E04: The Rapture (Supplemental Session 2)

What is the rapture—and is it actually taught in Revelation? This episode examines common views and compares them with the broader message of the book.

Transcript

Michael Berry: So I want to tackle this right up front. Of course, in the first session, you heard me say that I do not teach the futurist interpretation of Revelation. And oftentimes, the most dominant viewpoint when you're thinking of the futurist interpretation, and I mentioned it in that first session, is tied to the viewpoint within the futurist interpretation of Dispensational Premillennialism. I know those are big words ⁓ that don't probably mean anything to you at this point, but just remember, ⁓ dispensational is, think of it in terms of an era. There was the Israel era, and then there is the church era, or I should say the ethnic Israel era and the church era. And those are, that's the dispensational part. Then there is the premillennial part. Of course, the millennium ⁓ is what is referred to in Revelation 20 where Christ will reign on the earth for a thousand years. So that's where the millennium come from. And then the pre part of that is that the dispensation of the church will be raptured, taken out of the world before the millennium. So dispensational. premillennialism. So it kind of start to start to wrap your mind around that ⁓ because that is probably the dominant picture of Revelation that most people have when they come to the book. And I'll just kind of once again run through the the timeline of dispensational premillennialism and and just recapture this for you. Of course ⁓ The first dispensation is ethnic Israel in the Old Testament. Jesus ushers in the new dispensation of the church. And at some point in time in the future, not right now, the church is going to be raptured away. So some point in time in the future, the church will be raptured away. They'll just vanish, be gone. And this vanishment will usher in a seven-year period that is commonly referred to as the tribulation. And so that tribulation of seven years is broken into two sets of three and a half years. At the end of that seven years, Jesus will establish his kingdom on earth by binding Satan for 1000 years. That's the millennium part that we were talking about just a second ago. This kingdom will be ruled by an ethnic Israel. And at the end of the 1,000 years, Satan will be destroyed, the church will come from heaven and join Jesus, ethnic Israel, those who have come through what's commonly referred to as the tribulation, and all of eternity will be ushered in. That is dispensational pre-millennialism. You could probably go online and find a timeline that would kind of Put that in in a visual form for you ⁓ if if following along ⁓ With just hearing it as it doesn't work for you, but that's dispensational premillennialism Think Tim LaHaye how Lindsay Jerry B Jenkins John Wolford Left Behind series which a lot of people have read or seen the movie ⁓ And so foundational to this view is what we call, of course, the rapture. And the rapture is where the church ⁓ will just vanish. This take place in the twinkling of an eye, completely throw the world into chaos, Christians driving cars or flying airplanes or in political office, whatever. It'll just be mass chaos. ⁓ And it will usher in that seven year. tribulation. And so you can see why the rapture is is such a big deal. And it has become a big deal in the church and has even caused major ⁓ strife in some cases because there are Bible believing God fearing Christ loving followers of Jesus who adhere to rapture teaching and those who do not adhere to rapture teaching. And there really are two or three proof texts for the rapture that we're going to get into here in a moment. But I do want to say first off that while I do have some pretty strong opinions about this I want to respect the other side and and I would invite you to do the same wherever you may fall But within respecting the other side, it does not mean that we have to agree to disagree I really want you to see the honest wrestling with with rapture teaching and and consider the possibility That the rapture of the church in the way, it's usually depicted is not part of God's plan for the future of the world. I want you to wrestle with that because in a lot of cases, sometimes we've never even come in contact with another type of teacher or another way of thinking about the end. It's just we've just been dominated by this idea of a rapture where it just the church just vanishes. But I want you to recognize the phrase I used. I said the rapture in the way it is usually depicted is not part of God's plan for the future. And let me jump into this fully here. The word rapture comes from the Latin word repimor. And this is a translation of the Greek word harpegasematha, okay? A long word, harpegasematha, or harpegasematha. It simply means we will be snatched up. So it means to be it's to be taken away by a sudden force to be snatched up. And it is seen in First Thessalonians 417. And that's the key verse for the rapture teaching. So if you have your Bible with you, go ahead and turn there. If not, of course, listen here. I'll I'll I'll I'll read through it. And we've got a few other texts that we get into. But First Thessalonians 417. And says this, then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will always be with the Lord. And you can see that this idea of being snatched up or caught up is present in this verse. And like I said, it implies a grabbing by force. And so a lot of people on my side of thinking will kind of blanket statements just say, well, the rapture is not biblical, but that is not completely accurate. I do. I don't believe my stance is that the rapture in the way it's usually depicted is not part of God's plan for the future of our world. And here is why I say that when I was describing the rapture at the beginning, did any of that sound off or wrong to you? It shouldn't because that is how it's described. That's how it's depicted. When we read the Left Behind series, we read people just vanishing and nobody knows why. It's just, well, mean, obviously Christians would, but nobody in the world understands why. It's just all these people who were believers in Jesus all of a sudden just left. And it's just this mass chaos vanishing scenario. No warnings. And this first Thessalonians 417 verse is the key verse for that theory. My question is, why doesn't the picture of the rapture, we are commonly told, what I just described, actually reflect the text that it comes from? I want to back up just two verses. We're going to go back to verse 15. So first Thessalonians 4, 15, and we're going to take a running start at this. And you're going to immediately see, oh, this looks different. So verse 15, it goes like this. For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord that we who are alive are left until the coming of the Lord will not precede those who have fallen asleep." So here Paul is already proposing a different picture because he's discussing the coming of the Lord. So remember, they say that. Then we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, they will precede those who have fallen asleep or who have died. So once again, We're seeing a different picture already in verse 15. Verse 16 goes on and says, for the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the sound of the trumpet of God. Oh, hold up. I thought this was just the vanishing act. No. The context of Harpagosemathot. is the coming of Jesus Christ. You can see that from verse 15 and verse 16. And then it gets worse. And then he says in verse 16, and the dead and Christ will rise first. So now we're getting a completely different picture of what this rapture is supposed to look like. The rapture, if it's described from the context in which it comes from, in the key proof text for rapture proponents, should start with Jesus descending from heaven in a very public display of power and authority. Then, and there's a loud trumpet, right? So ⁓ very public. Then, All of our brothers and sisters in Christ who have died will come back to life. That doesn't sound like a sudden vanishing of Christians in the twinkling of an eye. There's a very public display of Jesus coming back to earth and then people raising from the dead. That's literally the first two or the two verses before verse 17. Then verse 17 comes into play. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them, those who have come back to life, in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. This is a completely different picture of the rapture. This picture is Jesus coming down from heaven in a loud display of power and authority. As he begins to do that, the dead in Christ rise again and then all who are followers of Christ go to meet him in the air. And so here's what I'm saying at the very least, that this picture of the rapture is the one we should have in our minds. not some vanishing scenario that causes mass chaos in our world. And with that being said, I'll push it further. I want to propose to you that what Paul is describing here actually is and actually sounds more like the second coming of Jesus that Jesus himself described than it does the picture we're used to seeing of the rapture. So we're going to flip over to Matthew 24. We're going to be in verse 31. Sorry, verse 30 and 31. And the context of this is ⁓ the disciples had just said to Jesus, hey, look at the temple and look how magnificent it is. And he talks about how it's going to be destroyed and not one stone left on top of another. And so that's at the beginning of the chapter. It goes through and and and it's it's actually a very confusing chapter. No doubt about that. It's a pretty confusing chapter. ⁓ But the context is going to lead us to the second arrival of Jesus on the earth. And this is what chapter 24, verse 30 through 31 says, Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man. And then all the tribes of the earth will mourn and they will see the Son of Man. coming on the clouds of heaven with great power and great glory. And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from the end of heaven to the other. If you match that with 1 Thessalonians 4 verse 17, no, verse 15 through 17, it matches the second coming of Jesus, what Paul is describing there. That is the Harpica Sematha. In fact, I think what Paul is doing in 1 Thessalonians is actually ⁓ capturing kind of a ⁓ vivid picture for those in the first century, those who lived in Rome, when an emperor would visit a city, the emperor and all his entourage and a lot of power and lot of ⁓ displays of authority, of course, would be visiting or coming to visit a city. What would happen is the people of the city would go out to meet him and then escort him back into the city. as a show of camaraderie, honor and respect. ⁓ You didn't want to just be sitting in your house and, ⁓ yeah, here comes the emperor, and it doesn't look like you actually support or care that he's there. ⁓ It's a show of honor and respect, and going out to meet him and then escorting him back into the city as a sign of, hey, we're with you, we're on your side, we are glad you're here. That's the picture that Paul has in mind at Thessalonians. We will join Jesus when he shows up on the clouds and it will be like a welcome party where we will usher him in and welcome him as he descends to earth to complete the establishment of his kingdom on earth that he inaugurated as the first coming. This is when he will judge. This is when he'll destroy Satan and eternity will begin. And I'm sure there's a lot of questions around that. ⁓ We're going to get into that throughout Revelation. And so I'm even tempted here to jump into some of that, but I'm not going to do that. What I'm just after here is trying to get the picture and the timing of the rapture correct first. And so now that I think we've done that, I want to provide some other contextualization for this, this discussion on the rapture. And I don't want this session to go on forever. So I'm just going to jump. quickly into another proof text of the common rapture picture. And it's actually a little bit later on in Matthew 24. We just read verses 30 through 31. Now we're going to skip on down to verses 40 through 41. And you'll recognize this text kind of right off the bat. It says, then two men will be in the field. one will be taken and one left. Two women will be grinding at the wheat mill, one will be taken and one left. That sounds like the picture of the rapture we're commonly taught, right? But once again, if we go further up the page and read the previous verses, we get to see the context of these verses. And the context is once again, like we kicked off in verse 30, the coming of Jesus and Jesus in this ⁓ in this picture, he pulls an image from the Old Testament and the story of Noah. So just backing up the page just a little bit, starting at the last ⁓ part of verse 36, he says, but concerning that day or hour, referring to his second coming, ⁓ concerning that day or hour, no one knows. Not even the angels of heaven nor the sun. But the Father only, for as were the days of Noah, so he's flashing us back to the days of Noah. So get that picture in your mind. As were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage until the day when Noah entered the ark. Who were they? They were those who were not going to be saved from the floodwaters. So recognize that. They were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage. They were those who were not going to be saved, those who were ⁓ not righteous. ⁓ Noah and his family were the ones who listened to God, followed God, built the ark. and were going to be saved. they were the ones who were not going to be saved from the flood waters. He goes on, he says, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage until the day when Noah entered the ark. And they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away. So will be the coming of the Son of Man. Then two men will be in the in the field. One will be taken one left. Two women will be grinding at the wheat mill. One will be taken in one left. So, so here in this story, remember it's the context of Noah, the ones who are wicked, the ones who are sinful, the ones who vanish in Jesus teachings are the ones who aren't going to be saved. And they're the ones that are removed from the earth. And the ones that are left behind on the earth are the ones who are faithful to God, Noah and his family. So the picture that we have commonly been given of the rapture flips it. The rapture takes the followers of God and leaves behind those who are sinners, those who are unrighteous. And that picture is biblically inaccurate. But if this scripture we just read is placed at Jesus' second coming, it actually matches the intention of the context of of judgment for those who are not followers of Jesus. Where he will come, they will perish like those in Noah's day, while the followers of God will be saved. Do you see the picture? We could go on and on. There's a bunch of various proof texts theoretically for the the rapture. These are the two biggest. ⁓ The rest of them are ⁓ really not as not as strong. And you can see that these two really when you put them in the context, they are not ⁓ very strong at all. ⁓ And so what I'd like to do to wrap this up is quickly awkward. a few other observations about the traditional rapture ⁓ picture that can help us redefine our views of this. ⁓ So the first point is that the rapture happens for most proponents of the teaching in chapter four of Revelation. We're about to jump into that in the next session, ⁓ but you won't see it explicitly in there. because the word rapture or Harpichosemitha is never actually mentioned in Revelation. And so it's proposed that when John is taken to heaven at the beginning of chapter four, it's symbolic of the church being raptured from the earth. Then we'll see the throne room of God, the rest of chapter four, the lamb taken, the scroll in chapter five, and then we're off to the seals and onward in chapter six with the church already in heaven. And I'll touch on this ironic symbolism within the doctrine. ⁓ based on a literal reading of Scripture in the next session on the Antichrist, ⁓ or the next kind of supplemental session on the Antichrist. ⁓ But now, if the rapture is placed ⁓ in chapter four, then it renders really from chapter four, more like chapter six onward of Revelation, it renders it useless to us. And it renders it useless to the church in the first century, unless the rapture were to happen in our lifetime, of course. But even then, think about it, there wouldn't really be any point in us studying the chapters beyond chapter five, because we would never experience that and what happens within those chapters. And so ⁓ we would have been raptured out and taken away before all that stuff happened. That would mean 75 % of the book is written to people who won't study it until it is currently happening or even after it happens. And so really for me, it seems almost pointless to write all this. It seems pointless to, I get the other side of the argument that those in the tribulation, theoretical, the seven year tribulation would then have an understanding of things and a light to follow during that time. get that. But the book is written to believers in the first century and it has that tone throughout the entirety of the letter that is written to them. And so it's like, hey, this might happen in your future, but even if it does, it doesn't really apply to you. ⁓ So, you know, here's here's a little bit of some context of what's going to happen, but don't even worry about it. It doesn't matter for you. And so the point of revelation kind of becomes, I don't know, pointless, especially in the context of Christians studying it and reading it and trying to understand it. So that's the first point. The second point is the rapture, as popularly taught, did not come around until the 19th century when John Nelson Darby really proposed the doctrine. Up until then, The rapture is mentioned prior, ⁓ but it's always in the context of the second coming of Jesus, not the context of a vanishing of Christians before a massive seven-year tribulation. So for 1,800 years, the church did not even propose the idea that we commonly have in our head of vanishing rapture. That doesn't necessarily make it untrue because people have new understandings of Scripture. ⁓ all the time, ⁓ but the fact that it came 1800 years later has to be weighed in light of the other observations here and has to stand up under the scrutiny of the rest of scripture. And I just don't think it does. So that's the second point. The third point and last point here is that the rapture, once again, as commonly taught, lends itself to passivity. Now, I might be a despicable human being without empathy, and I definitely was before I actually started following Jesus and learned about the rapture. I honestly thought, you know, if people don't accept Jesus now and we get raptured out of here, yeah, it might be more trying for them. It might be more difficult for them, but I mean, they'll get it. It'll be unmistakable. I mean, you got all these things going wrong in the world. ⁓ They're going to figure it out. So really, I don't necessarily need to do anything now. And so it's it's entirely plausible that people would think something similar if the rapture is correct. Is that necessarily a great reason to reject it ⁓ as a scriptural event? Not necessarily, but it does beg the question. If the church has been God's witness for thousands of years, why would he remove them, switch strategies and start again with a new group of people in the tribulation? His primary source of witness is the church now. And if he leans and he in the future has a rapture to come on the world. All of a sudden, you know, the people who vote, well, maybe I don't really have to do anything. Everybody's going to get it after that. I know that there's a lot of different pushback you can have there for sure, but it just kind of it kind of leads to passivity. So. I think all of this kind of the scriptural part is is kind of the smoking gun. The other the last three points are just really things to wrestle with more than anything. None of them just like. drop dead prove that the rapture is commonly proposed isn't correct. it just weighs, it has weight and we need to ⁓ consider those thoughts ⁓ throughout our common belief of rapture doctrine. And so this is a lot and my hope in this is not to overwhelm you, but really to start a dialogue. We've been fed this understanding of the rapture for a century, little, a few, a few centuries now. And for some of us, we've never been told or had any concept of legitimate concerns with this, with, with this doctrine and, and, push back against it. And so my hope is that you can start to wrestle with some of these points here in the coming days and weeks and, and move towards what I believe is a better biblical understanding of what is ahead for us as believers.