Biblical Support for the Pre-Tribulation Rapture

What is the biblical support for the idea of the 'Rapture'?A while ago the glorified DJ Howard Camping predicted a Rapture to occur on May 21 of this year, with a final coming of Jesus to take place several months later in October. The prediction itself, of course, was totally unfounded malarkey. But what about the idea behind it? Is there any biblical support for a pre-tribulation Rapture?

quote:

---

Wills in Head and Heart (2007):

​

It was the total schema, too, that made Darby always refer to the secret Rapture. Not secret in the sense that no one would notice when thousands of people disappeared. But they would not know the explanation, since Jesus would not be seen except by those meeting him "in the air." This secret coming of Jesus was in contrast with his final coming in glory, which will manifest his power to all. Once the whole framework was in place, the Dispensationalists searched for biblical texts that can be made to conform with it. The principal one is from Paul's First Letter to the Thessalonians 4.17. The Thessalonians, who expected the imminent return of Christ, worried about their fellow Christians who had already died. Paul assured them that the living and dead would both be swept up to meet the returning Jesus: "Then we, which are alive and remain, shall be caught up together with them [the dead] in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air; and so shall we ever be with the Lord."
     One trouble with the use of this passage can be seen in the immediately preceding verse (16): "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trump of God, and the dead in Christ shall rise first." That is hardly a secret coming.
...
     The other favorite passage of the Darbyites is Matthew 24.40—41: "Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left." ... But this passage, too, takes its meaning from the immediately preceding verse. Describing all the people who refused to hear Noah and join him on the ark, it says: "And [they] knew not until the flood came and took them all away." The section speaks of destruction, not deliverance. To be taken away is to be destroyed. Being left behind, like Noah and his family, is the desirable thing. (pp. 365—366)

---

Over at Rapture Ready, several supposed citations in support of a pre-tribulation Rapture are given in the first few of their paragraphs; here are some of them:

quote:

---

1 Corinthians 15:51—53 (NRSV):

​

Listen, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality.

---

quote:

---

Matthew 25:13 (NRSV):

​

Keep awake therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour.

---

quote:

---

Revelation 12:6 (NRSV):

​

and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, so that there she can be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days.

---

quote:

---

2 Thessalonians 2:4 (NRSV):

​

He opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, declaring himself to be God.

---

quote:

---

Daniel 9:27 (NRSV):

​

He shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall make sacrifice and offering cease; and in their place shall be an abomination that desolates, until the decreed end is poured out upon the desolator.'

---

As should be clear, none of these really appear to support the notion of a pre-tribulation Rapture. But are there others? Are there other passages that actually support the idea of a pre-tribulation Rapture as marketed by folk like Camping?If so, it would sure be interesting to know what they are.Jon
__________
Wills, G. (2007) Head and Heart: American Christianities. New York: Penguin Press.Edited by Jon, : passage quotes; clarity

Emended

Camping was an example; you're not required to discuss him and you're certainly not required to defend him.I'd very much like to hear your own defense of the a pre-tribulation rapture based on scriptures.So, please, if you would be so kind...Jon

But this still involves the same problems; you still have the notion of a pre-tribulation raptureno matter how incomplete the eventthat requires supporting by the biblical texts.For the moment I'm not concerned in the texts that support a post-tribulation rapture, or a mid-tribulation rapture, or any other raptureagain, no matter how incompletebesides the pre-tribulation one.In your mind, what passages support the idea of a pre-tribulation (partial) rapture? Of course; and I hope before you go any further that you'll help me understand some of the points I had difficulty with.Jon

How? How? How?

But it really just says they will be kept 'out of the hour of trial'. You change the meaning when you rephrase it to 'hour of the trial'. And, unlike you claim, there are many ways to keep someone from an 'hour of trial' without taking them out of the world. I am glad you brought this passage to my attention, but I am not quite convinced that it represents scriptural support of a pre-tribulation rapture. Okay; so it only applies to the church members in Philadelphia (v 7)? Again, you've inserted material that isn't in the passage. I am not convinced that keeping folk from the 'hour of trial' requires sweeping them off the Earth. There is absolutely no evidence in the text to support interpreting 'brethren' as referring back to the 'male child' of v 5. If there is, you will have to help me out with a little more explanation as to why you think 'brethren' should be read as referring to the child. There is nothing here about a rapture, though. The 'first fruits' are just standing on a hill. What evidence in the text suggests that chapter 14 should be read as a 'corner vision'? You say that: ... yet there is no mention in 14 of a tribulation between the description of the folk on Mount Zion (your 'first fruits') and the ripeness of the Earth's harvest, even if we are to view both of these as describing raptures.Jon

They refer to 'our brethren' (= fellow Christians) of the same sentence. It is illogical to read them as having any other reference. The fact that 'child' is singular and these pronouns plural should be all the evidence needed to conclude that they are not referencing the same thing. No; not 'in heaven', on a hill:

quote:

---

Revelation 14:1 (NRSV):

​

Then I looked, and there was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion! And with him were one hundred and forty-four thousand who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads.

---

Not really; the rapture has a pretty specific meaning, particularly as the concept derived from the reading of 1 Thessalonians 4:17:

quote:

---

1 Thessalonians 4:17 (NRSV):

​

Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord for ever.

---

This is a physical movement to a specific place. It is not being taken to 'where one's heart and spirit are already'; this passage does not put 'more emphasis on the inward condition of the heart'. Sure you can, by being one of the loved ones who 'kept my word of patient endurance' (3:10). In fact, just one passage later (v 11), they are told to wait for the arrival of the 'one like a son of man' (1:13). It's hard to wait for someone coming to Earth when you've already been taken off the Earth. So it applies to all of the churches? Like I said:

quote:

---

Jon in Message 16:

​

... there is no mention in 14 of a tribulation between the description of the folk on Mount Zion (your 'first fruits') and the ripeness of the Earth's harvest, ...

---

I'm not convinced that the passages between the mention of the 144k and the reaping of the Earth describe any tribulation. And even if they do, it is not at all clear that the 144k are described as raptured.Jon

No; they don't. And all your misinterpretation of the word 'sign' doesn't make is so. If this is the type of rapture you're trying to defend in your posts, then I see little reason for continuing this discussion. I had thought it was clear from my posts that the rapture in question was a reference to the transportation of Christians from Earth to heaven.

quote:

---

Wikipedia on the Rapture:

​

In Christian eschatology, the Rapture is a reference to "being caught up" referred to in 1 Thess 4:17, when, in the End Times, the Christians of the world will be gathered together in the air to meet Jesus Christ.
...
"Rapture" is an English noun derived from the Latin verb rapiō, with a literal meaning of "I catch up" "or "I snatch" (from the infinitive form of the verb rapere, "to catch up"; "rapture" is also cognate to the English words "rapids", "raptor", "ravish", and "rape").

---

quote:

---

Online Etymology Dictionary on rapture:

​

c.1600, "act of carrying off," from M.Fr. rapture, from M.L. raptura "seizure, rape, kidnapping," from L. raptus "a carrying off" (see rapt). Originally of women and cognate with rape (v.). Sense of "spiritual ecstasy" first recorded 1620s.

---

I'm not sure a discussion of spiritual ecstasy is in line with my intentions in starting this topic. I don't see why viewing the aside as a clarification is at all impractical. This seems to make the most sense given the preceding mention of the dead rising first, followed by the living that were left behind when the dead were raised. Besides, if Paul is talking about a second rapture happening after the tribulation, where is his mention of the first one?The mid-/post-tribulation rapture is so well attested. Why is it that the pre-tribulation rapture cannot be found except in special readings of vastly disconnected passages?If both of these are just as valid, it seems odd that one gets specific mention while support for the other must be finagled out of the text.Jon

No one's inoculated anyone. Until I read the quoted material in the OP, I had little to no concept of what the biblical texts said regarding the relative timing of the rapture and tribulation.My eyes on this subject are as fresh as could be, and I assure you that I am examining every bit of evidence in the best of faith. Unless some new evidence comes to light, I can think of no way to convince me that the plural pronouns in question refer to anything other than 'our brethren'.The argument you're making, that they refer to the child, is just absurd. Yes; I do know this. I had even considered pointing it out in my last reply. Given your focus elsewhere on a physical rapture, it seemed odd to me that you would switch to a spiritual understanding for interpreting just one passage, going so far as to say it is the understanding on which 'the Bible puts more emphasis', despite your lack of mention of this understanding in reading any other passage. But it doesn't; the essence of it is physical. Yes, being watchful and ready for the time when your body is suddenly flung into the heavens. There is a lot of spirituality revolving around the rapture theology, but the rapture itself is essentially a physical event. You can't have a rapture without a physical movement of the body. The fact that rapture has not been indicated in that chapter is fine rationale to reason that rapture has not been indicated in that chapter. Your interpretation of people singing on a hill as a reference to rapture just seems entirely unfounded. I don't see a paradox because I don't yet see the attestations.You may be perfectly capable of reconciling the notion of a pre-tribulation rapture with the biblical texts, but the question in this thread is whether the biblical texts actually speak of the pre-tribulation rapture, not just whether or not they are consistent with it. Things like 1 Thessalonians make specific reference to a 'catching up', which they embed in a clear timeline toward the end of the tribulation. No such specific reference exists embedded in a timeline that would place it before the tribulation.If such references exist, why have you built your argument on round-about and indirect textual interpretation?Jon

I may not be understanding you fully, but from where I am sitting, such an interpretation is absurd on its faceno explanation needed.It seems clear to me that 'brethren' refers to fellow Christians, as it customarily does throughout the NT, and that the child is a completely unrelated entity.Put a different way, to suppose the child and 'brethren' reference the same thing requires a reasoning that could just as well conclude that 'brethren' references the dragon, the woman, the angels, or any other entity mentioned in that chapter and others. In other words, I don't see the logic forcing me to conclude that 'child' and 'brethren' reference the same thing. I've already given some, for example, 1 Thessalonians. I'm not sure what good it would do for me to list passage after passage only to have you turn each one down as not being the proof you're talking about. The challenge I posed in the OP was for anyone who thought there was biblical mention of a pre-tribulation rapture to point to the places where it is so mentioned.Like I already said, I'm coming at this with a pretty fresh pair of eyes. I don't know squat about which scriptures support which interpretations. That is why I've asked the questionand continue asking questionsabout where to find support for a pre-tribulation rapture. I have no reason to disagree with you on this. It seems acceptable to read the watchfulness as being a matter of spiritual preparation. But that is just the watchfulness, then, that is spiritual; this doesn't address the rapture itself, an essentially physical event. I would have thought from our previous interactions that it would have been evident that I do not walk 'with Christ the indwelling Holy Spirit', let alone do I know what that even means. I probably can't. I am not a Christian; but my ability to read a text and draw conclusions from it should not be dependent on my religious affiliation. I don't believe anything about these things. To me they are just stories. Highly revered and hotly debated; but stories nonetheless.JonEdited by Jon, : clarityEdited by Jon, : quote fix

This was my point. From my perspective, interpreting 'brethren' as a reference to the child can only be done on such loose terms as to also allow almost any other ridiculous link imaginable.I see no reason for interpreting 'brethren' as a reference to the child. Your arguments have a long way to go for convincing me otherwise on the matter.Jon

Okay. Any reason for that? What's the logic you're using?