Rapture: The Problem of Dispensationalism
“It is granted by dispensationalists that as a system of theology dispensationalism is recent in origin.” This statement by Charles Ryrie would fly right into the face of contemporary dispensationalists; I have yet to meet dispensationalists that would agree with Ryrie. Dispensationalists would have us see dispensationalists as finding some sort of lost theological principle or recovering a once lost truth. For example, in an interview of a recent graduate of ‘Moody Bible Institute’ Reverend J W. S. says “Dispensationalism was lost somewhere along the lines when the apostate apostles fell away and became Roman Catholics.” While Rev. S did acknowledge even early reformers “as theologians contained errors in many teachings” he failed to explain how this “apostasy” happened.
I think what Rev. S. failed to examine was the role “progressive revelation” may have played in the foundation of such views of dispensationalists such as raptures. Dispensationalists rely on progressive revelation, literal interpretation of scripture, a distinction in Israel and the church, distinct dispensations in time such as “the church age” and eschatological views that deny the hope of 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17. Both armchair and professional theologians must understand that the dispensationalists are not going to hell; they simply are wrong. But more especially wrong in the eschatological view of plural raptures.
While most dispensationalists do agree that John Darby and Scofield are the pillars of today’s dispensationalism, most dispensationalists claim that their distinctive doctrines date from the ancient church. Charles Ryrie author of “Dispensationalism Today” makes this claim while still maintaining that many ancient church fathers were wrong in their theology. Ryrie then goes on further to say that just because a doctrine, practice or tradition is “historic” does not make it “scriptural”. Essentially according to Ryrie, if it is not in the bible then it should not be considered to be practiced or taught.
Ryrie does however quote ancient church theologians such as Irenaeus and Augustine to demonstrate the use of the term “dispensation”. I would argue however that these church fathers use the term “dispensation” as “an exemption from some rule or obligation, a share that has been dispensed or distributed, the act of dispensing.” Not as a description of periods of history such as the “Mosaic Age, Age of Law, Church Age” as Ryrie supports.
I have often wondered if dispensationalists take the order in which protestant bibles are currently ordered to be literal as well as the words in them. I know many adherents of dispensationalism believe the bible is ordered, Matthew, Mark, Luke etc. because the scriptures literally happened that way. Our bibles are arranged in a way that seems dispensational, for instance take an early form of dispensationalism schematic from Pierre Poiret. Poiret’s scheme is divided into 7 separate “dispensations” they are as follows:
1. Creation to the Deluge
2. Moses
3. Death of Moses to the time of Solomon
4. The coming of Christ
5. Sometime after Christ (Israel and the Church separated)
6. The time of humanitys decay (overthrow of corrupt Protestantism)
7. Renovation of all things, the reign of Christ
So we can see how if one used the bible only or solo scriptoria we could devise a theology from this arrangement or a kind of general history of salvation. But Poiret’s scheme does fit into today’s dispensationalist view as well as some theologians of the 1800’s. I will not delve into the area of early dispensational views in their entirety. My focus in the present work is more focused on the issue of the rapture and where the current theological position of the rapture originates.
Distinctives of Dispensationalism
Many dispensationalists took a view that the protestant church sometime in the future or possibly the past became corrupted as Poiret’s scheme shows. As I have written above they argue that even many of our church fathers did not teach correct doctrine and that Roman Catholicism is out by default. In reaction to the structured formal churches, John Nelson Darby an early dispensationalist was not fond of the notion of “church” or clergy as most understand them. Darby instead thought believers should be in loosely gathered associations. The Plymouth Brethren have their roots in the theological positions of Darby and still continue to follow along his theological concepts.
Poiret claims like most dispensationalists that what is for the Church is a spiritual claim while Israel gets a physical claim. Where scripture speaks of the nation of Israel in eschatology, is for the nation of Israel. Where scripture speaks of any spiritual or heavenly inheritance, is for the Church. This is a staple of dispensational eschatology. It is in the context of eschatology that we will find the rapture nestled into the picture. I will also note that without any of the marks common to dispensationalism noted above, we would not have the rapture. I will show that without the rapture, dispensationalism cannot exist and without dispensationalists, the rapture can’t exist. These two need each other because they are homoousios . I will of course need to touch base at times with those commonalities in dispensationalism like progressive revelation, aspects of eschatological texts in the New Testament.
Over time the term “rapture” has come to be defined not as a state of bliss like the dictionary definition, but rather several seemingly end time events wrapped up in one term for all those events. Under this encapsulation we will see that really there are at least two returns of Jesus Christ and effectively two “rapture” events. The first event happens without anyone really knowing it happened, the second rapture happens depending upon what flavor of “tribulation” you like. There are pre-tribulation rapture, mid-tribulation and post tribulation rapture views.
The book of Revelation from the New Testament is often used as a primary text for rapture proponents. Throughout pews in any denomination most Christians would know something of the rapture and point to the book of Revelation as its place in scripture. Most Christians simply accept the idea of rapture as a concrete solid biblical fact! The problem is that the doctrine of the rapture doesn’t come from a solid biblical foundation but from a source that is reminiscent of early church martyrs visions.
The term rapture as it is used by dispensationalists would be defined as “transporting from one place to another” or “abduction”. For example those bumper stickers that say “In Case of Rapture This Car Will Be Unmanned”. Rapture is a term that is not in any New or Old Testament texts or in any ancient church documents. Dispensationalist Protestants who claim “scripture alone” in doctrinal matters now have reached outside scripture grasping at anything that upholds this dispensationalist doctrine of “the rapture”. This is a trait that is becoming more common among non-dispensationalists as well as dispensationalists as some would grasp onto church tradition for example.
“All this fear and fervor over the Rapture—a principle invented only 178 years ago—for a word that cannot even be found in the Bible” this quote from Barbara R. Rossing does hold truth. Proponent Dispensationalists will say the same thing is true about the word “trinity” which is not found in the Bible either. However with the “trinity” we see the struggle in the ancient church represented in early church fathers’ writings. The early church struggled with how to explain or unexplain the divinity of Jesus Christ especially in response to the Arian heresy. We find no struggle however with the term “rapture” from early church fathers.
There is only one mention of a word from a sentence that may interept to mean “abduction” or “transported” from Pseudo-Dionysius in about 500 C.E. No one uses the term “rapture” until after 1830 in England. Why would this be? Dispensationalists would tell us that the term may have been lost at the end of the “apostolic age” only to be recovered at the dawn of a new age in Christianity. This new age would be an age where spiritual gifts such as tongues, visions and progressive revelations exist.
Progressive revelation is defined as "The progressive character of divine revelation is recognized in relation to all the great doctrines of the Bible. What at first is only obscurely intimated is gradually unfolded in subsequent parts of the sacred volume, until the truth is revealed in its fullness." Of course this definition is concerning how the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments harmonize with God’s dealing with humanity in meeting our needs through Christ. Insert dispensationalism now we have a “church age” with newly progressive inspired theologians such as Cyrus Ingerson Scofield who picked up where Darby left off.
Scofield and his annotated bible have propelled futurism and dispensationalism along with a subtle suspicion for ecclesiastical churches, even among Protestants. Futurism is defined as a “Christian eschatological view that interprets the Book of Revelation, the Book of Daniel, the Olivet discourse and the parable of the Sheep and the Goats as future events in a literal, physical, apocalyptic, and global context.”
Certainly God is revealed by our reading of scripture through the Holy Spirit. If we must apply the name of “progressive revelation” to what happens when one is faithful to the scriptures, I suggest we follow Hendrickson’s use.
Hendrickson expresses the important principle of progressive revelation quite simply in Laymen's Guide to Interpreting the Bible: "God does progressively reveal himself in Jesus Christ as history unfolds. But this does not mean that God’s standards become progressively higher or that God changes along the way. Rather it is our understanding of God and His revelation that progresses. God never changes." I think this is a more responsible way of dealing with “progressive revelation”. Hendrickson allows for God to act or to reveal, yet Hendrickson isn’t giving readers of scripture license. There is a standard of sorts to be used, scripture along with God not beside or next to God.
I believe this is where dispensationalists fail and where problems begin especially in their eschatological views of scripture. It seems to be the case for dispensationalists that progressive revelation includes ecstatic visions. Again religious fervor is to be commended and does ignite interest in God in Christ. However in the case of the rapture, scripture wasn’t front and center but later used to legitimize the notion of “rapture”. Once we understand where the rapture comes from, which certainly is not “solo scriptoria”; we can understand the error of the rapture phenomenon.
Rapture: Origin
The rapture has its origin in 1830 Scotland, Port Glasglow with a young 15 year old girl named Margaret MacDonald. Margaret attended a lively healing service. She states she received a vision of a two staged return of Jesus Christ, not a return but returns of Christ. John Nelson Darby a traveling evangelist adopted her vision and amplified it in his preaching. Certainly a return of Jesus Christ is nothing new to historic Christianity. The early church proclaimed Jesus would return at some point, even since the original apostles.
In the ancient creeds of the church, which are grounded in scripture, we proclaim a single return of Jesus Christ. Even the early reformers such as Martin Luther at times had visions. Luther is said to have once threw his inkwell at the devil. Yet scripture was tested. Calvin, Luther, Wesley didn’t rely on visions or testimonies of children but relied on scripture. What do dispensationalists have over centuries of theologians, councils and even the original apostles? Divine revelation? What dispensationalists have is this; two returns of Jesus Christ while the scriptures along with the ancient church have a single return of Jesus Christ.
A Close Look At 1Thessalonians 4:15
Let us now read 1st Thessalonians 4:15 in the original Koine Greek “Τοῦτο γὰρ ὑμῖν λέγομεν ἐν λόγῳ κυρίου, ὅτι ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες οἱ περιλειπόμενοι εἰς τὴν παρουσίαν τοῦ κυρίου οὐ μὴ φθάσωμεν τοὺς κοιμηθέντας• (1Th 4:15 BGT) Which transliterated would read “this- for – you -speak – in - the Word – the Lord – because – I – live – remain – into – the – presence, coming – the Lord – no – lest – to come before – those – fall asleep”. Notice the words περιλειπόμενοι (the remaining), παρουσίαν (parusian) which comes from a root word parusia, which means “coming” . Interestingly the word parusian, is not in the plural; it is describing a present event, not a past or future event or events. What this means is that the Lord Jesus is coming and we who are yet alive, will be with all those who have died.
Some would interept this event as a rapture. But this is overstating the matter. Dispensationalists are saying this indicates that the rapture is what Paul is speaking about here and later in the following verses. Furthermore the dispensationalist would say that this indicates a “snatching” . The text does not indicate this, the word “parousia”, in no way describes abduction. Rapture typically means; a state of bliss but it can also mean “abducted, taken away, transported” . It is this latter meaning that dispensationalists take in regards to texts like 1Thessalonians 4. When reading 1 Thessalonians 4:15-18 you don’t at all read about some abduction, the return of Jesus Christ is rather a blissful moment, one that may take some time.
Matthew 24:39-42
Another text that dispensationalists use to affirm the left behind rapture theory is Matthew 24:39-42:
“and they knew nothing until the flood came and swept them all away, so too will be the coming of the Son of Man. Then two will be in the field; one will be taken and one will be left. Two women will be grinding meal together; one will be taken and one will be left. Keep awake therefore, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming.”
Dispensationalists read this text through a special dispensationalist lens. Only if we combine this text with 1 Thessalonians 4 can we complete the left behind, rapture puzzle. On a close reading of this text a dispensationalist must assume that one of the persons in the field is a born again Christian and the other a nonbeliever. The problem with this is of course that neither the text nor Jesus identifies either one as a believer or unbeliever. The problem for the dispensationalist is further exposed by the Greek text and the words “left” and “taken”. Paralambano means “taken” and “aphiemi” means left. But in Greek either “taken” or “left” could have a positive connotation. I have not found a commentary outside of dispensationalism that places a positive or negative connotation in the use of these words in the koine Greek.
In the preceding verses Jesus equates being “taken” in the same way the people were “swept away” at the time of the flood. If being taken by the flood in judgment is a bad thing, is being removed from the planet in the text from Matthew 24 a good thing? Anglican Bishop N. T. Wright comments on this:
“It should be noted that being “taken” in this context means being taken in Judgement. There is no hint here of a “rapture,” a sudden “supernatural” event that would remove individuals from terra firma… It is a matter, rather, of secret police coming in the night, or of enemies sweeping through a village or city and seizing all they can.” If Wright is correct about this, then being “taken” would be someone taken off to judgment! Dispensationalists must ignore what the Greek grammar seems to mean, thus ignoring scripture rather than taking it literally.
The problem with a dispensationalist view regarding the return of Jesus Christ is that it robs humanity so much of what Jesus represents; peace, love and a resetting of all things. The return of Jesus Christ does not bring hope to humanity in a dispensationalist view, rather Jesus brings wrath. The eschatological view of dispensationalists brings fear because some may be “left behind”. This fear is what Paul was writing to the Thessalonians; Paul was encouraging them to believe that we shall be with our loved ones in the resurrection life. Paul seems to indicate that no one will be left behind.
Meeting Christ In The Air
1st Thessalonians 4:17 “Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord forever.” As I wrote earlier dispensationalists have a two staged return of Jesus Christ. The dispensationalists view this text from Thessalonians as stage one. However the reason why the living Christians “meet him in the air” is because this was an ancient custom. In the Greek text we read a word, apentesis, which refers to a practice by which people would go out and meet a coming dignitary. Certainly this would follow when Jesus comes back; his living Church most certainly should meet Christ outside the city gates, or in this case the earth. The same Greek verb is used in Acts chapter 28 when the Christians go out of the city gates to meet Paul. Why is this distinction important?
The focus on the word apentesis is necessary because in the dispensational eye, the event surrounding 1 Thessalonians 4 is a point at which Jesus, turns back and takes His church into heaven for seven years (Rossing Pg. 177). This view is required especially with a pre-tribulation rapture theory, according to which Jesus abducts the church before a tribulation on earth begins. This is the first stage return of Jesus Christ; is at this point the “church age” is discontinued and further harm comes to all left on the earth for seven years. Those left behind during this period include the nation of Israel.
Israel Is Not The Church
Israel is not the church, so it is not “Christian” in the eyes of the dispensationalist, therefore must remain for seven years. Dispensationalism as noted earlier does use a literal translation method to correlate the separation of Israel and Church. This separation is necessary in order to fulfill all the Old Testament prophecy concerning Israel during the reign of Christ on earth. The church, according to dispensationalism, has not inherited all the promises of Abraham and other important Jewish prophets. Those promises are meant for Israel, literally only for Israel.
Restoration Theology
Another popular view of dispensationalists whom have adopted the “rapture” theory is that of “restoration theology.” According to this doctrine at some point, the original teachings and practices of the Christian faith were “lost”. The “latter-rain” movement that begun in Great Brittan around the 1830’s is generally seen as the catalyst for the “restoration” movement. The Assemblies of God (AG) is a perfect example of a dispensational restoration denomination. The AG adopted Darby’s thought that larger ecclesiastical authority hinders the work of the Holy Spirit. The AG also claims progressive revelation alongside intereptation of the scriptures.
Again why would that view be dangerous? An early Assemblies of God minister believed he was Elijah in the last days. Of course he wasn’t. But had scripture been counseled dutifully and exegetically, he would not have come to that conclusion. For example the Assemblies of God doctrinal statement of faith says: “WE BELIEVE...in The Blessed Hope—When Jesus Raptures His Church Prior to His Return to Earth (the second coming). At this future moment in time all believers who have died will rise from their graves and will meet the Lord in the air, and Christians who are alive will be caught up with them, to be with the Lord forever. [1 of 4 cardinal doctrines of the AG] ” When I read that statement I do not see a “blessed hope”, I see an escapist unbiblical view of a rapture.
Incidentally dispensationalism will not go away soon; it has been around since 1830 and created such theologians as Charles Taze Russell. Russell is the founder of the ‘Watchtower Society’ an early precursor to the modern day Jehovah Witnesses. Although his book ‘Plan of the Ages’ does not mention a “rapture” Russell did separate history into “ages”. Like many early dispensationalists Charles Taze Russell had minimum theological education and was at one time a pastor in the Congregational Church. Russell concludes that ecclesiastical churches are a product of the “whore of Babylon”, a term used for the Roman Catholic Church.
Dealing With Heresy: The World Wide Church of God Example
I believe the doctrine of the rapture is no better than a heresy. In the past heretics ideas were met with excommunication and their lives taken. In order to confront this problem we should be in conversation with dispensationalists. Can conversation correct the problem? I think the answer is yes. Look at the World Wide Church of God founded by the late Herbert W. Armstrong. The World Wide Church of God about 15 years ago came to embrace orthodox Christianity, so much so it is a member of the National Association of Evangelicals.
The WWCG didn’t embrace orthodox doctrines such as the trinity for instance overnight but it took time and conversation. I can assume the conversation continues with the Trinitarian God and the scriptures at the center of the table. Through conversation and study with well-educated seminary trained leaders the WWCG has come far from the teachings now admitted as heretical.
Conclusion
Clearly dispensational theology relies heavily on progressive revelation in order to supplement where the scripture does not speak of “rapture”. Barbra Rossing points out that the definition of “rapture”; as abduction, wasn’t used until Darby borrowed the testimony of that 15 year old girl. If that is true; and I with Rossing have not found the term “rapture” as dispensationalists currently use that term until around 1832. Therefore the rapture, is not historic, biblical Christianity.
The only one way to demonstrate the incorrect view of the “rapture” would be to demonstrate what the scriptures actually say. In addition to this show how much more we gain by dropping the term “rapture” from all Christian theology. For instance instead of teaching an escapist view of eschatological matters tell of the good news! Resurrection of the dead for instance. 1 Thessalonians chapter 4 clearly indicates through Paul’s encouraging words that we will one day see our believing dead loved ones again.
Notes:
Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, 3d ed. (Chicago: Moody Bible Publishing, 1967), 67.
2 Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, 3d ed. (Chicago: Moody Bible Publishing, 1967), 66.
3http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/dispensation.htm
4 Fred Johnson Personal Interview November 4th, 2012
5Pierre Poiret, The Divine OEconomy: or An Universal System of the Works and Purposes of God Towards Men Demonstrated (London: 1713). Volume 6.
6 Systematic Theology. Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. Vol. 1.Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers (2003), pg. 446
7 Charles G. Trumball, The Life Story of C. I. Scofield (New York: Oxford University Press, 1920).
8 by J. Daniel Hays, J. Scott Duvall, C. Marvin Pate
9 Hendrickson Laymen's Guide to Interpreting the Bible Pg. 77
10 MacPherson Dave, The Rapture Plot, 2d ed. (Simpsonville, S.C.: Millennium III Publishers, 2000).
11 Barclay Newman, A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament, UBS1993 Pg. 163.
12 Vern S. Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists, 2nd. Edition. (P&R Publishing, Phillipsburg NJ 1987) pg73
13 Webster’s Dictionary
14 N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, vol. 1 of Christian Origins and the Question of God London: SPCK; Minneapolis: Fortress Press 1996. Pg. 366
15 New Interpreters Study Bible: Commentary, Thessalonians.
16 Charles Ryrie Dispensationalism Today, Moody Bible Press Chicago 1965. Pages 156-163.
17 http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/topic_index.cfm
18 http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Statement_of_Fundamental_Truths/sft_short.cfm
19 Arnold D. Ehlert A Bibliographic History Of Dispensationalism, BAKER Grand Rapids 1965. Pg. 72
20 Charles Taze Russell A Plan of the Ages, Bible Students of America, Dallas 1965 Appendix.
