I am, presently, involved in a study of the eschatology (last things / end of time etc.) of Paul’s epistles to the Thessalonians. We have come to the passage upon which the doctrine of the Rapture (for all intents and purposes) is founded: “Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord” (1Thessalonians 4:17). Even 1Corinthians 15:52 depends upon this verse, if a rapture is to be seen in the meaning of its text. I believe it is safe to say, if 1Thessalonians 4:17 were removed from scripture, that is, if Paul never wrote it or anything like it, the doctrine of the rapture would never have arisen, because there is nothing anywhere else in the Bible that would naturally lead one to believe that doctrine. Every other verse about the coming of the Lord and the resurrection draw from 1Thessalonians 4:17 to read rapture into verses discussed elsewhere. However, does 1Thessalonians 4:17 actually show a rapture occurring in the sense defined by Christians who hold to this doctrine today?
For the purpose of this study, I’ll define the rapture[1] as the eschatological understanding that both the living and the dead, brought to life / resurrected, ascend to meet Jesus in the clouds at the time of his return. This is supposed to be an invisible event, that is, invisible to unbelievers. All those “left behind” know is millions of people have disappeared for no apparent reason—planes and cars crash, because their operators have been removed in the twinkling of an eye etc. At this time we are told the faithful will go back with Christ into heaven (or paradise). Some Christians believe forever, and the universe as we know it will be destroyed, but others conclude we’ll return to the earth with Christ after a period of time.
One problem with the belief is that the term rapture doesn’t appear in the Bible. It is not in the word of God, so does the doctrine represent a tradition of man, or is it simply a correct delineation of the text? There is also the inconsistency of the doctrine, in that, it is an invisible event to unbelievers. However, it is a literal event whereby Jesus returns in a physical body upon physical clouds, and, eventually, to physical Israel to a physical (rebuilt) Temple in physical Jerusalem. The **only** invisible component of the rapture doctrine is that unbelievers will not see the actual rapture occur. So, where does the doctrine come from, because nothing like this is found anywhere in the word of God? To be fair, believers in the doctrine will say this is implied in the text, but, although one might be able to say it is implied in the English translation. It is not implied anywhere in the Greek text.
For example, “shall be caught up” (G726) the word up isn’t in the text. The same word is used for Jesus’ understanding that the crowd would take him by force (G726 – John 6:15). The same is true of Paul in Acts 23:10, and, finally, in John 10:28-29 the same word is used for no one being able to pluck believers out of the hands of Jesus or the Father. There simply is no direction implied in the Greek word. The direction, if needed, is implied by the context.
So, is up implied, because Jesus is returning from heaven, for heaven is up, isn’t it? Is it? If heaven, as the dwelling place of God, was symbolized by the Most Holy Place in the Temple in ancient Jerusalem, is heaven up?
Paul tells the Thessalonians they would be caught or seized (G726) together with the raised dead (see my explanation of the word above) in clouds (G3507), the same Greek word is used in the Septuagint to refer to the Lord in a cloud that led the Israelites in the wilderness (cp. Exodus 13:21). Believers were to meet (G529 – apantesis) the Lord (1Thessalonians 4:17). Actually apantesis is a noun, so believers would be seized / taken away in a cloud for a meeting with the Lord. This same word, apantesis is used for believers who came to a meeting with Paul when he was being taken to Rome in chains. They met him at the Appius Forum and Three Taverns and escorted him to Rome (Acts 28:15). The Greek word has the technical meaning of leaving one’s place for a meeting with someone, especially a dignitary, and escorting that dignitary back to one’s place.[2] Therefore, if we want to apply this to the rapture doctrine, where’s the context to do so? Where is there room to be physically ‘snatched’ away to go with the Lord back to heaven? Even if we retain the technical meaning of apantesis (G529), why would it be necessary for believers to be physically seized to meet the Lord and return immediately to earth with him? Where’s the evidence, in the word of God, that such a fantastic event would take place—physically? It seems to me, lots of Christians, today, seem to want to walk by sight (physical realm), not by faith (spiritual realm).
______________________________________________________
[1] See The Rapture by Matt Stefon; article written in Britannica on line.
[2] See W.E. Vine: An Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words; Geoffrey W. Bromiley: Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
Smoodock's Blog 
9 responses to “This Is **NOT** a Rapture!”
Of course you’re not. No one who accuses someone else is ever judging! :-)
…and you simply interpret the word, or something like that. Right?
…and you’re writing all this down in English. Right? Since you **claim** the word is judging, where does the **word** say ‘Jesus’ is a poor translation or that **Isho** must never be translated. I know of no verse in the Bible that claims the Hebrew is so sacred that it cannot, must not be translated. By the way, what Hebrew school did you go to?
I thought there were only ‘two’ clues (change your mind?). I assume you are referring to Paul’s letters. He never wrote a letter under his given name, Saul. Just for fun, I counted all the I’s in Romans chapter 1. According the KJV, there are twelve I’s, but the problem is that would appear only in the English. If the verb is in the first person singular in the Greek, there is no need for the personal pronoun “I”, but the “I” is translated into the English. One cannot avoid this, if one is writing in the Greek and uses the first person, singular. I don’t believe you have an argument here. If you disagree, point to the verses where Paul is being narcissistic, and we’ll talk.
Sounds like you’ve already made your choice, and obviously, it must be the correct choice to make. But, of course, you’re not judging.
Eddie:
The word is our Savior and He has the power to judge. I can only present certain ideas that people may think are not the truth but if they do their proper research, they might find other ideas.
I never mentioned anything about translating. People wrote and spoke in Hebrew. Isho spoke and wrote in Aramaic. We are now communicating in English, I hope.
I am sorry but you did not get my point.
Yes, I made my choice and I’m proud of what I’ve learned by “dredging” the word, the word of the Lord. I believe I’ve made the correct choice.
And you showed me that you have already made your choice also. Different of mine.
Thank you for answering to my comments.
So be it.
Chameleon Archer
Greetings Chameleon, and thank you for your response.
Assuming you are sincere, we agree that the word of our Savior God has power to judge. His word is what we use not only to understand and live our lives, but it is also used to settle disagreements in our faith. Assuming you agree with this, I’ll go on. Your words against Paul are slanderous, unless you present the proof. You simply cannot simply say he isn’t a true disciple and move on. Just saying something negative about others is slander. Proof must be presented, or one should simply be quiet about what he thinks. There are no folks living today who lived at the time of Paul, so we are unable to bring people to witness on our behalf. The only thing left is the word of God. If we agree that it has power to judge, then present your proof that Paul isn’t a true disciple of Jesus by showing us in the word of God that your judgment is correct.
You implied that ‘Jesus’ is an incorrect name with which to address our Savior. You claim Isho is **the** name by which he should be called, and that is Hebrew. I speak English, so I use: Jesus. Why am I wrong?
Oh! But I did. You seem to want me to accept your word about Paul and / or about the name Jesus / Isho at face value and believe what you tell me. I don’t do things like that. You need to present proof that what you claim is true, but you haven’t done so, and it seems in this, your most recent comment, that you do believe you need to. Well, if you intend to comment on my studies, I say you must present proof, as you believe it to be so, if you are going to say the things you’ve said here. If you don’t cooperate, I may not permit you to post here, but if I do, I will leave your slanderous comments (which is what they are without proof) without a response.
Have I shown that I’ve made my choice, or have I demanded that you offer proof that yours is the correct choice? We both have a responsibility to the truth. I demand proof, but you don’t seem to believe proof is necessary. You claim that you’ve already proved through research what you claim, yet your refuse to share the proof you’ve uncovered. If the **truth** has set you free, why do you free yourself with the truth, but refuse to free others?
Dear Eddie:
On my latest blogs, I’ve shown you proof from the word, not my word.
I hope I gave you enough details to be able to understand my message.
You were not very kind when you made a comment about what you called it a “mystery.” But it was not a mystery, it was right there in the word.
You have your methods and techniques to study the word and then you come up with assumptions and interpretations that are different from mine because we use different ways to study the Bible.
I agree that people need proof to validate the ideas we present, it is similar to have a day in court. Two different groups: the prosecution and the defense. They present their cases and a jury of 12 peers decide who WINS.
But in our analysis of the word, there will not be peers making the final decision, the Allmighty and His Son will decide if our names were inscribed, since the beginning, in the Book of life.
So we will know at that final trial if our names were written in that book.
I wish and pray that both of our names are there and we will not suffer the second death.
So be it.