Darby or his contemporaries in the 19th century, but the threads of evidence leading to this belief are seen in the generations leading up to this time. Therein lies the need for the modern Christian to explore and understand the historical complexity surrounding the doctrine of the 'rapture'.
----
PROBLEMS WITH PRE-TRIBULATION RAPTURE THEORY
1. Lack of Biblical Explicitness: The main issue for many people with the Pre-Tribulation Rapture theory is that it's not explicitly stated in the Bible. The idea is derived from various passages interpreted in a certain way, but some theologians argue that it's a stretch to directly attribute it to biblical text.
2. Chronological inconsistency: Critics of the theory argue that the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels, particularly in the Olivet Discourse, seem to place the gathering of the elect after the Tribulation period, in contrast to the Pre-Tribulation placement.
3. Misinterpretation of Thessalonians: Theologians who oppose the theory often refer to a misinterpretation of Paul's letter to the Thessalonians. Some scholars argue that "caught up" in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 could be clarified as "caught up in clouds" which symbolize divine presence, not a physical location in the sky.
4. Modern Origin: The theory is generally accepted to have originated in the 19th century from the teachings of John Darby, a British evangelist. Critics believe this late appearance in Christian theology undermines its credibility.
5. Faith and Perseverance: Some Christians argue that the Pre-Tribulation Rapture theory negates the teachings of the Bible concerning faith and perseverance during times of great trouble. It might foster a sense of escapism, rather than endurance and faithfulness in times of tribulation.
6. The Problem of the "Secret Rapture": A logical problem is the notion of a "secret rapture" where people are suddenly taken without others knowing, but this contradicts passages about Christ's return being visible and known to all.
7. Selective Salvation: The theory may also imply that God is inconsistent in saving His followers from hardship and tribulation, considering that many Christians throughout history have faced severe persecution.
8. Over-complication: The division of the Second Coming into two separate events (the rapture and the return) can be seen as unnecessary complication, adding layers to the eschatological timeline not clearly depicted in scripture.
9. Literal vs Figurative Interpretation: Critics argue that the Pre-Tribulation Rapture theory often asserts a literal interpretation of certain apocalyptic scriptures, although these passages frequently employ symbolic and figurative language. Such literal readings can lead to misunderstandings.
----
PROBLEMS WITH MID-TRIBULATION RAPTURE THEORY
1. Lack of Clear Biblical Evidence: As with all theories about the Rapture, there is no explicit biblical reference to a Mid-Tribulation Rapture. The concept is an interpretation of different biblical passages, leading to potential disagreements around its validity.
2. Timing Inconsistencies: Critics argue that the timing of the Mid-Tribulation Rapture theory doesn't align with Jesus' teachings in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 about the sequence of end-time events, which suggest a post-tribulation return.
3. Conflicting Interpretations: The Mid-Tribulation Rapture theory can be inconsistent with other eschatological understandings, like the three-and-a-half years of peace following the Rapture. In this theory, the Rapture coincides with the breaking of the peace agreement by the Antichrist, which can be seen as a contradiction.
4. Over-complication: Critics argue that dividing the Second Coming into two events (the Rapture and Christ’s return) over-complicates eschatological events. The Mid-Tribulation view adds further complication by putting the Rapture in the middle of the Tribulation period.
5. Misinterpretation of the "Seventh Trumpet": The Mid-Tribulation view often interprets the seventh trumpet in Revelation 11 as the point of the Rapture. Critics argue this could be a misinterpretation, as various scriptures indicate that the last trumpet signifies the end of the Tribulation period, not the mid-point.
6. Encouragement of False Hope: This view might give Christians the false hope that they will escape the worst part of the Tribulation, which could make them ill-prepared to face significant sufferings.
7. Failure to Endure: Similar to other rapture theories that propose an escape from the Tribulation, Mid-Tribulation theory is critiqued for ignoring biblical teachings about the need for believers to remain faithful and endured through trials and tribulations.
8. Inconsistent with History: Much like other Rapture theories, this theory faces the challenge of explaining why many Christians have faced persecution and horrible trials throughout history yet a special group will be spared in the future.
9. Lack of Universal Acceptance: This theory, like other Rapture theories, is not universally accepted among all Christian denominations and scholars, leading to divisions and disagreements within the church.
----
PROBLEMS WITH POST-TRIBULATION RAPTURE THEORY
1. Inconsistency with Biblical Timing: The primary problem with the post-tribulation rapture theory is that it contradicts the timeline organized in the Book of Revelation. According to a sequential reading of Revelation, the rapture must occur before the tribulation.
2. Contradiction with Imminence: The post-tribulation theory contradicts the principle of imminence, which states that the rapture could happen at any moment. If the rapture were to happen post-tribulation, then there are specific events that must occur first, thereby negating the idea of imminence.
3. Issues with Divine Wrath: According to scripture, God's faithful believers are not designated for wrath. However, the post-tribulation rapture implies believers will be present during God's display of wrath upon the earth.
4. Lack of Biblical Evidence: Many theologians argue that there is no clear biblical evidence pointing towards a post-tribulation rapture. Scriptures mostly suggest that Christ will return after the tribulation, but that doesn't exactly translate into a rapture.
5. Dual Resurrection: If the rapture is post-tribulation, it implies two separate resurrections - one at the rapture and one at the end of the age. However, the Bible only speaks of a singular resurrection event.
6. Threatens Believer's Encouragement: The theory, if true, suggests that believers will have to endure the horrors of the tribulation. This is discouraging and unsettling to those who believe in an imminent, pre-tribulation rapture.
7. Redundancy in Christ's Return: If the post-tribulation theory is correct, it essentially involves Christ returning twice - once to rapture the church, and once to establish His millennial kingdom.
8. Discrepancy with Matthew 24: The post-tribulation theory fails to correctly correspond with the events mentioned in Matthew 24 where the "elect are gathered from the four winds" immediately after the tribulation.
9. Less Motivation for Watchfulness: The belief in a post-tribulation rapture might lessen a believer's motivation to watch and be prepared for Jesus' return, as they could believe they have more time if they are waiting for the tribulation first.
10. Violation of the Last Trumpet Theory: Post-tribulation rapture supporters cite “the last trumpet” in 1 Corinthians 15:52 as occurring at the seventh trumpet judgment in Revelation. However, this would mean that the church would still be present on earth through most of the tribulation, in contradiction to scriptures that indicate the church will not face God's wrath.
----
PROBLEMS WITH PARTIAL RAPTURE THEORY
1. Scriptural Inaccuracy: The Partial Rapture Theory is not universally accepted among Christian scholars because the Bible doesn't explicitly support this view. Passages like 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 suggest all believers, not just some, will be raptured at the same time.
2. Denies Unity: The theory implicitly suggests that there are two types of Christians - those who are worthy and those who are not. This contradicts the Biblical teaching of the unity of all believers in Christ, the idea that all sins are forgiven and not weighed against each other for judgment.
3. Contradicts Grace: The Partial Rapture Theory contradicts the foundational Christian concept of salvation by grace, not by works. It proposes that only the 'good' Christians will be raptured, implying a works-based salvation.
4. Disagreement among Supporters: Even among those who believe in Partial Rapture Theory, there is no consensus about which believers will be taken and which will be left behind.
5. False Assurance: The theory might lead to a false sense of security among believers who think that they have done enough to be raptured and can become complacent in their spiritual growth.
6. Encourages Judgment: The Partial Rapture Theory encourages believers to judge who will be worthy of rapture, which again contradicts biblical teachings.
7. Creates Division: The theory unnecessarily creates divisions within the Christian community regarding who is more or less deserving of salvation.
8. Encourages Fear and Uncertainty: The partial rapture theory may cause fear and uncertainty among Christians, making them anxious about their worthiness for rapture or causing them to doubt their faith.
9. No Repentance Required: According to this doctrine, believers who are left behind have another chance for salvation during the tribulation period. This contradicts the concept of repentance, suggesting one could 'wait' to repent until after the rapture.
10. Omits Resurrection: The doctrine concentrates on the rapture of living saints and neglects the simultaneous resurrection of dead saints, which is a vital part of the end-time events described in the scriptures.
----
PROBLEMS WITH PRE-WRATH RAPTURE THEORY
1. Lack of clear biblical evidence: The most significant issue with the pre-wrath rapture theory is the absence of clear, unambiguous scriptural evidence supporting this view. It relies heavily on interpretations and assumptions.
2. Misinterpretation of Scripture: Critics argue that proponents of the pre-wrath rapture theory often misinterpret or misconstrue biblical text, especially passages from the books of Daniel and Revelations.
3. Distorts the nature of the tribulation: This theory can distort the nature of the tribulation, making believers fear that they will have to endure part of it before being whisked away, undermining the assurance of God’s rescue from coming wrath.
4. Timeline events: The pre-wrath rapture theory proposes a partial rapture of the church during the tribulation period. This contradicts the traditional interpretation of events taking place in sequential order, which could be confusing and lacks thorough justification.
5. Contradicts traditional eschatology: The pre-wrath rapture theory contradicts traditional eschatological teachings that Jesus will return only once, at the end of the tribulation, which contrasts the pre-wrath belief that He will rapture His believers midway.
6. Becomes sensational and fear-based: Critics argue that this theory tends towards a sensationalistic and fear-based approach to Bible prophecy, seeking signs of the End Times and focusing on God's wrath, rather than His love and redemption.
7. Segmentation of Believers: The theory proposes that only ‘worthy’ believers are raptured before wrath, implying that some Christians will be left behind to endure God's wrath. This segmentation is not explicitly supported in the Bible.
8. Encourages speculation: The pre-wrath rapture theory can foster excessive speculation about the exact timing of the rapture, distracts believers from the central message of the gospel, and can lead to disputes among Christians.
9. Concept of God's Wrath: Critics argue that the pre-wrath rapture theory misunderstands the nature of God's wrath, equating the tribulation period almost entirely with God's wrath.
10. Depicts God as Unloving: Critics also argue this theory presents an image of God who does not have a loving, protective character towards His church, allowing them to undergo severe tribulation before rescuing them.
----
PROBLEMS WITH PAN-TRIBULATION RAPTURE THEORY
1. Lack of Biblical Evidence: One of the primary issues with the pan-tribulation rapture theory is that it lacks explicit biblical evidence supporting it. Most of the scriptures cited as proof are open to interpretation and are not clear cut in favour of a pan-tribulation rapture.
2. Inconsistency with Theological Concepts: It contradicts several theological concepts including the nature of God, His promises to His people, and His overall plan for humanity.
3. Unclear Definition of "Pan-Tribulation": The term "pan-tribulation" is vague and doesn't clearly define the timeline of events according to the book of Revelations.
4. Fear and Anxiety: The pan-tribulation rapture theory can lead to unnecessary fear and anxiety among believers who are concerned about suffering through tribulation.
5. Focus on Suffering: This theory shifts the focus from the hope and glory of Christ's return to the suffering and despair of the tribulation period.
6. No Encouragement to Preparation: The pan-tribulation rapture theory does not encourage believers to prepare for Christ’s coming since it posits that people will all be taken up at once, regardless of their spiritual state.
7. Neglect of Current Issues: Many critics argue that focusing on end-time events and rapture can lead to neglect of current issues that need attention, such as social justice, poverty, and environment.
8. Creates Division: The debate surrounding rapture theories often creates division among believers, hampering unity and common understanding.
9. Conflicts with other End-Times Views: The pan-tribulation rapture theory conflicts with other popular end-times views, such as pre-tribulation or post-tribulation raptures.
10. Gives False Assurance: Some critics argue that the pan-tribulation rapture theory can give believers false assurance. They might think that they will not face any tribulation or persecution, which is not guaranteed in the Bible.
----
PROBLEMS WITH NO RAPTURE THEORY
1. Lack of Biblical Support: One of the main criticisms with the no rapture theory is the perceived lack of direct biblical support. Critics argue that the Bible neither explicitly mentions a rapture nor does it provide clear and specific references to such events.
2. Doesn’t Align with Traditionally Held Beliefs: Many argue that the theory doesn’t align with the traditional Christian belief of a second coming of Christ and the resurrection of the dead.
3. Rejects Premillennialism: The no rapture theory generally rejects premillennialism, the belief in a literal thousand-year earthly reign of Christ prior to the eternal state, which some believe is clearly taught in the scripture.
4. Negation of Hope: The teaching of 'no rapture' negates the hope for Christians that they will not have to endure the tribulations prior to the second coming of Christ.
5. Interpretation of Scripture: Some critics of the No Rapture theory argue that it relies on a figurative interpretation of several passages of scripture, rather than a literal one, which is inconsistent with the way the rest of Bible is usually interpreted.
6. Doesn’t Explain Jesus’ Promise: In John 14:1-3, Jesus promises to return and take believers to heaven with him. Critics of the no rapture theory argue that this promise can't be fulfilled if there is no rapture.
7. Stance on Suffering: Critics argue that the no rapture theory seems to imply that Christians must suffer through the end times, whereas other views propose that Christians may be spared from this suffering.
8. Imminence of Christ’s Return: The belief in no rapture contradicts the traditional Christian belief in the imminence of Christ's return, i.e., he could return at any moment.
9. No Comfort for Believers: The rapture provides believers with hope and comfort for the future. Without the promise of a rapture, this comfort and hope is eliminated.
10. Difficulty in Reconciliation: The no rapture theory can be difficult to reconcile with other end times events described in the Bible, such as the tribulation and the millennial reign of Christ.
----
PROBLEMS WITH DISPENSATIONAL THEORY
1. Over-Literal Interpretation: One of the key criticisms of dispensationalism is its tendency to interpret the Bible too exclusively and rigidly in terms of literalism, which can result in overlooking the allegorical, moral, and spiritual meanings of Scripture.
2. Dividing God’s People: Dispensationalists are criticized for dividing God's people into distinct groups - Israel and the Church - and suggesting that they have entirely different destinies, which seems inconsistent with the unity of God's people in scripture.
3. Predictive Prophecy: It focuses heavily on predictive prophecy, leading to speculation about the end times which many believe is unhealthy and not the main focus of the Bible.
4. Escapist Theology: Critics argue that dispensationalism fosters an "escapist" mentality among believers, encouraging them to focus more on the imminent return of Christ and less on engaging with the problems of the world around them.
5. Limited Grace: It is criticized for suggesting God’s grace is limited to certain “dispensations," thereby overlooking instances in the Bible where God's grace transcends dispensational boundaries.
6. Inconsistency with Theological Systems: Some critics argue that dispensationalism’s specifics are inconsistent with other theological systems, such as Covenant Theology.
7. Overemphasis on Separation: The dispensationalist’s focus on separation of the Church and Israel can lead to lack of empathy or indifference towards ongoing conflicts in the Middle East.
8. Reinforcement of Dual Covenant Theology: This theology can propagate the concept of Dual Covenant Theology, which suggests that Jews can still attain salvation through the Abrahamic or Mosaic Covenant, leading to accusations of anti-Semitism.
9. Tendency toward a Strict Futurist Understanding: This strict futurist interpretation of scripture often leads to exaggerated expectations and claims about future events, which often do not come to pass.
10. Altering the Understanding of God's Character: Critics suggest that dispensational theory alters understanding of God's character by suggesting that He changes His methods of dealing with people across different eras. This is perceived to conflict with scriptures that emphasize the unchanging nature of God.