I Can't Stand Left Behind Either, But Please Stop Bashing the Rapture: What the Rapture is Not About

This article is the second part of a three-part series on the pre-trib rapture.  Be sure to check out part 1 if you missed it.

Many of the Left Behind follow-up articles that have come out over the last few days seem to have a few recurring themes: the rapture is a narrow, American position; it’s all about escapism; it promotes a prosperity-theology-esque avoidance of suffering; it doesn’t care about the rest of the world but just wants a ticket out, etc.  You may have noticed that none of these arguments are based on Scripture.  And yet, they are important to deal with as commonly met objections to the teaching.  Sure, there may be some “Christians” out there who fit these very un-Christian descriptions.  But many of those who hold a pre-trib rapture stance (myself included) completely reject these ideas.  In this article, I'll deal with some of these criticisms and take a look at what the rapture is not about, before briefly concluding with what it is about.

Arguments from Geography and History

Some of the arguments being leveled against the pre-trib rapture have to do with the history of the teaching.

For example, some have called the rapture an “American idea” and seek to discredit it on that basis.  First, the argument is not exactly accurate.  American theologian C.I. Scofield is credited with popularizing the teaching of a pre-trib rapture through his Scofield Reference Bible. However, John Darby, an Irish clergyman, is generally accepted as the first modern propagator of a clearly pre-trib rapture teaching.

But even if the argument was accurate, it's a hollow argument.  It's like saying that justification by grace alone or the priesthood of all believers are “German ideas” (via Luther) and thereby discredited.  The nationality of the first major propagators of any given teaching has no bearing on its validity.  One article I read recently in the wake of the Left Behind movie inferred that almost no one outside America holds a pre-trib view and would find such a position absurd.  As a missionary who has lived in the former Soviet Union for over a decade, I can tell you this is simply not true.  Sure, there is a wide range of eschatological beliefs among Christians here, just as there is in America.  But there are plenty who hold to a pre-trib view, and certainly even more who wouldn't “laugh” at the idea, even if they might disagree.  So, whatever very limited international experience the (ironically) American writers of these articles are speaking from, I guarantee it's not a representative sampling of the worldwide church. 

In a similar vein is the historical argument.  Those who criticize the rapture often like to point to the late date of it’s widespread acceptance—as if age is inherently a proof of scriptural accuracy. Yes, it is true that the teaching was only popularized in the 19th century.  However, one might just as easily point to the relatively late widespread acceptance of the whole “justified by faith” idea.  After all, where was this teaching during the first 1500 years of the church?  As Protestants, we would likely argue that it was clearly taught in the NT.  We would also underscore that it was taught by a few individuals at various points in church history, but later on was basically forgotten.  After all, isn’t that why we needed a reformation?  But the same basic arguments could be made for a pre-trib rapture.  Understand, I am not claiming that the idea of a pre-trib rapture is anywhere near as biblically explicit or as important as the idea of justification by faith alone.  It’s not.  My point is simply that “age does not a doctrine make.”

Ad Hominem Arguments

The second class of arguments being used against a pre-trib rapture in some recent articles are ad hominem arguments—attacks against the character of those holding the teaching rather than scriptural arguments against its content.

First, let’s deal with this whole “the rapture is all about getting out of suffering” argument.  If some have drawn the false impression from works like Left Behind that believing in Christ means getting out of suffering, they are in for a rude awakening.  Jesus Himself promised His followers, “In the world you will have tribulation”—not “might”, but “will”.  To follow Jesus at all means to “take up your cross and deny yourself.”  Even more blatant are Paul’s words: “We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God.”  None of that sounds like a fast track to the easy life.  Movies like Left Behind, especially because they are taken out of a full scriptural context, may leave the impression that receiving Jesus leads to an easy life.  But most Christians who are serious about their faith do not hold any such delusions—whether they are pre-trib or not.

Another rapture article I read inferred that those who believe in a pre-trib rapture must have a heart calloused toward the world.  This is close to libel.  I’ll concede that some “Christians” who generally buy into a Jesus-wants-you-to-drive-a-Lexus-and-win-the-state-football-championship theology may look at the rapture as the ultimate ticket to easy street.  However, I don’t honestly know of a single pre-tribulationist who even vaguely sees the rapture as a cosmic “so long, suckers!” to the unbelieving world as we fly up to meet Jesus. 

In my experience, the perceived nearness of God’s judgment upon the unbelieving world generally makes believers more zealous about calling people to repent and receive God’s mercy.  Sure, sometimes that zeal may lead to misguided use of scare-tactics, but the same is true for Christians of any eschatological stripe.  After all, hell is a real threat regardless of when the rapture occurs.  My guess is that the only people gloating over unbelievers being “left behind” are people made of straw.  In other words, there are no such Christians.  They are figments of the rapture-bashers’ imagination.  Or, if they do exist somewhere, their gloating against non-Christians shows that they themselves will also be among those “left behind”.  That is, they do not actually know Christ nor share His compassion for the lost.

A final argument I need to address is the argument from “weirdness”.  I’m referring to the argument sometimes used against a pre-trib rapture position that it is supposedly far too outlandish or “goofy” to be scriptural.  Granted, movies like Left Behind don't help the whole “goofy” stigma.  But “it’s weird” doesn't pass for a valid theological argument.  We serve a God who became a baby, walked on water, spit in people’s eyes to heal them, talked with demons, and rose from the dead.  “Weirdness” is not an argument we get to use.  

What the Rapture Is Really About

I’ve already hinted at it, but let me say it very clearly: the pre-trib rapture is about the grace of God.  Accusing those who believe in a pre-trib rapture of not caring about the lost or seeking an easy escape is missing the whole point. 

Pre-tribulationists believe that the seven-year tribulation period described in the book of Revelation is a literal time period.  We also believe that it’s a time when God pours out His wrath on the world. (Rev. 6:16-17)  1 Thes. 5:9 says, “For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.”  We believe that we will not be recipients of God's wrath during the tribulation period because we are delivered from it by the Gospel of grace.  Granted, other eschatological systems may have other ways of explaining how the church is protected from the wrath of God in the “tribulation”. (If they don’t, they've got much more serious problems than the timing of the rapture.)  But the rapture is not about escapism—not any more than all believers being eternally rescued from the wrath of God is a question of "escapism".  The fact that other Christians believe God will rescue them from His wrath at all puts us in the same boat.  Therefore, our differences with those of other eschatological persuasions are ones of timing and method, not of essence.  We ought to all be willing to approach the question from this common ground and drop the arguments that are not rooted in Scripture.  They only serve to alienate us from one another and do nothing to biblically support any position.

In the next and final part of this series, I'll take a look how we can learn to appreciate one another's varying eschatological positions and grow in our faith through humble dialog.