Is there any one who could recommend me a book about the rapture?
The following 3 resources are found in Logos:
1 MARANATHA OUR LORD, COME! A Definitive Study of the Rapture of the Church
Renald E. ShowersThe Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, IncP. O. Box 908, Bellmawr, NJ 08099
Showers, R. E. (1995). Maranatha Our Lord, Come!. Bellmawr, New Jersey: The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, Inc.2 NOT WRATH …But Rapture OR, WILL THE CHURCH PARTICIPATE IN THE GREAT TRIBULATION?byH. A. IRONSIDE, Litt.D.Ironside, H. A. (1941). Not wrath ... but rapture: Or, Will the Church Participate in the Great Tribulation. Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers.
3 What You Should Know About the Rapture by Charles C. RyrieRyrie, C. C. (1981). What you should know about the Rapture. Current Christian issues (3). Chicago,IL: Moody Press.
Here is a book that I have suggested to be added to the Logos Library:
Rossing,Barbara R. The Rapture Exposed: The Message of Hope in the Book of Revelation.
There's a good section on the Rapture in:
Geisler, N. L. (2005). Systematic theology, volume four: Church, last things. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers.
Also, a more general view of Revelation including the Rapture is in:
Gregg, S. (1997). Revelation, four views : A parallel commentary. Nashville, Tenn.: T. Nelson Publishers.
Two books come to mind that are considered classics from the premillennial perspective.
The Rapture Question by John F. Walvoord. Gives the dispensational view. (rapture before tribulation)
The Blessed Hope by George Eldon Ladd. Gives the historic premillennial view. (rapture after tribulation)
There's no such thing as a rapture being taught in the Bible, so why would you want a book about something that is not biblical? Several have predicted a "rapture" including the weird "left behind" series and non have been succesfull. From Charles T. Russell to the famous Billy Graham have predicted a rapture and nothing! I guess people still haven't learned that is not right to believe on something that is a product of man's imagination. Anyway, that's that on that...;-)
This is not a theological discussion. A person asked for resources in Logos. We answered. This forum is not for theological discussions.
An excellent resource is:
The Judgment Seat of the Messiah, The Rapture of the Church:MBS039 by Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum in his "Messianic Bible Study Collection."
http://www.logos.com/product/3904/the-messianic-bible-study-collection
George Haven
Most discussion of a rapture is based on very little scriptural basis. I would recommend reading it with a very jaundiced eye.
LOL...that was not a Theological discussion Mark, I was just stating A FACT so our friend here won't be mislead like many people have been misled. I recommend the following book: "A Rupture of the Rapture Theory." So there, more resources for him to consider. [:P]
I recommend the Bible. [8-|]
LOL...that was not a Theological discussion Mark, I was just stating A FACT so our friend here won't be mislead like many people have been misled. I recommend the following book: "A Rupture of the Rapture Theory." So there, more resources for him to consider.
Whatever
I did a search on the first book by Renald Showers: Maranatha Our Lord, Come! under Products on the Logos website but could not find it.
It is a resource from "Friends of Israel" so it was probably a Libronix resource in L3 which I was able to transfer into L4. I do not know if the product is still available
A search of the FOI website yields the book in paper format for $13.99, but no Libronix/Logos resources.
EDIT: That should be 11.95 USD. Amazon & CBD also offer only paper copies. I can't find a Logos resource. Too bad. I have other resources by Dr Showers, and I would gladly add this one to my library.
If you contact FOI you might be able to learn if it is still available. But my recollection, I think they stopped producing the L3 CDs. You may find it being sold somewhere...rejoice website or other third party site
The best books you will find at www.prewrathrapture.com,
they even have some gift books right now...
If you create a collection of your theological works (here's my formula: title:theology OR title:doctrine), and do a Basic search in that collection for rapture, you'll get many, many results. If you constrict your search further to systematic theologies, you'll find even terser discussions of the topic. (Note: you'll find many works, usually older ones, that use the word "rapture" in a different sense, referring to a feeling of intense pleasure, a synonym of ecstasy.)
I would encourage you, regardless of your views, to look at those who support and are opposed to the teaching of the rapture (sometimes called the secret rapture). Most works already suggested in this thread are in support of this teaching, so let me point out a few that are opposed. First there are two systematic theologies that are not: the ones by Morton H. Smith and Louis Berkhof. Martin Lloyd-Jones also writes in opposition to it in his Great Doctrines of the Bible (vol 3 has an extended treatment). Several commentaries on 1Thessalonians 4:16-17, also discuss this point, some in support and some opposed to this teaching. In fact, it may be worthwhile looking at other works that cite that passage, as it is often a lightning rod for discussion on this topic.
I hope your studies of this topic prove fruitful for you and your ministry.
I recommend the following book: "A Rupture of the Rapture Theory." So there, more resources for him to consider.
Geovanni, guess what? I probably agree with your end-times theology! . . . but you could have cut out your first post and only written the above part of your last post--and you would have had a much bigger impact, AND been within forum decorum. Tes didn't ask for us to debate the theology. I can imagine you are a fun and lively debater, but a different approach is called for on these forums.
Richard DeRuiter, outstanding suggestion!
"The Bible and the Future" by Anthony A. Hoekema is a great book on biblical prophecy and eschatology.
I would recommend Robert Jewett, Jesus Against the Rapture as a prerequisite for any study of the subject.
LOL...that was not a Theological discussion Mark, I was just stating A FACT so our friend here won't be mislead like many people have been misled. I recommend the following book: "A Rupture of the Rapture Theory." So there, more resources for him to consider. Whatever
Out of context
I recommend the following book: "A Rupture of the Rapture Theory." So there, more resources for him to consider. Geovanni, guess what? I probably agree with your end-times theology! . . . but you could have cut out your first post and only written the above part of your last post--and you would have had a much bigger impact, AND been within forum decorum. Tes didn't ask for us to debate the theology. I can imagine you are a fun and lively debater, but a different approach is called for on these forums. Richard DeRuiter, outstanding suggestion!
HI, Dann Du hast das Wort.
Does anyone know where the idea of the rapture came from? Looking for sources that demonstrate how and when the idea came about.
In Christ,
Jim VanSchoonhoven
How about 1Thessalonians 4:16-17? Even so, the articulation of this teaching was made popular when Dispensationalism began to be taught. At least I'm not aware of any teaching on a rapture before the arrival of Dispensationalism. I'd be happy to be corrected, though.
The logic there is that Jesus can't return unannounced if there is a seven year tribulation period required before he can return.
Of course views of pre/post/mid etc abound. Richard's above suggestion to search against systematic theologies is a great suggestion.
Does anyone know where the idea of the rapture came from? Looking for sources that demonstrate how and when the idea came about. In Christ, Jim VanSchoonhoven
The idea of a Rapture must be separated from the idea of the Parousia since an emphasis on the Parousia does not necessarily include the concept of a Rapture. The Parousia simply refers to the coming or being present of the Lord. The biblical foundation for the concept of a rapture rests upon two foundations:
(1) 1 Thess 4.13-18 where the only occurance of the Greek word ἁρπάζω is to be found when used in such a fashion (It is found a total of 14 times in the NT).
(2) The Gospel Parables of the coming of the kingdom -- Mt 24.40-41, 24.28; 24.5 // Mk 13.5-6 // Lk 21.8 where it speaks of two compantions -- one being taken while the other is left. In the Gospel Parables the word ἁρπάζω is not used but rather παραλαμβάνω signifying a similar concept.
In theology I suspect that the concept was popularized by Darby who was the founder of the Plymouth Brethren.
Jim, can't help you on when, all I have is a bunch of hearsay floating around in memory which I can't confirm. One tidbit though as to the word, I have always heard that it is derived from the Latin Vulgate (http://www.pre-trib.org/articles/view/rapture-myths).
The Term "Rapture"Firstof all, the word "rapture" is found in the Bible, if you have the Latin Vulgateproduced by Jerome in the early 400s. The Vulgate was the main Bible of themedieval Western Church until the Reformation. It continues to this day as theprimary Latin translation of the Roman Catholic Church. Yet, as we shall seelater, it was Protestants who introduced the word "rapture" into the Englishlanguage from the Latin raeptius.[1]It was Jerome's Vulgate that translated the original Greek verb harpaz used by Paul, under the inspiration of the HolySpirit, in 1 Thessalonians 4:17, which is usually translated into English withthe phrase "caught up." The leading Greek Lexicon says that harpaz means "snatch, seize, i.e., take suddenly andvehemently." This is the same meaning of the Latinword rapio "to seize, snatch,tear away. It should not be surprising toanyone, that an English word was developed from the Latin which we use todayknown as "rapture."
FYI, quoting this source does not imply that I agree with them concerning the existence and timing of the rapture.
Most immediately, you are correct that the term derives from the Latin. In the Vulgate translation of 1 Thess 4.17 where the Greek has
1 Thessalonians 4:16–17 (NA27)
16ὅτι αὐτὸς ὁ κύριος ἐν κελεύσματι, ἐν φωνῇ ἀρχαγγέλου καὶ ἐν σάλπιγγι θεοῦ, καταβήσεται ἀπʼ οὐρανοῦ καὶ οἱ νεκροὶ ἐν Χριστῷ ἀναστήσονται πρῶτον, 17ἔπειτα ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες οἱ περιλειπόμενοι ἅμα σὺν αὐτοῖς ἁρπαγησόμεθα ἐν νεφέλαις εἰς ἀπάντησιν τοῦ κυρίου εἰς ἀέρα· καὶ οὕτως πάντοτε σὺν κυρίῳ ἐσόμεθα.
1 Thessalonians 4:16–17 (VGCLEM)
16Quoniam ipse Dominus in jussu, et in voce archangeli, et in tuba Dei descendet de cælo : et mortui, qui in Christo sunt, resurgent primi. 17Deinde nos, qui vivimus, qui relinquimur, simul rapiemur cum illis in nubibus obviam Christo in aëra, et sic semper cum Domino erimus.
The Latin rapio, rapere, repi, raptus is a cognate of the Greek ἁρπάζω so the Latin is the immediate derivation of 'rapture' while it ultimately goes back to the Greek of 1 Thess 4.17.
Rossing, Barbara R. The Rapture Exposed: The Message of Hope in the Book of Revelation.
Rossing talks about the theology and the origin of the rapture in her book. I cannot remember all of the details, but I think John Nelson Darby is the founder of the theology that Jesus will return twice. The first return will be in secret to rapturethe church out of this world and up to heaven. Christ will return a second time following a global tribulation toestablish a Jerusalem-based kingdom on earth. Cyrus Scofield took the King James Bible and added rapture notes in the margincommenting on each prophetic passage in light of Darby’ssystem. Sales of the ScofieldReference Bible sold millions and Scofield’s notes and headings wereelevated to the level of biblical authority.
Rossing's book is an in your face type of book. So, she does rub some people the wrong way with her book. Still, I recommend everyone to read this book because everyone needs to know the theology on both sides of the rapture's theology debate.
http://www.logos.com/product/7501/snatched-before-the-storm-a-case-for-pretribulationism
This booklet is ideal for the pastor teaching a class or preparing a sermon on the rapture of the church. It will also prove helpful for anyone seeking a concise, yet clear, explanation of pretribulationism.
The idea of a Rapture must be separated from the idea of the Parousia since an emphasis on the Parousia does not necessarily include the concept of a Rapture. The Parousia simply refers to the coming or being present of the Lord. The biblical foundation for the concept of a rapture rests upon two foundations: (1) 1 Thess 4.13-18 where the only occurance of the Greek word ἁρπάζω is to be found when used in such a fashion (It is found a total of 14 times in the NT). (2) The Gospel Parables of the coming of the kingdom -- Mt 24.40-41, 24.28; 24.5 // Mk 13.5-6 // Lk 21.8 where it speaks of two compantions -- one being taken while the other is left. In the Gospel Parables the word ἁρπάζω is not used but rather παραλαμβάνω signifying a similar concept. In theology I suspect that the concept was popularized by Darby who was the founder of the Plymouth Brethren.
The passage in Matt 24 about two men in a field, one being taken while the other is left, is often associated with the concept of a Rapture of the Church (removal of believers either before or midway through the Tribulation, to be spared from the worst of it). But in the context, it is talking about this time being "as in the days before the flood...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." The parallelism there would seem to indicate that the one in the field who is "taken away" is not emblematic of the redeemed; he is taken off to judgment where there is "weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matt 24:51), as in the days of the flood. That's the reverse of Darby's rapture teaching which has been popularized again in recent years by the Left Behind series.
There'a good article on Rapture of the Church in the Dictionary of Christianity in America that traces some of the history of the idea:
Rapture of the Church. A phrase premillennialists use to refer to the “catching up” (from Latin rapio) of the church to be with Christ at his Second Coming. All premillennialists trace the doctrine to the same passage (1 Thess 4:15–17) but disagree on when it will occur in relation to the tribulation period, which they identify as the “seventieth week” of Daniel 9:24–27. Historically, premillennialists have divided over whether the rapture will happen before, during or after the tribulation.
Pretribulationism, which is nearly identical with dispensationalism, argues that the rapture will occur before the tribulation. Though pretribulationists try to find the teaching throughout church history, in about 1830 John Nelson Darby was the first to divide the Second Coming into two stages: Christ’s coming for his saints before the tribulation (the rapture) and his coming with his saints after it (the Second Coming per se). This view was derived from his total distinction between the church and Israel: The church must be removed from the earth before God can resume his dealings with the Jews and fulfil the prophecies concerning the end times.
Pretribulationists find evidence for their view in Paul’s teaching that before Antichrist can be revealed, the “restrainer,” which they take as either the church or the Holy Spirit, must be removed (2 Thess 2:6–8); the fact that the church is not mentioned in the eschatological predictions of the Book of Revelation after chapter 3, indicating that the church must have been raptured; and the biblical warning that the rapture is imminent, which means that no prophesied event stands between the present and the coming of Christ for his saints. This view gained ascendancy in American premillennial circles before World War 1, thanks in large part to The Scofield Reference Bible (1909), and continues to the present in Hal Lindsey’s best-selling The Late Great Planet Earth (1970).
Midtribulationism, an alternative view, contends that the church will be raptured halfway through the tribulation. This view, championed by Harold J. Ockenga, Gleason L. Archer and others, became popular among a relatively small number of premillennialists after World War 2. Midtribulationalists believe that the frequent mention of forty-two months in key prophetic passages (e.g., Dan 7, 9, and 12; Rev 11 and 12) indicates that only half of Daniel’s seventieth week (three and a half years) will experience the terror usually associated with the entire tribulation period (Rev 16–18). In the first half of the seventieth week, the church will remain on earth, witnessing the rise of Antichrist, and experiencing persecution at his hand; but it will be raptured by Christ before God’s judgment and wrath are poured out. Advocates claim that their view remedies pretribulationism’s shortcomings, which include its insistence that the rapture will be “secret” and its inability to locate the rapture in the Olivet Discourse (Mt 24). Nevertheless, midtribulationism still divides the Second Coming into two phases.
Posttribulationism, which appears to be the oldest premillennialist view, holds that the rapture and the Second Coming of Christ will occur at the same time, at the end of the tribulation. Posttribulationists argue that no scriptural text explicitly divides the Second Coming into two parts. Paul’s most explicit passage on the rapture (1 Thess 4) does not mention its time relationship to the tribulation; but its accompanying phenomena (loud command, trumpet of God, gathering of the saints by angels, Christ coming on the clouds) are mentioned in other passages which do place them after the tribulation (Mt 24, Mk 13, Lk 21). Thus advocates of this view expect the church to go through the tribulation, suffering terrible persecution, but not experiencing the wrath of God because of divine protection (Rev 7). In order to come to these conclusions, posttribulationists generally play down the distinction between Israel and the church and the imminence of the rapture. Though eclipsed by pretribulationism before World War 1, this view has gained many followers since World War 2 through the writings George Ladd, Robert Gundry and others.
A small number of pretribulationists, led by G. H. Lang, have also argued for a partial rapture theory which contends that only the most faithful Christians will be raptured before the tribulation, with the rest being caught up sometime later, depending on their spiritual condition.
Though such interpretive disagreements may seem inconsequential to outsiders, differences over the timing of the rapture have often produced fierce antagonism among premillennialists, with advocates of one view refusing to associate with those of another.
See also Eschatology.
Bibliography. G. E. Ladd, The Blessed Hope (1956); J. F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question (1979); J. D. Pentecost, Things to Come (1958); G. L. Archer et al, The Rapture: Pre-, Mid-, or Post-Tribulational? (1984).
T. P. Weber[1]
[1] Daniel G. Reid, Robert Dean Linder, Bruce L. Shelley and Harry S. Stout, Dictionary of Christianity in America (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1990).
Rossing talks about the theology and the origin of the rapture in her book. I cannot remember all of the details, but I think John Nelson Darby is the founder of the theology that Jesus will return twice. The first return will be in secret to rapturethe church out of this world and up to heaven. Christ will return a second time following a global tribulation toestablish a Jerusalem-based kingdom on earth. Cyrus Scofield took the King James Bible and added rapture notes in the margincommenting on each prophetic passage in light of Darby’ssystem. Sales of the ScofieldReference Bible sold millions and Scofield’s notes and headings wereelevated to the level of biblical authority. Rossing's book is an in your face type of book. So, she does rub some people the wrong way with her book. Still, I recommend everyone to read this book because everyone needs to know the theology on both sides of the rapture's theology debate.
To add to this, My understanding is that the future return to Christ concerns His return to earth, where he will actually descend to the ground. The rapture will see him descending to the clouds, and us meeting him there, but not a physical return to the earth.
This is my understanding as well.
Not precisely. Note Mt 2431 preceding
Matthew 24:31 (NA27)
31καὶ ἀποστελεῖ τοὺς ἀγγέλους αὐτοῦ μετὰ σάλπιγγος μεγάλης, καὶ ἐπισυνάξουσιν τοὺς ἐκλεκτοὺς αὐτοῦ ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων ἀνέμων ἀπʼ ἄκρων οὐρανῶν ἕως [τῶν] ἄκρων αὐτῶν.
It would seem that the two objects are thus coterminous -- the gathering of the elect and the coming in judgment occur together. It was the object of Amos to disabuse his hearers of the notion that the Day of the Lord was something which would be beneficial to them
Amos 5:18–20 (NRSV)
18Alas for you who desire the day of the Lord! Why do you want the day of the Lord? It is darkness, not light; 19as if someone fled from a lion, and was met by a bear; or went into the house and rested a hand against the wall, and was bitten by a snake. 20Is not the day of the Lord darkness, not light, and gloom with no brightness in it?
In light of the material presented, I wonder why one of the first commnets on this thread said the rapture could not be found in the bible, do you think he did not know about the Latin-Greek connection? And based his comments just on the English words?
In light of the material presented, I wonder why one of the first commnets on this thread said the rapture could not be found in the bible, do you think he did not know about the Latin-Greek connection? And based his comments just on the English words? In Christ, Jim VanSchoonhoven
I rather imagine you are referring to my comment. I didn't say there was absolutely no basis in scripture for the concept of the rapture. What I said was that the material relating (directly) to it was rather slim. I said that I would look at arguments regarding the rapture with a rather jaundiced eye. This is due to the fact that what little material relates to that interpretation is subject to other interpretations as well. Also, much has been built upon other passages not directly related to the concept. The whole edifice stikes me as a house of cards.
No George Somsel, it was not your comments it was some body else.
Ladd is some of the better resources for historical background and the articulation of the Second Coming- since I do not hold to a "rapture" as most mean it- I hold the view that believers who are alive go to meet Christ in the air at His Second Coming and them accompany Him back to earth to establish the Mill. Kingdom. Most call that post-tribulation rapture.
Remember not all Premillennialist are Pretribulationist- Premillennialism was around at the time of the Apostles- Pretribulationism arrived on the scene in 1800's- kinda of hard to be taught by Paul when it was invented 1800 years later.
Get Ladd's books "The Blessed Hope", "A Theology of the New Testament", also invest in "A Case for Historic Premillennialism" Bloomberg and Chung.
Whyndell, as a young christian, I decided to intensively and prayerfully study the Bible on this subject before I read any other books on the subject. The position I arrived at, I found out later was articulated by Ladd. It seemed to me that the pretrib view was a deduction and not an explict teaching of scripture. Since then I have wondered about the role of logic and intuition in Biblical interpretation. I haven't read many books on hermeneutics, so do any books come to anyone's mind that deal with the role of logic and intuition in interpretation?
Whyndell, Jerry, et. al.
I too have changed from Pre to Post. I was a strong advocate for Pre. But now it seems that the "lense" that I have used all this time has been removed. I came to this while trying to develop an inductive lesson for our men's group on Matthew 24-25. I just couldn't develop questions of observation, interpretation straight from the text to show a pre-trib rapture. I had to put in man's commentaries to make this happen. I won't do that again. It went against the inductive method. But I didn't stop at the Olivet Discourse. I struggled with this for over a year.
I bought and read Dr. Gundry's book, "The Church and the Tribulation, a biblical examination of posttribulationism". It was like reading my own thoughts.
I would love to see the resource in Logos! This book, in his own words, was written at the siminary level. It is not light reading!
I also have read Ladd's "blessed hope". Another great book.
I agree that we should read opposing views. Because throughout Church history, this issue is not something that the Body has come to a "unity of the faith" on.
To the original poster: sorry about the back and forths in regard to this doctrine. It is a very divisive topic. I think it is near impossible to ask for a resource on it without getting people's opinions. And that's all mine was, and opinion. However, unless or until Logos provides this resource, I highly recommend Dr. Gundry's book for a no-nonsense, fair, and thorough view of one of the views that is out there.
Until we all come to the unity of the faith and knowledge of Him.
Dan.
was a deduction and not an explict teaching of scripture.
Because of another thread, I'd like to point out that deductions are provably true consequences of the scriptural texts. There are teasing out what must be true based on the explicit teachings. It's inductions that are suspect.
It's inductions that are suspect
Exactly, Martha.
I haven't read many books on hermeneutics, so do any books come to anyone's mind that deal with the role of logic and intuition in interpretation?
I have always appreciated Gordon Clark's take on logic and Scripture. Unfortunately, we have almost nothing by Clark in Logos format but here is a link to one of his many papers/lectures/books on the topic ... http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=16. You may not agree with him on every detail but, if you are going to disagree, you had better bring your "A" game. At the very least, he will get the cognitive synapses firing.
While Clark advocated a rigid, logical, deductive, presuppositional approach to the interpretation of scripture, his detractors always hiss, "Rationalism" (without clearly defining their accusation, I might add). Nevertheless, a logical approach to hermeneutics/interpretation which insists on the principle of Sola Scriptura (i.e., ultimately, Scripture alone is the sole source of biblical interpretation) is totally refreshing in this age of 'inner light-ism' ("What does the passage mean to you in your heart of hearts? Remember, there are no wrong answers ..."). And, it is because of this sort of feel-good mush that passes for biblical interpretation today that many wallow in what Michael Horton has correctly termed, "A Christless Christianity". IMHO, after we admit to the primacy of the Spirit and the Word, logic is one of the most important tools a person can bring to his or her study of the scriptures.
Thanks for the link
was a deduction and not an explict teaching of scripture. Because of another thread, I'd like to point out that deductions are provably true consequences of the scriptural texts. There are teasing out what must be true based on the explicit teachings. It's inductions that are suspect.
Poor wording on my part. By deduction I meant false conclusion. Logical but not a necessary inference of Scripture. Paul uses long series of false conclusions to teach the gospel in Romans for example. Shall I sin that grace may abound? Why does He still find fault, for who can resist His will? etc. I Corinthians 2 seems to me to teach that logic alone will not bring you to God or His truth. Just because a theological concept is logical doesn't mean it is correct. Many have failed to see this. So I would look for a false premise that leads to a false conclusion. In this case that Israel and the Church are separate and distinct and must remain so, rather Eph. 2:14-15 "one new man in the place of two". Hopefully I didn't step too far out of forum guidelines. I understand, that this is a very controversial subject, but you have to grant that the dispensational pretrib rapture view has gotten its fair share of press. BTW I'm looking forward to the outcome of the black friday Logos bargains.
In looking at the concept of the Rapture we must distinguish between the fact of the Rapture and the timing of the Rapture.
1. The fact of the Rapture is based on the passage in 1 Thessalonians 4:17
Narrowly defined the Rapture is defined as living believers who will be caught up into the Lord’s presence without having to experience physical death. (Charles Ryrie Basic Theology)
Have there been believers in the past who were taken to heaven without dying. Yes, there was Enoch Hebrews 11:5 By faith Enoch was taken up so that he would not see death; and he was not found because God took him up (Nasv)
Elijah- And Elijah went up by a whirlwind to heaven. 2 Kings 2:11(NASB)
The Greek word ἁρπάζω used in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 and translated caught up is also used in Revelation 12:5 of Christ's ascension into heaven. So this clearly describes the type of action that the believer will experience at the coming of Christ. The word is also used of Paul being caught up to the third heaven in 2 Corinthians 12:2-4. It is also used of Philip being transported from one place to another in Acts 8:39. BDAG defines ἁρπάζω as snatch/take away.
2. The timing of the Rapture (usually defined in relationship to the Tribulation Period) can be Pre-Tribulational, Mid-tribulational, PreWrath, Post-Tribulational, Partial. All of these views fall into the camp of Pre-Milliannialism. I am not aware of any Post-Mills or A-Mills that hold to a Rapture. The timing of the Rapture can be explained by looking at a variety of issues such as imminency, the nature of the church, nature of the tribulation, an interval between the Rapture and the Second Coming, Hermeneutics, historical arguments, the Work of the Holy Spirit, and Contrast between the Rapture and the Second Coming. Dr. Walvoord book The Rapture Question deals with a lot of these issues. There are certain texts such as Revelation 3:10, 1 Thessalonians 5:1-11 and 2 Thessalonians 2:6 which I believe teach a Pre-Tribulation Rapture. I know there are brothers who would disagree with me on this issue but I wanted to express my viewpoint is a clear manor.
Historically there are many texts that are coming to light that showed that individuals believed in a Pre-Trib Rapture before J.N. Darby in the 1800's. Here is a quote from John Gill's commentary from 1 Thessalonians 4:17 written around 1750.
shall be caught up;"suddenly, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, and with force and power; by the power of Christ, and by the ministry and means of the holy angels; and to which rapture will contribute, the agility which the bodies both of the raised and changed saints will have: and this rapture of the living saints will be together with them;with the dead in Christ, that will then be raised; so that the one will not come before the other, or the one be sooner with Christ than the other; but the one being raised and the other changed, they will be joined in one company and general assembly, and be caught up together:
now the saints are with him at times, and have communion with him, but not always; but then they shall be ever with him; wherever he is; first in the air, where they shall meet him; then in the third heaven, where they shall go up with him; then on earth, where they shall descend and reign with him a thousand years; and then in the ultimate glory to all eternity"
Two significant things about this quote are: first John Gill used the term Rapture to describe living believers being caught up with Christ and second, he divides the coming of the Lord into two states, his coming in the air to take believers back to heaven and then his coming to the earth to reign for 1000 years with his saints.
For others who taught a Pre-Trib Rapture before Darby see this link http://www.pre-trib.org/articles/view/brief-history-of-rapture
In looking at the concept of the Rapture we must distinguish between the fact of the Rapture and the timing of the Rapture. 1. The fact of the Rapture is based on the passage in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 Narrowly defined the Rapture is defined as living believers who will be caught up into the Lord’s presence without having to experience physical death. (Charles Ryrie Basic Theology) Have there been believers in the past who were taken to heaven without dying. Yes, there was Enoch Hebrews 11:5 By faith Enoch was taken up so that he would not see death; and he was not found because God took him up (Nasv)
Another member of the forum spoke of FALSE conclusions as opposed to correct deductions from scripture. What we have here is a FALSE conclusion. The trope of "coming in the clouds" is a common trope not only in scripture but in the Ancient Near East as a whole. The problem with the conclusion is to take this as a physical future historical event. To speak of "coming in the clouds" was to speak of the coming of God, not of a literal arrival upon a chariot of clouds. The fact is that the NT speaks of the God, and most particularly of Christ, as being present within and among the Churches and even of holding their ministers in his hand.
Revelation 1:9–20 (NRSV)
9I, John, your brother who share with you in Jesus the persecution and the kingdom and the patient endurance, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. 10I was in the spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet 11saying, “Write in a book what you see and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamum, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.” 12Then I turned to see whose voice it was that spoke to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, 13and in the midst of the lampstands I saw one like the Son of Man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash across his chest. 14His head and his hair were white as white wool, white as snow; his eyes were like a flame of fire, 15his feet were like burnished bronze, refined as in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of many waters. 16In his right hand he held seven stars, and from his mouth came a sharp, two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining with full force.
17When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he placed his right hand on me, saying, “Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, 18and the living one. I was dead, and see, I am alive forever and ever; and I have the keys of Death and of Hades. 19Now write what you have seen, what is, and what is to take place after this. 20As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.
The conclusion must therefore be that to take Paul's words to indicate a literal physical snatching away of the Church is not a correct interpretation. Besides, who wants to spend forever (in the lyrics of Bernstein's "Trouble in Tahiti") "Floating, floating among the floating clouds"?
George, I think you missed the point of what I was trying to say. Was Enoch taken literally into heaven without dying? Did Christ ascend to heaven or was he caught up to heven after his resurrection? Whether you take the clouds as literal or not are there not examples of believer taken to heaven without dying? By the way the Pre-Trib possition does not teach that believers will be floating on clouds? Where did I say that? We believe that Christ will come in the clouds and living and dead believers will be caught up to the clouds and taken back to heaven to be with the Lord? Is that a horrible thing to believe that Christ may come at any minute and I will be with him forever and see the Savior who loved me and gave Himself for me and then meet with fellow believers who have died. Wherefore comfort one another with these words. 1 Thessalonians 4:18. If you don't take the passage literally so be it but please don't misrepresent the Pre-trib position.
I know it's hard to resist setting each other straight (it is for me, especially since I'm right [;)] ), but this isn't the place to debate this topic.
Please take it off line.
If you have resources, or Logos strategies to recommend to the OP, please do so.
(it is for me, especially since I'm right )
Great, so there are two of us! [:D]
