The Rapture
What is it and where did it come from?
All contents copyright © 2013 by M.L. Wilson. All
rights reserved. No part of this document or the related files may be
reproduced or transmitted in any form, by any means (electronic, photocopying,
recording, or otherwise) without the prior written permission of the publisher.
~ ~ ~
Next to the Holy Trinity, there are few other
contentious issues within the interpretations of scripture which rival that of
the theory variously called “The Rapture.” This is a theory that had one
specific meaning to Christians for nearly two millennia until the early
nineteenth century. From approximately 1832 on, this theory began to morph into
something else entirely. My point in writing this commentary is to simply give
my view and opinion as to what caused this change in thought, why we have
cleaved to the latter meaning and what the implications of embracing such a
belief are to us as Christians.
It is important to outline just what the Rapture
Theory is because the term has come to take on two different essential
meanings. There is the older view which is based upon the scripture found in 1st Thessalonians 4:14-17, “We believe that God will bring
with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in Him. According to the Lord’s own
word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of
the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord
Himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the
archangel and the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.
After that, we who are still alive who are left will be caught up together with
them in the clouds to greet the Lord in the air.”
In this older view, the Rapture was the calling
of believers to Christ upon His return to earth to setup His new Kingdom. This
“calling up” came after all of the various judgments and tribulations had
concluded. The newer incarnation came about much, much later and introduced a
new concept which had never been heard of before. Both will be discussed at
length in this commentary.
First, one must understand that within the Canon
of scripture, there is no such word or term as “Rapture”. The Rapture is a
“shorthand” term used to explain an event; a happening. The actual word
“Rapture” is defined thus:
This from the Free Online Dictionary by Farlex (www.thefreedictionary.com):
rap·ture
n.
1. The state of being transported by a lofty emotion; ecstasy.
2. An expression of ecstatic feeling. Often used in the plural.
3. The transporting of a person from one place to another, especially
to heaven.
tr.v. rap·tured, rap·tur·ing, rap·tures
To
enrapture.
[Obsolete
French, abduction, carrying off, from rapt, carried away,
from Old French rat, from Latin raptus; see rapt.]
In addition to the dictionary version, it
is also believed the word “Rapture” is derived from the Latin word “rapio”
which means, “to seize, to
take by force.”, and
interestingly enough, is thought to be the root for the English word for
“Rape”. The Greek word used in scripture is “Harpazo” which is translated as “caught up” or “snatched.” One question which can be legitimately
asked if there is no Hebrew word used, and the Greek word used is Harpazo would
be, “Why is it called The Rapture Theory then?” The answer comes from the fact
that in the late 3rd Centuries
and early 4th Century,
Jerome of Stridon (a border town between Dalmatia and Pannonia which is located
in modern-day Croatia.) translated the Greek Septuagint into the Latin Vulgate.
(Vulgate essentially means common, ergo “translation
into the common language”.) Hence, the term Harpazo in the Greek was
translated by Jerome into “rapio” or “rapere” or the more common term of
“rapture” depending up the version one read in Latin. There are subtle
differences in each word, yet they all could easily be applied to the usage of
the Greek word “Harpazo” found in the Septuagint.
Once established in its most broad sense,
“Rapture” means, “To take up” or “To take away”, we can
proceed into the exploration of the different schools of thought respecting the
application of the term. In order to do that properly, we have to understand cultures and eras have an effect on interpretation of scripture. One cannot view
scripture without understanding the era in which it was written. In the case of
1st Thessalonians, we
are looking at one of the oldest letters written by the Apostle Paul. His
letters to the Church at Thessalonica date back to the early 50’s AD.
Here I must digress somewhat and ask you to bear
with me. I bring this notion of dates and eras up only because there is a
tendency to believe such Biblical giants as Paul, John and Peter , et al,
remained static in their spiritual growth. What I mean by that is as
observers from the 21st Century,
we tend to look at these early church fathers as somehow already knowing
everything God intended for them to know, and having worked out all of the
problems which could possibly confront them from a spiritual perspective by the
time they wrote what would become the scriptures. Since that is the presumption
we tend to believe as we delve into their works (e.g. The Bible is the inerrant
word of God), we therefore regard such works as infallible. Such notions should
not be considered; Paul, John and Peter were just people who put down on
papyrus, the chronicle of Christ’s trek on earth and the essential teachings
they encompassed. Such work was “Divinely
Inspired”, but such works are NOT infallible or inerrant. These are
misconceptions resulting from a misunderstanding of terms.
It is of interest to note the very thought
of infallibility with respect to the Apostles or their written works is
debunked within the pages of scripture by the Apostles themselves. We see this
when Paul is forced to correct Peter on the subject of circumcision (Galatians
2:11-17) or when both he and Barnabas find themselves at odds with one another.
(Acts 15:36-39) We can look back on the Paul and Peter argument and perhaps make a determination Paul was correct based upon our knowledge of doctrine, but do we know who was correct between Paul and
Barnabas? Both remain silent on the points of disagreement. Can such be construed that neither was wrong, or both? What if it turns out Paul was
wrong in his position? Would that error therefore invalidate all his works? Such a conclusion could only be reached if we impute
a weight to such works which was never intended. Here is where it is important
to remember the very reason these letters were written to begin with; many were
to answer questions that these early churches had with respect to the teaching
they had been given.
It is important to remember that just as God
works in our lives and allows us to grow and learn, the same held true with
these Apostles. Yes they were Divinely Inspired to write their works and they
have been used to educate scores of people over two millennia, but scripture is
not inerrant; the Word of God is. The misconception is the belief the Word of God is
the printed word; the
Bible. However, the Bible as it exists today was not compiled until at least
three hundred years after Christ and continued to be molded and tinkered with
up until the late 19th Century.
To clarify, the Word of God is
Jesus Christ; the Bible is scripture.
It is in this light we must look at
scripture and take what the individuals say and make certain it aligns
correctly with what Christ taught. Paul was a man and had opinions. If one
looks at the attitude of Paul in the letters he wrote to the Church at
Thessalonica and compares them with the attitude of his later works—his letters
to Timothy thought to have been written in the early to mid-60’s AD, one will
see a change in his language and his concepts. This is reflective in the growth the ten years or more which separates the two letters clearly points out. When we deny these
early church fathers the benefit of that growth, we nullify their lives and the
experiences they had to endure.
Thus those who have created an entire theology
around one passage of one letter written very early in his public ministry
without finding harmony within Christ’s teachings, err considerably. I am
cognizant of the fact this will sound somewhat heretical to some, but all
I am really saying is that to regard the written
text of the Bible as being
without error is to impute far more into what the Bible is than what was
intended. Scripture was Divinely
Inspired, not conceived
through something akin to automatic handwriting.
This from Wikipedia:
Automatic writing or psychography is
writing which the writer claims to be produced from a subconscious, and/or
external and/or spiritual source without conscious awareness of the content.
Almighty God did not take possession of the
Apostles and write the Bible for them; He imbued them with His essence through
RELATIONSHIP and these men wrote about the outgrowth of that relationship. The
very presence of a Bible—while common to us today, was an extreme rarity even
after it was compiled in the 3rd and
4th centuries and very
few people set eyes upon one and even if they did, most likely would not have
been able to read it; most people were illiterate. The early church had
memorized creeds and used those creeds to guide them in their knowledge of
Christ; the concept of a book which was without error was unknown to them.
The most common of these creeds, but by no means
the first was introduced somewhere around 390 AD as mentioned by Ambrose,
Archbishop of Milan. The creed reads:
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
Creator of Heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ, His only Son Our Lord, Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died,
and was buried. He descended into Hell; the third day He rose again from the
dead; He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father
almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe
in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the
forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and life everlasting. Amen.
For some three hundred years before Constantine
the Great and many hundreds of years afterward, uncounted numbers of people
lived and died regarding themselves fortunate only to have been able to have
heard a creed such as this one. These were people who were persecuted, and
martyred in horrific ways in attempts to get them to renounce their belief in
Christ. These people had no scriptures to pour over for answers and had only
the Holy Spirit to guide their way. It would be my humble opinion that despite
their lack of scriptures, these people possessed far more faith than any modern
Christian—if only because of the dearth of a Bible.
It would be a fair statement to say most all
people grow as they learn; tomorrow, most people will know more than they do
today. I would not want to be held to the level of spiritual understanding I
possessed in my youth no matter how erudite I may have felt I was on such
matters. I therefore struggle to make certain I am as accurate on
what I disseminate today, being mindful of the fact that I will know more
tomorrow than I know today.
Paul, Peter, John, et al—no matter how much
regard we hold for these men, were just men and they wrote what they knew in
the context they knew it and in the culture of their day. The Spirit guided
them—just as I believe He guides you or me, but we get to make the final determination
as to what is put on the paper. Thus as a writer, I am divinely inspired in just what it is I write, but
it will remain open to debate as to whether I am correct or incorrect in my conclusions; whether my
words are inerrant. I explain this position with respect to the scriptures only
to place into proper context the scripture passages used to buttress the
Rapture argument.
There are three basic thoughts on the modern
understanding of The Rapture Theory within the Evangelical Church today. These
break down to:
-
Pre-Tribulation Rapture
-
Mid-Tribulation Rapture
- Post-Tribulation Rapture
Briefly in order, Pre-Trib believers will be
taken at the start of the great Tribulation. Mid-Trib believers will be taken
after the first three and one half years have passed and Post-tribulation
believers will be taken at the end of the Great Tribulation. This latter view
is essentially the view long held by the Church dating back to the time of
Constantine the Great.
In the first and second Rapture theories, the
arrival of Christ is a “secret” coming where He gathers His faithful—believers
in Him—and whisks them off, thus they avoid God’s wrath against the sinners and
unbelievers left behind during the Great Tribulation. Since the situation on
earth does not degrade into violence until after the first forty months of the
Tribulation, Christians can still be “rescued” even though the Tribulation has
begun. Few adherents of The Rapture theory believe in a Post-Tribulation
Rapture as that “misses the point” of the Rapture as they see it.
One would believe that if this was what was going
to occur at the end of the age, Christ would have spoken about it. However the
most those who favor the Rapture theory can come up with is a parable told
by Christ to support their theory. In both the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke:
“As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the Ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.” Matthew 24:37-41
“As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the Ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.” Matthew 24:37-41
Two things to be mindful of in this: Firstly,
there is no explicit mention such is a “secret”
coming of Christ. The Patriarch Enoch, Noah's great-great-grandfather, had
first prophesied of the coming deluge more than six hundred years before it
occurred. He preached about this coming cataclysm up to the day he was taken.
Similarly his son, Methuselah was also told about and preached the coming
deluge. Noah's father, Lamech was also made aware as, of course, was Noah. Few
within proximity of the Ark and Noah's family did not know of the story of the
coming cataclysm, but it remained just a story. Of course once it hit, they became aware of the accuracy of the story instantly. They also knew Noah’s strange boat could provide them rescue, but it was already closed
up. Again we see absolutely no secrecy about the arrival of the cataclysm and
only one avenue of deliverance. To reiterate, we see a scenario that
Christ pointed out to us (Matthew 24:37) where upon there was no
"secret" delivery. It was long announced, but the coming abrupt and
only once.
The second point is there was an immediate and
irreversible end to the earth the inhabitants all were familiar with; their world ceased to exist. The antediluvian world
was vastly different from the world we inhabit today. Even archaeologists will
contend the earth has gone through different phases of weather and
conditions resulting in forming the earth we now experience. Few of them will
attach themselves to what is called “The Hydro-Plate Theory” (Conceptualized by
Dr. Walter Brown Ph.D. I have some disagreements on many of Browns attendant
theories, but such is for another commentary.), but they are all in general
agreement that there have been episodes in earth’s history which saw
catastrophic and abrupt changes.
The “Left Behind” scenario held by “Rapturists”
does not follow this Noahic model as outlined by Christ. With the exception of
a small group of Christians suddenly vanishing from the face of the earth,
nothing else would immediately change. Everything else would go on as it always
had after this “secret” taking away of only faithful, believing Christians.
In answering the number of actual people
Raptured, it is important to note such a person can only be Raptured if they
are a Christian and have confessed any overt or secret sins and have not slid
back into the errant behavior. As a result of such parameters, the number of
Christians which would be affected by such a Rapture would actually be rather
small. This is from Dr. Timothy La Haye’s Newsletter entitled “Pre-Trib
Perspectives”. In the May 2003 issue (Volume VIII, Number 1) he
writes the following on page 3:
Many
countries I am sad to say, will hardly notice when Christians are suddenly
missing. For example, would it be ten percent in Germany or France?
Probably not. In such countries the attitude will probably be, "good riddance"!
Not
so America. Last month I cited the December 2002 Gallup Poll that
found 46 percent of the American people have had a "born again
experience with Jesus Christ." I hope and pray that is
true! If it is, what about the many others who believe Jesus is the Son
of God, that He lived a sinless life, died a sacrificial death for our sins and
that He rose again from the dead, but have never been introduced to the term
"born again," which occurs only twice in the Scripture. Would God
reject from His heaven any soul who goes out into eternity believing Jesus is
the only way to God, who trusts Him for his soul's salvation? I think not.
So how many would that make who will be raptured? Only God
knows, of course, but we should not be surprised if it is well over fifty
percent.
Think
about it. If 50 or more percent of the doctors, nurses,
teachers, craftsmen and workers from all walks of life including military
personnel from every branch of service were suddenly missing - that would be a
devastating blow to the American economy and way of life. Into that
leadership vacuum that the rapture may cause, the world would be vulnerable to
domination by Germany and France, both socialist forms of government with weak
leaders or a globalist organization that would propose equality of
nations. A perfect setup for the Man of Sin to move in and take
over.
Many adherents of The Rapture Theory were actually critical of La
Haye's figures as they believed them to be too inflated. So whereas La Haye
believes maybe a bit over 50% in America would be raptured, a good number
of “Christians” believe the percentage will be far, far lower.
A personal anecdote: My brother was a young Christian when this
incident took place more than thirty years ago in a small Baptist Church. He
noticed the pastor was upset about the reception he received from the
congregation to his sermon. He asked the pastor what the matter was and the
pastor abruptly responded with, “I doubt there are ten saved people in
this congregation!” (The present congregation stood at roughly one hundred.)
This alarmed my brother as he had to wonder if he could possibly be one of
those ten fortunate people. Surely the pastor was included as was his wife and
his child. That left only seven spots remaining for the rest of the
congregation. One would have to wonder that if the pastor truly believed 90% of his congregation—friends, family and acquaintances—were destined to an
eternal torment in Hell, why he wasn't on his knees in a prayerful wail to God,
rending his clothing at his failure to reach these people. Instead we see a man
self-possessed and angry. Thus, the “fruit” of such a theory is to build a wall
between man and God rather than a bridge.
I tell this only to illustrate that as Christians we are not to
focus on our salvation; such was not part of the Great Commission. We are to
use our energies to introduce others into a relationship with Christ. We can do
this because Christ took care of the salvation part already to free us from
that burden. Consider this passage from Matthew:
“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give
you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble
in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my
burden light.” – Matthew 11:28-30
Here Christ is explaining that unlike being under The Law, which crushed the
people with its awesome burden of rituals and regulations, Christ took the heavy burden from us. There was no longer the restrictions to adhere to and
labyrinth of rules and regulations to surmount in order to find favor with God.
Now consider this from the author of the book of Hebrews:
“We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because
you are slow to learn. In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers,
you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over
again. You need milk, not solid food! Anyone who lives on milk, being still an
infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food
is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish
good from evil.” – Hebrews 5:11-14
As a Christian, there comes a point where we are free; being
mature means being able to take upon us the responsibilities of adulthood and
NOT go astray. A child must be watched at all times lest they stray into
danger; an adult is supposed to have the ability to discern the danger and
avoid it. The Law was designed to take the discernment from the people whereas
Christ has freed us from the burden—and that gilded cage. God does not desire
a relationship with mindless sheep; He desires an intimate relationship with
those who can empathize with Him. That means we all have to grow up and
growth can sometimes be a painful experience, however it is of note that most
things worthwhile in life usually are.
Christ said that we would encounter trials as His
followers, that we would be persecuted and killed for His namesake. The mere
fact that the Rapture of the Church essentially spares the believer from the “honor” of serving Christ in this manner seems
to be a departure from what it is that Christ said and what it is that the
Christian walk is all about.
* * *
The Cultural and historical conditions which led
to The Rapture Theory:
At every step in human history, culture has
played a primary role in how humanity regarded their creator. Since as humans
we tend to need a thread of commonality—a point of reference in order to
comprehend the incomprehensible, we tend to anthropomorphize that which is
intellectually beyond our grasp. I will also hasten to add this is typical
behavior; by anthropomorphizing that which we do not understand, we make a
connection—no matter how tenuous. Through this connection, we feel a semblance
of control and it is this faux foundation upon which most of our theology is
created.
I do not mean to make it sound as though every
connection we have with God is based upon some vague feeling, but for the most
part, such is in fact the case. The need for humans to control God on an
intellectual level kept humans from being paralyzed with fear over the prospect
of some massively powerful entity invading and controlling their lives. The
ancient “gods” were not prone to kindness and instead demanded much from their
“creation”, the converse of which could mean death—or worse. Thus the gods of
the pre-Christian era were stern, taciturn, and perpetually angry. They did not
suffer fools gladly—or at all. In reality, the gods were unknowable to
mankind—as was their intention.
It is the god of the Hebrews which is the one most familiar to the West, but there were gods of similar fashion in
other portions of the world who had their own people to tend to as well. I will
not dwell on this bit of theology too much here, but only to mention it as a
point of context. The God of the Universe has to be the God of all or He is not
really God. It is important to note that while the god of the Hebrews was
dealing with Moses and the Jews in the desert, there were other people who
lived and existed in such faraway places as China, Australia and the Americas.
These people all worshiped gods as well and had expected outcomes from their
prayers. When we dismiss their gods as somehow lesser because they are not the
“true god” of the Hebrews, the question one should ask then is, “By what
measure does one so quickly dismiss their god without also dismissing the god
of the Hebrews?” Remember, all gods must be measured against Christ. “I and the Father are one.” –John 10:30.
So culture played an important role in how each
people saw their god. Each god spoke their native language and understood their
customs; each god knew the terrain and understood the people; each god warned
his people of the danger posed by “the others”. Each god protected his people
from the other gods and from the children of those gods, spelling out just how
these invaders were to be dealt with. In this, the Hebrews were not alone or
unique.
The Judeo-Christian culture we have been raised
in and are familiar with rose out of many years of tumult, wars, bloodshed and
terror. This particular faith was battered both from within and from outside in
order to assume its present shape. Battles between Jews and Christians were
predated by battles between Jews and Gentiles (or pagans if you will). Both
Jews and Christians sometimes found themselves as unlikely allies when the
specter of Islam finally made its way into their midst. Eventually a fashion of
Christianity formed in the guise of the Catholic Church through Constantine the
Great, Roman Emperor in the early fourth century AD. Rules were established
which neither Jews nor Muslims obeyed. Soon it didn't matter as those who swore
allegiance to Christianity found themselves as the power brokers of the Western
world. More bloody battles were fought to establish and maintain this dominance.
The earlier schisms within the Church in the 11th (the split into the Eastern Orthodox
Church and the Catholic Church in the West.) and 16th centuries (The Protestant Reformation)
notwithstanding, by the latter half of the Seventeenth Century, a new way of
viewing God which was held primarily by those of the Protestant faith had
emerged. Deism has been traced as a concept to Lord Herbert Cherbury (1582 –
1648). Though not regarded as a Deist, it was Cherbury who laid much of the
foundation for Deistic thought which was predominate in that time.
So what is Deism and what part does it have to
play in a commentary on the Rapture Theory? Deism is essentially the belief
that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine
the existence of God, accompanied with the rejection of revelation and
authority as a source of religious knowledge. In so defining the means by which
one would quantify God, Deists took much power and authority away from the
established Christian religions of their day. Deism was regarded as a
“reasonable” means by which to view God and became a major influence in the
lives of men who were responsible for the French and American Revolutions. Many
are well familiar with the knowledge that such giants in American History as
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were Deists. The error which is
propagated by some historians is that these men were not Christians.
There is today a popular misconception the
Forefathers of our Republic were not Christians because they claimed to be
Deists. To dismiss their belief in Christ because they did not hold to the
specific theology of Catholicism or Protestantism is to be both ignorant and
misinformed. Such men came to appreciate the science and philosophies of their day
and found that if much of the untried and tested traditionally held theological
beliefs were brushed aside, another view of God emerged; one which was far more
in keeping with their understanding of their world at that time. To clarify,
these men eschewed the prevailing established religious thought of the day in
favor of a religious thought they found reasonable; that does not negate
their faith and belief in Christ. In interjecting their personal agendas, many
historians are doing a grave disservice to their chosen fields of study and
will be lost to history. People do not long follow liars.
Deism has been also called “The Watchmaker God”
theology. This reasoning was because from all the evidence one had on hand, it
was inarguable an intelligence created the universe and the earth beneath
their feet, but it also seemed inarguable this “god” had long since moved
on to other things, but making certain the natural order of the realm
would continue as designed. Thus, God created the watch, wound it and then set
it down on a table, confident that even in his absence the watch would continue
on as he had designed it to do.
Cherbury’s views were published in his seminal
work in 1624. In his book, he outlines five “Common Notions” which govern
Deistic thought:
- There is a Supreme God.
- This
Sovereign Deity ought to be worshipped.
- The connection of Virtue and Piety
is and always has been held to be the most important part of religious
practice.
- The minds of men have always been
filled with horror for their wickedness. Their vices and crimes have been
made obvious to them. They must be expiated by repentance.
- There is reward and punishment after this life.
The understanding of Deism is—in my
opinion—necessary in order to understand how we came to believe in
Dispensationalism and the Rapture. One can clearly see the “evolution” of
religious thought as times dictated and men began to contemplate their role on
the earth. George Washington in his inaugural address in 1789 invoked God
Almighty and ceded the fact that this God ruled the Universe, giving this God
the credit for America’s defeat over the British Empire. Though a Deist,
Washington’s level of understanding of God certainly doesn’t sound like a man
who was not Christian. In fact, his writings show quite the contrary
viewpoint.
As our country began to grow and mature, the defeat of the British allowed them
to grow and mature as well. Suddenly God's ordination didn't seem quite as clear
to the British Crown. What had went wrong? What was going on? Did God not care
what His Chosen People had to endure? The United States struggled to gain its
footing and the British Empire struggled to make sense out of their defeat. In
the midst of all of this, the Bourbon Monarchy in France crumbled and was
replaced by a truly secular dictatorship under General Napoleon Bonaparte. Was
the fall of France just punishment for helping the Americans? The British were
then attacked by the French and the British attacked the Americans.
All of this chaos began to give people pause.
Whose side was God on anyway? The French had largely been Catholic, the British
largely Anglican and the Americans an eclectic mix. Clearly something
more was going on here that was not heretofore understood by anyone. Perhaps
God didn't act as people believed He should because people had misunderstood
God’s limitations.
A Plymouth Brethren preacher named John Nelson
Darby (1800 – 1882) soon changed all of that. Born in Westminster, London,
Darby started out as an Anglican clergyman in Ireland. In this position, Darby
claimed to have converted many Catholics to Anglicanism. As a result of a
contentious issue regarding these converted Irish peasants and the demand for
their sworn allegiance to the British Crown, Darby resigned his position in
protest. Shortly thereafter in 1827, Darby was thrown from a horse and was
seriously injured. During his recovery, Darby began to contemplate God and the
Bible. He began to believe the “Kingdom” described in the Book of Isaiah
and elsewhere in the Old Testament was different than that manifest by the
Christian Church. Given the tumult he had just personally witnessed in Ireland
as well as the religious tumult in recent history, to regard a “better” kingdom
than that populated by the “Christians” he was familiar with was not a great
leap to make.
Over the next five years, Darby developed the
principles which would make up his theology. One of Darby’s revelations is
similar to the revelation which Martin Luther had experienced; that the Spirit can speak
to all men, not just “appointed” individuals. With Luther, the error that the
Spirit spoke only to the Pope was revealed; to Darby, it was that the Spirit
could take to anyone, not just members of the clergy.
By 1832, Darby had completely split from the
Anglican Church and had formed a new religious congregation along with some
other like-minded people and called themselves the Plymouth Brethren. It was
during this time Darby began to expand his reach by giving lectures in
Ireland and England; writing papers on his beliefs which were also widely
disseminated. Out of this “maturing” of his theological beliefs came the
theology known as Dispensationalism.
Essentially in dispensationalist theology, God is
understood to relate to humans in different ways under different Biblical
covenants or “dispensations” in history. In dispensationalist theology,
Israel is seen as distinct from the Christian Church and that God has yet to
fulfill his promises to Israel. Ergo, Christians and Jews are looked upon and
have different tracks to God under Dispensationalism; the two groups are dealt
with separately.
The theology of Dispensationalism was adopted by
and made popular by American minister and theologian, Cyrus Scofield. Scofield
used Darby’s dispensationalist theology and the attendant Rapture Theory as
part of his Scofield Reference Bible, published in 1909. This was a King James
translation with notes whereupon Scofield explained what the scriptures
actually were saying. The Scofield Reference Bible asserted such beliefs as
latter writing of the Book of Revelation to 96 AD, the “Gap Theory”, and the
date of creation as being set at 4004 BC.
The Scofield’s Reference Bible was then adopted
by the founders of the Dallas Theological Seminary, Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer and
William Henry Griffith Thomas. Their vision was that there be a school where
expository Bible preaching was taught simply. The Dallas Theological Seminary
has become a cornerstone of the modern Fundamentalist movement of the Twentieth
Century with impressive alumni which includes:
· Gregory
Beale, former president of the Evangelical Theological Society
· Michael
J. Easley, former president of Moody Bible Institute
· Tony Evans, pastor and widely-syndicated radio
broadcaster
· Robert
Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church (Dallas,
Texas)
· David
Klingler, former NFL player and current director of DTS' Houston extension
campus
· Hal Lindsey,
author of The Late, Great Planet Earth
· Duane
Litfin, former president of Wheaton College
· J.
Vernon McGee, founder of "Thru the Bible Radio Network" program
· Scott
O'Grady, pilot whose story formed the basis for Behind Enemy Lines
· Jim Rayburn,
founder of Young Life
· Kenneth
N. Taylor, creator of the The
Living Bible and the founder of Tyndale
House
· Dr. John Townsend, award-winning
co-author of Boundaries: When to Say Yes, How to Say No to Take Control
of Your Life
· Bruce
Wilkinson, founder of Walk Thru the Bible and author of The Prayer of Jabez
· Dr. Charles Swindoll, Chancellor of
the Dallas Theological Seminary
With this array of Christian luminaries, it is
easy to see how a theology which did not exist in any form only one hundred
eighty years ago, dominates the Evangelical landscape today. Do their opinions
matter in light of the tenuous origins of their theology? That is a debate which will not be resolved anytime soon, but further exploration as to what the
Rapture Theory is and its ramifications for not only Christians, but for Israel
will be explored next.
