We recently had a sermon series on the book of Revelation and it necessarily included some discussion of what is called 'The Rapture' of the church. One of the books recommended by our pastor during the series is titled Three Views of the Rapture and is a debate on Pre-, Mid-, or Post-tribulation points of view by 3 seminary professors. Since they teach at Trinity where I attended seminary for a couple of terms, I decided to read it and I recently finished the book.
First I must vent a little, however. The first thing I dislike about this whole topic is the title. 'The Rapture'. I had never even heard of 'The Rapture' until I went to college and became friends with some folks who had been reading Hal Lindsey's Late Great Planet Earth. This doesn't prove much except that it is at least possible to be a serious Christian without caring a whit about 'The Rapture'. But why call it that? It comes from the Latin translation of I Thessalonians 4:17 where Paul says that at Christ's Second Advent those believers who are alive at that time will be 'caught up' to meet Him. 'Rapturos' is the Latin for 'caught up'. So 'The Rapture' is actually 'The Caught Up'. Huh? I suppose trying to talk in Latin makes folks think you are educated or something, like talking about chemistry to marketing folks. It might make you feel smart but it doesn't communicate anything. It reminds me of the way the media today is constantly turning verbs into nouns and vice versa. Rapturos is a verb, not a name for an event. 'The Caught Up' : yuck. If the aforementioned marketers had been involved, they would have quickly changed that (alas, 'morphed' it) into 'The Ketchup' just to make it more catchy. Talk about anticipation! But then I just realized that my kids probably don't even remember that great ketchup commercial that I immediately recall whenever I hear the word 'anticipation'. In any case, the very term 'The Rapture' irritates me.
I much prefer the words that are actually used for the event rather than for an action. Those words used often for Christ's return include apocalypse (revelation), epiphany (appearing), and parousia (coming). 'Apocalypse' and 'epiphany' are both transliterations of greek words in the Bible (apocalypsis and epiphaneia) rather than translations, though we don't use transliterations of 'parousia' in English. I like all of them better than 'rapture', though, since 'rapture' has lots of other meanings in English as well.
Enough venting. The book, though, was a more studious and non-hysterical approach to the subject than most of what is out there. It does point out the history of the subject, which is important since it has only been in the last century that this idea of a pre-tribulation 'Rapture' has gained any significant support among believers at all. My take on it is that the Post-tribulation view has by far the best argument that requires much less reading into the text than the Pre- or Mid- tribulation points of view. Basically, the Post-tribulation view is that 'The Rapture' and the Second Advent are one event, not two separate events. It is not an easy read and the writing style tries your patience at times, but it does a good job in pointing out the differences among these views.
Meanwhile I prefer to skip the ketchup and have the second advent instead.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I feel that Left Behind has done much to write the doctrines in many Christians' heads, unfortunately.
I have also seen parousia translated as "presence," which I especially like since it signifies not only something visual, but also something you just know (as when someone enters the room behind you).
I wonder: does the book mention the view that there is no pre-, mid-, or post- distinction at all because Revelation is a metaphorical description of the Roman persecution around the time Revelation was written? Personally, I find this view most convincing, which also helps me worry less about the rapture. I also find it interesting that the "catching up" is mentioned in a different book altogether and is not "present" (Ha ha) in Revelation.
The intro to the book gives some background on what they call 'the historicist view' that most of the prophecies were already fulfilled, and they address themselves just to those who feel that the 70th week of Daniel is not yet fulfilled.
Post a Comment