The rapture is an intriguing subject and at the forefront of much Christian thought. What is it? This is the teaching that the church will be "caught up" or raptured in the clouds with Jesus and the resurrected believers and be with the Lord forever. That much is taught very plainly in 1 Thessalonians 4:17: “Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord” (NASB).
The word “rapture” isn’t specifically found in the text, so how did this event come to be so called? The English word rapture currently means “to be swept away with joyous emotion,” but it comes from a Latin word, rapere, that simply means “to be seized or snatched up.” And this very word is used for that meaning in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 in the Latin Bible. So both the original and the current meaning of “rapture” accurately describe the scene of the church being blissfully “caught up” to meet the Lord in the air.
The Popular View.
The wondrous fact that we will be snatched up from this sin-stained planet and transported away by Jesus is to be anticipated with every ounce of our being. However, there is cause for reservation about the popular conception of the rapture, especially in regard to the time element and manner in which it is commonly believed it will take place. Warren Wiersbe, a widely published, influential, and often insightful Bible teacher explains his view of the rapture:
"Jesus Christ will return in the air, and this is where we shall meet him. Suddenly, millions of people will vanish!….Just think of what effect this event will have on a lost world!….When Jesus Christ returns in the air, He will call to Himself only those who are saved through faith in Him. This is called ‘the first resurrection’ or ‘the resurrection of life.’ At the end of time, just before God ushers in the new heaven and earth, there will be another resurrection. This is called ‘the second resurrection’ or ‘the resurrection of judgment.’ Between these two events, I believe that the Tribulation on earth and the 1000-year kingdom will occur." (This is from his Bible Exposition Commentary set, commenting on this passage.)
It is clear from Wiersbe’s comments that he believes in two future “comings” of Jesus—one in the air, which only Christians will witness and participate in--“the rapture”-—and another, years later, in which Jesus will actually step foot on earth and set up a political kingdom in Israel. This is the view of the rapture that is probably most widely held today. Those who subscribe to it basically differ only in when they believe the rapture will occur in relation to the last great tribulation—whether before, during or afterwards. The idea of an invisible rapture has been popularized by several major Christian book publishers, including Tim LaHaye’s big-selling series of fiction novels (Left Behind and other titles).
Contrary to appearances, not everyone in evangelical churches understands the rapture that way. Many well-respected, internationally acclaimed Bible scholars and commentators do not. Let us proceed to take an honest, open-minded and careful look at the texts from which the popular concept of the rapture has been drawn.
Reexamining 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18
1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 is the critical text in forming the doctrine of the rapture. The apostle Paul is clearly writing about the second “coming of the Lord” (v. 15). Notice the way Paul describes this coming of Jesus. It will be one of glory and majesty and tremendous noise! It will be accompanied by a “shout,” the “voice of the archangel” and the “trumpet of God” (v. 16). The objective reader has to be puzzled how this is to be understood as a secret coming, unheard and unseen by the world at large. Nothing at all in the passage indicates anything like that.
Leon Morris is a Bible scholar who is highly respected in many circles in the religious world. Objecting to the common conception of the rapture as drawn from this passage, Morris makes these remarks in his commentary on 1 Thessalonians:
"It is difficult to see how he could more plainly describe something that is open and public. I do not doubt that, if He so wished, God would make the voice of the archangel, the shout, and the trumpet call to be inaudible to unbelievers. But I do greatly doubt whether that is what Paul is saying."
What Paul describes is a battle cry. This is what ancient armies did when they charged towards their enemy in order to strike fear into their hearts. What reason is there in the text to suppose that this battle cry will only be heard by Christ’s saints?
The last phrase of verse 16 is also sometimes confusing and part of the debate. Who’s preceding whom? When Paul says “the dead in Christ will rise first,” does he mean in relation to the unsaved dead, as many believe? Will there be a resurrection of the saved and then, years or even a millennium later, a resurrection of the unsaved?
A little more careful look indicates that Paul means that the dead in Christ will be the first to rise—not from their graves, in relation to the unsaved dead—but the first to rise into the air to meet Jesus, in relation to believers who are still alive. Notice the preceding verse: “For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, and remain until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep” (v. 15). His point is that we who are still alive at the Lord’s coming will have no advantage over those who have died. He then proceeds to explain why. Notice the word “For…” at the beginning of verse 16: "For the Lord Himself will descend…and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord" (v. 16-17). So there is no need, nor justification, for getting two widely separated resurrections out of this passage.
Why then do so many Bible teachers and students believe this passage describes a secret rapture? There are two reasons. For one thing, the passage says nothing about the unsaved. They conclude from this fact that this is an event that exclusively involves the saved, and that the unsaved are oblivious to it. The second reason is that the passage clearly states that Jesus will return in the air, that we’ll meet him in the air, and that we’ll then be with the Lord forever. It says nothing of him setting up shop on earth. For those who have already concluded from other passages that Jesus is going to set up a political kingdom on earth, they obviously cannot accept this passage as describing the final coming of the Lord. They are forced to conclude that the Second Coming will happen in two parts: an invisible rapture of the saved in the air and, later, a visible coming to earth. It is only because of pre-formed beliefs about the nature of the kingdom that they are forced to interpret this passage as they do.
Let’s consider whether these two reasons are sufficient for adopting the popular view of the rapture, beginning with reason number two. Obviously, if a person does not come to this passage with the preconceived belief that Jesus is going to set up an earthly kingdom, then the part about Jesus coming in the air and receiving us there does not present any problem. He comes; he receives us; he takes us to his heavenly kingdom, just as he promised in John 14:1-4: "Let not your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me. In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also. And you know the way where I am going." Of course, this is a much more complicated matter than we have time to explore fully in this lesson.
As for reason number one, it is true that the passage says nothing of the unsaved. But does that necessarily mean that Paul intended us to conclude that they are uninvolved in this event? Imagine a school teacher informing her class that they are about to have a fire drill. She explains that a loud bell is going to sound three times. When that happens, the students are to line up in single file against the wall, and Nancy (who’s desk is closest to door) will be first in line, and Jimmy (who’s desk is furthest) will be the last in line. She instructs that they will then quietly exit the room, turn left down the hall, exit through the double doors, and proceed to the furthest boundary of the school yard, all the while remaining in single file. Now, the teacher said nothing about what the other classes are going to do. Should the students infer from this that they are the only class in the school that is going to be participating in the fire drill? Of course not. She spoke only of what her class was to do because that was her concern at the moment.
The question is, then: Is there any indication in the text that Paul has focused his present concern only on believers? Consider the two verses that begin and end this passage: "But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve, as do the rest who have no hope….Therefore comfort one another with these words" (v. 13, 18). He is dealing with why Christians should have special hope and comfort when a saved loved one has died. These dearly departed are not going to miss out on the Second Coming as many of them had feared. The earliest Christians expected the Second Coming within their lifetime. When some of their number began dying off, they became concerned, wondering if these had missed the opportunity to experience the glory of the Lord’s coming. Paul reassures them that this is not the case. God will raise them from the dead just as he did Jesus (v. 14). They will participate “with him” in his physical resurrection. As they step forth from their graves in new, immortal bodies, they will witness the glory of the coming of the Lord too. In fact, they will be first to rise into the air to join the Lord (v. 16). Believers who are still living and have had faithful loved ones torn from them in death will be reunited with them (v. 17).
This is Paul’s clear purpose in this context—to comfort grieving Christians. His concern is only with them. Is this not sufficient to explain why, at this point, he would not go into what will become of the unsaved at the Second Coming? He completes the picture by describing their fate in his second letter to the Thessalonians (1:7-10).
So, reason #1 for interpreting this passage to depict a secret rapture of believers is not a very good one after all. Neither is reason #2, if we understand Jesus’ declaration, “My kingdom is not of this world” (Jn. 18:36), and many other passages, to indicate that the eschatological kingdom is heavenly. Therefore, no compelling reason remains for it. Even a premillennialist must admit, if he is honest, that the idea that unsaved do not witness the rapture has been read into this passage rather than being taught by the passage itself. Does it teach a “rapture”? Yes, if one simply means the snatching up of the saved to be with the Lord forever. The common understanding of the rapture, however, does not appear to be taught here.
Instead, this passage meshes perfectly with other texts on the Second Coming, which together appear to present it as a one-time event. There will be no sequel. Everyone on earth will see it. Immediately thereafter, eternity will be ushered in.
Reexamining Matthew 24:37-41
A secondary text which is sometimes thought to lend support to the idea of a rapture that is unseen and unheard by unbelievers is this one from the Gospel of Matthew:
"For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. For as in those days which were before the flood they were eating and drinking, they were marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so shall the coming of the Son of Man be. Then there shall be two men in the field; one will be taken, and one will be left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken, and one will be left." (24:37-41)
The twice repeated phrase “one will be taken and the other left” (v. 40-41) is often construed by Bible readers to refer to the mysterious “vanishings” of the saved which they believe will take place at the rapture. Given the prominence of the idea, it is not hard to see why. But is Jesus talking about a secret rapture, involving only the saved, prior to his final coming?
It seems unmistakable that Jesus is describing his final coming, for he concentrates on how he will deal with the unsaved. In the previous verses (37-39) he compares the Second Coming to the great flood of Noah’s day, in that both come unexpectedly and spell doom for the unprepared. In verse 39, he describes how the flood swept away and destroyed those who were not prepared, and he then tacks on the significant phrase: “so shall the coming of the Son of Man be.” So Jesus is emphasizing not the rapture of the saved but the instant destruction to be experienced by the unsaved at his coming.
That is exactly what he elaborates on in the next two key verses (40-41), when he speaks of the two men and two women. He did not jump tracks to talk about a preliminary, invisible coming that only involves the saved, while the unsaved keep living on for several more years! His whole point is the instant, irreversible destruction for the unprepared. There will be no warning, no second chances—both of which are supplied in the popular view of the rapture. Would not the mysterious disappearance of all the Christians on earth be a warning to unbelievers, and would they not then have time (even years!) to repent and still be saved? Therefore, on closer examination, this text does not appear to support the common conception of the rapture either.
How then are we to understand the wording of verses 40-41? “Taken” and “left” are the key words. Do they mean one will be taken to be with the Lord in the air while the other will be left here on earth as time continues on? If the statements were isolated they could mean that, but the context indicates otherwise. In the flow of what Jesus is warning about, these statements simply but powerfully describe the separating of the saved from the condemned at his coming. The saved will be accepted by the Lord; the lost will be rejected and destroyed. It’s the same idea that Jesus presents in chapter 25:31-34, 41, about the separation of the "sheep" and the "goats."
Conclusion
Aside from Luke’s parallel to Matthew 24, we have examined the only passages in the New Testament from which the idea that the rapture will be invisible and prior to the final coming of the Lord has been drawn. On closer examination, neither one presents adequate evidence to support that case.
Notwithstanding all the bumper stickers that say, “In case of the rapture, this vehicle will be without a driver,” when the Lord comes again, unbelievers will have much bigger problems than dodging unmanned cars and filing missing person reports. They will be confronted by the glorious Savior they rejected. They will be dragged by the angels out of every hiding place they crawl into and led before the judgment seat of Christ. There they will be sentenced to eternal doom.
“Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. Even so. Amen” (Rev. 1:7).
Reflecting back on Matthew 24, there is a strong emotional appeal in the situations described. The scenarios of the two men and the two women are intended to emphasize the fact that the most intimate bonds between people will not prevent them from being separated at the Lord’s coming. No one will be accepted by virtue of their spouse’s or neighbor’s preparation. No one will be condemned because of someone else’s failure to prepare. People who have spent years together, who seem to have so much in common—work the same job, share the same bed—who both seem to be pretty good people will be torn from each other, never to see the other again. Why? Because one was spiritually prepared in a devoted relationship with Jesus, and the other was not. So the really crucial question is which are you?
