A few Christians believe in what they call the "Rapture". They have accepted this as a Biblical truth and believe it is a teaching that is found in Scripture. Consequently they think that if we do not believe in the "Rapture," we do not believe the Scripture and therefore are lost, in need of salvation.

The above statement is a brief characterization and might, therefore, be inaccurate of all those who believe in the "Rapture". But this also is another difficulty in understanding what is meant by the "Rapture." Among Christians those who believe in the "Rapture" are a minority of Evangelicals, who are a minority of Protestants, who are a minority of Christians. Even among that minority who believe in the "Rapture" there is no agreement on whether it will happen before, during or after the Tribulation.

What is the "Rapture" then? To answer this we might want to quickly explain what all Christians believe will happen at the end of time when Jesus will come back. All Christians believe that at the end of time there will be a political government that will use religion to support its legitimacy. The head of this government will set himself up against Christianity (anti-Christ) and persecute Christians (Tribulation). This will be a global persecution like none before. This will be so bad that Jesus Christ will come back to put an end, not just persecution, but an end to the world, as we know it. Jesus will come back in glory to judge the living and the dead and his reign will have no end.

The question is then, when will the "Rapture" happen? Some Christians believe that the Tribulation will be so bad (we all agree) that Jesus would not permit his Church to endure it and therefore will snatch the believers into heaven to spare them the Tribulation (this is the "Rapture" teaching). The Tribulation lasts seven years. Then, there will be a thousand-year reign before Christ finally comes. The "Rapture" would therefore happen 1007 years before the Second Coming. As the doctrinal statement below says the "Rapture" is the first phase of Christ's coming.

This is an important issue because it shows a different understanding of who Jesus is and what he wants of his followers. Does Jesus want us to be snatched away from suffering and tribulation? What does the Bible, the Word of God and Jesus say about following him and suffering? Which Jesus do we follow? Do we follow the right Jesus?

If to be saved, one has to be a Christian, and to be a Christian is to follow Christ, then how do we follow him? This teaching about the "Rapture" is critical because it shows a different understanding of what Christ wants of his followers. Is the "Rapture" teaching a biblical teaching then?

To study whether this is biblical or not we must agree about some aspects of biblical interpretation. Biblical interpretation does not need to be anymore different that simple basic text understanding as we were taught in 5th grade: the three rules of interpretations are context, context and context. This applies whether we read the Sunday comics' page, the last presidential speech, Shakespeare, Cicero or the Bible.

To study whether the "Rapture" is biblical or not, I am using a text from the General Council of the Assemblies of God. I have chosen this document as being representative of the belief that some Christians have regarding the "Rapture". To study the text I will follow it, statement after statement, and comment on the biblical references. The text is divided in two columns. The first column has numbers which refer to each sentence of the actual text of the General Council of the Assemblies of God. The second column is my comments. Download and read the document in its entirety, first, to have a sense of what the doctrine is; then read my comments.

For a study like this, I highly recommend that you do not follow just my own comments, but on the contrary, you read the scripture quotes for yourself and in the context of what the scripture author meant to say.

The document was downloaded September 20, 2008 from http://www.ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_4182_Rapture.cfm.

1

This is an actual and official doctrinal statement.

2

This is not a statement taken from the Bible text but a doctrinal statement by the Assemblies of God. Out of the 4 biblical references above 3 do not refer to the "blessed hope." Only Titus 2:13 does: "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.

Actually this doctrinal statement is correct as applied to the Last Judgment (Second Coming, Resurrection and Judgment). But this does not imply a "Rapture" as a first phase of Christ's coming.

3

Correct. But this does not imply a "Rapture" as a first phase of Christ's coming.

4

Correct. But this does not imply a "Rapture" as a first phase of Christ's coming.

5

Correct. But this does not imply a "Rapture" as a first phase of Christ's coming.

6

Correct. But this does not imply a "Rapture" as a first phase of Christ's coming.

7

Correct. But this does not imply a "Rapture" as a first phase of Christ's coming.

Also, we must realize, that if Paul maintained the hope he would be alive when Jesus comes back, then what he is talking about applies to his times and ours concurrently. Therefore the statement must be more universal than a "Rapture" happening in the early 21st century.

8

(1 Corinthians 15:51) Let's look at the verse quoted here in context.

The context, that 1 Corinthians 15:51 answers, is the question posed in verse 35: But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?

The answer is (vv 51, 52 and 53): at the last trumpet the dead will rise uncorrupted and we shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye. (Notice this is the last trumpet not one of the trumpets announcing Jesus, this one is the last one at his coming).

This verse does not imply a "Rapture" as a first phase of Christ's coming.

9

(1 Thessalonians 4:17) Let's look at the verse quoted here in context.

The context, that 1 Thessalonians 4:16 and 17 answers, is the question posed in verse 13: "But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope."

The answer is (vv 14, 15, 16 and 17): if we believe that Jesus rose again, then we must believe that our dead will rise again; Jesus will come back and we will all be raised to him, the living and the dead.

This verse does not imply a "Rapture" as a first phase of Christ's coming.

10

Correct.

11

Wrong.

Let's look at the verse quoted here in context.

1 Thessalonians 4:16 says: "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God."

This describes the coming of Christ as one would announce a king with trumpets and with his subjects shouting. As we are in an election year, just imagine a political convention with a rock band screaming, then the FBI and police motorcade (archangels), and then the final announcement, the King is here.

The "Rapture" interpretation as a coming known only to the believers is totally wrong. Nothing private in shouts, archangels and trumpets. Paul does not say "only" believers. Yes, Paul speaks of believers, because this is a letter addressed to believers not a systematic theological thesis. There is absolutely no reason to presuppose that this coming is only for believers.

This verse does not imply a "Rapture" as a first phase of Christ's coming.

12

Correct. The word Trinity is not in the Bible either. We do not need to define doctrines by words found only in the Bible. We can use other words. But this does not imply a "Rapture" as a first phase of Christ's coming.

13

A dictionary defines usage of words but this does not necessarily imply that a word describes a true fact. The word Leprechauns is in the dictionary but this does not mean they are true.

This does not imply a "Rapture" as a first phase of Christ's coming.

14

Correct.

15

Correct. But what does it mean?

16

Wrong.

Let's look at the verses quoted here in context.

Verses 36 and 37 say no one knows when it will happen.

Verses 38 and 39 speak of removal not of believers but of unbelievers (those unprepared who went with business as usual). Those who were left were Noah and his family everyone else died. The believers are those who were left behind those who were taken up were those who died. This is contrary to the "Rapture" teaching (let's re-read carefully the whole chapter 24 in Matthew).

Verses 40 and 41 speak of women doing normal activities. No indication that anyone will be removed from the earth.

The context of the passage shows the sudden coming of God's Judgment and the necessity to be prepared (verses 43 to 51).

No "Rapture" here but judgment.

These verses do not imply a "Rapture" as a first phase of Christ's coming.

17

Correct.

18

Correct.

19

The whole doctrine of the "Rapture," therefore, rests on these verses. Context is going to be essential, here. The "Rapture" teaching falls or stands on this passage.

But as we have seen above these verses do not imply a "Rapture" as a first phase of Christ's coming.

20

Correct.

21

Correct. That's because the context is not a statement of systematic theology about the eschatology. 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 here, like all the letters of the New Testament, is an answer to specific pastoral questions.

The question is (verse 13) if Jesus is supposed to come back before anyone of us dies, are our beloved parents who have already died lost? There are buried and in the ground, is that all there is when one dies? Paul's answer is no, they will rise again and we will all be reunited. Nothing more and nothing else.

22

True if we believe that heaven and air is the same thing (verses 16 and 17). True if we believe that, when Paul talks about air and clouds, he actually means that Jesus floats in N2O2 atmosphere and that he will be swinging in a cumulus, cirrus, stratus or nimbus.

Air and clouds, in biblical language, mean the presence of God as when God enters into the Holy of Holies and fills it with cloud, fire and/or smoke. The cloud is the Shekinah, the presence, the glory of God. For example the cloud at the transfiguration or the ascension describes Jesus coming into his glory not being enveloped in fog or floating above it.

23

Can we stay in focus, here, and not mix different texts and with different contexts, just to prove preconceived doctrines?

24

Correct.

But this does not imply a "Rapture" as a first phase of Christ's coming.

25

People who use foreign words are all Greek to me. Let's face it, anyone who has had 4 years of high school French or Spanish where they learned all the vocabulary and grammar and where they received A+ with honor and still cannot speak or understand French or Spanish, anyone knows you cannot learn a language from a lexicon. After 50 years as bilingual and 30 as trilingual I am not easily impressed by these kinds of arguments.

Words always have several different meanings. The 3 rules of interpretations are: context, context, context. Thessalonians speaks of some kind of bodily assumption whereas Acts speaks of Philip being transported to a different location (not the same idea).

26

Correct. But this does not imply a "Rapture" as a first phase of Christ's coming.

This is a correct statement but because the "Rapture" is assumed to mean a first phase of Christ's coming then Paul's saying "our gathering together unto him" is used to prove that the "Rapture" is true and biblical whereas it was an assumed statement in the first place. This is a circular argument, a sophistry that does not prove anything.

Still there is nothing in the context here to imply the "Rapture" as a first phase of Christ's coming.

27

Correct.

But this does not imply a "Rapture" as a first phase of Christ's coming.

28

Wrong.

Let's look at the verses quoted here in context.

Hebrews 10:24 and 25 says: "And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching."

This is not a picture of the "Rapture" at Jesus' coming. It is an exhortation to do good works (verse 24). What is good works? To assemble together to worship together (verse 25). The Greek word for gathering, "assembling together" is "episunagogē" as in "synagogue."

To understand what Paul is saying, a nice web site to visit is http://bible.cc/hebrews/10-25.htm. It has the verses in several translations and gives the meaning from different Bible commentaries.

What Paul is saying is "let's encourage each other to do good works: go to church for Christ's sake! And as the day of Christ is approaching, do it even more." If we read further the following verses, Paul even sounds Catholic when he parallels not going to church with sinning willfully and losing our salvation (v26).

Nothing in here implies a "Rapture" as a first phase of Christ's coming.

29

Correct.

But, as we have seen above, the same word can have several meanings. For example here, the "rapture" of Philip or Enoch does not describe the same phenomena.

Nothing in here implies or explains "Rapture" as a first phase of Christ's coming.

30

Correct.

But this does not imply a "Rapture" as a first phase of Christ's coming.

31

Correct, it does speak of the same event, but this does not imply a "Rapture" as a first phase of Christ's coming. As we have seen throughout the above quotes they do not refer to the "Rapture" as an event happening 1007 years before the Second Coming but it does refer to what will happen to us at the Second Coming.

32

Correct.

33

Correct, it does speak of the same event, but this is not a reference to a "Rapture." As we have seen throughout the above quotes they do not refer to the "Rapture" as an event happening 1007 years before the Second Coming but it does refer to what will happen to us at the Second Coming.

34

Wrong.

Up to now there is no passage that pertains to the "Rapture" as a first phase of Christ's coming; only passages that refer to the Second Coming.

35

Wrong.

Let's look at the verses quoted here in context.

The passage says: "For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory. Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth."

The passage is exhorting the believers to be dead to the world in order to be alive with Christ and to mortify their bodies.

If verse 3 speaks of the Christian paradox (death and life), if verse 4 described a chronological event (the "Rapture") and if verses 5 and following speak of how believers should live (mortify their bodies), then Paul would be mixing topics. No writer should be jumping from one topic to another in 3 verses. Paul cannot be jumping from moral living exhortation to a chronological step in the "Rapture" event. If this "appearing in glory" is to make sense it must be in an exhortation context not a chronological context.

To have a chronological context we need to have a "before" a "during" and an "after." None of this is found here.

Therefore there is no reference here to any "Rapture" as a first phase of Christ's coming.

36

Correct.

Let's look at the verses quoted here in context.

Jude 1:14 and 15 says: "And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

True, Jude quotes Enoch prophesying that the Lord will come with his saints to bring judgment upon all.

In the "Rapture" scenario the saints would have been taken up and the ungodly would have stayed; accordingly the judgment referred should be of the ungodly only. On the contrary, the verse says that judgment will be of all, even the "ungodly among them all."

This verse speaks of the Last Judgment when Jesus will come back with those saints who have been in heaven with him and he will judge all those who are left, all of them the godly who are left and the ungodly among them.

There is nothing here to imply a "Rapture" as a first phase of Christ's coming.

37

Correct.

Scripture does not contradict itself but people misinterpret scripture and contradict it, especially when they take it out of context.

38

Wrong. Nothing in the above scripture has established the fact that there are two separate phases of Christ's coming. All the verses above are taken out of context, or do not show any chronological events (with a past, present and future in the same context), or, even though correct, they are irrelevant to the topic. As an example, the verses that are quoted here do speak of Tribulation, Antichrist and God's wrath but, when taken individually in their own context, none of these verses show a chronology including the "Rapture" as a first phase of Christ's coming.

Daniel speaks of resurrection of both the righteous and unrighteous. Matthew does speak of Tribulation. 2 Thessalonians does speak of the Antichrist. But none of these verses speak of the "Rapture" as a first phase of Christ's coming before the Great Tribulation.

39

Wrong.

There is nothing here to imply a "Rapture" as a first phase of Christ's coming before the Great Tribulation.

40

Correct.

But this does not imply a "Rapture" as a first phase of Christ's coming.

41

Wrong.

The passage above, in 2 Thessalonians, chapter 2, does not speak of the "Rapture" but of Christ's coming and our gathering unto him; there is no reference to any "Rapture" as a first phase of Christ's coming.

2 Thessalonians, verse 3 expressly states: "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;"

Do not be deceived, Christ will not come and we will not be gathered unless the Antichrist comes first.

This is expressly contrary to the "Rapture" doctrine that says Christ comes first, then we are "Raptured," then comes the Antichrist and then the Great Tribulation.

Verse 8 also states that the Antichrist will first come and is already here and only then will he be destroyed at Christ's coming. There is only one Christ's coming described.

42

Somewhat correct. The passage does speak of the Day of the Lord. That is the Second Coming not the "Rapture." He does warn of destruction that comes to the unprepared.

43

Verse 4 does not quite say that, but, rather, that destruction will not overtake those who abide in Christ. If we are children of light we know what will happen and therefore we should be vigilant. The verse speaks of exhortation not assurance.

44

Correct.

But this does not imply a "Rapture" as a first phase of Christ's coming.

45

Wrong.

We will be saved by our Lord as verse 9 says but it there is no mention of the Great Tribulation.

46

Correct.

47

Totally wrong.

As seen above 2 Thessalonians 2:3 does say: "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;"

Let's follow what Paul says: "let no man deceive you" does mean the same thing as "watch out;" "falling away" does mean watch out for the great apostasy; "man of sin be revealed" does mean watch out for the appearance of the Antichrist.

48

Wrong.

As seen above 2 Thessalonians 2:3 does teach that such things must happen before the Second Coming and to expect them ("let no man deceive you").

This does not destroy the teaching of imminence, because the teaching of imminence is about the imminence of Christ's Second Coming.

There is no imminence of the "Rapture" because there is no such a thing as a "Rapture" of the church before the Great Tribulation.

It is not the teaching of imminence that is destroys but the teaching of the "Rapture" that is destroyed.

49

Correct.

50

Correct.

51

Correct.

52

All of this is only makes sense only if the "Rapture" was a fact (still not shown in any of the verses above).

53

Wrong.

Several points to be made here. The Bible can have different levels of meanings and they do not necessarily contradict each other. It is true that "God did not send the Flood until Noah and his family were safe in the ark." But sometimes we need to make sure we read the Old Testament in context with the New. This can be dangerous when we do this on our own. Fortunately, the New Testament itself explains some of the Old Testament figures and shadows. The reference of Noah and the Flood is a reference to baptism (1 Peter 3:20 and 21) not a reference to the "Rapture."

The second point to be made is whether God's will for us is to be removed from tribulation and suffering. The whole 28 verses of Matthew's chapter 16 seem to contradict the "Rapture" doctrine.

The chapter starts with woes to those who seek signs of the end of the world. Then it goes on with Jesus asking his disciples who do people say he is. This is the key. Because the answer to this will show Jesus' nature, personality and expectations from his disciples.

He is the Son of the living God, says Peter. Then Jesus explains how he is going to suffer. Peter, guided by his human feels, says God forbid and Jesus rebukes him as he would Satan. What's wrong with that? After all Peter doesn't want to suffer or want Jesus to suffer.

What's Jesus teaching from this incident? If you want to be his follower, deny yourself, pickup your cross. John will also say, if they persecute Jesus they will persecute his followers also (John 15:20).

Contrary to "Rapture" doctrine, it is totally consistent with God's will that Christians will share in Christ's death and suffer persecution. These are not figurative symbols. A 2000 years history of Christian's persecutions has proven this.

54

Wrong. None of the above scriptures has shown that there will be a "Rapture" let alone that it is pre-Tribulation.

55

Yes, yes, yes. Triple yes and triple correct.

The Second coming, not the "Rapture."

56

Here we go again jumping from Second coming to "Rapture." We have to stop jumping from one subject to another and make alleged connections. No verse above proves there will be a "Rapture." All verses that allegedly speak of a "Rapture" are actually talking about the Second Coming and Last Judgment.

57

Correct.

But this does not imply a "Rapture" as a first phase of Christ's coming.

58

Correct.

But this does not imply a "Rapture" as a first phase of Christ's coming.

The Cross and the Suffering Servant

One of the remarks above shows a misunderstanding of the difference between Biblical Jewish theology and Christian theology. The above statement is: "It is consistent with God's dealings with His people in the Old Testament to believe that the Church will be removed from the world before the Great Tribulation."

The idea is that God would not want his people to suffer. This makes sense in the Jewish way of looking at God's favor. In ancient Israel the thought was that health and wealth are signs of God's favor. Illness like leprosy was seen as the sign of a sinful life. In John 9:2 the disciples ask Jesus "Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?"

The disciples thought that bad things happen to bad people but Jesus corrects them. Suffering is not a sign of God's displeasure. God actually allows suffering that a greater good may happen. That's why Jesus answered his disciples (John 9:3): "Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him."

It is not true that "It is consistent with God's dealings with His people in the Old Testament to believe that the Church will be removed from the world before the Great Tribulation." To understand this we could use the whole book of Job as a theology of suffering. Nonetheless, suffering as the will of God, is something difficult to understand. To illustrate this I would like to use an example which is little known but will show the difference between Jewish understanding and Christian understanding of suffering.

There is a word we use often to speak of the tragedy that the Jewish people suffered during WWII. We usually call this the Holocaust. Jewish people do not like the term Holocaust, they prefer the term Shoah. A holocaust is a type of sacrifice, "wholly burnt," whereas Shoah means "destruction." What is the difference and why would Jewish people be upset if we use the term Holocaust? Simply because they cannot understand or accept that God would want the Jewish people to be sacrificed or undergo sacrifice, because in the Jewish mind health and wealth are the signs of his favor not sacrificial suffering. Shoah, on the contrary, is still a strong word that truly represents what happened in the extermination camps, but it has the advantage of avoiding the theological undertone. Holocaust is a Christian understanding that underscores the theology of suffering.[1]

Similarly the Jewish understanding of the Suffering Servant (Isaiah 52 and 53) is not about a person who will save the world by his sufferings but it is about the nation of Israel being persecuted and someday being restored to her proper place.[2] This understanding is from Rashi.[3] Today, the Jewish understanding has not changed. The Suffering Servant will be recompensed for his suffering rather than effecting salvation by his suffering. In this view Israel is enduring suffering and will be rewarded. In the Christian view, Jesus accepts, embraces and transforms suffering into grace and redemption. These two understandings do not need to be thought of contradictory. We can think of this as applying to Israel as always being persecuted; to Jesus, fulfilling in himself the history of Israel,[4] to the Church as following in the footsteps of Jesus.[5] The Jewish understanding is about enduring suffering and hoping that it will be removed by God. The Christian understanding is about embracing suffering and giving it back to God to use for the good of others. The difference between the two understandings is because Jewish theology is not centered in Christ whereas Christianity has Christ as its meaning and model. As Paul says:

"But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men."[6]

Conclusion

The letters of Paul are exactly that: letters. They do not claim to be full theological treatises. When Paul speaks of the believers, dead and alive, to be taken up into heaven, it is to answer the doubt that some had regarding the fate of their loved ones not to explain to us the "Rapture" as a milestone in God's project management timeline.

No verses quoted above relate to an event in which Christians will be taken up into heaven so that they may avoid the sufferings of the Great Tribulation. There is no such event. All verses allegedly relating to the "Rapture" are taken out of context.[7] They do not speak of a "Rapture" but of the Second Coming, the day when Christ will come to judge the living and the dead; the godly will then be taken up into heaven and the ungodly will be taken down to the other place. This will happen on the last day not some 1007 years before.

Contrary to the belief of the "Rapture" believers, it is consistent with God's nature and God's plan and God's will that we should suffer, if his Son suffered, if we would be his followers. Why? Because suffering is redemptive and the world needs to be redeemed. Some would say this does not make sense. Why would God want us to suffer? He does not want us to suffer. He shows us the reality of how to suffer for love's sake. This is one of the paradoxes of Christianity. True love entails suffering. Let me conclude with an example, food for thought that will explain this.

Even we, poor humans, with our feeble feelings and understanding, we know, instinctively, that suffering can be an act of love and redemption. When we have a suffering child or other suffering loved one don't we say "I wished I could suffer instead of my child, oh God take me instead of him?" Isn't suffering and sacrifice the ultimate act of love to which we are called? Isn't that what Christ did? Isn't that what Matthew's chapter 16 says about taking our cross and following Jesus? Isn't that what redemptive suffering is?

[3] Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaki) and Ramban (Rabbi Moses Maimonides) are the two greatest Jewish scholars as great as Augustine and Aquinas are to Christianity.

[4] What happens to Israel ultimately happens to Jesus as the ultimate Israelite.

[5] Matthew 10:38, 16:24, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23, 14:27.

[6] 1 Corinthians 1:23-25

[7] This is not a reflection on our Christian brothers knowledge of scripture or sincerity of heart, but it is interesting to me how these texts can be easily taken out of context. This is the power of cognitive schemas and preconceived worldview that shape our understanding of scriptures instead of our understanding or scripture forming our worldview.