A Response to Questions About Our Article: No One Will Be Left Behind
As stated in the article, any reference to Jesus’ coming again is in connection to His Second Coming. Acts 1:11 says He will return as He left (paraphrased). He was physically on the earth and ascended in a cloud; He will descend in a cloud and physically return to the earth. There will be no partial return to gather the saints followed by a complete return seven years later. Throughout history, neighboring allied armies gathered in one central place before going to battle. It is the same with the Second Coming. Jesus will come with saints already with him and gather those of us still on this earth to him in the clouds before proceeding on to finish the battle and bring an end to this corrupt world.
The rapture is the “same event” the following three verses are talking about?
John 14:2, 3 “In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.” The context and key note of these verses is His promise of coming again, hence the reason He is preparing a place. (Second Coming, not rapture)
John 11:25, 26 The raising of Lazarus from the dead. Jesus was comforting Martha, “Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?”
This reference is about salvation and eternal life. John 3:16 is also concerning salvation and eternal life but we have never seen it used in connection to the rapture.
1 Thess. 4:16, 17 with its counterpart in 1 Cor. 15:51, 52 is speaking to Jesus’ Second Coming, not a rapture.
If a person has a suppositional seed planted in their head, and that seed is allowed to grow little by little until it is firmly planted, then it is that corrupted root which will take hold disallowing the true vine its rightful place. All the supposed support for the rapture teaching has been and will continue to be taken out of context in order to keep it alive. It doesn’t matter what material or teacher the rapture theory is learned from now, C. I. Scofield was among the initial driving forces, as well as a major component in planting the pretrib supposition and distorting the alleged supporting verses through his reference Bible notes. It was his reference Bible that was the chosen teaching tool for the theory since the early 1900’s. As long as people are caught up in the rapture theory they will be reaping their eschatological fruit from the wrong vine and find themselves going into battle with a portion of their armor missing because they won’t be prepared for the trials to come!
________________________
We apparently left out a definition. Below are the definitions to rapture and transport in the 1828 Noah Webster’s Dictionary, recognized by many who study the meanings of individual words used in the KJV, followed by the etymology of rapture in the Oxford Exhaustive Dictionary ©2013. The etymology (origin) does not change regardless of when and how the word is used, or misused.
- Note: Nowhere is the definition of rapture in the 1828 Noah Webster’s Dictionary, or any other dictionary for that matter, associated with a doctrine of the Bible. It may be a courtesy mention in modern dictionaries, but nothing more. If this pretribulational doctrine teaching is so important, was this just a horrible oversight? OR is it as we proposed that the etymology of the word rapture proves it not only obsolete, but unqualified to be defined in eschatological terms.
1828 Webster’s Dictionary definition:
Rapture: n. [L. raptus, rapio]
- A seizure by violence
- Transport; ecstasy; violence of a pleasing passion; extreme joy or pleasure
- Rapidity with violence; a hurrying along with velocity; as rolling with torrent rapture
- Enthusiasm; uncommon heat of imagination
Raptured: a. Ravished; transported
Rapturist: n. An enthusiast
Rapturous: a. Ecstatic; transporting; ravishing; as rapturous joy, pleasure or delight
Transport: v.t. [L. transport; trans and porto, to carry]
- To carry or convey from one place to another, either by means of beasts or vehicles on land, or by ships in water, or by balloons in air; as, to transport the baggage of an army; to transport goods from one country to another; to transport troops over a river.
- To carry into banishment, as a criminal. Criminals are transported as a punishment for their crimes, which often amounts to banishment.
- To hurry or carry away by violence of passion.
They laugh as if transported with some fit of passion.
- To ravish with pleasure; to bear away the soul in ecstasy; as, to be transported with joy.
- To remove from one place to another, as a ship by means of hawsers and anchors.
Transport: n.
- Transportation; carriage; conveyance.
The Romans stipulated with the Carthaginians to furnish them with ships for
transport and war.
- A ship or vessel employed for carrying soldiers, warlike stores or provisions from one place to another, or to convey convicts to the place of their destination.
- Rapture; ecstasy. The news of victory was received with transports of joy.
- A convict transported or sentenced to exile.
To transport is not defined to mean caught up in the air, rather it is defined as various forms of physically carrying someone or something from one place to another, or as in the definitions above; number four in the v.t. and number three as a n. in connection to the real definition of rapture. All other variations of the word transport are defined repetitiously as above.
Oxford Exhaustive Dictionary ©2013:
Rapture:
Pronunciation: Brit. /ˈraptʃə/ , U.S. /ˈræp(t)ʃər/
Forms: see rapt v. and -ure suffix1.
Etymology: <rapt v. + -ure suffix1. Compare post-classical Latin raptura poaching, rape (8th cent. in British sources) and Middle French rapture abduction (late 15th cent. in an apparently isolated attestation). Compare capture n. Compare earlier rapt n. and raption n.
With sense 4a compare the note at rapt adj.
4a. The act of conveying a person from one place to another, esp. to heaven; the fact of being so conveyed. Obs. [obsolete]
In Christian eschatology (see sense 4b) after the use of classical Latin rapere rape.2 in the Vulgate (1 Thessalonians 4:17), where it translates ancient Greek ἁρπάζειν to snatch away, to seize (see harpy n.). [bold emphasis mine]
The above definition makes it clear rapere is the root origin for rape not rapture. This is how 1 Thess. 4:17 was erroneously translated in the Vulgate. Any and all Bible versions adopting that definition is also in error. Rapere is often used interchangeably with raptus and rapio as the pretrib proof to define rapture. We as Christians should be appalled to use that term to describe our meeting with Jesus in the clouds. Perhaps that is why for many generations the word rapture has been obsolete in reference to end-time eschatology; that is, until Darby and Scofield re-popularized it.
A quote from Noah Webster: Introduction to his 1828 Dictionary under the heading Etymology.
“Irregular as is the orthography of the English Language, and unsettled or corrupt as is the pronunciation, there is nothing either in English or in any other language of which I have any knowledge, which exhibits so strikingly the low state of philology as the etymological deductions of words, or the history of their origin, affinities and primary signification. To enable the young inquirer to estimate the erudition, correctness, or negligence of writers on this subject, and to awaken more attention to this branch of learning, I will state briefly the results of my researches and the opinions which I have been compelled to form on the merits of the principal treatises on this subject. And if these opinions or this statement should be charged to egotism, or my over-weening confidence in the success of my own investigations, my apology is, that I have suffered so much myself by a misplaced confidence in the erudition of writers; I have so often embraced errors which it has cost me more labor to unlearn than to learn; that if I can prevent my fellow-citizens, who have a taste for this study from being subjected to the same evils, I shall think the advantage obtained more than a balance for any unmerited imputation.” [underline emphasis mine]
_________________________
Denying the existence of the rapture is not denying the return of Christ and it is most definitely not an apostasy to do so, because the rapture is the doctrine of man. However, it would be correct to say the apostasy is the creation of the rapture. Now knowing the true meaning of the word and that it is a belief born from a perversion of God’s Word, why would any Christian want to defend it as an infallible truth?
________________________
Matt. 24:1-28 is a forewarned description of the destruction by Titus nothing more, verses 29-31 answers the two future prophetic questions. Titus’ story is retold in Mark 13:1-23 followed by the description of Jesus’ return in 24-27, as is Luke’s account in 21:6-24a; 24b-29. Each one of them might be going into more or less detail than the others, but they are all describing the same things in the same order as it was foretold to them. The book of Mark was written in A.D. 32 while Matt., Luke, and John were written in A.D. 33. They were all disciples of Christ, and though their styles of writing are different their individual accounts are in unity. None of them contain dual prophecy!
Scofield’s notes attempt to explain these passages by cross referencing Dan. 9:27 as a supporting verse, but instead of pointing directly to the verse, he chooses to refer to his own notes about the verse. He does the same (on the same page) when referencing Rev. 7:14—note “the great tribulation” incorporating Darby’s error of adding “the” before “great tribulation.” There is something suspicious about a man who often refers to his own notes to explain scripture rather than allowing scripture to speak for itself.
_____________________
The first sentence of Dan. 9:26 says, “And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:” This is simply telling us when Messiah will be cut off. The rest of the verse is not about Christ’s crucifixion, nor is it about Christ or the antichrist. It is an explanation of events in Daniel’s future which was fulfilled by Titus. The abominations, the end (of the war), and the desolations in this verse are all concerning Titus. As for the 62 weeks, the verse says “after.” There is no time indicated as to how long after the 62 weeks before Messiah is cut off.
The three and a half years of Christ’s ministry ending in His being “cut off” followed by Titus’ war corresponds perfectly to what Gabriel is describing in v. 26. I ask you to prayerfully reread The Simplicity of Daniel again putting aside what you have been taught, and see if it makes sense. It truly does not need to be so complicated.
Will All Of Israel Be Saved? – The Pretrib way versus the Bible’s Way
Romans 11:25-26 “For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:”
One of the most unbiblical and destructive doctrines being taught today is the belief that all the physical Jews will become saved when Christ returns. In essence Pretribulationalism teaches two separate salvation plans, one for the physical Jews and one for the rest of the world. It seems they believe Gentiles are saved through the blood of Christ and the physical Jews are saved at the return of Christ en masse. This is a cruel doctrine because the Jewish people have been lied to by a false doctrine. Jewish evangelism is not a priority because many believe that since they will be saved anyway, they should concentrate on other people groups who won’t be saved. Nowhere in the Bible is this even intimated. It is here because of personal beliefs of some theologians of years past who believed and built on a vision rather than Scripture. This doctrine is built on an isolated verse without biblical substantiation.
This verse seems to be telling us that the entire nation of Israel will be saved. Some believe it is a restoration to the glory she once had during the reigns of David and Solomon. The answer to this puzzling verse lies in verse 25 where we read, “…until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.” The word “Gentile” may also be translated “ethnic or nation.” This means that before Israel can be saved a multitude of other races must be included in God’s salvation plan. Once God has saved the last person He plans to save, then Israel will be completed. Do you remember in our study who the Israel of God is? It is the entire body of believers. In verse 26 God has in view the completion of His salvation program. The Israel of God is complete with all those in the body of Christ. No single nation is chosen for mass salvation because we read in Acts 10:34 that God is not a respecter of persons. Only those who are saved in Christ before the last day are included in this “all Israel.” (Online Source, The Israel of God by Dr. Ken Matto)
A cross reference to Romans 11:25 is Revelation 7:9 “After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;” “Until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in” (Rom. 11:25), “Desolations until the consummation” (Dan. 9:27), “Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled” (Luke 21:24). All three of these references speak to the desolations/judgment of Israel until the “end of the world.” The great multitude in Rev. 7:9 is the fulfillment of the fullness of the Gentiles.
The NEPHILIM – Link to Herescope article by Pastor Anton Bosch
