I suppose, because of my post title, the cat is out of the bag on my eschatology. So I’ll start this post right off the bat saying, it’s my conviction that there will be no rapture of the Church. I believe the overwhelming weight of biblical evidence in no way shape or form supports a phased approach of the coming of the Lord. Let me explain why.
Firstly (I love that word) if we study the history of this idea we will find that this whole notion of the rapture is a relatively new idea, this fact alone should cause us to pause.
There is some debate as to who came up with this idea originally but most credit it to John Darby. Darby revealed his eschatological view and outlined his idea on this so called “rapture” at the Powerscourt Conference in 1831.
It is very difficult to find any evidence of ”rapture” eschatology prior to Darby’s teaching it beginning in 1831.
So why has it become mainstream?
Well the answer is simple. The Christian church has lost its foundation and connection to the roots of Judaism. Most of our modern Christianity has taken a direction influenced highly by the enlightenment age. Because of this the Christian story has been disconnected from the Jewish story. Something God never intended.
So the challenge and the question we are faced with is, if for almost a thousand years after Jesus showed up not a single person believed in this “rapture” idea, why do so many believe it today?
Again it goes back to the story. The bible has within its construct a meta-narrative. To highly summarize the meta-narrative within Judaism it’s this:
God created all things Good, Satan and the powers distorted that good, God in His grace and mercy has not abandoned His creation to destruction and chaos but instead put a plan in place that would eventually lead to the reconciliation and redemption of all things. That plan began with Abraham.
In Judaism this is referred to as the “Tikkun Olam” or the repair of the world.
Jesus and the Church flow out of this reality, which will end up with heaven coming to earth, the original place God intended to dwell. This was the goal from the very beginning. That God would dwell with man and the whole of creation would be a holy temple.
So the flaw in Darby’s theology and the one this absurd end of the world talk is wrapped up in, is rooted in a non-biblical belief that all of reality is about somewhere else and not about this place, this earth, and this humanity. The idea that we will all go off to a distant spiritual reality is an idea we get from Plato not from the bible.
We have a guarantee from the creator that he will put it all back together, or as N.T Wright states “put the world to rights.” He doesn’t need to exile his church to do this, in fact that would be counter to the way God has always done things.
God uses “agents” to accomplish His purposes, to remove His followers and Kingdom agents would fly in the face of how he created things to work in this world. The way He created things to work was that His followers are His hands and feet in the world and the mechanisms by how his will gets done. His will is to reconcile and renew all things, this earth, this humanity not to destroy it. Therefore we have a job to do, participate in new creation, rush the future renewed world into the present anyway we can. Love Wins!
The only thing that gives me concern, that I hope I am wrong about, is that in my thinking it would seem logical that the world is probably going to have to mess itself up quite a bit more. In essence things may have to become much worse before they get better.
To quote Martin Luther “If I knew Jesus was coming back tomorrow I’d go plant a tree.”
So let’s embrace the greater reality to participate in new creation, this Tikkun Olam, right now in this present reality. Let’s let God worry about the future and more importantly let’s make those people’s lives around us better instead of worse.
Excellent as always! Couldnt agree more Dan…
Don't give me credit, Kurt. That is Ben Bajarin's first addition to the blog. Ben has just joined me as co-author and will be taking the lead on a creative redesign. He'll also be kicking me in the backside to write more often! ;{)
Ben,
I thought I corrected this error of yours last year, so I guess this is going to be "secondly." The idea that Darby invented the rapture construct is not supported in the literaure.
– John L. Bray offered $500.00 to anyone who come up with evidence in the literature prior to McDonald He lost the bet to himself by researching and finding The Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty – Emmanuel Lacunza (1812) had taught rapture eschatology.
So Bray offered the $500 again. Again, he found and wrote about a work published in England in 1742 with the teaching of the rapture. There have been a lot of writings.
To date, the most ancient mention is a sermon by Ephraem The Syrian who stated in a Byzantine text – On the Last Times, the Antichrist and the End of the World ~ 370 AD
“for all the saints and Elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins.”
The same author discusses the concept of Daniel’s 69th week ended with the Rejection/Crucifixion and the 70th week consisted of a rapture, the rule of the anti-Christ and the final return of Christ.
While this does not prove Rapture Eschatology, it certainly counters your point that it was originated by Darby.
John Hannigan
John, this is why I said very difficult. Now to flesh that out further I surveyed three resident historians at well known and respected seminaries whom I have access to and asked this question.
Yes everyone agreed Darby made it popular, thanks much to his emphasis on dispensationalism. What I was told about those mentions prior were that none of them were taken seriously by anyone who has a grip on sound doctrine and did not make it into mainstream because it was considered crazy talk.
So in essence there was no credible voice who backed it up with a sound exegesis until Darby.
I'll probably write a post to address the gross mis-understadings of revelation in modern day interpretation. Also a new idea.
I'll highlight key parts of historical exegesis and context that make sense of key passages as well as how all though not prophetic about the future more of a warning about things in the future. Beware of Anti-Christ like behavior, and do not succumb to the empire etc.. In essence its a book more about hope than fear or damnation. God will put the world to rights!
While this does not prove Rapture Eschatology, it certainly counters your point that it was originated by Darby.
John, I appreciate your closing with this comment. You allude to a point that I believe is overlooked all too often in theological circles…and that is that nothing else is Scripture. While it is instructive to consider the perspectives of various historic writers, including those we now describe as "Church Fathers," we dare never lose sight of the fact that doctrine/dogma (insofar as it's appropriate at all) may only be derived from Scripture itself. Patristic sources are authoritative as references to historic thought, but with regard to doctrine they must be subjected to the Scriptural lens as surely as ideas that come from you or me.
Thanks for keeping this in perspective…I'm sorry we can no longer hash this stuff out in person!
Now to give credit where its due…
Ben, this post kicks @$$!
"So the flaw in Darby’s theology and the one this absurd end of the world talk is wrapped up in, is rooted in a non-biblical belief that all of reality is about somewhere else and not about this place, this earth, and this humanity. The idea that we will all go off to a distant spiritual reality is an idea we get from Plato not from the bible."
If it wasn't for Plato and Kant, religion and any epistemology based on faith in mystical nonsense would have died a long time ago. It's quite entertaining to see a mystic call out another mystic for being unconcerned with reality.
If it wasn't for Plato and Kant, religion and any epistemology based on faith in mystical nonsense would have died a long time ago.
I don't know about that, Fernando. People were looking to gods of various sorts long before Plato (and certainly before & since Kant). Although you may find it all nonsense, the reality is that a whole lot of people have seen otherwise over the millenia.
Nevertheless, I won't try to defend our "mystical" thoughts against your objections; a large part of my hope is that some day we can actually get enough fellow "mystics" to live out the concrete realities of the life Jesus modeled and commanded. If we ever do that, you'll have plenty of tangible evidence to weigh. Frankly, the burden of proof rests with those of us who claim the faith…and we've done a pretty lousy job of representing it so far. For this truth I give you (and God) my sincere regrets.
Fernando, hows it going. Come have a beer at my house soon.
Needless to say I am certain I completely agree with all of your critiques of institutional religion. I am assuming you believe the world would be a better place without religious fanatics.
I'd have to say I certainly agree that there are many, like the ones who started this whole end of the world fiasco, who are so out of touch with this world that they are irrelevant to it. I agree the world is better off without them and I wish they had been raptured.
The bottom line however is mystic or not there are a lot of people who because of their faith, namely in Jesus, who have dedicated their lives to the things Jesus was about. Like brining water to the thirsty, food to the hungry, fighting for those on the underside of power, standing up to those who abuse power, fighting poverty and systemic oppression and lots more.
These are the kinds of things God cares about and the types of things true faith in God would manifest.
I agree with Dan that the church owes the world an apology. We have given the world an incorrect picture of God because of our actions, ultimately the church in this time period may be held accountable for that.
But I am optimistic that things could change, that Jesus followers can be inspired to make this world better and not worse. Solely based on the idea that Jesus stood for sacrificial love.
When you see sacrificial love in action it is very difficult to argue that a belief that brings about that kind of action is even remotely a bad thing.
Every idea, philosophy, system, religion etc has its flaws. Those flaws are called people. It's not the idea its how people, because of pride, desire of power, greed etc distort that idea that screws it up.
@Fernando Villamar, you may be interested in two posts I wrote last fall regarding the ugliness the church has presented to the world:
The Gospel According to Heinlein and
An Open Letter to Christopher Hitchens