(21 votes, average: 4.62 out of 5)
Loading...Since I’ve started talking about Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians, the earliest Christian writing of any kind that we have, in preparation for discussion one tiny little textual variant in 1 Thess. 2:7,which involves only the presence or absence of a single letter in a single word, but on which the meaning of the passage hinges, I can’t let the opportunity pass without saying something further by way of background (none of which is especially relevant to this particular textual variant!) on the letter. The reason: this is the letter that modern-day conservative Christians who believe that the “rapture” is about to occur base their views on.
The “rapture” is a modern doctrine/idea. Even though some conservative Christians think this is one of the main points of the Christian faith, historically it has rarely been that. In fact, for most of history, most Christians simply haven’t believed in a rapture.
The doctrine of the rapture is that Jesus will be returning from heaven (sometime soon) and when he does those who had believed in him before they died will be raised from the dead and taken up to meet him in the air, and all those who are living will also be taken up (raptured). Those who do not believe in Jesus will be “Left Behind.”
What will follow, for those still around on earth, will not be pretty. There will be seven years of horrible suffering, known as the “Tribulation,” before Jesus finally puts an end to it all by destroying the Antichrist and his forces of evil and bringing in the millennium, a utopian time and place where God will rule the earth through his Christ.
I used to firmly believe this myself when I was an evangelical Christian. I passionately believed it. And preached it. And convinced others about it. So did my friends. I’m not in evangelical circles any more (you may have noticed) so I don’t know if this still enjoys the prominence that it used to have in the 1970s (I rather doubt it), but for us it was a big deal.
Christians who believe in the rapture base their views on several passages of Scripture, but above all on 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18.
I should say, to begin with, that…
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN!!! It doesn’t cost much money, and every dime goes to helping the needy.
Until you mentioned it today I always thought the idea went a ways back, perhaps to the early church although I wondered how that fit in with the widespread non-acceptance of Revelations before the canon of the NT congealed. A fascinating book called “American Apocalypse: A History of Modern Evangelicalism” came out a year or two ago and in a section I haven’t read completely yet the author addresses the Rapture. He says that before the 19th century the idea of the Rapture was not well-developed. The idea of the Rapture gained prominence when the premillenialist John Nelson Darby fleshed out his ideas of the Rapture in the 1860s and 1870s based on, exactly as you said, combining ideas found in Revelations and 1 Thess 4:15-17 (and a little Daniel, Ezekiel and Matthew thrown in for good measure).
So……2000+ years later, they are still awaiting this big event….sigh.
If Jesus was a prophet, if there is such a thing, I think the Preterist view is a better take on eschatology.
If you are going to answer my question in the next few posts, then don’t waste your time answering it for me right now. I am intrigued by this business of “the end.” Isn’t what Paul is saying pretty much what Jesus said himself? Was Jesus any more expository about it than Paul? Interesting stuff that I was never quite sure about. Thanks so much.
Yes, I see their apocalyptic eschatologies as being fundamentally very similar; one key difference is that Jesus expected the son of man to arrive in judgment, and Paul expected Jesus.
I’ve always been confused by this. Did Jesus see himself as the Son Of Man, or was the Son of Man supposed to be some warrior angle, as was envisaged by Daniel?
I’ve dealt with this at length in my various books; you might want to look at Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. (where I argue he did not see himself as the son of man who was coming)
Bart, I ALWAYS have my Bibles within arm’s reach when reading your posts.
I’m constantly amazed that anyone in the modern world would still believe anything like that.
Dom Crossan in his book on Paul (the one with Marcus Borg I think – but maybe also the other one too) suggests that when the Emperor arrives at your city the entire population would turn out, go outside the city and meet the royal visitor and then lead him and his entourage back into the city as a kind of welcome. This he suggests is what is going on here. The saints will meet Christ in the clouds and then accompany him back to the earth – the good creation – where Christ will establish the Kingdom. He concedes the point that you also make that Paul does not provide this answer but gleans this from his other studies. Do you have any thoughts about this? I hope I have represented his views correctly. As for the rapture, I think we should go back to the original meaning of the word best represented by William Schwenk Gilbert – “O joy, o rapture unforseen…”
Thanks… SBD
Yes, i find Crossan’s view completely plausible
Your commentary has continued to challenge me in my own spiritual quest. It certainly has made me turn inward towards a personal relationship with God. The fact that there are still preachers, priests, ministers, etc not challenging their congregations with these types of discussions, but, instead, spewing the same sort of baseless rhetoric and man made dogma troubles me greatly. I doubt, Jesus, would have wanted his so called church to turn out this way. Please continue your inspiring research.
What do you think of N.T. Wright’s view that Paul was influenced by a Hellenistic/Roman practice of leading citizens going outside of a city to escort a king into it?
I think it is completely plausible.
The plausibility is supported by passages like Acts 28:14-16 where the author writes, “And so we came to Rome. The believers from there, when they heard of us, came as far as the Forum of Appius and Three Taverns to meet us. On seeing them, Paul thanked God and took courage. When we came into Rome . . .” The same Greek word is used: ἀπάντησισ. It’s also used, conversely, in other contexts for a simple meeting in which the one met is not escorted back to the place of origin from which the greeters came.
Is there a reference to how each of the books of the Bible are categorized? Would 1 Thessalonians be considered an apocalyptic or a doctrinal writing or what?
It is categorized as one of the epistles, specifically one of the Pauline epistles, more specifically as one of the undisputed Pauline epistles.
You stopped right in the middle. Looking forward to the next post. Thanks for all your good work.
Any thoughts on why the concept of Rapture has taken such firm root in fundamentalist groups despite little or no support from the NT or historical Christian views? The concept, as a former non-Rapture fundamentalist, seems ludicrous to me.
I”m not sure why it has captured the modern imagination, but I suspect that it’s because of a sense that there must be a greater reality than the one we experience here, connected with a kind of hatred of this world and this life. THe very odd thing is that the view is held by a lot of people who have amazingly good lives in the here and now….
When you have a very good life here and now you never want it to come to an end. Life eternal in a paradise like here on earth is what most people want, rich or poor.
When you have a shitty life here you also hope there’s something better in the beyond.
My two cents…
Prof Ehrman
To the question of whether the “End Times” beliefs still enjoy prominence…oh yeah. Last Thanksgiving I went down to visit my Dad in Georgia and we were invited over to one of our cousin’s house for dinner. My cousin and his wife are hard core fundamentalists and we were regaled with a perfectly serious, absolutely non-ironic, discussion as to whether or not Obama is the Anti-Christ. The consensus? No, because one of the defining characteristics of the Anti-Christ is that he will be very popular “so as to deceive, if possible, even the elect”. At the time Obama was very low in the polls and apparently that was enough to disqualify him!
I don’t have any friends or acquaintances who think like this anymore but you’re kind of stuck with your relatives so when I visit I’ve learned to just smile and thank them for their hospitality.
Dear Bart,
In case of interest, here’s a link to a JSNT article in which I argue that Didache 16 is what the Thessalonians had originally been taught. This caused their grief and, in 1 Thess. 4.13-18, Paul tries to guide them to a different interpretation of that same eschatological scheme … which is why he includes an element (the ‘rapture’) that doesn’t appear in his other presentations of these issues.
http://www.alangarrow.com/didache-and-paul.html
Many thanks! I haven’t read your article. How do you get around the problem that Paul’s letter was written about 50 years or so before the Didache? (I.e., how do you date ch. 16 to 50-60 years prior to its first appearance?)
Hi Bart,
We have a sound basis for dating 1 Thessalonians – but, historically, our we don’t have a secure basis for dating Did 16 (or much else in the Didache).
My monograph on Matthew’s use of the Didache (JSNTSupp 254) argues that Matthew closely conflated Didache 16 with Mark 13 (cf. my forthcoming NTS articles with other examples of Matthew’s conflationary practice).
If Matthew knew Didache 16 then there is no terminus for the *earliest* point at which this tradition could have been composed.
Even if you don’t buy my argument for Matthew’s use of the Didache – the reverse argument (Did used Matt) is exceptionally weak … so you still don’t have a terminus for the earliest appearance of the tradition.
Sounds really interesting. I get it about the dating of the Didache; I’ve had to wrestle with that little angel myself. So how have you decided that ch. 16 predates the writings of the NT? (I.e., what have you appealed to as evidence?)
Here’s the abstract of the article linked to earlier:
“The tradition delivered by the missionaries at the foundation of the Thessalonian church had been received as authoritative but had, at the same time, caused the new converts to grieve hopelessly over fellow believers who had died. In response to this situation Paul could not simply abrogate the founding tradition in favour of some new and more palatable ‘word of the Lord’. However, he could perhaps guide the Thessalonians towards an alternative interpretation of the authority they had already embraced. This observation enables the isolation of two distinctive properties of the founding tradition: it caused the Thessalonians’ grief, while also being open to Paul’s alternative reinterpretation. These two features, in combination with other indicators in 1 Thessalonians, provide a means of rigorously testing Didache 16 as a potential candidate for the role of the eschatological tradition behind 1 Thessalonians.”
These rapture ideas are alive and well. The preacher in my neighborhood just recently preached on the “end times” and stated no one knows when they are coming, but they are coming.
Dr Ehrman: I think that the word that modern scholars need to say about Paul is he was NUTS…….
Alright, so I confess that I’m going for the Guinness record for someone who never asks a question relevant to the current post (I think it’s the CIA ADD award). But this does relate to my proposal that instead of typical debate protocols, historical Jesus debates/discussions should “always” be broadcast live from a bar/pub.
So in support of this, here is a link (ripped from the Jesus Blog) of a Bible Studies Online interview with Chris Keith on social memory, form criticism, and the criteria of authenticity (for anyone who might be interested in bar room perspectives on this topic):
http://looknorthwest.libsyn.com/social-memory-criteria-and-the-historical-jesus-bso5
Wow-who knew that NT scholarship could build up suspense so effectively?
Putting together a part of the Epistles and one or more part of the Revelation of John is an example of the very common practice of putting together two parts of the New Testament or a part(s) of the New Testament and a part of the Old Testament in order to come up with a view that neither contains. Another example is taking post-biblical Jewish views about Satan and the Fall (2 Esdras?), expressed later in John’s Revelation (that the serpent is Satan), and weaving those into the story of Adam and Eve in Eden. The result provides probably the most often cited biblical passage that Christians offer as the reason we all need salvation (the reason to be of Christianity):–that we are told in Genesis 2-3 that we are fallen, separated from God, and therefore in need of salvation. But, in fact, if one reads Genesis 2-3 as literally as one can (something no literalists I know do), one will find no story of the Fall–no Satan, no loss of immortality, no expulsion for some sin they (we) committed. God’s curses were their punishment for eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The expulsion was for something they might do (eat of the tree of life), not directly for anything they did.
I’m confused. If the rapture is a modern invention, then what was Paul talking about? He’s quite explicit about a rapture-like event (believers caught up in the clouds to meet the lord in the air).
I’m saying that Paul does not use the term “rapture.” And I’m saying that those who do use that term do base their understanding in part on Paul. (But not on the book of Revelation, as many of them think)
Hi Bart,
Did pagans subscribe to world views that had apocalyptic notions or that dealt with the end of ages?
Thanks!
Yes, the idea that htere was a great catastrophe to come (by fire) was common among the Stoics and others.
Hi Bart!
I have one question regarding the rapture topic.
If I understand correctly, the very notion of the rapture is built around the verb harpazo meaning “to snatch away”.
However, Paul is using a form of this same verb when describing his own “ascension” to the third heaven (2 Cor. 12:2).
Presuming the historical reality of Paul’s experience, do you think this linguistic correspondence could point to the possibility that Paul devised the eschatological rapture on the basis of his own previous experience?
Thanks!
Interesting idea. Paul, of course, does not have a doctrine of the “rapture” in the modern sense. When Christ returns, for Paul, he does not take his followers up to heaven to avoid the calamities on earth (the “seven-year tribulation, e.g.). He is returning *to earth.* The followers are taken up in order to meet him there, and just as leaders of ent out to meet the visiting king to welcome him into the walls of their city, the followers of Jesus apparently are understood to escort him back down to earth into the place he rules.
Hi Bart! Thank you so much for the answer.
Yes, I’m aware that the notion of “rapture” as some understand it today is not to be found in Paul’s epistles. Nevertheless, it is interesting to ponder the possibility that eschatological ascension or “rapture” could be linked with another non-eschatological ascension where the role of the body is dubious even to Paul.
In this context, it makes sense that the worthy ones will be at some point snatched away to Heaven in their pneumatic bodies to meet Jesus. The concept of the spiritual body is vague enough to fit Paul’s previous somatic ambivalence. It seems to me that he did experience something confusing and tried to explain it by devising theological concepts based on the popular ideas of his time, both Hellenistic and Judaic.
I would appreciate your comment.
I don’t think that Paul had the idea of living people being snatched up in pneumatic bodies. His idea was the Jwish apocalyptic one that eternity would involve God’s reign here on earth among those whom he physically raised from the dead. I talk about this a good deal in my book Heaven and Hell.
Bart, you mentioned that nothing in the book of Revelation alludes to the rapture.
What about the following verse:
Revelation 3:10 (NIV)
[10] Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world to test those who live on the earth.
Have Christians used that verse in Revelation to show that believers will not have to face the test (the great tribulation) because Jesus will keep them from it (by rapturing them, they won’t go through the tribulation?)
Just curious about your thoughts on this verse. I don’t know if you will respond since this post was from 2015.
He’s saying that those who follow him will not be condemned to the Lake of Fire on the day of judgment. And yes, Christians have used that — but it doesn’t say anything, obviously, about anyone being snatched up to the clouds of heaven!
I was listening to the three-minute audio of the introduction to Armageddon at Simon & Schuster, and it made me wonder about any blogging you might have done on the development of the ‘Rapture doctrine’ during the nineteenth and early twentieth century, and specifically the definitive work of Clarence Larkin. I’m sure a good ex-evangelical like yourself has encountered his book Dispensational Truth, or at least the famous charts therein, but his name has never shown up in the blog. There’s also a surprising lack of historical information about him on the web. I know firsthand the impact his coalescence of the ‘doctrine’ had on southern evangelicals, so this surprises me. Am I off-base in my regard for his impact?
Apart from his having an influence on the spread of dispensational thought in the 19th century, I don’t know much about him. I’m not sure if he actually came up with novel ways of developing the ideas that were influential or if he just popularlized them. I’m pretty sure I’ve never written about him….