Paul and the Rapture — Part 1

A reader who embraces much of inmillennialism asked for help. He has difficulty with the “rapture” passage.

I am being challenged on 1 Thess 4:13–5:11 and the teaching of the rapture. In part this seems to be referring to a future event from our time, but I am having trouble explaining why it is not. I looked back thru emails to see if you covered that at some point, but did not find it. . . . I just don’t know how to defend that passage other than to say you can’t read it literally. The biggest issue to me, is that you can’t just address that passage without having a lengthy conversation which most people do not want to partake of.

I sympathize with him. This is the most difficult passage in the Bible for inmillennialism to explain. 

The problems do not arise from inmillennialism’s deficiencies. They come from the deeply-ingrained assumptions behind the traditional prophetic frameworks. Many generations of faithful Christians have accepted these suppositions with little critical analysis.

I ask for a fair hearing for inmillennialism’s explanation of this passage. Previous posts have shown inmillennialism’s derivation. It comes from the Olivet Discourse (Matt 24–25; Mark 13; Luke 21) and 1 Cor 15. They applied inmillennialism to Revelation, Hebrews, and the first eight chapters of Matthew.¹ 

We have also answered a few questions about inmillennialism. Early in this blog’s history, a reader challenged our explanation of the Greek word parousia. We argued that “presence” is a better translation than “coming” in our post Questions and Answers, Part 1.

We answered a common objection to inmillennialism based on 1 John 3:2. Our last post (here) showed Christ’s “appearance” in relation to us being “like him” in the resurrection.

These exercises show inmillennialism deserves a hearing when it explains 1 Thess 4:13–5:11. This is true even though that explanation differs from traditional ones.

Will this need a “lengthy conversation”? Only if you consider three or four blog posts “lengthy.” We will try to make the posts as interesting as possible.

This post will show the traditional explanations are unsatisfactory. The following posts will offer inmillennialism’s explanation.

The traditional prophetic models differ in their explanations of 1 Thess 4:13–5:11. Historic premillennialism and dispensational premillennialism say this passage is speaking about a future event. “The ‘rapture’ refers to the picture, painted in 1 Thessalonians 4:17, of the time of the resurrection of the righteous dead, when living believers will join God’s people of all eras of human history and be ‘caught up’ to meet the Lord in the air as he descends from heaven on the clouds.”² Premillennialists think this will occur just before the literal 1000-year reign of Christ. Their idea of “rapture” excludes the unsaved.³

Amillennialists and postmillennialists think otherwise. “When Christ returns, there will be a general resurrection, both of believers and unbelievers. . . . The ‘rapture’ of all believers then takes place.”⁴ This event will follow the non-literal 1000-year messianic age.

Despite their differences, these models agree on certain elements of this passage. They say it:

1. says the physical bodies of living saints will change to glorified ones in a moment
2. teaches the bodies of dead saints will arise from their graves
3. describes events at the end of the church age
4. speaks about “the day of the Lord” (1 Thess 5:2)

Commentators seldom discuss the difficulties created by these elements. I understand this omission. These beliefs lie deep within their prophetic models. To question them would be to challenge their own core beliefs. Few writers wish to undertake this task. So, the difficulties go unmentioned. 

Several such difficulties exist. We will here introduce only three to avoid “a lengthy conversation which most people do not want to partake of.” They apply in varying degrees to each of the traditional models. 

Our next few posts will explain the inmillennial alternative.

Paul’s False Alarm

The Thessalonians were in danger of misunderstanding what Paul wrote in 1 Thess 4:13–5:11. So, in a second letter, he said more about “the day of the Lord.” He warned them to “not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come” (2 Thess. 2:2, ESV; emphasis added).⁵ 

How could a letter persuade the saints “the day of the Lord” had come? Imagine the Thessalonian church hearing someone read this letter. The traditional prophetic models say it was asking them to believe shocking realities. All believers now had glorified bodies. The graves of the dead saints were now empty. And, the messianic age had ended after lasting only twenty-five years!

Such a letter would have never gained traction if “the day of the Lord” was to bring these things. The Thessalonians knew they had not received their glorified bodies. The graves of their deceased loved ones were still intact. Paul was still alive and on earth. He had not soared up into the air.

Paul need not worry if the traditional prophetic models are correct. The Thessalonians would have ignored such preposterous ideas. Paul’s hypothetical letter shows these models misunderstand 1 Thess 4:13–5:11.

As we shall see, inmillennialism says Paul and the Thessalonians had something else in mind. They associated “the day of the Lord” with events that could have already happened. Knowledge of those events could come in letter form. Paul’s concern was proper.

Paul’s Resurrection Error

Traditional prophetic models make Paul guilty of another significant error. He said, “We which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven . . . then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds” (1 Thess 4:15–17; emphasis added). 

There is not an “if” in these statements. The traditional prophetic models make Paul say his generation would—not might—see the resurrection. He was wrong.

Samuel Lee collected a long list of writers who charge the apostle Paul with this error. He said, 

It is a conviction very common that the apostles were in error. The more frank and out-spoken admit this in so many words: while others less open-hearted say the same thing, though indirectly and with more or less of ambiguity. As belonging to these classes are such illustrious names as Locke, Watts, Jonathan Edwards, Barnes, Conybeare, Olshausen, Arnold, Bush, Hudson.⁶

We will mention only two of Lee’s examples. Both involve respected conservative writers. Conybeare said, “the early church, and even the Apostles themselves, expected their Lord to come again in that very generation. St. Paul himself shared in that expectation.”⁷ 

Conybeare said this does not mean Paul taught erroneous doctrine. Lee objects to this analysis.

If Paul did not “deduce any erroneous conclusions,” he made an erroneous statement on a most important question of fact; and others might draw, as a legitimate “conclusion,” erroneous practical inferences, as “some of his disciples” did. We know nothing of the errors of Paul, except as we learn them from his writings. If these are erroneous, what becomes of the doctrine of the inspiration of the Epistles?⁸

Lee discusses material from a standard commentator regarding this issue. He says, 

Rev. Albert Barnes in his “Commentary” on 1 Cor. 15: 51, says, “I do not know that the proper doctrine of inspiration suffers, if we admit that the Apostles were ignorant of the exact time when the world would close; or even that in regard to the precise period when that would take place, they might be in error.” 

Now the statement in the abstract that inspired writers were not omniscient, or that on some points, where their inspiration did not extend, they might be in error, is very harmless. No doubt the sacred writers were as ignorant as other men, what would be the weather on the morrow; no doubt they often had opinions on this subject that the morrow proved to have been erroneous. But the above remarks are made in reply to the objection, “that Paul expected to live until the Lord Jesus should return; that he therefore expected that the world would soon end, and that in this he was mistaken and could not be inspired.” The “error” referred to, therefore, is on this point; and it is “error” found in his writings on this subject, and is the reason why he says “We” and not “They,” — “error” in the Bible. And it is the error of Paul and others of the Apostles expressed in the Bible on the subject of the end of the world and the judgment as near, to which the language “they might be in error” refers. This is an admission of fearful import in its bearings upon our confidence in the Book of— shall I say inspiration? What part of it is inspired, and what not? If the Apostles might be in error on this point, they might be on any and every other. And “The Book” becomes a book.⁹

The traditional interpretations of this passage force commentators into such assertions. They say the apostles believed the resurrection would occur on “the day of the Lord” and that that day was near. It was within their own lifetimes or, at least, in the lifetime of their contemporaries.

Inmillennialism teaches the apostles knew the resurrection would occur at the end of the messianic age. We saw this in our last post, “When He Shall Appear” in 1 John 3:2. The “day of the Lord” was near in Paul’s day, but it did not include the resurrection. He knew an entire age would intervene. 

Paul’s Inconsistency

As a result of the two previous points, the traditional prophetic models imply Paul was inconsistent. In a later epistle—1 Corinthians—Paul said Israel’s prophets had foretold a messianic age. God would exalt the Messiah and place him on a throne as King (e.g. Psa 2:4–9). This King would then wage war against his enemies. 

Paul built on this prophetic foundation. In 1 Cor 15, he alluded to one of these passages (Psalm 110). Jesus “must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet” (1 Cor 15:25). The Lord would defeat his last enemy in the resurrection at the end of the messianic age (1 Cor 15:26).

The traditional prophetic models create a consistency problem. Paul thought the resurrection would happen in his generation when he wrote 1 Thess 4:13–5:11. Later, when he wrote 1 Cor 15, he said an entire age would pass before God would raise the dead. The resurrection would occur after the Lord defeated all other enemies.

Inmillennialism offers a way to see Paul as consistent. He taught the same thing in both letters.

Conclusion

The traditional prophetic models create problems in 1 Thess 4:13–5:11. Paul thought a letter might convince believers “the day of the Lord”—including the resurrection—had arrived. This was because he assumed the resurrection would occur in his generation. And, he changed his mind about the timing of the resurrection. He later taught the resurrection would occur after the messianic age.

If the Lord wills, our next post will start to show inmillennialism’s view of what Paul taught in this passage. It will correct these (and other) problems.

1. Our Start Reading Here page contains an index to these posts.
2. Craig L. Blomberg, “The Posttribulationism of the New Testament,” in A Case for Historic Premillennialism: an Alternative to “Left Behind” Eschatology, ed. Craig L. Blomberg and Sung Wook Chung (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 62.
3. The image in this post is the work of Praveen Bisht. The file (here) is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.
4. Anthony A. Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 170–71.
5. The Greek verb for “has come” is in the perfect tense. In this passage it means “have come, be present, be here”—T. Friberg, B. Friberg, and N. F. Miller, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 151.
6. Samuel Lee, Eschatology; or, the Scripture Doctrine of the Coming of the Lord, the Judgment, and the Resurrection (Boston: J. E. Tilton, 1859), 55.
7. W. J. Conybeare and J. S. Howson, The Life and Epistles of St. Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 314.
8. Lee, Eschatology, 60–61.
9. Lee, Eschatology, 61–62.