Question for Christian theologians

My admittedly limited understanding of Christian theology doesn't allow me to answer this question, or even tell if there IS a definative answer.

I have heard that the Rapture is a 19th century development in Christian thought. Does this doctrine form a part of orthodox (small "O") Christianity or is it a heresy or somewhere in between?

 

You'll find your answer, I believe, in The Rapture Exposed: The Message of Hope in the Book of Revelation by Barbara R. Rossing.

"The real goal of the book of Revelation," said Rossing in a recent interview, "is to comfort and inspire Christians to a vision of hope. In the early Roman Empire, when it looked like violence was getting out of hand — much like things today — it was a message to people that the empire would not last much longer and that the Emperor was not the one in charge of the world. Jesus is in our midst, but He is not the avenging warrior Jesus. Jesus is the lamb who is leading us to a different way of life—one espousing love."

Rossing writes in her book that the rapture idea is only 170 years old; and that most people don’t realize this, believing, instead, that it was something that, perhaps, the Apostle Paul or some other biblical figure preached. But Rossing repeats the story wherein a 15-year-old girl named Margaret MacDonald had a vision about the rapture in Scotland in 1830. It was later amplified by a man named John Nelson Darby, who spread the rapture idea.

"I don’t know how seriously to take the Margaret MacDonald story," Rossing said. "I think Darby genuinely believed what he was saying about the rapture. But he did invent the notion of the two-stage return of Christ; that is, a rapture of believers and then a return as a sort of warrior king. The Apostle Paul never taught this. No other biblical figure did, either. Prior to Darby, there was no one teaching a line between the so-called rapture and the so-called 7-year period of tribulation, with a second coming of Christ. This was all new, and it began in the 1830s.

"The traditional church certainly believed in Jesus’ second coming and in the resurrection. However, they did not believe in a two-stage second coming. But the "rapture" was a new word. The traditional church has always believed in Christians going to heaven. However, not for just seven years. The entire concept of the rapture as constructed by Darby was not believed by the traditional church."

Stating that she didn't know where Darby even got the idea in the first place, Rossing argues that the entire dispensational system is a fabrication of Darby, whose biblical interpretation was far from reliable.

"He (Darby) was the founder of the Plymouth Brethren," Rossing said, "and he certainly took his missionary work very seriously. But he wasn’t reliable in his biblical interpretation. He was simply wrong."

Rossing then cites the Scofield Bible as having helped promote the rapture idea as we know it today.

"The Scofield Bible, which is a version of the King James Bible, sold millions of copies in the 1900s in this country," said Rossing. "It is accompanied with notes and interpretations by Cyrus Scofield, who based many of them on rapture theology. Thus, his notes on the prophet Ezekiel, for example, and his notes on the book of Revelation use the framework of Darby’s dispensationalist rapture viewpoint to make comments on biblical passages. However, the thing is an annotated Bible and appears to be very authoritative. It looks like that is what the biblical passages are saying, but in actuality it is what Scofield is saying, not the Bible.

"We all use the annotated Bible. I order them for my students and recommend them. However, I would not recommend the Scofield Bible. I would use the Oxford Annotated Bible or the Harper Collins Bible. Annotations per se aren’t bad, but we need to remember that annotations are not the authoritative words. They are just the commentators’ interpretations.

"The Scofield Reference Bible, more than anything else, sold the idea of the rapture to mainstream America. Most fundamentalist churches teach it. However, the rapture theology has never been the traditional teaching for Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians or Methodists.

"(The rapture) mainly comes from references in the Bible to the resurrection of the dead. That is found in Corinthians where St. Paul is talking about how Jesus was raised from the dead as the first proof and that we all will be raised or resurrected. But resurrection is not the same as rapture. People such as LaHaye ... try to make it the same, but it is not. Resurrection of the dead is the traditional Christian teaching.

"There’s also Thessalonians 4:17, where the Apostle Paul is writing about resurrection. He starts out this little section stating that since Jesus died and rose again, God will bring with him those who have died. Thus, the context of these passages is resurrection (not rapture). The people in Thessalonica were worried because some of their relatives had died before Jesus’ second coming. They wanted to make sure that they wouldn’t be separated from their relatives. So Paul wrote that when Jesus returned to earth, the dead in Christ will rise. This is the passage: 'We who are alive who are left will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air.' That is why Christ is returning to earth. This is Jesus’ second coming. The emphasis is that all of us participate in going to greet Jesus. But it’s not a rapture or a snatching of people up to heaven for seven years.

Pointing out that the word "rapture" is not even in the bible, she points out that people tend to get the idea from that verse; and from the presence of the word rapturo in the Latin Bible.

"They say that is where they get rapture from, but it definitely is not in the Bible," she points out.

"The Rapture is a Racket," Rossing boldly declares as the very first sentence of her book, continuing, "Whether prescribing a violent script for Israel or survivalism in the United States, this theology distorts God's vision for the world. In place of healing, the Rapture proclaims escape. In place of Jesus' blessing of peacemakers, the Rapture voyeuristically glorifies the violence of war. In place of..."

Continue reading by clicking here.

Click here to read the entire interview.

Barbara R. Rossing is an associate professor of New Testament studies at the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago (ELCA). Before joining the seminary's faculty in 1994, she served a congregation in Minnesota, was assistant and acting director for Global Mission Interpretation for the American Lutheran Church, pastor at Holden Village Retreat Center, Chelan, WA, and chaplain at Harvard University Divinity School.

Ordained in 1982, Rossing has lectured and preached widely in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), including keynote lectures at Women of the ELCA theological conferences, global mission events, and synod assemblies. Rossing received the Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree from Carleton College, Northfield, MN; the master of divinity (MDiv) degree from Yale University Divinity School, and the doctor of theology (ThD) degree from Harvard University.

 

I saw an interview with Chris Hedges (on PBS NOW) who basically said Rapture is a recent invention being pushed by dominionists (http://blog.case.edu/mxs24/2005/05/12/jews_israel_and_the_rapture)

I have one acquaintance who believe strongly in the Rapture (but who also belives that 911 was a US govt plot, that we never went to the moon, and that aliens landed at Roswell).

 

So educated Christians who accept the doctrine consider it to be a "new" revelation directly from God? How does this fit with established Bible scholarship?

Thank you for your patience; remember that Torah (meaning the five books of Moses) never even mentions end times, heaven, hell, or an afterlife.

 

The basis of this question all goes back to the idea of "how far back in time do we want to go in order to find a basis for our current beliefs"? If we accept the principle that ancient desert nomads and their oral tradition, since transcribed into texts resembling the Old Testament, is the truth - then I say go with the original! If, on the other hand, we believe that mankind has learned a thing or two since those days of animism and primitive sociological relationships/tribal structures I would seriously question any and ALL of the bases for modern religions.

As for the rapture? What a bunch of right-wing theological twisted BS invented by a cabal of self-serving ideologues that is!

If you can read Revelation, seriously read it, and tell me where it says Rapture and where it says all the crap about the "end times" that seems to be common knowledge among the religious right in this country then I will eat my hat and join your ranks as another fire-breathing idiot out for the demise of democracy and all that is good in life.....

Sheez...... how's that for Christian Theology 101?

 

Carl,

You'd be very much at home in a Reform congregation.

 

For those who don't know what's being discussed, there is a Christian doctrine, with vast Scriptural support--Carl's entirely predictable and ill-informed rant notwithstanding--that in the end of time, there will be a period of great tribulation. There will be an evil man, posessed of Satan, who will come into the world to deceive people into believing he's G-d. He's popularly and Biblically known as the Antichrist. He will step into a very turbulent world situation and establish peace. He will be greatly revered for this seeming miracle, present himself as an angelic man of enlightened understanding, and catapult to world rulership. This is much the same tactic that the Nazis used very early in the War when invading Eastern Europe: show surprising kindness and deference to the Jews at first, lull them into a false sense of security, then only later reveal their true intentions and tighten the noose on them. Elie Wiesel recounts these techniques that he experienced in his memoirs "All Rivers Run to the Sea".

The Antichrist will rule the world for a seven year period, the former half in relative and welcome peace, but the latter half with nazi-esque oppression, state-sanctioned murder, and ever-increasing natural and man-made disasters that will destroy a good deal of the population. The disasters foretold in the book of Revelation sound strikingly like a man with first century understanding telling of a vision he was given of a future world where global thermonuclear war occurs. For example, he tells of something "like a huge burning mountain" being thrown into the sea, "hail and fire mixed with blood" being thrown to the earth and one-third of the earth being burned up, a "burning star falling to the ground" polluting one-third of the waters, a third of the population dying almost immediately. Coincidentally, most modern predictions of the effects of a global war of this nature would be approximately one-third of the population being immediately or shortly thereafter destroyed.

Many Christians--but not all--believe that those believers in Jeshua (Jesus) as Messiah will be taken away from the earth, caught up to be with the L-rd G-d, before these disasters occur. This notion is not 170 or 180 years old, but is as old as the New Testament.

Here are some Scriptural references for this proposition:

1 Thessalonians 4:13-18
1 Corinthians 15:51-53
Revelation 3:10

There are also various references by Jeshua to this coming period of Tribulation in the Gospels and quite possibly the rapture: for example, Matthew 24 and Luke 17 contain a description of the end times events, the disasters, the deception of the Antichrist as well as the following references:

In Matthew: "Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left."

In Luke: "I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left."

Many Christians, using 1 Thessalonians, 1 Corinthians and the Revelations references above, put these passages together for the proposition that there will be a pretribulation rapture of believers. This doctrine has scriptural references and some powerful evidence for it, but it is not accepted by all believers, and it's been discussed and debated for generations. My wife, for example, does not believe in a pretribulation rapture, while I'm on the fence, but lean somewhat towards the notion.

It's such a confusing theological area--perhaps G-d didn't want anyone to be able to stamp the answer to this one in stone, for reasons of His own, but who am I to know His mind?--that thoughtful believers cut both ways. The word "rapture" appears neither in the New Testament nor the Hebrew Scriptures. But one notion to disabuse yourself of is that it's some brand-new concoction, without textual support, the mere rant of a deranged woman 170 years ago. That's simply not true.

 

I don't know about the idea of a rapture and tribulations being a reletively new idea, but I do know that Revelations 6:8 ends with the angels being given "dominion over a quarter of the world and the power to kill by war, by pestilence, by famine and by the beasts of the earth."

Spin whatever interpretations you like, that doesn't sound very hopefull or loving to me. It sounds like the end times.

 

YES! Well said! I couldn't agree more. Sorry I didn't just blurt out something like that in the first place. (It certainly would have been more in character.)

But one with which I wholeheartedly agree, nevertheless.

As for the rest of what you, and RobbCD, wrote...

In reiteration, I would strongly urge anyone (who cares about this subject) to read Barbara Rossing's book for a thoughtful and credible treatment of virtually every single thing that anyone's ever written or said about "Rapture," generally; and about how to read the book of Revelation. It will help take the angry, fundamentalist edge off this otherwise hopeful book of the bible.

To get a bit of a feel for it, Rossing's course on how to read Revelation (which is available on VHS video tape) is divided into 8 one-hour parts:

1. Introduction to Apocalypse
   
2. Seven Letters: Cues to Revelation's Original Audience
   
3. "Lord and God:" Revelation's Throne Liturgy as Imperial Parody
   
4. "How long, O Lord?": Subversive Songs for a New Exodus
   
5. Feminine figures and the Feminist Critique
   
6. Torn Between Two Cities: "Come out" of Babylon
   
7. Millennium: Your invitation to Priesthood
   
8. "Let All Who Thirst, Come:" God's New Jerusalem vision for Today[/list=1]
   Her popular "Rapture Racket" seminar (also available on VHS tape; and intended to be something of a companion to her book) is divided into three parts (approximately 20 minutes each):
   1. The Problem
      
   2. What the Bible Says
      
   3. The Real Message of Revelation[/list=1]She really knows what she's talking about; and once one understands her perspective, it's difficult to see things any other way; or to not be able to easily recognize truly twisted and almost hateful way that angry, desk-pounding, bible-thumping fundamentalists misinterpret it, and then employ it as just one of many means of using the bible as a weapon.
      
      May I also recommend yet another excellent book: "Apocalypse: A People's Commentary" by Pablo Richard. (Click here to read an excerpt.)
      
      To get a copy of Rossing's eight-part "How to Read the Book of Revelation" video tape set ($45.00); or to obtain her three-part "The Rapture Racket" video tape seminar ($20.00), contact the ELCA's SELECT office at 614-235-4136, ext 4021; or send an email to the SELECT office at the ELCA's Trinity Lutheran Seminary.

 

Ms Rossing is but one vehemently anti-literalist voice in the debate--she's by no means the final word. She's fairly well known for what can only be described as visceral disgust with any who view the Scriptures from a conservative theological perspective. This is not suprising coming from a mainstream Lutheran seminarian and former Chaplain at Harvard University Divinity School--that bastion of conservative Christian theology! There's nothing new here, her views are perhaps more stridently one-sided and dismissive of what's actually in the Bible--as opposed to what she'd like to be there--than the most mouth-frothing end-of-the-world zealots.

The real question is whether the many, many pronouncements in the Scriptures about the dire consequences at the end of the age by Messiah in the Gospels, in Ezekiel, Daniel, I Thessalonians, I Corinthians, the Revelation of John, etc., are literally true in that they really foretell the end of the world; are metaphorical in that they tell us something about the condition of ancient man and his desperate state apart from G-d; or are just complete balderdash, the blatherings of primitive, superstitious ancients who should be utterly disregarded as a guide to us moderns.

My bet is that a significant percentage of liberal theologians, scholars, and church leaders just think the whole works in nonsense, all of the Scriptures, but since they exist within a framework--their church or denomination--that at least nominally regards them as authoritative, they fashion them to mean whatever makes them feel most warm and snuggly. But that's not serious exegesis, and it's dastardly scholarship.

The Scriptures are what they are; Messiah is what He is: sometimes providing comfort and sometimes providing a swift kick. But to quote Ted Koppel, "truth is often not a polite tap on the shoulder, but a howling reproach".

 

I very well may check out Rossing, because now I'm curious to know how the dire situations described in Revalations can be anything other than, well..... dire.

 

And that's a very good point.

When one reads the Revelation of John, or reads the very direct words of Messiah regarding the end times recounted in Mark, Luke and Matthew, one becomes aware of the mental and theological gymnastics that must be undergone to explain it all away, to say that the Scriptures don't really say that which they very obviously do say. Then one is struck by the fact that one side in the debate--peculiarly, the very side undertaking these tortuous twists of logic--accuses the other side of distorting the Bible to serve their own worldly ends, whether they be Zionism or American world domination or love of violence and war. It's rather breathtaking.

 

Well Carl, with one fell swoop of the pen you have just insulted millions of sincere Christians with deeply held convictions.

You may not agree, but don't insult in the process!

I know and have known many in the faith who consider themselves moderates and even liberals who hold belief in the Rapture.

Why does everything always have to be a "left-right" issue with you?

 

Um. It was not my intention in starting this thread to get all you Christians shooting at each other. All I was hoping to learn is whether the Rapture is a part of traditional Christian belief or a modern development. So,which is it?

 

I have always been curious as to why letters are sometimes omitted as you did. Could you explain?
Thanks.

 

Let me give you a thoroughly Hebraic answer: BOTH.

It was always there in the Scriptures, though it's not all that clear-cut. It has emerged as a theology in the church over the last couple centuries, but not as a result of hand-waving and unbiblical revelation, but rather as a reasonable interpretation of the Scriptures as they've come to us. But in my opinion, reasonable people can disagree; again, it's not an easy part of the Bible upon which one can get a firm grasp, such as the doctrine of salvation by grace rather than good works--that's pretty clear-cut, the rapture theology is not.

But what's not reasonable and points to axe-grinding blindness, is when one smugly intones that "The rapture is a racket".

 

Glad to--Third Commandment. To paraphrase: Don't take G-d's name in vain. I do not believe that I would per se be committing some blasphemy by spelling it out, I'm just following an ancient Jewish tradition; I'm Messianic by practice. [Messianic in that I'm one who worships Jeshua (Jesus) as Messiah and accepts Him as the only means to get to Heaven, but who also follows Jewish traditions such as Pesach (Passover), believing that G-d established these as an "everlasting ordinance"--which He did. My family also celebrates Shabbat (Sabbath) from sundown Friday until sundown Saturday, the traditional way, with my wife lighting two candles, blessing the family, remembering the L-rd. Our modern Sunday Sabbath came from that regrettable break with the Jews.]

Modern Christianity has thrown out the baby with the bathwater with our practices. We've rejected our Jewish roots, rejected our status as spiritual children of Abraham--much akin to reaching out with a saw and cutting away the branch upon which you sit.

 

And I want to add, now, that my agreement therewith was with the use of the word "Rapture" (and all that connotes), as dreamed-up by Darby; and as since twisted by fundamentalists into a violent and wrong-headed theology. The thread-starting post asked specifically about the Rapture, not about whether the book of Revlation, generally, was heresy. My issue is with "Rapture" theology. The book of Revelation, when read and interpreted properly, isn't really about what fundamentalists would like us to believe it's about... at least not they way they color it.

Why not? If it's a flawed perspective, insult is the least it should expect.

Liberals? Hmm. I dunno. Maybe if they've never really tried to look at it another way, I suppose; otherwise... I doubt it.

And me! And the answer, for me, anyway, is: Because they usually are.

We're not... not really. It's a never-ending debate... and one that's interesting, at least to me. I like reading little fauss's take on it. I'm not saying I agree, but it's good stuff... gotta' admit that. As long as you brought it up, why did you bring it up? I mean, what made you wonder about it at this particular moment?

A relatively modern development. Clearly. But others disagree..

Good, 'cause I don't agree that the "Rapture," as it is commonly understood, derives from a reasonable interpretation of scripture; or that the "Rapture" actually has all that much to do with the real message of the book of Revelation.

I'm not even sure I agree with that (that it's not so clear cut, or that it's particularly difficult to get a firm grasp on it)... though I concede that those would be much easier things you've written here with which I could agree. But I believe that the color of one's glasses greatly influences what one gets from it, as well. Wear the right color glasses, and it's abundantly clear. The question of the day of course: "And precisely which color would that be?" To which I reply: "Good question."

A familiar criticism to which Rossing replies, "My emphasis is not on the financial racket side of things, which I don’t know much about. Some argue that the whole prophecy industry is hucksterism, but I am referring to the theological racket. It is also a political racket, I think. They (such as Tim LaHay and Jerry Jenkins) are playing off of people’s fears.

"...these people and their books, among others. It is the whole idea of the rapture, which plays on people’s fears. They are instilling this terrible fear in children that people are going to be left behind. It is not biblical. There is no rapture in the Bible.

"They (LaHay, Jenkins, et al) are making people think that this (violent world) is what reality is, that somehow it is God’s will to have violence in the world and that the world has to get worse and worse so that Jesus can fight the battle of Armageddon. Then Jesus can return.

"Jesus also lived in a violent world—a world as violent as the one we live in. The Roman Empire was extremely violent, but Jesus didn’t respond in kind. That is the key. Christians have to remember that the Bible teaches us nonviolence in the face of violence. But what’s different is that Christians through such things as the Left Behind books are glorifying violence. That is a very distressing shift in theological thinking.

"Jesus is the lamb in the book of Revelation who teaches a different way than more and more firepower and violence. It’s the power of love to change the world. This philosophy will not make it as an exciting book or movie. Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane told Peter to put away his sword. Christ said that those who take up the sword will perish by the sword. There is absolutely no invitation in the New Testament for Christians to take up violence as a way of responding to evil in the world.

"Jesus was born into the world as a child of a poor family, and surely since then God has never left the world behind. We should think and act just as Jesus did. He wasn’t a political activist in any sense, but he certainly challenged oppression. Christians are still to be engaged in bringing about God’s healing through love and nonviolence.

"...apocalypticism has always had this dangerous side to it. That is why the book of Revelation almost didn’t make it in the Bible. Even the early Christians knew there was a risk with apocalyptic literature. The risk is this kind of us versus them mentality. It is a dualism. A dualistic view of the world sees everything as black and white and sees that we are to do battle against the forces of evil.

"(The goal of the book of Revelation) is to comfort and inspire Christians to a vision of hope. In the early Roman Empire, when it looked violence was getting out of hand—much like things today—it was a message to people that the empire would not last much longer and that the Emperor was not the one in charge of the world. Jesus is in our midst, but He is not the avenging warrior Jesus. Jesus is the lamb who is leading us to a different way of life—one espousing love.

"(Apocalypse merely) means unveiling or pulling back a curtain. In Revelation ... the truth was unveiled about the evil Roman Empire. That’s what the apocalypse was unveiling. It was an unveiling of the bankruptcy of the Roman Empire and the true power of hope and of Jesus Christ.

"...America wasn’t even in existence when the Bible was written. There was no America 2000 years ago when Bible prophecy was written, and prophecy is written about its own time. It was a message of prophecy for the people for whom it was written. But the Left Behind writers think that because prophecy predicts everything in advance, it’s America that is in prophecy.

"Violence is addictive. Any of us could get addicted to it. Look at video games. They’re thrilling and exciting. They’re fast paced. It could happen to any of us. War correspondent Chris Hedges clearly shows us that in his book, War Is The Force That Gives Us Meaning. He says that violence is the most powerful narcotic ever invented. Yes, all of us can be sucked in by violence. That is why we need to resist. As a lamb, Jesus teaches us how to resist this sucking power. Violence was attractive even to early Christians, who were told not to go to the gladiator spectacles because they were going to find them fascinating and thrilling. Christians aren’t supposed to go to violence for entertainment.

"Martin Luther once said: 'If I knew the world was going to end tomorrow, I would plant a tree.' I believe Luther is trying to tell us that God wants us to live caring for the world until the very last moment. Thus, if I know the world is going to end, then I need to be obedient to Jesus’ parables where he tells us to care for one another.

"...I believe that if we know Jesus is going to return and it could happen at any moment, then we need to be more ardent and urgent in caring for one another and our world. Planting a tree is a great way to do that. The basic message is love for all of life and our fellow human beings."

 

Why DID I bring it up? Hm. Maybe I meant RUPTURE. Yeah, that's it...Say, has anyone ever suffered a RUPTURE, you know, like in the appendix, or something?

Just a typo, that's all it was, just a typo...

 

Hmm. Rupture as a 19th century development in Christian thought. Hmm.

That strains credulity.

Wait, wait, wait... here's a better one:

Stop pulling my leg.

Oh... wait, wait...

(Okay... that's enough!)

Seriously, though: I didn't mean to suggest that you were just being a troublemaker by bringing it up... er... um... you weren't just being a troublemaker, right?

I was just wondering what made you wonder about it. I mean... like... were you sitting at a stop light or something and thought to yourself, "Self, I wonder..."?

Just curious.