When Will the Rapture Occur?

A BRIEF REFLECTION ON KEY RAPTURE THEORIES

By Ezekiel Kimosop

No one can explicitly tell when the rapture would occur. We do not know the day or the hour of Christ's coming but we can tell the season. The Bible outlines for us a number of political, religious and cosmic signs associated with the season when the coming of Christ is believed to draw near (cf. Daniel 9; Matthew 24; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12). Christian traditions have developed a number of theories based on their interpretation of Scripture that they consider useful in determining when the rapture would take place. There are a number of rapture theories advanced by theological scholars that are embraced by separate Christian traditions. We shall briefly outline them below. 

1) PRE-TRIBULATION PREMILLENIALISM THEORY

This eschatological view, also described by some as the "pre-wrath rapture," teaches that the rapture of the church shall precede the seven years tribulation period contemplated in Daniel 9, Matthew 24 and 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12. 

According to this theory, Christ will take away His church to heaven primarily to spare believers the horrific scenes described in the Book of Revelation. Christ will thereafter return with the saints at the close of the tribulation period and reign in Jerusalem for 1000 years (Revelation 19-20). 

This is perhaps one of the most popular rapture views in Biblical eschatology. It is largely embraced by most Evangelical Christian traditions. Its main criticism lies in the assumption that the Church shall not go through the tribulation period or even witness the reign of the Antichrist. Critics of this theory also argue that there is a residual possibility that the church will be present on earth for an undefined period of time during the reign of the Antichrist and prior to the coming of Christ (2 Thessalonians 2:1-3). 

2) MID-TRIBULATION 

This theory teaches that the rapture shall take place in the middle of the seven years tribulation period (Daniel 9, Matthew 24, Rev 17-19). This theory assumes that believers who will be alive during the eschatological period that coincides with Christ's coming will undergo some degree of suffering under the Antichrist system.

According to the theory, Christ will suddenly appear at a point in time during which the Antichrist reign is identified with severe persecution of the church. Christ will take away His saints through the rapture. He will then return to earth with the saints after a given period and reign in Jerusalem for 1000 years.

Some scholars say that the first three and a half years of the great tribulation period relate to the "wrath of Satan" [Antichrist], a type of affliction that the church will suffer. They say that once the church is done with this affliction, God will snatch away the church in the rapture and the "wrath of God" is henceforth served on the wicked for the remaining portion of the tribulation period. 

Critics of this view say that God cannot permit His covenant people to persevere through the tribulation period because Christ took away their afflictions on the cross. 

A second criticism recognizes that the theory discounts the concept of the imminence of Christ's coming that is taught in several passages of the New Testament Scripture. One of the strengths of this theory relates to the acknowledgment of Christian suffering, a theme that was taught by Jesus in several passages of the Gospels (cf. Matthew 16:24, Luke 9:23, 14:27). Some say that the words of Jesus in Matthew 24:22 appear to point to the possibility that believers may suffer for a season under the great tribulation period. 

3) POST-TRIBULATION THEORY

This view states that the rapture comes at the end of the seven years tribulation period and that the millennium reign of Christ commences immediately or at the same time as the rapture. 

This theory does not distinguish between Christ's first and second coming, a distinction identified with the pre-tribulation view. 

The main criticism associated with the post-tribulation view is what some consider as a misplaced assumption that God will punish the saints through needless suffering yet Christ had paid their ransom at the cross. Other critics say that the theory ignores several passages of Scripture that reveal a concise period of God's wrath on the wicked that cannot contemplate the presence of the church on earth.

4) AMILLENIALISM VIEW [NO MILLENNIUM] THEORY. 

This school of thought rejects the idea of a physical millennium reign of Christ. They claim that the 1000 years period described in Revelation 19-20 is merely symbolic of a long dispensation of time generally. They say that Christ's reign commenced at Calvary and continues through the Church age, terminating terminate with the rapture. Other adherents say that Christ's reign is eternal and cannot be reduced to any particular theological dispensation or period under human civilization. They further claim that the events and figures described in Revelation 19-20 are merely symbolic and cannot be subject to literal interpretation.

Critics of this view disagree with the symbolism notion in the interpretation of prophetic literature. They argue that certain scenes described in a number of prophetic writings relate to actual historic and futuristic events, some of which are yet to be fulfilled. 

Accordingly, therefore, critics say that some of the scenes described in the Book of Revelation, including the millennium reign and the judgment (Revelation 17-20) must be subject to literal interpretation for theological consistency. 

5) THE PRETERISM VIEW

This theory holds that all the prophecies of the Bible are descriptive of events that have already been fulfilled in the past. Those who subscribe to this theory claim that ancient Israel found its fulfillment in the Christian Church during the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The church is therefore the new Israel! The term "Preterism" comes from the Greek word "praeter" which is a prefix denoting that something is "past" or "beyond". 

Those who subscribe to the view are known as preterists. Preterism teaches that either all (full preterism) or a majority (partial preterism) of the Olivet discourse had come to pass by AD 70. Critics of this view accuse the preterists of ignoring established methods of the interpretation of Scripture that distinctly point to past and futuristic fulfillment of prophecies. They consider the Preterist view as largely abstract and lacking in theological affirmation. 

CONCLUSION

The million dollar question then is thus: 

Which of these theories or eschatological views is closer to the teaching of Scripture?

This is a difficult question to answer because none of the theories perfectly presents a pristine Biblical positions that should be exclusively embraced. These theories are held by different Christian traditions who are passionate in defending their theological positions using sets of Scripture passages that they can collate. It is, however, important to appreciate that each of the above theories has its theological strengths and limitations when examined in the light of Scripture. None is therefore perfect. 

I would however doubt the validity of the preterist view. It appears, in my view, to fly in the face of faithful Bible hermeneutics. It flatly ignores the futuristic view of prophecy without articulating a convincing hermeneutical premise in its defense. I am strongly persuaded by the first two theories. Several passages of Scripture appear to affirm some of their arguments. 

The second question relates to whether the rapture will occur in secret or if it will be open to the world to witness. Given the implications of the teaching of 1 Corinthians 15:51-52, I am persuaded that the rapture will happen so fast that people will only notice that believers are missing from their midst long after they are gone! The second coming of Christ is however likely to be a public spectacle given the implications of Revelation 1:7 on Christ's return to earth. John reveals that Christ will come in the clouds and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. Besides, the writer of Scripture says that all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. 

Shalom

© Ezekiel Kimosop 2021

NEW TESTAMENT ILLUSTRATION ON THE AFTERLIFE - LESSONS FROM LAZARUS AND THE RICH MAN

 NEW TESTAMENT ILLUSTRATION ON THE AFTERLIFE – LAZARUS AND THE RICH MAN (LUKE 16:19-31). 

By Ezekiel Kimosop

INTRODUCTION

We shall begin with the caveat that some scholars have cast doubt on the authority of this parable as an illustration of the Biblical afterlife. As Graig Blomberg notes, this school of thought considers the passage as a ‘fictitious narrative” by reason that Jesus was using it to illustrate deeper truths rather than to describe the afterlife. This assertion is partly true. The description of the afterlife experience in the parable is itself a basis for outlining kingdom truth and this can be attested in other sections of Scripture including the previous parables of Luke 14-15. However, the illustration of the afterlife experience is unmistakable and is consistent with the Jewish thought that was examined earlier in this paper. 

In disputing the afterlife portrayal in the parable, Earle Ellis notes that the description of Hades in the parable is radically different from the conditions revealed in other passages of Scripture.  Eduard Schweizer on his part observes that Hades, as described in the parable, is not synonymous with hell but was simply a holding place of the dead as they awaited judgment. These observations perhaps rest on the premise that since the brothers of the rich man were still alive on earth, it was not possible that God’s judgment could have taken place at this point and this places the validity of the afterlife experience into doubt.

This writer reckons that whereas the above observations have some merit, they cannot discount the validity of the afterlife experience as corroborated in Scripture and by none other Christ. The rich man was undoubtedly not in hell and neither were Abraham and Lazarus in heaven. However, it is undeniable that the two parties were eternally separated from each other as they awaited the final judgment. This therefore is an affirmation of the afterlife. 

The parable confirms a number of important truths taught elsewhere in Scripture. First, the dead do not ordinarily return to life (2 Sam. 12:22-23; Heb. 9:27). The incident described in 1 Samuel 28:3-25 which was earlier examined in this paper is therefore among a number of exceptions outlined in Scripture. Secondly, God will judge all men according to their deeds on earth (Jer. 17:9; Rev. 20:11-15). Thirdly, there is a separation between the souls of the righteous and those of the wicked after death (John 11:25; Rom.3:23, 6:23; 2 Tim. 4:7-8).

In the African worldview, there appears to be no distinct theology on the judgment of the wicked in the afterlife or a separation facility for them. There is however evidence that the wicked were punished on earth and, depending on the gravity of their moral transgression, the punishment could extend to generations of their offspring. David Westerlund notes that a descendant was believed to suffer for the sins or transgressions attributed to an African ancestor.  

This belief is also identified with the Kalenjin, a Nilotic group from which this writer hails. The idea of an eschatological progression of history towards judgment is in fact an alien notion in African thought. Time and history are equally alien concepts. As John Mbiti observes, “In African traditional thought, there is no concept of history moving forward towards a future climax, or towards an end of the world.”  Mbiti adds that “the notion of a messianic hope, or a final destruction of the world, has no place in traditional concept of history.” 

It is the view of this writer that the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is significant in portraying the afterlife on the following premises. First, one of the characters mentioned is a Hebrew patriarch who is described in the Bible as the father of the Christian faith (Matthew 3:8-9). Secondly, Jesus affirms that God is the God of the living rather than the dead (Matt. 22:29-32). The mention of Abraham in the above parable is therefore instructive of his afterlife experience (Luke 16:31). Thirdly, Abraham’s reference to Moses and the prophets in Luke 16:29 is perhaps evidence of the validity of his patriarchal authority recognized in Jewish theology. Romans 4:3 proclaims that Abraham’s was declared righteous on account of his faith. He is therefore the father of both the Jew and the Gentile in Christ (Rom. 4:16). 

Fourthly, Jesus himself gave the parable as part of his kingdom series that runs through Luke 14-16. It is inconceivable that the faith system associated with the kingdom life and the moral principles outlined in the parable could be fictitious as claimed by some. Nothing in the passage suggests that the narrative was false or fictitious. There is a convergence of the author-text context in this parable. Jesus authoritatively conveyed divine truth to his hearers on the afterlife. 

PASSAGE ANALYSIS

Passage Analysis on the Parable or the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31)

This parable is exclusive to Luke. From the study of the passage, we learn that the two characters are portrayed on two paradigms: a description of their earthly life and their afterlife. As Lois Malcolm rightly observes, this Lazarus is obviously different from the one described in John 11:1-44.  The afterlife is apparently given a wider treatment in the parable (16:22-31) as compared with the earthly experience (16:19-21). This is perhaps indicative that the focus of the parable lay on the projection of the afterlife being consequent upon the earthly experience. 

On the earthly experience, the rich man is introduced to the reader as an extremely rich and privileged man. He was a man of novelty who was “clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day.” (16:19, NKJV). John Nolland observes a key irony in this parable that defies common Jewish tradition where poverty is assigned anonymity and wealth is acknowledged. In this case, Lazarus, a poor man, is mentioned by name even as the rich man is unidentified.  It is instructive that Lazarus is translated El-azar (God has helped). 

Lazarus is described as a beggar who was full of sores. He was possibly a leper (cf. Job 2:7-8) or a cripple.  The fact that he was laid at the rich man’s gate suggests that he was unable to walk unaided and was possibly homeless. Jesus did not accuse the rich man of any particular violation. There is no evidence that he acquired his wealth by ungodly means. He simply never cared for the poor in his community of context (16:21). Warren Prestidge suggests that the parable was more about warning the godless wealthy rather than an illustration of the afterlife.  This parable however appears to address both spectrums. It conveys the moral authority of the narrator while visualizing the world to come. 

Both men eventually die. There is no mention of a burial in Lazarus’s case. Could this perhaps be by reason of the narrator’s design or a confirmation of Lazarus’ modesty? Lazarus is escorted by angels into an afterlife of comfort, being joined with Abraham a righteous man (16:22). This appears to affirm that even though Lazarus was poor he led a godly life on earth. This is consistent with Jesus’ statements in Matthew 6:19-21 and Luke 12:21. Again, nothing in the passage remotely suggests that the third character was a different person from the Abraham contemplated in other sections of Scripture. This further complicates the “fictitious” label that some have assigned this passage. 

The rich man is buried and his soul is taken to Hades, a place reserved for the wicked under Hebrew theology (16:22-23). It is elsewhere identified with weeping and gnashing of teeth (cf. Matt. 8:12, 13:42, 13:50, 22:13, 24:51, 25:30; Luke 13:28).  

In his affliction, the rich man requests Abraham to send Lazarus to help him cool his pain. Some say that that the rich man was used to ordering the poor around and this attitude was sharply confronted in the afterlife! Simon Perry notes that the rich man assumed that Lazarus was now Abraham’s servant.  Ironically, the rich man was seeking the help that he denied the needy during his earthly life! The fact that the rich man identifies Lazarus by name is perhaps evidence that he was familiar with him.

Another paradox is presented in Luke 16:25 – the rich man, now reduced to a beggar, sought the mercy of the man that he had shunned on earth even as Lazarus is comforted in his new world. Given the overarching moral in this parable, the experiences of the two men in the afterlife are not by sheer coincidence. They are inextricably intertwined. Choices have consequences.

The African worldview recognizes that those who ignore their moral obligations on earth will be bring suffering upon themselves and their offspring. As Joseph Healey points out, African ancestors must have lived exemplary lives that touched the heart of the community.  Africans consider it a bad omen and a curse to neglect the poor. They consider it a moral obligation to extend support to the disadvantaged in society. In some African societies, not all who die qualify for reverence as ancestors. They must have earned their honor. In this context, the conduct of the Rich Man in the parable is appalling. Some African ancestors are quickly forgotten by society because they did not exemplify quintessential communal support for their people. In other African communities, guests or strangers are an embodiment of ancestors and are served the portion that was due to the ancestors. Gregory Olikenyi observes that among the Bulsa of Northern Ghana, it was believed that ancestors visited the living in the form of beggars and lepers.  It was therefore the duty of the host to show them hospitality in keeping with this theology. The rich man in the above parable therefore acted in an abominable way by failing to reach out to the needy in his society. 

The rich man’s plea for Abraham’s help in sending Lazarus to warn his five brothers on earth is instructive of the fact that he had thrown all caution to the wind during his privileged earthly life. His brothers were probably no different from him, morally speaking. They possibly reeled in ravenousness in the manner that he himself had done. Again, it was impossible [and perhaps needless] to send anyone from the place of the dead to warn the living. They ought to listen to their prophets and teachers. Abraham’s statement is significant in that once a person dies, there is no opportunity to make amends with God. This is affirmed in Hebrews 9:27. 

Some Bible scholars quoted by H.M Bardstad suggest that the idea of Sheol was not a quintessential Hebrew concept but was instead borrowed from some Middle Eastern death deities. They base their conclusion on the fact that this concept only appears in latter Biblical Hebrew and “when understood anthropomorphically, fits into semantic complex of the other ancient Near Eastern death deities such as Nergal, Ereshkigal or Mot”  

Roman Catholics teach that the soul of the believer undergoes purification in purgatory to achieve the perfection for entry into heaven.  Meanwhile, the dead are preserved in Hades awaiting the resurrection. The Roman Catholic doctrine on purification appears to be inconsistent with the teaching of the above passage. John Henry Hobert observes that Hades is a Greek reference to the underworld of the dead without any distinction of the righteous and the unrighteous and is the equivalent of the Jewish Sheol and the Latin Infernum. It is a term commonly employed in Anglican, Eastern Orthodox and Methodist theology. 

The New Testament Scripture however presents an eschatological progression in the afterlife. When the rapture of the church finally takes place, the saints shall be transformed at the twinkling of an eye and shall take on new glorified bodies (1Cor. 15:42-54). 2Timothy 4:7-8; Rev. 6:9-11 teach or imply that the souls of the dead in Christ are preserved in the presence of God awaiting the resurrection. The wicked too are preserved for the final resurrection recorded in Rev. 20:7-15 where they shall be raised for their final condemnation and consignment into the lake of fire where “…the worm does not die, And the fire is not quenched.” (Mark 9:48). This place is metaphorically described in Matthew 22:13 as “…outer darkness; [where] there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”  It is elsewhere identified as “a furnace of fire” into which the wicked shall be cast (Matthew 13:50). It is also described as “the outer darkness” (Matt. 25:30) and this underscores the eternal separation of the wicked from the presence of God.