Many will scoff (and I say let them scoff), but the thrilling end times world of Buck Williams and the Tribulation Force continues to bring the Bible’s eschatological scheme to life for millions of readers past and present.
Yet, as irony would have it, despite my love for the fiction series, I deny its central premise that Jesus will remove the church from the earth in a worldwide gathering up (rapture) immediately before the future Great Tribulation and return of Christ.
Growing up, I saw the pre-tribulation rapture of the saints in passages like 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, 1 Corinthians 15:51-53, and Matthew 24:40-42.
And not only did I hold strongly to this interpretation, that some leaders in my church and Christian family members doubted or outright denied this critical Bible doctrine disturbed me.
Now before I explain why I changed my mind, let me say a word in defense of those who defend the rapture.
While the “prophecy” books, sermons, and theological musings of many rapture proponents would send any careful student of the Bible into fits, men like the late Charles Ryrie and John Walvrood, as well as Dr. Thomas Ice of the Pre-Trib Research Center, have produced careful treatments of difficult Bible passages dealing with end-times events and their work deserves commendation and careful consideration.
It is not all sensationalism.
Furthermore, belief in the rapture is not escapism that leads to an abandonment of one’s responsibilities here on earth (as some, like N.T. Wright, have alleged).
If anything, belief in the immediacy of the rapture of the church will compel one to live holy (which means taking care of others and creation) and to share the gospel with greater fervency.
Finally, it is simply untrue that the origin or development of the rapture doctrine had anything to do with the visions of Margaret McDonald, a young Scottish girl living during the days of John Nelson Darby. This tired myth has long been buried under explicit statements of pretribulationism long predating the controversial teenager.
That said, let me explain why I changed my mind on this beloved staple of American theology.
Firstly, the passages said to teach the rapture are never set in any kind of explicit temporal relation to the great tribulation.
They speak of being “caught up” (1 Thess. 4:17), “taken” (Matt. 24:41), and “changed—in a flash” (1 Cor. 15:51), but do not say or imply that such action happens before the Great Tribulation.
This omission means these verses cannot legitimately be said to teach the pretribulation rapture as opposed to the Second Coming or some other event.
Yes, we will be “caught up”, “taken”, and “changed—in a flash”, as the Bible says, but the passages do not say such actions are pretribulational in nature.
Secondly, not only are references to a pretribulational rapture missing, the passages positively seem to teach something other than the rapture.
For example, before referring to some being taken and others left in Matthew 24:41, Jesus describes the antediluvian people being removed in the Flood. In this light, "taken" does not sound like a pre-tribulation rescue, but being destroyed in a judgment like the one in Genesis 6.
In addition, absent any defining pre-tribulation markers (as mentioned in the first point), 1 Thessalonians 4:18-27 reads like a vivid description of Second Coming of the Lord (cf. 2: Thess. 2:1 and 1 Thess. 4:16) in which his people, dead and alive, are raptured up to meet him in the clouds, a heavenly welcoming party that will then immediately join him on his triumphant return to the earth.
Contextually, it seems something other than a pre-tribulation rapture is in view here
Thirdly, I resolved for myself alleged irreconcilable differences between the Bible's description of the Second Coming and the rapture.
 |
| Right click the image, open it in a new tab, and zoom in if the text is too small to read. |
Various charts like the above stress purported differences between the rapture and the Second Coming out of which the rapture then emerges as a distinct event.
But is that really the case?
About the first difference, all the Thessalonians passage says is we will meet the Lord in the air, a fact consistent with Rev. 19:14 provided those who meet him are the same who will join him in his descent to earth (which is how most detractors of the rapture have interpreted 1 Thess. 4:17 anyway).
About the second difference, 1 Thessalonians 4 does not say that Christ will not touch the earth, it just does not mention him touching the earth, which is not the same.
About the third difference, as we have already seen, nowhere in 1 Thessalonians 4 do we read anything about a tribulation, seven years or otherwise, much less that the events described in the passage happen before it.
About the fifth and sixth differences, I simply ask where does the 1 Thessalonians 4:11-18 say any of this? It is not there.
About the seventh difference, the two things mentioned are not mutually exclusive. It is logically possible (and I think actual) that at the Second Coming the dead in Christ are raised and national Israel is delivered.
Fourthly and finally, I abandoned the rapture doctrine upon encountering other viable futurist literalist interpretations of Bible prophecy that did not hinge on the rapture.
For many years I believed giving up the rapture meant abandoning a literal and futuristic approach to Bible prophecy, something I felt (and still do feel) is irresponsible handling of the Bible.
However, I later found the church from its earliest days believed in a literal future pre-millennial reign of Christ on the earth without reference to a rapture:
But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, as the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare. -- Justin Martyr (A.D. 100–165), Dialogue with Trypho
But we do confess that a kingdom is promised to us upon the earth, although before heaven, only in another state of existence; inasmuch as it will be after the resurrection for a thousand years in the divinely-built city of Jerusalem, “let down from heaven,” which the apostle also calls “our mother from above;” and, while declaring that our citizenship is in heaven, he predicts of it that it is really a city in heaven. This both Ezekiel had knowledge of and the Apostle John beheld. -- Tertullian (A.D. 155–240?)
John, therefore, did distinctly foresee the first resurrection of the just, Luke 14:14 and the inheritance in the kingdom of the earth; and what the prophets have prophesied concerning it harmonize [with his vision]. -- Irenaeus (A.D. 130–202)
But when the thousand years shall be completed, the world shall be renewed by God, and the heavens shall be folded together, and the earth shall be changed, and God shall transform men into the similitude of angels, and they shall be white as snow; and they shall always be employed in the sight of the Almighty, and shall make offerings to their Lord, and serve Him forever. -- Lactantius (A.D. 250– 330), The Divine Institutes
In fact, neither Christ’s millennial reign, the Great Tribulation, or the regathering of national Israel as actual space-time historical events are dependent on belief in the rapture.
Looking back, I believe I knew for a time the Bible probably did not teach the rapture before I finally let it go because I was hindered by uncertainty and emotional resistance.
So many of us like the idea of a possible chance of repentance for ourselves or our loved ones after Christ has whisked us all away to heaven.
Slightly more jolting, the imminence of Jesus’ return must be re-understood for a futurist like myself who no longer believes in the rapture.
Yet, I firmly believe the Bible is true and that all doctrinal commitments must be made subject to the sovereignty of Scripture over our lives.
If passages claimed to teach the rapture really teach something else, I ought to accept and embrace that.
And that is why I changed my mind on the rapture.
