1. Travis Perry says:

    Hi, Stephen.

    I find myself reading this article not sure I understand what you are saying. Your phrasing implies that people who believe in the rapture do NOT believe in or look forward to the Resurrection. I think that depends–even those who believe in the Millennium still look forward to the New Heaven and the New Earth, which only comes post-Resurrection. I think there is some controversy as well among pre-Millennial Rapture people about whether or not the raptured followers of Christ will return with Him at the start of the Millennium. For those who believe the raptured “saints” wait around in heaven until the Resurrection, I would say they look forward to it as much as you do. People who believe the Millennium is the start of things happening on Earth for the raptured Church do not think about the Resurrection as much, but for very clear and understandable reasons.

    Tim LaHaye was just one particularly successful voice among Rapture people and did not represent the whole set of thinking. I realize you know that, but you talk at moments as if his views were the only ones that mattered.

    As for Revelation being literal, I can see how the LaHaye method would leave you sour. I never bought into LaHaye’s way of looking at things, but I agree with him that: 1. The Tribulation should be seen as a literal event 2. The Millennium should be seen as a literal event 3. The judgment of the human race at the Great White Throne of God should be seen as a literal event 4. The creation of a New Heaven and a New Earth should be seen as literal events.

    Amillennialism and non-futurist methods of interpreting Revelation are a big step away from seeing the Bible as authoritative. It doesn’t matter for a long time it used to be the more or less standard view, it was never as standard as people claim (Augustine in City of God details believing in a future time of special Tribulation, though he pegged it at 3 1/2 years long, which will be followed by the direct rule of Christ on Earth. He solidly rejected the idea that Revelation language should be seen as only symbolic and he was not alone in so thinking among Church Fathers). And Revelation-as-all-symbols-with-no-facts leaves the troubling problem of when you actually read it, why does the text again and again point out there were “signs in heaven” (i.e. events of symbolic intention) if EVERYTHING was in effect a “sign in heaven.” It would make no sense to do that–and while God may be mysterious, He doesn’t say things for no reason at all.

    As for the texts used to prove where a Rapture is supposed to go and how this event is separate from the Resurrection, there I would agree one meets difficult passages to wrangle. In favor of the Mid-Tribulation Rapture, which I think is the best solution but which I am not dogmatic about. I think it matches the death of the two witnesses in Revelation and their public resurrection, which is followed by I time I think is “the wrath of God,” (which is why the Tribulation is divided into two 3 1/2 year chunks) which I think the Church will be spared from. I could give other points supporting my view, but it doesn’t really matter here.

    What does matter and matches the spirit of your post is that it can be very fun and interesting to try to piece through Revelation and figure out the meaning of future events. It’s easy to make mistakes and nobody should be dogmatic about conclusions, but it can cause a massive Scriptural word search, a Biblical treasure hunt, where the seeker pours through Revelation and enthusiastically cross-references the Old Testament prophets, the apocalyptic comments by Jesus, and the occasion references in the epistles to the end of the world.

    I feel that “Panmillennialists” (you are not the first of the species I have encountered) tend to raise their hands in surrender at the interpretation difficulties and mumble, “Hey, whatever, man. It’s all gonna pan out.” It’s a bit lazy as a position and as opposed to generating enthusiasm about the future and what God will do there, I think causes people to stop thinking about eschatology altogether.

    And how is that any fun? 🙂

  2. Andrea says:

    The gospels passage mt 24 and similar often cited may not be about the rapture of the Church at all. The plain text does not describe a joyous event to want to happen to you but a sudden catastrophic outpouring of God’s wrath that leaves the taken half of an unspecified group of people dead. It simply doesn’t say who was taken and who was left. Christ will come for his bride, but the exact timing of the Rapture and the other details that get fussed over?We’ll see what the prophecies mean for sure on the details when they come true I figure.

    • Yes, that’s one of the texts that some wiser Rapture-minded Bible prophecy teachers do not use to support the Rapture. The title “Left Behind” may come from Matthew 24:40-41: “Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one left.” But the verse immediately before these verses sets the context: this is a parallel to Noah’s flood! In fact, the people being “taken” are not being snatched away to Heaven, but are being swept away as if by judgment floodwaters.

      In short: the only seeming Rapture passages are actually describing the Resurrection. This event happens 1) clearly all at the same time, the “twinkling of an eye,” 2) with a single trumpet blow, alluded in both texts, 3) seemingly at the exact moment of Jesus’s single, physical return to Earth.

  3. Brie Donning says:

    One problem I have with the seven year tribulation idea is tit almost diminishes the persecution already going on in the world. It can get worse in Australia and the USA, but what about North Korea? They’re enduring the worst tribulations possible.

What do you think?