Hardly a week goes by that I don’t receive material opposing the pre-trib rapture which is filled with all kinds of error, both Scriptural and historical. For example, I ran across an article entitled “Origin of the Secret Rapture Theory.” The first sentence said, “It may surprise and even shock you that neither the word ‘rapture’ nor the teaching of a secret rapture is not mentioned in ANY Christian literature prior to 1830—including the Bible!” I am hardly surprised or shocked that anyone could pack so much error into a single sentence, but there we have for all to see. This month I want to deal with some of the popular myths about the pre-trib rapture teaching that Dr. LaHaye and I very much believe is taught in the New Testament Scriptures.

The Term “Rapture”

First of all, the word “rapture” is found in the Bible, if you have the Latin Vulgate produced by Jerome in the early 400s. The Vulgate was the main Bible of the medieval Western Church until the Reformation. It continues to this day as the primary Latin translation of the Roman Catholic Church. Yet, as we shall see later, it was Protestants who introduced the word “rapture” into the English language from the Latinraeptius. It was Jerome’s Vulgate that translated the original Greek verbharpazô used by Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, in 1 Thessalonians 4:17, which is usually translated into English with the phrase “caught up.” The leading Greek Lexicon says that harpazô means “snatch, seize, i.e., take suddenly and vehemently.” This is the same meaning of the Latin word rapio “to seize, snatch, tear away.” It should not be surprising to anyone, that an English word was developed from the Latin which we use today known as “rapture.”

In Europe, during the Middle Ages and Reformation periods, the theologians were from various countries and therefore spoke different native tongues. However, the single language of the church, both Catholic and Protestant was Latin. In fact, many of the first books written and published in the American Colonies during the seventeenth century were in Latin. For example, Cotton Mather’s famous history of the American Colonies during the seventeenth century was written in Latin and called Magnalia Christi Americana, or The Great Works of Christ in America. Because it was done in Latin it could be read throughout Europe by the educated class. Thus, it should not be surprising to anyone that many new words came into the English language from a Latin source, especially in the realm of theology. Rapture is just such a word.

While it is technically true that the word rapture does not appear in the English Bible, it does, nevertheless, appear in the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible. Certainly the notion of a rapture appears many times in the Bible. Translators of the Bible into English could have been justified had they translated “caught up” in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 with the English word “rapture.” They also could have translated it by the word snatch. We could just as easily call the rapture “the great snatch.”

I have in my personal library at least 50 commentaries on 1 Thessalonians. Virtually all of them use the word “rapture” to describe the event in 1 Thessalonians 4:17. They do not appear interested in using it in a derogatory way nor do any of them go on an excursus about how this word does not appear in English translations. Most of these commentators do not hold to a pre-trib rapture view. They merely use the word because they know that it is one of the many Latin words that have made it into the English theological vernacular. Sorry that some have not yet heard.

The rapture does occur in the Bible, especially if you read the Latin Vulgate. However, there is no doubt that the Greek word harpazô in 1 Thessalonians 4:17, usually translated into English “caught up,” conveys the rapture concept.

“Rapture” Usage

Our anti-rapture diatribe noted earlier said, “the word ‘rapture’ nor the teaching of a secret rapture is not mentioned in ANY Christian literature prior to 1830.” Oh really! It is not hard to find out when English words were first introduced into the language. One needs only to check The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) and it will cite examples of the history of the usage of the word. The oldest word in the “rapture” family is “rapt.” OED cites examples of rapt occurring in 1400 in English literature. The earliest instances of “rapture” in secular English literature are cited as 1605, 1607, and 1608. OED provides seven nuances of the word Rapture. The fourth entry is the biblical one defined as “The act of conveying a person from one place to another esp. to heaven; the fact of being so conveyed.” Two examples of this use are cited from the seventeenth century. The first by a writer named Ward in 1647 and the other by J. Edwards (not the American Jonathan) in 1693. It does not take long to realize that these examples are well before 1830.

Joseph Mede (1586-1638), considered in his day, a brilliant English exegete wrote a commentary on Revelation in 1627 called Clavis Apocalyptica (Key of the Revelation). In it he said, “Therefore, it is not needful that the Resurrection of those which slept in Christ, and the Rapture of those which shall be left alive together with them in the air . . .” While Mede was a premillennialist, he did not hold to a pre-trib rapture. Nor did the commentator and theologian John Gill (1697-1771) who wrote around 1745 the following in his commentary on 1 Thessalonians 4:17: “. . . 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; . . .”

To admit that the word rapture was used in the English language at least a couple of hundred years before J. N. Darby came along does not in the least mean that one believes in pretribulationism. The Greek word harpazô is used fourteen times in the New Testament. In addition to 1 Thessalonians 4:17, it is used at least three more times of one being raptured to heaven (2 Cor. 12:2, 4; Rev. 12:5). So there is no need to get upset over the use of the Latin based, English word “rapture.” It is a biblical word.

The “Secret” Rapture Myth

Included in the above tirade is an equation of the so-called “secret” rapture with pretribulationism. Sorry, but this is another mistake, another myth. In all my reading of pretribulationism and discussion with pretribulationists, I have never, that I can recall, heard a pre-trib rapturist use the nomenclature of “secret” rapture to describe our view. I have only heard the phrase “secret” rapture as a pejorative term used exclusively by anti-pretribulationists. Why? Apparently they enjoy fighting with a straw man.

Anti-pretribulationist, Ken Gentry declares, “On the very surface it is remarkable that one of the noisiest verses in Scripture is said to picture the secret rapture.” The truth of the matter is that Gentry wrongly assumes that pretribulationists characterize their view of the rapture as “secret.” We do not! However, there are anti-pre-trib rapture advocates, like Dave MacPherson who have taught this myth. As a result, unwitting critics like Gentry have absorbed this myth into their rhetoric without doing their homework.

Very likely it was Dave MacPherson who has spread this myth that equates pretribulationism with a secret rapture. “In 1880 William Reid, in his book on Brethrenism,” declares MacPherson, “stated that ‘Edward Irving contributed the notion of . . . the secret rapture of the saints.’” MacPherson later concludes, “The pretrib rapture eventually became known as the ‘secret rapture.’ This label was based on the presupposition that only certain persons would have privileged visibility or knowledge during the occurrence of this catching up.” MacPherson does not actually reference anyone who believes in a pre-trib rapture when he makes these statements. It is through slight of hand that he slips such an assumption into his plot of fictional myths about the origins of pretribulationism.

In fact, Brethren researcher R. A. Huebner refutes MacPherson’s misinformation about the pre-trib rapture and its supposed association with a secret rapture teaching. Huebner notes that supposed relation of pretribulationism and a secret rapture are built upon the following false historical assumptions: First, the “erroneous notions are the result of the myth that the Irvingites held a pretribulation rapture and also results from trying to link J. N. D. with this falsified Irvingism.” Second, when speaking of events transpiring in the 1830s, Huebner says, “the Secret Rapture as used at that point in time did not refer to the pretribulation rapture.” Third, “it seems that up to this point in time [the 1830s, T. D. I.], ‘Secret Rapture’ referred to a rapture at the appearing [the second coming, T. D. I.].” Fourth, “I am not aware if JND ever thought that the rapture would be ‘secret.’”

It was the Irvingites, and not the Brethren, who believed in the secret rapture. Since the secret rapture and pretribulationism are not the same, this is where much of the confusion resides. The Irvingite view of the secret rapture was a belief that a few enlightened ones would be taken right before the second coming at the end of the tribulation. This is what Irvingite, Margaret Macdonald’s revelation is about. It is impossible to find a pre-trib rapture of any kind in her vision.

Conclusion

I am sure that this call to anti-pre-trib rapture advocates will not result in much of a reduction of their zealous proclamation of mythological falsehoods about our blessed hope. It seems that too many are blinded by their zeal to oppose the biblical teachings of the any-moment hope of the rapture for them to take time to get their information straight. No wonder Columba Graham Flegg, in his scholarly work on the Irvingites spoke specifically of Dave MacPherson’s work as “less scholarly.” Flegg said, the “conclusions reached in this work and the rationale behind them are hardly convincing.” Now why is an expert on the Irvingites not impressed with MacPherson’s work? Because Flegg has a thorough knowledge about the times in which MacPherson writes and realizes that he is spinning out myths. Maranatha!

Our whole nation and the world are focused upon the saga of our 2000 election for President. At the time in which I am writing, the matter has not yet been resolved. Currently the two campaigns are in the midst of legal battles that have engaged the Florida and United States Supreme Courts. A ruling by the liberal Florida Supreme Court has many representatives of Bush and Gore talking about how our Federal and State Constitutions should be interpreted. As I observe their discussion, I see many parallels between interpretive philosophies of these legal documents and the hermeneutical approaches to the Bible, especially Bible prophecy.

Legislating From the Bench

In a much talked about decision by the Florida Supreme Court, they handed down a decision favoring Gore that had no basis in Florida constitutional law. Instead, the Court adopted a belief that every vote should be counted as an abstract principle from which they made their ruling. This set off a swirl of explanations from both sides as to their interpretive approaches.

The traditional and historic approach to interpreting our constitutions are to handle them as literary documents that make specific statements which become the guidelines for deciding contemporary legal issues. Within this approach a judge may look to other sources to enrich their depth of understanding of the legal document. For example, The Federalist Papers, are a collection of essays written by the writers of the U. S. Constitution explaining further the intended meaning in our governing document. Within this approach, the role for the judiciary is to interpret the law, not to make up, and thus, legislate new law. The legislation of new law was to be done by congress and sign by the President. “Strict Constructionalism” is the label often assigned to the traditional interpretation of our constitutions. It was thought to be the only way to interpret a legal document until about one hundred years ago.

A new way arose for looking at a constitution called “judicial activism.” Justices like Oliver Windell Holmes pioneered this approach. This approach is grounded upon the belief that there are no such thing as universal absolutes that are true from generation to generation. Thus, the need for judges to update a constitution through the use of sociological input for each generation. This leads to judges making decisions that are not based upon past law or precedent, but creating out of thin air a decision that then becomes legally binding. This is what the Florida Supreme Court recently did. Even if there were no such thing as universal absolutes (of course, there are because the God of the Bible says so), this would not justify judicial activism, since the legislature should still be the governmental branch to “update” the constitution and laws of the land. This method of interpretation is not really a method of interpretation. Instead, it is a way in which these judges can legislate from the bench. It is a way to bypass the legislative process and impose upon society their values through law. The most infamous example in our lifetime was the Roe vs. Wade decision that legalized the murder of infants in their mother’s womb we call abortion. How does this relate to the interpretation of Bible prophecy you may be asking about now?

Legislating Through Interpretation

There are many parallels between interpreting the Bible, especially prophecy, and the current, liberal approach to the interpretation of legal literature. I will examine some of the more important similarities.

The first thing to keep in mind is that interpretation of the Bible, and any literature, should be an effort to find out what the Author intended to say. Proper biblical interpretation occurs when “the interpreter has sought to suppress his own viewpoints regarding what he thinks the passage should mean, so as to allow the exegetical evidence from the passage under investigation to speak for itself.” The oft repeated slogan that a view is “just your interpretation” is a meaningless mantra that has nothing to do with actually trying to find out what a given text is actually saying. The issue should be: Is my interpretation the correct one in light of what the passage is saying in context? One may challenge another’s interpretation and offer a different one. But there is only one correct interpretation because there was only a single intent in what our Lord says.

For anyone to say or imply that the meaning of a passage is unknowable, is to buy into the pagan notion of relativism that dominates the American landscape. It is to act as if the God who made the mouth, has not spoken by giving us Scripture. Since God has spoken, then we can know what He has said, because we are created in His image with the capability of communication. However, Romans 1 teaches that we rebel against the truth that we all know of God. “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.” (Rom. 1:18-19)

Any Christian who thinks that any interpretation will do, as long as one is sincere, is like a liberal judge who thinks that he can legislate from the bench. Just as the proper role of a judge is to use his training and knowledge to interpret the constitution, so also the role of any reader of the Bible, God’s inerrant Word, is to seek to understand what God meant. Thus, when any of us misinterpret, even for a supposed good cause, Scripture, the effect is to say that our finite and fallen opinion is what God is saying in His revelation. We are adding to Scripture. This is the very thing that the Apostle John warns about at the end of the Book of Revelation. “I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.” (Rev. 22:18-19).

Replacement Theology

One of the most common errors down through church history and prospering greatly in our own day are those interpretive legislators who say that the church has replaced Israel in Scripture and history. Reconstructionist Ken Gentry declares, “The people of God are expanded from Israel of the Old Testament to the universal Church of the New Testament, becoming the Israel of God.” Even though the Bible does not teach what Gentry just stated, he compounds his error by trying to defend such a view when he says, “Christians are called by the name ‘Israel.’” He cites Galatians 6:16 as supposed proof, which reads,”And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.” Yet, this passage does not in any way, shape, or form support Gentry’s replacement interpretation.

Israel always refers to the Jewish people from Genesis to Revelation. S. Lewis Johnson notes: “There is no instance in biblical literature of the term Israel being used in the sense of the church or the people of God as composed of both believing ethnic Jews and Gentiles.” Arnold Fruchtenbaum notes, “that the church is never called a ‘spiritual Israel’ or a ‘new Israel.’ The term Israel is either used of the nation or the people as a whole, or of the believing remnant within.” Gentry is misguided to claim that Galatians 6:16 teaches that the church has replaced Israel.

Simply put, in Galatians 6:16, when Paul speaks of “the Israel of God,” he is talking about Jewish Believers in Jesus as Messiah. Fruchtenbaum explains:

A cursory reading of the context reveals that Paul distinguishing between physical status and spiritual status for those is Christ. Although the Judaizers were emphasizing physical qualifications, Paul states that one’s position in Christ depends exclusively on spiritual qualification. Notice that Paul does not even talk about the church, but refers to position in Christ (Gal. 6:15). Certainly Paul does not seek to demean or eradicated physical differences, he merely states that they have no bearing on whether or not one is in Christ. Just as earlier Paul states that gender distinctives and social status are irrelevant to position in Christ (Gal. 3:28), so in Galatians 6:15 he explains that circumcision also means nothing. And just as physical differences do not keep persons from being in Christ, so physical similarities cannot put them in Christ. All Jews belong to ethnic Israel. And Gentiles do not. So there is no basis for concluding that Paul intends to imply to his readers that Israel can refer to Gentiles, whether or not they are in Christ. . . .

. . . It appears logical to view ‘the Israel of God’ as believing Jews in contrast to unbelieving Jews called ‘Israel after the flesh’ (1 Cor. 10:18).”
S. Lewis Johnson documents the blatant insistence of replacement theologians when he notes the following:

In speaking of the view that the term refers to ethnic Israel, a sense that the term Israel has in every other of its more than sixty-five uses in the New Testament and in its fifteen uses in Paul, in tones almost emotional William Hendriksen, the respected Reformed commentator, writes, “I refuse to accept that explanation.” . . .

. . . It may also be said that biblical scholars often unwittingly overlook their own theological presuppositions, logical fallacies, and hermeneutical errors. What I am leading up to is expressed neatly by D. W. B. Robinson in an article written about twenty years ago: “The glib citing of Gal. vi:16 to support the view that ‘the church is the new Israel’ should be vigorously challenged. There is weighty support for a limited interpretation.” We can say more than this, in my opinion. There is more than weighty support for a more limited interpretation. There is overwhelming support for such. In fact, the least likely view among several alternatives is the view that “the Israel of God” is the church.
One scholar, C. E. B. Cranfield makes an uncommon confession in a rare moment of candor in his commentary on Romans:

It is only where the Church persists in refusing to learn this message, where it secretly—perhaps quite unconsciously!—believes that its own existence is based on human achievement, and so fails to understand God’s mercy to itself, that it is unable to believe in God’s mercy for still unbelieving Israel, and so entertains the ugly and unscriptural notion that God has cast off His people Israel and simply replaced it by the Christian Church. These three chapters emphatically forbid us to speak of the church as having once and for all taken the place of the Jewish people. But the assumption that the Church has simply replaced Israel as the people of God is extremely common. . . . And I confess with shame to having also myself used in print on more than one occasion this language of the replacement of Israel by the Church.
Conclusion

Just because a majority of respected judges in our day believe that judicial activism is the right approach to reading constitutional documents does not make it so. In the same vein, just because it is common for all too many to engage in allegorical interpretation of Scripture does not make it right. Errors like replacement theology will persist unless we begin to put a premium upon “handling accurately the word of truth.” (2 Tim. 2:15) This especially applies to the handling of the prophetic word. Maranatha!