Prior to the American Revolution, the American colonists were the most enthusiastic royalists in the English-speaking world. Why that changed is a fascinating story and a fulfillment of Bible prophecy.
In September 1761, the colonial Englishman Benjamin Franklin, on tour in the Low Countries, eagerly anticipated a return to his home in London to attend the coronation of George III. With his invitation secured, he reached London in time for the festivities, but a storm delayed his arrival at Westminster Abbey and he had to content himself with watching the pageant from a distance."
So begins an article in the August 2007 edition of History Today magazine. "The American Monarchy" was written by Frank Prochaska, who teaches history at Yale. For students of British and American history, it is fascinating. It should also be of great interest to those who understand the biblical truth of the modern identity of the tribe of Joseph.
"Franklin's admiration for his monarch had few limits. After a dinner at Versailles hosted by Louis XV in 1767, he reported that 'no Frenchman shall go beyond me in thinking my own king and queen the very best in the World and most amiable.' As a frequent guest at court, he attended George III's birthday festivities in 1771, and the following year wrote to his son of the King's 'great regard' for him."
Pointedly, the American author writes: "As Franklin's devotion to royalty illustrates, it was no easy matter to break with so universal a system of government as monarchy, especially for colonial subjects who thought of themselves as patriotic Englishmen and their King as a guardian of the Protestant faith and the 'father of his people.'
"George III was no less revered in America for being so remote. Distance made him a more difficult target and enhanced the monarch as symbol. With an ocean between them, few colonists ever set eyes upon a member of the royal family, but they demonstrated their allegiance through ritual celebrations of royal birthdays, coronations and marriages."
Uniqueness of the American Revolution
If it was "no easy matter" for the colonists to break with the British monarchy, why then did it happen?
A PBS series on the subject of the American Revolution some years ago came to the conclusion that it should never have happened. An episode of the History International Channel's Global View came to a similar conclusion, with all panelists agreeing that the rupture between Great Britain and its American colonies set back the power and influence of the English-speaking world.
A&E's presentation on Benedict Arnold noted that, on the eve of the final Battle of Yorktown, most colonists were loyal to the crown. John Adams, who would become the second president of the United States, wrote that the colonies were divided into three thirds—those loyal to the crown, those who wanted a break with the crown and those who were indifferent.
Perhaps most telling is the simple fact of the uniqueness of the American Revolution. It is the only revolution in history led by people who were, on average, wealthier than the people they rebelled against! Generally, in revolutions, the poor majority rebel against the rich minority, but this was most decidedly not the case in America over two centuries ago.
As another American historian, Gordon Wood, put it: "The social conditions that generally are supposed to lie behind all revolutions—poverty and economic deprivation—were not present in colonial America. There should no longer be any doubt about it: the white American colonists were not an oppressed people; they had no crushing imperial chains to throw off" (The Radicalism of the American Revolution , 1991, p. 4).
Understanding monarchy
Over 200 years after the American Revolution, most Americans have a very vague understanding of the institution of monarchy. Eighteenth-century Americans were quite different. Colonists "looked to the King for political legitimacy." They "believed the monarchy to be the guarantor of their rights" (Prochaska).
These rights went back to the Magna Carta in 1215 when England's barons forced King John to give them rights that form the basis of the Anglo-American legal system. Within the same century, the first parliament met. Gradually, through the centuries, the power of parliament increased at the expense of the monarchy.
"Since the early seventeenth century the English had radically transformed their monarchy: they had executed one king and deposed another, written charters and bills of rights, regularized the meetings of their parliaments, and even created a new line of hereditary succession" (Wood, p. 13).
In the 17th century England had even abolished the monarchy and the country became a republic for a brief period. The republic, like the Roman republic centuries earlier, led to dictatorship. The restoration of the monarchy in 1660 was perceived as the necessary balance of power to guarantee freedom from the potential abuse of parliamentary power.
While he was prince of Wales, the future King George III said: "The pride, the glory of Britain, and the direct end of its constitution is political liberty" (Wood, p. 14.) This is also quoted in the History Today article, where the following words are added: "Thus have we created the noblest constitution the human mind is capable of framing, where the executive power is in the prince, the legislative in the nobility and the representatives of the people, and the judicial in the people and in some cases the nobility, to whom there lies a final appeal from all other courts of judicature, where every man's life, liberty and possessions are secure."
So why the break with England? The answer is quite simple. It had to happen to fulfill prophecy.
Fulfillment of Bible prophecy
The biblical patriarch Jacob, renamed Israel, had 12 sons. One of these sons was Joseph, whose brothers sold him into slavery. God was with Joseph who, after years of personal suffering, rose to become the prime minister of Egypt. Eventually, Joseph was reunited with his family. His father, Israel, laid his hands on the two sons of Joseph and blessed them, in one of the most prophetically significant chapters of the Bible.
"The Angel who has redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; let my name be named upon them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth" (Genesis 48:16).
"Let my name be named on them" means that Joseph's descendants now carry the name of Israel. In turn, this means that biblical prophecies about Israel in the last days generally apply to them and not the Jews in the Middle East, although the Jews may be included if the prophecy is about all 12 tribes of Israel.
Israel continued, seemingly getting the boys confused by placing his right hand on the head of the younger son, Ephraim, instead of the elder son, Manasseh. This went against established custom and precedent, but clearly Israel knew what he was doing.
"But his father refused [to switch his hands] and said, 'I know, my son, I know. He [Manasseh, the eldest] also shall become a people, and he also shall be great; but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his descendants shall become a multitude of nations" (Genesis 48:19).
The two brothers, Ephraim and Manasseh, were to become a great multitude of nations and a great single nation. Nowhere else in history can we see this more than in the British Empire and the United States.
Here we can begin to understand why ties between the American colonists and the monarchy had to be severed. Every British colony had its own parliament. All these parliaments shared a common loyalty and that loyalty was to the crown. American historian Brendan McConville described the king as "the empire's living embodiment" (The King's Three Faces: The Rise and Fall of Royal America 1688-1776, 2006).
This continues down to the present day when George III's descendant, Queen Elizabeth II, carries the title head of the Commonwealth, an organization composed of 54 former British colonies. The Empire and Commonwealth, made up of dozens of different countries, truly have been "a multitude of nations."
A remarkable story
The American colonies were destined to somehow break with the crown in order to form the great single nation that Joseph's father, Jacob (Israel), said Manasseh would become. So the severing of ties between the American colonists and the English monarchy turned out to be the fulfillment of this important prophecy in Genesis 48. The other colonies remained under the crown. It's a remarkable story, the fulfillment of a prophecy that was written down thousands of years ago and that has not been fulfilled by any other nations.
What is also remarkable is how much the British monarchy influenced the American presidency, the story of which is told in Dr. Prochaska's article. After the Revolutionary War, the new nation was in a quandary. The leaders of the revolution had demonized the king, but they still felt the British had the best political system in the world.
"The hostility to Britain and its King during the Revolution has tended to obscure the constitutional affinities between the two nations. Americans, as Franklin's grandson Benjamin Franklin Bache put it in 1797, created a constitution before they 'had sufficiently un-monarchized their views and habits'" (Prochaska).
"The forms of government on offer to the Founding Fathers were essentially variations of monarchy, 'the rule of one.' Moreover, most colonists had looked favorably on Britain's hereditary monarchy before the Revolution. So too had leading eighteenth century European political philosophers" (ibid.).
Even after the Revolution, "the theory of mixed government of Kings, Lords and Commons had a compelling logic to many Americans who desired security, a just measure of liberty, and the avoidance of arbitrary rule." Continuing, Dr. Prochaska writes: "It is one of the great ironies of the US constitution that the Founding Fathers invested more power in the presidency than George III exercised as King" (ibid.).
He adds: "For all their revolutionary rhetoric Americans treated 'His Excellency' George Washington as a republican version of 'His Majesty' King George. Some Americans, sensitive to the symbolism of power, believed the President required a title and pored over the titles of the European princes to find one that had not been appropriated. Thomas McKean, chief justice of Pennsylvania, thought 'Most Serene Highness' desirable.
"Washington himself was said to have preferred the style of 'High Mightiness' used by the Stadtholder of the Netherlands. The reigning Stadtholder, William V, was among the Europeans who saw George Washington as an uncrowned monarch. As he said to Adams: 'Sir, you have given yourselves a king under the title of president.' In the Senate a titles committee suggested 'His Highness the President of the United States of America and Protector of the Rights of the Same.'"
Fortunately for Americans, both the Senate and the House of Representatives eventually settled for the simple title of the president of the United States.
The blessing of stability
In hindsight, what is truly remarkable is that these two institutions, the British monarchy and the American presidency, have been the solid political foundation blocks upon which their nations have been built. The United States has enjoyed political stability for over 140 years, since the end of the Civil War. Great Britain's period of stability is even longer, going back to the Glorious Revolution of 1688-89.
Those nations in the Commonwealth that have maintained their direct allegiance to the crown have shared in that long period of stability. The nations within the Commonwealth that look to the British monarch as the head of the Commonwealth but have become republics have mostly had a tumultuous ride since severing the direct tie. None has been able to establish a successful republic on the American model.
The blessings promised to the descendants of Joseph could not have been fulfilled without political stability. Economic progress is impossible when there is no solid political foundation.
It is amazing to see how God worked with both Britain and America to give them the solid historical foundation that has made them for some time the most stable governments on earth. WNP
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Friday, January 18, 2008
Enemies of Faith
Have you ever wondered why we don't see more evidence of faith? The Bible identifies several tendencies that undermine faith. They include:
Worry. Jesus cautioned: ". . . Do not worry . . . But seek first the kingdom of God" (Matthew 6:25-33).
Fear. While on a boat in the middle of a storm, the disciples awoke Jesus and pleaded that He save them from drowning. He answered, "Why are you fearful, O you of little faith?" Then He rebuked the sea and it immediately grew calm (Matthew 8:23-26).
Doubt. Peter saw Jesus walking on the water of the Sea of Galilee and asked if he could do the same. Jesus invited him to join Him, and Peter, too, began walking on the water. "But when he saw that the wind was boisterous, he was afraid" and began to sink (Matthew 14:30). Christ "stretched out His hand and caught him, and said to him, 'O you of little faith, why did you doubt?' " (verse 31).
Human reasoning without spiritual understanding. Jesus warned His disciples, "Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees" (Matthew 16:6). He was cautioning them against the teachings of religious leaders who appeared outwardly correct (verse 12) but lacked spiritual understanding. Because the disciples did not understand this spiritual principle, their reasoning was to no avail (verses 7-12).
Worry. Jesus cautioned: ". . . Do not worry . . . But seek first the kingdom of God" (Matthew 6:25-33).
Fear. While on a boat in the middle of a storm, the disciples awoke Jesus and pleaded that He save them from drowning. He answered, "Why are you fearful, O you of little faith?" Then He rebuked the sea and it immediately grew calm (Matthew 8:23-26).
Doubt. Peter saw Jesus walking on the water of the Sea of Galilee and asked if he could do the same. Jesus invited him to join Him, and Peter, too, began walking on the water. "But when he saw that the wind was boisterous, he was afraid" and began to sink (Matthew 14:30). Christ "stretched out His hand and caught him, and said to him, 'O you of little faith, why did you doubt?' " (verse 31).
Human reasoning without spiritual understanding. Jesus warned His disciples, "Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees" (Matthew 16:6). He was cautioning them against the teachings of religious leaders who appeared outwardly correct (verse 12) but lacked spiritual understanding. Because the disciples did not understand this spiritual principle, their reasoning was to no avail (verses 7-12).
Sunday, December 2, 2007
What's 'Left Behind' in the Rapture Theory?
Millions of people have read novels structured around the idea of the rapture of Christians. Why do people believe in a rapture? Is there any biblical validity to this teaching?
by Cecil Maranville
Many people traveled to Jerusalem to be on the scene Jan. 1, 2000, in anticipation of certain events. Some expected Jesus Christ to return on that date; others thought they would be "raptured" away to meet Him. Yet the day came and went with nothing of the sort happening.
Where did the idea of a rapture—a supernatural, sudden removal of believers—originate? Why do so many people believe that the Bible prophesies a rapture?
The Left Behind series of books and videos have variably stirred, frightened or entertained millions. Authors Jim Jenkins and Tim LaHaye popularized in the 1990s the same understanding and expectations about "a secret rapture" that author Hal Lindsey had in the 1970s with The Late Great Planet Earth and Vanished.
The Left Behind novels revolve around the story line that non-Christians are "left behind" when Christ secretly and suddenly removes true believers from earth. Christians who are driving cars, piloting planes and going about their everyday activities abruptly disappear—and those "left behind" are baffled by their mysterious disappearance. Political and sexual intrigue is spliced into the religious theme of the books in the name of spreading the message to as wide an audience as possible.
Mr. Lindsey was the first modern writer to popularize the rapture theory. He still writes and speaks on the theme. The popular American TV program 60 Minutes II recently caught up with him on a tour he was leading in Israel. He was still preaching that end-time prophecy will begin with the rapture, which is the instant calling to heaven of Christians. "People will actually disappear, Lindsey says" ("Apocalypse Now," CBS, 1999).
Mr. Jenkins is the writer of the Left Behind material. Mr. LaHaye provides him with input from a religious perspective. Their popular works do not offer readers the theology of the rapture idea in a systematic fashion. That is, the books do not explain the scriptural basis for the dogma or how one might prove it from the Bible.
The rapture as doctrine
Although the idea of the rapture is accepted as fact by millions, its proponents cite only a few ambiguous biblical passages to teach and define the doctrine.
A dictionary defines rapture simply as "ecstatic joy or delight; joyful ecstasy." Another says rapture means "a mystical experience in which the spirit is exalted to a knowledge of divine things." How do these meanings relate to the return of Christ?
Explanations are ambiguous. Some point to a single word in the Latin translation of a single word in the Greek text of the Bible (Mike Cady, The Rapture-Prophecy Bible Study, 1998, p. 3). The Latin word is rapere, meaning "to seize" or "to abduct." The concept is that Christians are suddenly snatched or seized from the earth by Christ.
So widely held is the belief that the theological definition of the rapture finds its way into another dictionary as "the experience, anticipated by some fundamentalist Christians, of meeting Christ midway in the air upon his return to the earth."
Even this definition does not accurately reflect the prevalent explanations of the rapture theory; that is, rapture defenders teach that Christ will do the snatching of believers before and separate from His return, not "upon His return."
Christ, they say, will approach the earth, not return to it, to seize believers several years before His actual return-the second coming.
According to the most common version of the rapture:
Christ revealed the rapture to the Church in the apostle Paul's epistle of 1 Thessalonians.
This is a secret coming, evidenced only by the absence of Christians afterward.
At the rapture Christians will be changed to spirit and transported to the safe haven of heaven to wait out a seven-year "tribulation" that occurs on earth.
The rapture's purpose is not only to protect Christians, but to motivate them to be spiritually ready at all times for their unannounced abduction by Christ.
Supposed scriptural proof
What is the scriptural basis for this enigmatic doctrine? Credit for development of the rapture theory generally goes to 19th-century theologian John Nelson Darby and his interpretations of the apostle Paul's statements regarding Christ's return.
Although some advocates of the rapture occasionally refer to a few other scriptures, all agree that the main argument is based on this passage from Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians. "For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord" (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17).
It is the Greek for "shall be caught up" that is translated into the Latin rapere, the linguistic basis some claim for the word rapture. But where is the theological basis for the doctrine? Where does it say here—or anywhere else in the Bible, for that matter—that Christ will come close to the earth to remove Christians years before His prophesied second coming?
What Darby interpreted to mean that Christ would come close but not actually return to the earth are three words: "in the air." He took license from the fact that the verse doesn't say that Christ actually returns "to the earth." (Darby may well have been motivated by noble objectives, as we will note later.)
A theory based on inaccuracy
Before examining other aspects of the theory, it is necessary to analyze these verses. The entire theory hinges on whether Darby's understanding was accurate or not. The Bible tells us that "no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20). That is, true understanding must come from God alone.
One of the important keys to an accurate understanding of any part of the Bible is to read what it says in context. The near context of these verses in 1 Thessalonians 4 begins in verse 13 and concludes in verse 18.
Paul wrote this section of the letter in answer to concerns of the local Christians. Was he responding to the Thessalonians' worries about their safety in an end-of-the-age tribulation? No. Was he addressing their worries about whether Christ would return to rescue them? No. Was he writing about their supposed neglect of their spiritual readiness for Christ's return? No.
Why, then, did Paul write 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18?
As you read verse 13, you discover that Christians in Thessalonica were grieving over the unexpected deaths of members of their congregation. Like other Christians of that day, they apparently thought Jesus would return in their lifetimes. Thus they were caught unprepared for the death of people in the faith.
Paul wrote that they should not be overwhelmed by grief as though there were no hope for life beyond the grave: "But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep [died], lest you sorrow as others who have no hope."
Paul explains his main point in verse 14: God will bring the dead back to life. "For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus."
Paul doesn't leave the subject there. He adds a time reference: "with Him." Did Paul refer to an approach by Christ, or was He referring to the second coming? Nothing in this passage justifies an understanding other than the second coming. Neither is there a nuance of a "secret" coming.
Verse 15 amplifies the point about the future of Christians who have died by declaring that those who remain alive at the coming of Christ have no spiritual advantage over those who died. "... We who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep." Said another way, those who have died are not at any disadvantage.
Paul continues: "For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord" (verses 16-17).
All Christians, living and dead, will be included in the events described in verses 16-17:
The return of Christ heralded by a powerful angelic announcement (hardly secret).
The resurrection—return to life—of deceased Christians (the main subject addressed by Paul, according to the context).
The simultaneous joining of the returning Jesus with deceased Christians and Christians still living at the time.
Verse 18, the final verse of the section, concludes and reiterates the main thought: "Therefore comfort one another with these words"; that is, with the understanding of the destiny of Christians who died before Christ returns.
Rapture ideology out of sync
Not only is the reasoning of the rapture theory entirely out of context with the verses used to support it, the theory is also out of synchronization with events revealed in the rest of the Scriptures.
Another letter written by Paul also addresses the Christian hope of the "change" of a Christian from mortal to immortal at Christ's return. In 1 Corinthians 15:50-53 he wrote of the promise of a transformation from physical life to everlasting life. This is a crucial point: What is the timing of this prophesied change from mortal to immortal?
Verses 22 and 23 are clear on the matter: "... In Christ all shall be made alive [resurrected], ... those who are Christ's [Christians] at His coming." Paul said nothing to the Corinthians of anything like a snatching away before Christ actually comes, and he used no language that might imply a near approach by Christ in lieu of the second coming.
Paul provides more specifics about the timing. The prophesied change to spirit will occur at "the last trumpet" (verse 52), language similar to that used in 1 Thessalonians 4:16. What is the significance of the sounding of a trumpet at Jesus' return and the resurrection of the dead in Christ?
A trumpetlike instrument was used "in early times chiefly, perhaps exclusively, for warlike purposes. It gave the signal 'to arms' ... [and] warned of the approach of the enemy ... [It] was heard throughout a battle ... and sounded the recall ... Afterward it played an important part in connection with religion. It was blown at the proclamation of the Law ... and at the opening of the Year of Jubilee ... heralded the approach of the Ark ... [It] hailed a new king ... and is prophetically associated with the Divine judgment and restoration of the chosen people from captivity" (International Standard Bible Encylopaedia, electronic database, 1996, "Music").
The trumpet mentioned in Paul's epistles to the Corinthians and Thessalonians is the same as the seventh trumpet of Revelation 11:15-18—the last trumpet, which announces the second coming. The dead in Christ are resurrected, living Christians are changed to spirit, and Jesus Christ returns to earth—all at the same time.
Attempting to read into a few words in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 the concept of a near coming before the second coming and a different time line for the resurrection prophesied to occur at the second coming is not "rightly dividing the Word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15).
The rapture theory is in conflict with the Scriptures.
"One will be taken . . ."
In their eagerness to uphold belief in the rapture, supporters use various prophecies that speak of Christ's return to bolster their belief in the rapture. They reason that their interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 requires Christians to be in a constant state of readiness for their unannounced removal by Christ.
Prophecies of the second coming are not in doubt. What is in doubt is the application of these messages to their forced interpretation of a precoming.
One such prophecy is Matthew 24:36-44. It starts with "But of that day and hour [of the second coming] no one knows" and ends with "Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect." The point of this passage is the need for Christians to be prepared for the second coming.
However, some will lift verses 40 and 41 out of context and use them to support belief in a rapture. You will probably recognize the verses immediately: "Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and the other left." If one ignores that the context of these verses talks about the second coming, they may seem to lend credence to the rapture.
But it is unsound theology to interpret any verses out of context. In addition, the understanding of any reference must agree with the teaching of the rest of the Bible.
In the context of this passage, Christ makes plain the fact that no one will know the exact timing of His coming (notice that Christ repeatedly refers to His coming, not a supposed near approach). His warning, in light of that fact, is that Christians should be constantly alert and spiritually prepared (verses 42, 44-51).
Now the understanding of verses 40 and 41 becomes clear. People who are not prepared will be caught off guard by the abruptness of His coming. Some who live or work close to others will be caught off guard while their companions will not be. Some will be "left"—not "left behind" after a secret rapture, but left unprepared.
Protection promised
Another reason offered by rapture theorists in defense of their interpretation of end-time prophecy is God's promise of protection. To be sure, God says to His Church through John: "Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth" (Revelation 3:10).
In Matthew 24:21-22 Jesus spoke of abbreviating the terrible crisis at the close of the age of man to spare His chosen people: "For there shall be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, not ever shall be. And unless these days were shortened, no flesh would be saved alive; but for the elect's sake, those days will be shortened."
But nothing in these references or in others concerning the protection of the saints indicates that they will be protected during this time in heaven. To the contrary, if there is any indication of a location, it is described in Revelation 12:14, where it is called simply "the wilderness." Even then, the same prophecy foretells that Satan will assault at least some of the people of God.
"And the dragon [Satan] was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ" (verse 17).
The focus of godly men and women needs to be on spiritual preparation and maturity. The faithful are promised that nothing, including tribulation, warfare and Satan's hostilities, can separate them from the love of God (Romans 8:35-39).
Being swept off to heaven to be sheltered from tribulation is nowhere detailed—or even hinted at—in the Scriptures.
Partial understanding
What reason did the theologian John Darby and others have for even considering such a doctrine as the rapture? An article on the Millennium in Unger's Bible Dictionary offers a plausible explanation. In the century before Darby, Daniel Whitby promulgated the philosophy of "postmillennialism" in England. "This interpretation maintains that present gospel agencies will root out evils until Christ will have a spiritual reign over the earth, which will continue for 1,000 years. Then the second advent of Christ will initiate judgment and bring to an end the present order" (1988).
It is reasonable to suspect that Darby's intent was to counter the false teaching that the actions of men could bring about the Kingdom of God—as well as the equally incorrect teaching that prophecies of a kingdom are only symbolic (a view called "amillennialism"). Darby believed, rightly, that Jesus Christ would return to earth to establish and rule over the Kingdom of God (called "premillennialism").
Regardless of his motivation, Darby departed from the Scriptures himself with his rapture theory. At least he accurately understood that Christ would return to reign on earth, which leads us to an important concluding point.
Meeting Christ in the air
Seeking to refute the accurate understanding of 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, one author asks, "If [Christ] is already headed our way, why would we need to be caught up to meet Him?" (Todd Strandberg, The Pretribulation Rapture, 1999, p. 2). That's an interesting question whose answer reinforces what we have already learned from the Bible about this much—misunderstood topic.
The answer lies in the meaning of the word translated "meet." Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words says the word "is used in the papyri of a newly arriving magistrate. 'It seems that the special idea of the word was the official welcome of a newly arrived dignitary' (Moulton, Greek Test. Gram., Vol. I, p. 14)" (1985, "Meet"). The Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary adds in its notes for these verses that "when a king enters his city the loyal go forth to meet him ..."
How appropriate it is that His followers should rise to meet the King of Kings!
F.F. Bruce's International Bible Commentary adds: "To meet is used in the papyri of the official reception given to a visiting governor, whom his citizens escort into the city from which they have come to meet him" (1986, notes on 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18).
Another key question to address is "Where will Christ be?" After all, Paul tells us we will "always be with the Lord" after meeting Him (1 Thessalonians 4:17). An Old Testament prophet answers: "Behold, the day of the LORD is coming ... And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives" (Zechariah 14:1, 4).
Christ will not be in heaven after the second coming, but will be on earth—and so will the resurrected saints who meet Him.
Christians are resurrected from the dead or, if living at the time, changed to spirit at the last trumpet when Christ returns. They will meet Him in the air as an escort of honor as He returns to the Mount of Olives to rule the earth from Jerusalem. They are then destined to reign with Jesus Christ in His glorious kingdom (Revelation 20:6). GN
by Cecil Maranville
Many people traveled to Jerusalem to be on the scene Jan. 1, 2000, in anticipation of certain events. Some expected Jesus Christ to return on that date; others thought they would be "raptured" away to meet Him. Yet the day came and went with nothing of the sort happening.
Where did the idea of a rapture—a supernatural, sudden removal of believers—originate? Why do so many people believe that the Bible prophesies a rapture?
The Left Behind series of books and videos have variably stirred, frightened or entertained millions. Authors Jim Jenkins and Tim LaHaye popularized in the 1990s the same understanding and expectations about "a secret rapture" that author Hal Lindsey had in the 1970s with The Late Great Planet Earth and Vanished.
The Left Behind novels revolve around the story line that non-Christians are "left behind" when Christ secretly and suddenly removes true believers from earth. Christians who are driving cars, piloting planes and going about their everyday activities abruptly disappear—and those "left behind" are baffled by their mysterious disappearance. Political and sexual intrigue is spliced into the religious theme of the books in the name of spreading the message to as wide an audience as possible.
Mr. Lindsey was the first modern writer to popularize the rapture theory. He still writes and speaks on the theme. The popular American TV program 60 Minutes II recently caught up with him on a tour he was leading in Israel. He was still preaching that end-time prophecy will begin with the rapture, which is the instant calling to heaven of Christians. "People will actually disappear, Lindsey says" ("Apocalypse Now," CBS, 1999).
Mr. Jenkins is the writer of the Left Behind material. Mr. LaHaye provides him with input from a religious perspective. Their popular works do not offer readers the theology of the rapture idea in a systematic fashion. That is, the books do not explain the scriptural basis for the dogma or how one might prove it from the Bible.
The rapture as doctrine
Although the idea of the rapture is accepted as fact by millions, its proponents cite only a few ambiguous biblical passages to teach and define the doctrine.
A dictionary defines rapture simply as "ecstatic joy or delight; joyful ecstasy." Another says rapture means "a mystical experience in which the spirit is exalted to a knowledge of divine things." How do these meanings relate to the return of Christ?
Explanations are ambiguous. Some point to a single word in the Latin translation of a single word in the Greek text of the Bible (Mike Cady, The Rapture-Prophecy Bible Study, 1998, p. 3). The Latin word is rapere, meaning "to seize" or "to abduct." The concept is that Christians are suddenly snatched or seized from the earth by Christ.
So widely held is the belief that the theological definition of the rapture finds its way into another dictionary as "the experience, anticipated by some fundamentalist Christians, of meeting Christ midway in the air upon his return to the earth."
Even this definition does not accurately reflect the prevalent explanations of the rapture theory; that is, rapture defenders teach that Christ will do the snatching of believers before and separate from His return, not "upon His return."
Christ, they say, will approach the earth, not return to it, to seize believers several years before His actual return-the second coming.
According to the most common version of the rapture:
Christ revealed the rapture to the Church in the apostle Paul's epistle of 1 Thessalonians.
This is a secret coming, evidenced only by the absence of Christians afterward.
At the rapture Christians will be changed to spirit and transported to the safe haven of heaven to wait out a seven-year "tribulation" that occurs on earth.
The rapture's purpose is not only to protect Christians, but to motivate them to be spiritually ready at all times for their unannounced abduction by Christ.
Supposed scriptural proof
What is the scriptural basis for this enigmatic doctrine? Credit for development of the rapture theory generally goes to 19th-century theologian John Nelson Darby and his interpretations of the apostle Paul's statements regarding Christ's return.
Although some advocates of the rapture occasionally refer to a few other scriptures, all agree that the main argument is based on this passage from Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians. "For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord" (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17).
It is the Greek for "shall be caught up" that is translated into the Latin rapere, the linguistic basis some claim for the word rapture. But where is the theological basis for the doctrine? Where does it say here—or anywhere else in the Bible, for that matter—that Christ will come close to the earth to remove Christians years before His prophesied second coming?
What Darby interpreted to mean that Christ would come close but not actually return to the earth are three words: "in the air." He took license from the fact that the verse doesn't say that Christ actually returns "to the earth." (Darby may well have been motivated by noble objectives, as we will note later.)
A theory based on inaccuracy
Before examining other aspects of the theory, it is necessary to analyze these verses. The entire theory hinges on whether Darby's understanding was accurate or not. The Bible tells us that "no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20). That is, true understanding must come from God alone.
One of the important keys to an accurate understanding of any part of the Bible is to read what it says in context. The near context of these verses in 1 Thessalonians 4 begins in verse 13 and concludes in verse 18.
Paul wrote this section of the letter in answer to concerns of the local Christians. Was he responding to the Thessalonians' worries about their safety in an end-of-the-age tribulation? No. Was he addressing their worries about whether Christ would return to rescue them? No. Was he writing about their supposed neglect of their spiritual readiness for Christ's return? No.
Why, then, did Paul write 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18?
As you read verse 13, you discover that Christians in Thessalonica were grieving over the unexpected deaths of members of their congregation. Like other Christians of that day, they apparently thought Jesus would return in their lifetimes. Thus they were caught unprepared for the death of people in the faith.
Paul wrote that they should not be overwhelmed by grief as though there were no hope for life beyond the grave: "But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep [died], lest you sorrow as others who have no hope."
Paul explains his main point in verse 14: God will bring the dead back to life. "For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus."
Paul doesn't leave the subject there. He adds a time reference: "with Him." Did Paul refer to an approach by Christ, or was He referring to the second coming? Nothing in this passage justifies an understanding other than the second coming. Neither is there a nuance of a "secret" coming.
Verse 15 amplifies the point about the future of Christians who have died by declaring that those who remain alive at the coming of Christ have no spiritual advantage over those who died. "... We who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep." Said another way, those who have died are not at any disadvantage.
Paul continues: "For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord" (verses 16-17).
All Christians, living and dead, will be included in the events described in verses 16-17:
The return of Christ heralded by a powerful angelic announcement (hardly secret).
The resurrection—return to life—of deceased Christians (the main subject addressed by Paul, according to the context).
The simultaneous joining of the returning Jesus with deceased Christians and Christians still living at the time.
Verse 18, the final verse of the section, concludes and reiterates the main thought: "Therefore comfort one another with these words"; that is, with the understanding of the destiny of Christians who died before Christ returns.
Rapture ideology out of sync
Not only is the reasoning of the rapture theory entirely out of context with the verses used to support it, the theory is also out of synchronization with events revealed in the rest of the Scriptures.
Another letter written by Paul also addresses the Christian hope of the "change" of a Christian from mortal to immortal at Christ's return. In 1 Corinthians 15:50-53 he wrote of the promise of a transformation from physical life to everlasting life. This is a crucial point: What is the timing of this prophesied change from mortal to immortal?
Verses 22 and 23 are clear on the matter: "... In Christ all shall be made alive [resurrected], ... those who are Christ's [Christians] at His coming." Paul said nothing to the Corinthians of anything like a snatching away before Christ actually comes, and he used no language that might imply a near approach by Christ in lieu of the second coming.
Paul provides more specifics about the timing. The prophesied change to spirit will occur at "the last trumpet" (verse 52), language similar to that used in 1 Thessalonians 4:16. What is the significance of the sounding of a trumpet at Jesus' return and the resurrection of the dead in Christ?
A trumpetlike instrument was used "in early times chiefly, perhaps exclusively, for warlike purposes. It gave the signal 'to arms' ... [and] warned of the approach of the enemy ... [It] was heard throughout a battle ... and sounded the recall ... Afterward it played an important part in connection with religion. It was blown at the proclamation of the Law ... and at the opening of the Year of Jubilee ... heralded the approach of the Ark ... [It] hailed a new king ... and is prophetically associated with the Divine judgment and restoration of the chosen people from captivity" (International Standard Bible Encylopaedia, electronic database, 1996, "Music").
The trumpet mentioned in Paul's epistles to the Corinthians and Thessalonians is the same as the seventh trumpet of Revelation 11:15-18—the last trumpet, which announces the second coming. The dead in Christ are resurrected, living Christians are changed to spirit, and Jesus Christ returns to earth—all at the same time.
Attempting to read into a few words in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 the concept of a near coming before the second coming and a different time line for the resurrection prophesied to occur at the second coming is not "rightly dividing the Word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15).
The rapture theory is in conflict with the Scriptures.
"One will be taken . . ."
In their eagerness to uphold belief in the rapture, supporters use various prophecies that speak of Christ's return to bolster their belief in the rapture. They reason that their interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 requires Christians to be in a constant state of readiness for their unannounced removal by Christ.
Prophecies of the second coming are not in doubt. What is in doubt is the application of these messages to their forced interpretation of a precoming.
One such prophecy is Matthew 24:36-44. It starts with "But of that day and hour [of the second coming] no one knows" and ends with "Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect." The point of this passage is the need for Christians to be prepared for the second coming.
However, some will lift verses 40 and 41 out of context and use them to support belief in a rapture. You will probably recognize the verses immediately: "Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and the other left." If one ignores that the context of these verses talks about the second coming, they may seem to lend credence to the rapture.
But it is unsound theology to interpret any verses out of context. In addition, the understanding of any reference must agree with the teaching of the rest of the Bible.
In the context of this passage, Christ makes plain the fact that no one will know the exact timing of His coming (notice that Christ repeatedly refers to His coming, not a supposed near approach). His warning, in light of that fact, is that Christians should be constantly alert and spiritually prepared (verses 42, 44-51).
Now the understanding of verses 40 and 41 becomes clear. People who are not prepared will be caught off guard by the abruptness of His coming. Some who live or work close to others will be caught off guard while their companions will not be. Some will be "left"—not "left behind" after a secret rapture, but left unprepared.
Protection promised
Another reason offered by rapture theorists in defense of their interpretation of end-time prophecy is God's promise of protection. To be sure, God says to His Church through John: "Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth" (Revelation 3:10).
In Matthew 24:21-22 Jesus spoke of abbreviating the terrible crisis at the close of the age of man to spare His chosen people: "For there shall be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, not ever shall be. And unless these days were shortened, no flesh would be saved alive; but for the elect's sake, those days will be shortened."
But nothing in these references or in others concerning the protection of the saints indicates that they will be protected during this time in heaven. To the contrary, if there is any indication of a location, it is described in Revelation 12:14, where it is called simply "the wilderness." Even then, the same prophecy foretells that Satan will assault at least some of the people of God.
"And the dragon [Satan] was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ" (verse 17).
The focus of godly men and women needs to be on spiritual preparation and maturity. The faithful are promised that nothing, including tribulation, warfare and Satan's hostilities, can separate them from the love of God (Romans 8:35-39).
Being swept off to heaven to be sheltered from tribulation is nowhere detailed—or even hinted at—in the Scriptures.
Partial understanding
What reason did the theologian John Darby and others have for even considering such a doctrine as the rapture? An article on the Millennium in Unger's Bible Dictionary offers a plausible explanation. In the century before Darby, Daniel Whitby promulgated the philosophy of "postmillennialism" in England. "This interpretation maintains that present gospel agencies will root out evils until Christ will have a spiritual reign over the earth, which will continue for 1,000 years. Then the second advent of Christ will initiate judgment and bring to an end the present order" (1988).
It is reasonable to suspect that Darby's intent was to counter the false teaching that the actions of men could bring about the Kingdom of God—as well as the equally incorrect teaching that prophecies of a kingdom are only symbolic (a view called "amillennialism"). Darby believed, rightly, that Jesus Christ would return to earth to establish and rule over the Kingdom of God (called "premillennialism").
Regardless of his motivation, Darby departed from the Scriptures himself with his rapture theory. At least he accurately understood that Christ would return to reign on earth, which leads us to an important concluding point.
Meeting Christ in the air
Seeking to refute the accurate understanding of 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, one author asks, "If [Christ] is already headed our way, why would we need to be caught up to meet Him?" (Todd Strandberg, The Pretribulation Rapture, 1999, p. 2). That's an interesting question whose answer reinforces what we have already learned from the Bible about this much—misunderstood topic.
The answer lies in the meaning of the word translated "meet." Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words says the word "is used in the papyri of a newly arriving magistrate. 'It seems that the special idea of the word was the official welcome of a newly arrived dignitary' (Moulton, Greek Test. Gram., Vol. I, p. 14)" (1985, "Meet"). The Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary adds in its notes for these verses that "when a king enters his city the loyal go forth to meet him ..."
How appropriate it is that His followers should rise to meet the King of Kings!
F.F. Bruce's International Bible Commentary adds: "To meet is used in the papyri of the official reception given to a visiting governor, whom his citizens escort into the city from which they have come to meet him" (1986, notes on 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18).
Another key question to address is "Where will Christ be?" After all, Paul tells us we will "always be with the Lord" after meeting Him (1 Thessalonians 4:17). An Old Testament prophet answers: "Behold, the day of the LORD is coming ... And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives" (Zechariah 14:1, 4).
Christ will not be in heaven after the second coming, but will be on earth—and so will the resurrected saints who meet Him.
Christians are resurrected from the dead or, if living at the time, changed to spirit at the last trumpet when Christ returns. They will meet Him in the air as an escort of honor as He returns to the Mount of Olives to rule the earth from Jerusalem. They are then destined to reign with Jesus Christ in His glorious kingdom (Revelation 20:6). GN
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)