Get Our Anniversary Anthology→

Conciliar Post

,

Crazy Uncle Harpazo (Rapture Theology among Christian Traditions)

Published by

Matthew Bryan

on

We who believe in a “pre-tribulation rapture” might sound like your crazy Uncle Larry, but please take a few minutes to talk with us like you do for Uncle Larry at reunions. I spent the first eight years of my faith in a die hard dispensational congregation where rapture theology was as dependable as the coffee and the altar call. No one questioned the rapture; we only marveled at it. After years of research, I’m glad to report that I have broken free from many Protestant ideas and traditions. Yet belief in a pre-tribulation “rapture” has withstood all of my research even as so many other doctrines did not. The term “rapture” comes from the Latin equivalent of the New Testament Greek verb “harpazo” for “seizing” something or “taking up” in Acts 8:39 and 1 Thessalonians 4:17. While the harpazo or “taking up” of Christians is clearly stated in 1 Thessalonians 4:17, the timing of that harpazo is less clear.

I present here the reasons why I believe the harpazo occurs before the great tribulation. My shorthand for “pre-tribulation rapture” is “early harpazo.” I write here not to convert others to my understanding, but in the hope of winning your cordiality toward those of my kind. One author on Conciliar Post characterizes this doctrine as scripture-abuse. Another has insulted it at length, including “… left behind theology and atheism are two sides of the same coin, both rejecting the God who creates and redeems.”1 While such opinions are quite meaningful, they did not appear to invite meaningful dialogue across Christian traditions.

CONCERNING NOVELTY

Novelty in theology usually indicates heresy. John Nelson Darby popularized what is commonly known as “rapture theology” some eighteen hundred years after the birth of Christian theology. Understandably, this theology was nurtured in the Wild, Wild West of Protestantism rather than a community of apostolic succession. In many minds therefore, its novelty alone can disqualify the doctrine from consideration. While I now reject sola-scriptura (having recognized the mighty power which tradition wields even in Protestantism), the book of Daniel actually provides grounds for a new revelation in our time.

Some dispensationalists appeal to Ephraem of Nisibis2 and others as having taught3 the early harpazo; I personally resort to Daniel as providing grounds for a later unveiling of the doctrine. The early harpazo doctrine rides on the less controversial doctrine of seven years of trouble leading up to the bodily return of Jesus in wrath. That seven-year period springs from Daniel chapter nine and other passages. Daniel 8:26, 12:4, and 12:9 also speak of the sealing of words until the last days. These three verses do not prove an early harpazo, but I understand them to allow for truths to have been hidden until our time. Yes, I sound like Uncle Larry now. If our Lord returns soon however, then Darby’s understanding will have arrived in the last 15% of Christian years. These are not proof-texts, but an explanation of how Larry maintains his sanity.

CONCERNING FRUIT

The next disqualifier in many minds is the apparent fruit of the harpazo teaching. While some Christians might employ the early harpazo as an excuse to disregard environmental stewardship etcetera, I understand it in the exact opposite light.

The doctrine of an early harpazo emphasizes the surprise return of the Master in Matthew 24:36-51. In verses 40-42, Jesus taught that some would be taken and others would be left, then He tied that expectation directly to stewardship, warning that we do not know when our Master will return. He then preached at length regarding stewardship, which I take to include responsible stewardship of the environment.

I submit that the argument of fruit has been wielded in theology too often and too lightly. I have heard many rapturists insulting amillennialism as causing Christian apathy and vice versa. Association is not causation. Belief in an early harpazo causes neither irresponsible environmental stewardship nor irresponsible political stewardship. The early harpazo directly demands responsible stewardship.

CLINGING TO CRAZY

After much research, I now accept seven books of the Old Testament (commonly called the Apocrypha) which Protestants reject as Scripture. I also now prefer the Septuagint text over the Masoretic text.4 I have come to recognize inconsistencies in the five Solas that I will present in my next article, and I embrace the Christus Victor view of atonement. Why then, would I continue to believe in an early harpazo?

  • The book of Daniel allows for the sealing of revelation until our time, and God may have used a Protestant to reveal it.
  • Daniel 9:24-27 promises a seven year time of trouble which lacks historical fulfillment, is marked by events at an approximate midpoint, and ends with the bodily return of our Master in wrath. (Dan. 7:25, Dan. 12:11-12, Rev.11:2-3, Rev. 13:5)
  • The signing of a seven-year covenant in Daniel 9:27 and the mid-tribulation events will mark (in advance) the day of the bodily return of Jesus.
  • Matthew 24:36 appears to promise a different return for stewards than the return in wrath since the wrathful return is timed while the return for stewards cannot be timed.
  • Scripture contrasts the peaceful circumstances in the day when the righteous depart (Luk. 17:26-36) versus the cataclysmic day in which our Lord returns in wrath.

While I do not claim these passages can only be understood via an early harpazo, such an interpretation is the only one by which I have been able to make sense of them thus far. I welcome the questions and corrections of my brothers and sisters. Most importantly, I hope my explanation will improve communication with dispensationalists. We might be wrong, but at least you may understand a little better as to why we hold to such a doctrine.

[wpex more=”View Sources” less=”Hide Sources”]

Footnotes:

Image: “Rapture – One in the Bed” by Jan Luyken, published 1795 in “The Bowyer Bible.”

  1. Aldhizer, George. “Left Behind Theology and Atheism.” Conciliar Post. 13 Oct. 2014. < https://prahlowjacob-pvcnh.wpcomstaging.com/theology-spirituality/left-behind-theology-and-atheism-two-sides-of-the-same-coin >
  2. Opponents debate whether Ephraem wrote “On the Last Times, the Antichrist, and the End of the World” in the 4th century or a Pseudo-Ephraem wrote it as late as the 8th century. In either case, pre-tribulation dispensationalists appreciate the text for predating Darby’s popularization and expansion of the doctrine.
  3. Pseudo-Ephraem. “On the Last Times, the Antichrist, and the End of the World.” Pre-Trib Research Center < http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Ephraem-OntheLastTimestheAnt.pdf >
  4. The Masoretic text is a line of Hebrew manuscripts codified by Jews in the 7th to 10th centuries AD. Following the scholarship of Desiderius Erasmus, the Protestant Reformers tried to translate Scripture from the original languages to provide a purer form of Scripture. Erasmus had used Byzantine Greek manuscripts to correct the dominant Latin version of the New Testament from its original language. The Reformers logically translated the Old Testament from Hebrew manuscripts since that was the original language for most of the Old Testament. Christians however, had not preserved Hebrew manuscripts. So the Reformers had to use manuscripts handed down by the Masoretic Jews despite its differences with the Old Testaments employed in Christendom. The most famous difference between the Masoretic text and the text preserved by Christians is the Masoretic substitution of “maiden” for “virgin,” but there are many other differences. Hebrew scrolls discovered in the 20th century among the Dead Sea Scrolls largely affirmed both the Masoretic and the historic Christian Old Testaments, but also showed serious differences from the Masoretic Hebrew.

[/wpex]

26 responses to “Crazy Uncle Harpazo (Rapture Theology among Christian Traditions)”

  1. Ben Cabe Avatar
    Ben Cabe

    Matthew, as a new contributor to Conciliar Post, thank you for your article. The interesting (and absurd) thing to me about “Rapture Theology” is that it necessitates the adherer to posit that Christ will return twice. Once to save the “Christians” from “Wrath” and once at the “End of the age”. Early Christians, and Christians through history, have always believed that Christ would return (one time). But they have always believed that when he returns it will be the end of the age.

    Taking it a slightly different direction, Rapture theology (particularly “pre-trib”), seems to me, to be completely at odds with the Christian message. It teaches that the Christians will be saved from suffering—teaching a kind of prosperity gospel that is rife within mainstream Protestant churches. What I mean is, most Protestant churches would reject what is “blatantly called the prosperity gospel” (Like Osteen’s version) but hold, nonetheless, to a prosperity gospel of their own. Implicitly, American Christians believe that if things are going well, your church numbers are up, and your “programs” are successful, then God is “blessing you”. And if the opposite is true, then he is not. This could not be further from an early Christian perspective (and an Orthodox perspective).

    Christianity revolves around the Incarnation of God—a God who hung on the cross and told us we will suffer for his sake. Ignatius longed for this martyrdom so he could be “proved a Christian.”

    As for the Orthodox, Jesus will return and it will be the end of the age. Other than that, there is no use in trying to figure things out—it’s dangerous and a waste of time.

    Reply
    1. mmchanb Avatar
      mmchanb

      Thank you sincerely, Ben. There’s a lot going on in your response. In and of itself, I don’t see that a two-fold return is absurd, but I understand your tradition-based response in your first paragraph. I do respect tradition, so I offered my thoughts in the article.

      Your second paragraph begins by rightly questions whether a “taking-up” before tribulation matches the Christian triumph-amid-tribulation as modeled by our Lord at Calvary. On the other hand, that same Lord said signs of healing would accompany those who believe (Mark16), so relief from tribulation is not inherently contrary to the faith. We usually fail to (but ought to) agree with Paul’s desire to share in “the fellowship of His sufferings.” I doubt any believer lacks testimony of instances when God has rescued them from troubles even though we rejoice in trials as well. I appreciate your point, but for these reasons, I don’t believe the “taking-up” before tribulation contradicts the faith.

      Can you tell me how Eastern Orthodoxy interprets Daniel’s final seven and the timetables I referenced in the article in Daniel chapters 7 & 12 as well as Revelation chapters 11 & 13? I ask not as a counter argument, but in curiosity.

      Reply
      1. Ben Cabe Avatar
        Ben Cabe

        Hi Matthew—I am not sure I see the connection between those references and the “pre-trib rapture” position. That being said, I could not tell you off hand—not everything is “systematized” because we are dealing with a reality far beyond our comprehension. That being said, something perplexes me about the situation you find yourself in:

        What’s the difference between holding to Sola Scriptura and picking and choosing what you take from Church Tradition? Sola Scriptura and Sola My Interpretation(ura) (e.g., picking and choosing, by yourself, what you believe scripture is saying / what traditions are worth holding on to) are pretty much two sides to the same coin. You cannot remain faithful to your rejection of sola scripture without affirming the Church’s authority—otherwise you’re just affirming a different side of your own authority over the church.

        Not sure if that makes sense.

        I guess what I am saying is, if Sola Scriptura is wrong, the authority has to be placed somewhere other than within the individual—this is why we have Holy Tradition and the church. If this is the case, why wouldn’t you just give up your attempts to interpret the scriptures and hearken to the teaching of the church? This does not by any means mean giving up the scripture, but rather reading it in the proper context.

      2. mmchanb Avatar
        mmchanb

        Excellent point, Ben. And I’m grateful for several resources you’ve recommended as I have tried in the past and continue to try to learn about Eastern Orthodox theology and spirituality. As you can tell, I have a lot to learn.

        Sola Scriptura sounds great: “Just read the Bible and believe it.” But as you rightly point out, we either depend on the wisdom of our forebearers to understand the Bible, or we risk leading ourselves astray with weak understandings. My goal is not to pick and choose what I want to believe, but to identify those things which the universal congregation believes. Whether Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, or Assyrian, all five branches of the faith affirm, for example, Trinitarian doctrine and 27 New Testament books as authoritative and inspired.

        Rather than picking and choosing among five traditions (Sola My Tradition-ura?), I’m listening to all five of them as one voice. I’m pleasantly surprised by how much they agree and by how much I learn from their disagreements.

        The authority over scripture is the universal congregation (Jn 16:13). The authority is neither Matthew Bryan nor “Sola My Interpretation-ura,” but I was delighted by your coined term. I want you to know that I’m sincerely honored by the opportunity to trade questions and understandings here at Conciliar Post. Such a great website and community!

      3. Ben Cabe Avatar
        Ben Cabe

        I see what you are saying. It’s interesting to me, though: why not listen to, say, the oneness pentecostals who don’t believe in the trinity? Christianity is not about a stripped back set of doctrinal assertions that everyone can agree on (but I do appreciate you’re comment about learning from the differences). One may contend that there are a “core set” of things that one should believe as a “Christian” but who decides what is in that list?

        How did the early church discern which of the clergy were teaching the truth (Athanasius) and which were teaching heresy (Arius)? There are modern Arians today, anyway (think Mormon) and and various other modern “rehashings” of old, already condemned heresies. How is anyone to know which is which, true and false?

      4. mmchanb Avatar
        mmchanb

        Good morning, Ben. This sounds a lot like “Welcome to the website. There will be spirited arguments.” As long as we do not disagree for sport, so be it. I have no doubt you can use the Socratic method successfully on me, but I will try to keep up. I will respectfully set aside your question about early Christian discernment on the presupposition that we are both familiar with ecclesiastical history and need not summarize it here.

        While, as you state, Christianity is not “about” a set of doctrinal assertions, I assume we agree that it is greatly defined by them. Since I do not expect that you actually believe Oneness Pentecostals nor Mormons should determine or define core doctrines, your questions are Socratic in nature. Your questions argue, in effect, that if a believer does not choose one of the body’s divisions, then he or she has no ground for valid doctrine since the five traditions each have offshoots.

        I am not dissuaded however, from listening to the body by the fact that there are offshoots of all five branches. The propensity to divide is the Scriptural mark of the enemy; the ability to unite the congregation is the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit for which our Master prayed in John 17 and for which you put so much time and love into Conciliar Post. If there were no aberrant doctrines offered in Christianity, then the Slanderer would be a rather weak enemy.

        Roman Catholics see themselves as the only pure branch and all others as splinters, but that does not dissuade them from listening to their papal father. The splinters from Rome do not make Rome invalid to them. Neither should splinters from the five branches of our faith dissuade my listening to all five.

        Eastern Orthodox see themselves as the only unchanged faith with all others being splinters, but that does not keep them from listening to the Ecumenical Patriarch. Neither should splinters from the five branches of our faith dissuade my listening to all five.

        Protestants believe they are the only ones who recovered the way of salvation. The myriad of their denominations do not hinder them from trusting Luther, Augustine, and their abbreviated canon of scripture. Neither should splinters from the five branches of our faith dissuade my listening to all five.

        In response to your questions, I humbly submit that my decision to listen to all five branches of Christianity is not negated by the fact that each of the five have splinters. I appreciate your challenge, however.

      5. Ben Cabe Avatar
        Ben Cabe

        Hi Matthew—

        I think I understand where you are coming from. so, essentially, you are saying you have rejected Sola Scriptura in the sense that you now glean things from outside sources. E.g., reading the fathers / gleaning things from every tradition.

        I guess I assumed we were defining the term in the same manner. I see the danger of Sola Sceiptura in the “power of deciding residing within the individual”. So, for me, your version of post-Protestantism, while rejecting sola Scriptura, looks a lot the same—in that you still decide for yourself what of what tradition is “worth” adhering to. I understand the whole thing about the Holy Spirit (it seemed right to the Holy Spirit and to us) but everyone who upholds Sola Scriptura believes that they are being led by the spirit in their interpretation (yes, even Mormons and Oneness Pentecostals).

        Let me try to sum up.

        How to interpret scriptures / define the teachings of Christianity.

        RC = Church Tradition (including councils) + Pope+ Saints
        EOC = Church Tradition + Ecumenical Councils + Saints
        Protestants = Individual interpretation through the “Holy Spirit”

        In the EOC there is a distinction between dogma (what you have to believe in order to be a part of that tradition) and opinion. In that, whether implicitly or explicitly, we reject dispensationalism.

        Your position is curious to me because, while “rejecting Sola Scriptura” you do not adhere, per se, to any outside “rule” of interpretation. Which still Leaves the power of “choosing” in your hands. For me, it’s a contradiction of terms.

        I do, however, agree that we can learn from everyone. But everyone is not equally right.

      6. George Aldhizer Avatar
        George Aldhizer

        I think it’s a bit frustrating to be characterized as believing that my theological positions are based on “individual interpretation through the “Holy Spirit.”” I think there is widespread misunderstanding as to what constitutes sola scriptura on this blog. There is this assumption that “sola scriptura” means “solo scriptura,” which just isn’t what the reformers and today’s Protestant theologians mean. Sola Scriptura is to say that the scriptures are the supreme authority, the “norming norm” to use Kevin Vanhoozer’s words, that stands above all other norms. I understand that there has been abuse of this, and that sola scriptura runs into a number of difficulties as to authority, but that does not mean that sola scriptura adherents are merely believing in their individual interpretations.

        Certainly Calvin and Luther were steeped in the patristics and the ecumenical councils.

      7. Ben Cabe Avatar
        Ben Cabe

        I can see that. The question remains, at least in my mind, as to who ultimately decides on how to interpret a passage. The best interpretation, as it would seem to me, would be to prayerfully read the passage, meditate on it, read the fathers, read through it with a historical context in mind, look at early commentaries and look at how it’s been interpreted throughout history. That being said, this is, essentially, the “Tradition” we speak of, handed down to us in the Orthodox Church.

      8. George Aldhizer Avatar
        George Aldhizer

        I guess it would be interesting to me to hear you outline a difficulty or two that Eastern Orthodoxy confronts in appropriating/applying tradition to EO’s doctrine and practice. You make it seem like Protestantism is riddled with theological issues/misappropriation of tradition, while EO is seamless.

        I can think of a few difficulties for you in the outline you proposed. Certainly the fathers were not all in agreement all of the time, how do we choose which father to agree with? Should we heavily rely on Augustine as the Reformed tradition does, or the fathers the EO deems more authoritative in interpretation? Are the fathers’ interpretations the final say? should we deem them to be the inerrant interpreters? what happens when we run into discrepancies among the fathers or developments in historical understanding/linguistic knowledge that the fathers did not have access to? Since every interpretation of scripture results from a sociohistorical background, what room do we have for different contextual interpretations that the church fathers do not represent?

        I don’t mean to say EO doesn’t have answers to these questions, but I think it reveals that being EO is not as easy as you seem to make it.

        Certainly, many of the Reformers took the same approach that you outlined, particularly Calvin and Luther. They were not blindly and individually “deciding on how to interpret a passage.”

      9. Ben Cabe Avatar
        Ben Cabe

        Certainly the Fathers do not all agree. This is quite an interesting point—one that, I believe, hearkens to the reason I am Orthodox. We need the Church. And not just the clergy, but the laity. It can be equally as dangerous to read the Church Fathers without guidance. What is the guidance? For me, the Historic, Orthodox Church. When I say Church, in this context, I mean the community that rejected Arian’s claim and affirmed the Trinity—the community that canonized the scriptures—the community that held itself in check, by calling councils—the community that said Icons are useful for devotion—the community that rejects both Plagiarism and Hyper-Calvinism.

        Time has a way of working out these things. For instance, in the 18th century, I believe, the Tsar of Russia (who was Orthodox) decided he liked the Western, Realistic style of painting, and commissioned Icons to be made after this fashion. They were used for some time and eventually rejected because, for whatever reason, the effect of devotion, and theology, was not the same. Who rejected them? The Russian people—who were “in the thick of it.” Far from a kind of democracy, this is a complex, and yet simple, structure. We are the body of Christ—the Holy Spirit will lead His Church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. The best thing we can do is humbly pray against personal, prideful delusion to think that we can decide without a community.

      10. Benjamin Winter Avatar
        Benjamin Winter

        George: this is why we have the papacy! 😛

      11. mmchanb Avatar
        mmchanb

        And now we get to the heart of it. What I call Post-Protestant, you consider to be veiled Protestantism. The fact that I listen to several wise men paints me as capricious in your eyes. I trust you investigated Eastern Orthodoxy before ascribing to it, but you do not consider yourself capricious for doing so. In order to be well grounded in your eyes, I would have to declare myself to be of Paul, Apollos, or Cephas. If I may entertain you with a story, perhaps you’ll understand me better:

        Once upon a time, the University of Christianity had four great professors. Together these professors penned a glorious textbook of truth and established the University of Christianity in great love, affirming one another as deserving of the title “Professor.” Their names were Professor R, Professor E, Professor O, and Professor A.

        Over the years however, they began to wrangle about which of them was the truest professor of truth. They parted company badly, with each one assuring himself that he had done no wrong in the parting. Since they loved truth, all four began their own schools and forbade their pupils from attending lectures at the other three schools.

        Several years later, Professor R had a pupil named Mr. P who realized Professor R had fallen into serious error. Young Mr. P renamed himself “Professor P” and opened a fifth school. Professors R and P, of course, forbade their pupils from attending one another’s lectures. To his credit however, we should note that young Mr (subsequently “Professor”) P was initially unaware that Professors E, O, or A existed, so he could not have joined them. By the time young Professor P finally realized there were other professors, his school had become quite successful. Besides, the other three old professors looked and sounded a lot like Professor R, so young Professor P considered it wise to steer clear of them too.

        Occasionally, students would transfer from one school to another. On such occasions, transfer students usually start advertising for their new school and telling their new classmates how awful it was at the old one. Every student wants everyone in his own school and scoffs at what the others teach. The End.

        Either I am groundless and a veiled Protestant or I am sincerely enrolled in five excellent schools and becoming more grounded in the process. “In the multitude of counselors there is safety.”

        Or perhaps a better quote after my little story would be: “Mr. Madison, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I’ve ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul!”

      12. Ben Cabe Avatar
        Ben Cabe

        I don’t think it’s capricious at all. As long as you’re not saying it’s okay to pick and choose what seems right to you, and you alone—a very dangerous place to be. A place I’ve seen many friends go and stay. Just as long as you’re searching and you’re not there to stay.

        Maybe someone else can help me out here? Seems like things consistently get lost in translation.

      13. Ben Cabe Avatar
        Ben Cabe

        Oh and your comment, “in the council of many”, yes! Hence the need for community, the ecumenical councils—”it seemed right to the Holy Spirit and Us”. Hence the “badness” (to use a grammatically complex and appropriate phrase) of being your own authority of “picking and choosing”

      14. mmchanb Avatar
        mmchanb

        I deeply appreciate the warning against choosing whatever simply seems right to me. You are right to offer such a warning. Your list to George Adhizer of rules for Scriptural interpretation is one I agree with wholeheartedly.

      15. George Aldhizer Avatar
        George Aldhizer

        I guess the question for me would be this. Can someone interpret, say, within the Reformed tradition and not be considered “picking and choosing” according to you? Or does “interpreting within community” (which I value highly) require Orthodoxy/exclude Protestantism?

      16. Ben Cabe Avatar
        Ben Cabe

        Good question! I think that interpreting within a tradition (Reformed, Baptist, what not) is important and would not be considered “picking and choosing”— Each traditional interpretation designates certain non-negotiables (although, depending on the tradition, these may vary).

        I was specifically talking, in this case, considering oneself outside of any religious affiliation or tradition—picking and choosing among the traditions. That being said, the question then becomes, which tradition do you choose to adhere to, and why?

  2. George Aldhizer Avatar
    George Aldhizer

    Hey Matthew, grateful that you have joined the website! I’m looking forward to hearing from your unique perspective, particularly in your upcoming articles. Just as a brief aside, it is fascinating that someone who would challenge one’s previous Protestant beliefs and practices would maintain belief in the rapture. I’m sure that is a pretty rare perspective.

    Just as a couple of introductory questions, how do you understand your own self-definition as a “post-Protestant”? Also, your bio explains that you are a part of a church plant in Memphis, do you mind revealing what denomination or non-denomination that church is a part of? I’d love to get your take on where you/your church find authority/what traditions you adhere to etc.

    I’ll let Ben be the one who asks you questions based on “concerning novelty”. As a Protestant, I’m more open to a theological perspective arising “late in the game” so to speak (than say, an Orthodox), but I’m certainly with Ben when it comes to the historical critique of rapture theology (which is why I’m currently unsure of my own beliefs about the Lord’s Supper, Mary’s perpetual virginity, and Christian iconography).

    I’d be interested to hear more on the “concerning fruit” end of the spectrum. Certainly my article eight months ago primarily concerned that critique of rapture theology, I’m thrilled you decided to start writing for Conciliar Post even though you thought (and think) that my tone was uninviting to meaningful dialogue. Maybe I abused the fact that there wasn’t a dispensationalist writer on the website at the time, and so I apologize.

    I’d love to hear you explain more how you believe dispensationalism “demands responsible stewardship.” I didn’t mean to be arguing that dispensationalism “causes” a lack of concern for the material world, but that the internal logic of the theology can lead to that disposition. I guess my main question would be to ask whether or not you see belief in “the rapture” as entailing a lack of belief in the resurrection. In my experience at least, those that believe most heavily in the rapture will be far more likely to think eschatologically in terms of a disembodied heaven than in terms of a renewed creation and immortal, resurrected bodies. I think when Christians lose the sense that the resurrection is our ultimate hope (what I believe rapture theology contributes to), we lose the sense that God has called us to “every good work” for the good of the physical creation, whether that be environmental, institutional, vocational, etc. I’d love to hear you expand your thoughts on how dispensationalism “demands responsible stewardship.”

    Reply
    1. mmchanb Avatar
      mmchanb

      Hi, George. I sincerely appreciate the welcome! I have never met a dispensationalist who did not expect to get a glorified, resurrected, immortal body to live in on a renewed earth. I was a member for 8 years of Adrian Rogers’ Bellevue Baptist Church. Those were staples of his teaching to an average of 15,000 in weekly attendance. I didn’t know anyone who expected to live eternally in heaven without a body.

      You ask about stewardship. Dispensationalism heavily depends on Luke 17 and Matthew 24. In Matthew 24:36-51, the taking of one in the field or one at the mill correlates directly to the “wise servant” beginning in verse 45. Notice the similarity of bookends in verses 36 and 50, showing it to be a continuous discourse rather than two unrelated teachings.

      I look forward to sharing more about my post-Protestant approach in future articles. The only thing meant by that term is that I am a Christian who used to be Protestant. I thought Catholics worshipped idols, inserted apocryphal books in their Bibles because of Luther, and tried to “earn their salvation.” I knew nothing of Eastern Orthodoxy, much less non-Chalcedonian Christians. I had no respect for 2,000 years of Christian writing, testimony and practices. I’m glad to say all of that has changed.

      My congregation is nondenomination. We have friends in another nondenom congregation on the other end of town which is more overtly non-Protestant. My particular congregation leans more Protestant, but they appreciate my teaching. I don’t push the envelope about Protestantism and other traditions because I see it as nonessential.

      Reply
      1. George Aldhizer Avatar
        George Aldhizer

        I’m again glad to say you are on the blog, it’s very interesting your perspective. I’m not sure I’ve met someone who has said they are “non-Protestant” while not being Catholic or Orthodox. I’m looking forward to more discussion on what it means to be non-denominational for you. I also sympathize with your past thoughts on those that aren’t Protestant, I used to share some of the same prejudices (though it seems probably not to the same degree, certainly I grew up with the “earn salvation” view of Catholics).

        I also think you bring a unique perspective in thinking that (as long as I am understanding you correctly) Christian traditions are in some sense “nonessential.” I think, certainly the Catholics and Orthodox on the blog would find that view abhorrent, I’m certainly a tad more sympathetic to the view, but would disagree.

        I guess my non-sociological take on rapture theology is that it is in some sense tied to pop-American theology that believes heaven is disembodied eternity. While I believe that Pentecostals, many Baptist groups, and other evangelical denominations that believe in the rapture also “believe” in the resurrection (say, on Easter Sunday), I get the sense that their eschatology has little to do with a new heavens and new earth. And my article is to say that I don’t think that is an accident, for rapture theology entails an escape from the world for Christians to disembodied heaven. This is what N.T. Wright’s book Surprised by Hope argues about American religious belief, and I think there is some truth to it (though he’s certainly not a sociologist of American religion).

        I guess I get the sense that a dispensationalist Christian group that also has a heavy emphasis on an eschatology of resurrection and eternal bodies would be in the minority for dispensationalist groups. So, in that sense, my article was not necessarily aimed at your church/your dispensationalist beliefs, but at American popular religion and dispensationalist churches that do not emphasize the resurrection (which I take to be the majority of dispensationalist groups). Maybe I’m wrong on this.

      2. mmchanb Avatar
        mmchanb

        I agree, George: Pop Christianity is a big problem. In innercity Memphis where I serve, the prosperity gospel and even blatantly racist preaching is a prevalent problem.

        I doubt I will please all the people all the time, but I do highly value the traditions of Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and the Assyrian Church of the East. It’s uncomfortable standing outside of all five traditions with deep respect for all five and disagrements with all five. The fun part however is seeing what binds together all five (the essentials) and gladly embracing those. Then recognizing what 4 out of 5 (or 3 out of 5) agree upon and showing sincere respect for those positions. I’ve been reading CP since last fall and have learned a lot.

  3. Benjamin Winter Avatar
    Benjamin Winter

    Welcome to the site, Matt! I’ve already enjoyed all of the comments on this article–and of course, your post. I’m grinning to myself, though, because very few of the comments actually address the topic of apocalyptic texts in Scripture. So let me stake a stab. The word “allegory” has yet to come up on this page. And yet, from my research (I took a course on the subject during my MA) it is rare to find literal–as opposed to allegorical–interpretations of these Daniel and Revelation passages in the writings that have been handed down from the Early Church. What do you make of this fact? From it, one could argue that your final series of bullet points erroneously assumes particular historical meaning where the Divine Author intended to open up timeless mysteries…

    Some other notes: Certainly the earliest Christians were convinced that Christ’s coming was imminent. But before Joachim of Fiore (1135–1202), the notion that apocalyptic texts could be used to predict particular events was never widely accepted. This simply wasn’t in line with what prophecy meant to the ancient Judeo-Christian world (see Abraham Heschel’s field-defining text “The Prophets”). Also, in Jewish tradition, scribes weren’t allow to read the book of Daniel until they were over a certain age; and similar practices were employed by the seers of Christianity’s first centuries (authors of other apocalyptic mystical texts such as the Apocalypse of Peter).

    Reply
    1. mmchanb Avatar
      mmchanb

      Thanks for the input, Ben. I had not seen your comment until today. I agree with your amusement on the comments. I had sincerely hoped someone would offer an alternative take on the scriptures that I listed. Very interesting note from you on an adults-only Jewish limitation on Daniel!

      Reply
  4. dennis richardson Avatar
    dennis richardson

    Gnostism does seem to get every where just like Freemasons into the Southern Baptist church teaching their secret knowledge that Paul tried to drive out of Christ’s church in the first century. Blame or credit Paul for this harpazo theory I chose to credit Paul, he wrote much of the entire New Testament. Will you try to drive a wedge between Paul and John or between Paul and Christ. Rave on

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Welcome to

Conciliar Post

Conciliar Post is an online community and archive devoted to thoughtful Christian reflection. Since its founding, the site has published theological conversations, reflections on Christianity, reviews, and commentary on culture and current events from a Christian perspective.

Get our articles in your inbox

Top Posts

The Old Testament in OrderDecember 13, 2024Jacob Prahlow
The New Testament in OrderApril 14, 2021Jacob Prahlow
The Phoebe ProblemFebruary 16, 2022Jacob Prahlow
Why I Didn't Convert to Eastern OrthodoxyAugust 8, 2016TJ Humphrey
How the Christ Defined the ChristianAugust 15, 2025Matthew Bryan
A Brief History of Communion (Part I)February 14, 2017Jacob Prahlow

Recent Posts

Discover more from Conciliar Post

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading