Retractiones
Preface
to Retractions
In the course of my life and
studies, I have undergone some fairly drastic shifts in my own theological
paradigm. Some of these shifts occurred
slowly and others fairly rapidly. I have
decided to take a point from Saint Augustine of Hippo and put together a list
of beliefs that I wish to retract.
Sadly, at one time or another I have both espoused and taught others to
believe the points listed in these posts.
Please do not take any of critiques
personally. These posts are an exercise
in theological reflections from a more mature (and hopefully correct)
understanding. I know many people who
are far holier than I am who hold many of the views with which I will disagree.
History of the Doctrine
of the Rapture
A historical defense of the doctrine
of the rapture is incredibly difficult.
There is no support for the rapture in at least the first thousand years
of Christianity. As a basic rule of
thumb, if a doctrine suddenly appears, say 1,800 years into the existence of
the Church, it is a deviation from Christian belief and practice. I have generally ended my historical
arguments against the rapture with that point, because it covers everything
that is necessary. However, for the sake
of argument, I am going to walk through some “historical” arguments for the
doctrine of the rapture.
The difficulty of interacting with
the history of the rapture in Christian thought before the 1800’s is that I
cannot find anyone who taught it during those years. After a little searching,
I uncovered the closest thing that could qualify as a scholarly historical
defense of the rapture.[1] I will respond by focusing on the strongest
historical points from my research.
These points are as follows: The Shepherd of Hermas and the
“Tribulation,” (Psuedo) Ephrem’s sermon On
the Anti-Christ and the End, and The
History of Brother Dulcino the Arch-Heretic. Before engaging with these earlier sources,
it is important to sketch when the doctrine of the rapture was first espoused.
Here are the historical facts as
best as I have assembled them. The
doctrine of a rapture is a creation from the middle of the 1800’s. John Nelson Darby is the man generally credited
with the idea, but it is likely that he had been influenced by others in his
circle of acquaintances.[3] The real issue is on what basis does one
promulgate a hitherto untaught doctrine?
Darby was aware that no other Christian body held to his newly minted
view of eschatology. How he defended the
novelty of it I do not know for certain (at least not the footnoteable level of
certainty). I suspect that his argument
would involve some argument from new revelation but I have not yet tracked down
a reliable source to confirm this suspicion. Regardless of my suspicions, the facts are:
Darby is rightly associated with first promulgating the doctrine of the
pre-tribulational rapture as a part of his dispensationalism,[4] and that he did so in the
middle of the 19th century.
Any argument that attempts to find the doctrine of the rapture prior to
the 1800’s is lacking any textual support.
Darby was not alone in reimagining
Christianity in the 1800’s. There are
some interesting parallels during the 1800’s in the religious landscape of the
English speaking world. Between the
1820’s to 1840’s, Joseph Smith reimagined the church and created the new
religion of Mormonism. His basis for
creating Mormonism was the claim that he had received new revelation. The Seventh Day Adventists also trace their
origin to the 1840’s and came into being because of a focus on eschatology and
a new revelation of when the world would end.
Charles Taze Russell founded the group which became known as the
Jehovah’s Witnesses in the 1870’s. He
modified Darby’s dispensationalism with a few of his own special revelations
about when the world would end (which needless to say were somewhat
amiss). At approximately the same time,
Mary Baker Eddy started Christian Science in the 1870’s. She understood herself to be a source of new
revelation, and also reimagined eschatology.
While it is tempting to delve in to
the causes of this impressive amount of religious and doctrinal innovation in
the 1800’s, it would be somewhat superfluous to this post. What can be stated is that the spirit of that
age was clearly one which produced a great amount of creativity regarding how
the Church was to be understood based upon the practice of new revelation. Dispensationalism entered into the world at
the very time when historical support and continuity was not necessary.[5] Indeed, creating new doctrines and religious
understandings appears to have been a rather successful model at this
time. I contend that dispensationalism
falls squarely into the category of new and never before seen especially as it
pertains to the doctrine of the rapture.
The spread of dispensationalism in
America has its roots in the late 1800’s.
Dispensationalism was spread by Darby himself and then by evangelists
such as D. L. Moody and through schools founded by dispensationalists such as
Dallas Theological Seminary. Part of the
reason for the spread of dispensationalism is that it provided a literalistic
manner to read the Bible (particularly prophecy) and served as a concrete set
of beliefs that could withstand the growing theological liberalism of that
day. Indeed, in the
modernist/fundamentalist controversy of the 1920’s and 1930’s,
dispensationalists proved themselves to be squarely on the side of the
fundamentalists.
Perhaps the largest influence on the
growth of dispensationalism was the publication of the Scofield Reference Bible
(1909), which was filled with dispensational notes. As a bulwark of “orthodoxy,”
dispensationalism continued to grow in numbers and influence especially after
World War II and the founding of the modern state of Israel. The popular expression of dispensationalism
reached a high mark with the publication of The
Late Great Planet Earth by Hal Lindsey in 1970. This was repeated a generation later by the Left Behind (book) series by Tim
LaHaye. These best-selling fictional
works did a lot to form the eschatological expectations and beliefs in American
culture from 1970 until the present.
Pretribulational Rapture in the Patristic Era
There were several early Christian
writers who either affirmed or could be understood to have affirmed a literal
millennial reign.[6] Among these authors, there is no hint of
anything approaching a doctrine of the rapture.
The belief in the millennium in the early Church was nowhere near
univocal until the mid-late 300’s. In
the middle of the second century, Justin Martyr noted that there were other
Christians who did not agree with his millennialism.[7] The millennial view quickly faded, and was
implicitly condemned in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed in 381.[8]
Despite the utter lack of historical
evidence for anyone ever articulating the doctrine of the rapture prior to the
1800’s, there are some who still try to argue this doctrine from the Early
Church. In my conversations with my mother,
she sent me an e-mail of an excerpt of something she had read. It is as follows:
One of the early Church Fathers, The
Shepherd of Hermas, writing in the early 2nd Century,
makes an interesting observation about “the great tribulation that is coming.”
He says, “If then ye prepare yourselves,
and repent with all your heart and turn to the Lord, it will be possible for you to escape it, if your heart be pure and
spotless, and ye spend the rest of the
days of your life in serving the Lord blamelessly.”
The
Shepherd of Hermas is worthy of some examination because Hermas does speak of
coming great tribulation and how it might be escaped. Prior to the quotation above, Hermas sees a
great beast large enough to destroy cities walk past him without harming
him. The lady who represents the Church
said to Hermas, “You deserved to escape it (the great beast) because you cast
your cares on God and opened your heart to the Lord, believing that you could
not be saved by anything except the great and glorious name. Therefore the Lord sent his angel who has
authority over the beasts, whose name is Thegri, and he shut its mouth so that
it might not hurt you. You have escaped
the great tribulation because of your faith, and because of you were not double
minded, even though you saw such a huge beast.
Go, therefore, and declare to the Lord’s elect his mighty works and tell
them that this beast is a foreshadowing of the great tribulation that is
coming. So, if you prepare yourselves in
advance and turn to the Lord with all your heart, you will be able to escape
it, if your heart is clean and unblemished and you serve the Lord blamelessly
for the rest of the days of your life” (The
Shepherd of Hermas, 23.4-5).
The point Hermas is making in this
passage is not eschatological. Rather,
he is focused on the need for purity in believers. The great beast who represents the
tribulation is escaped through purity of heart and mind. Indeed, we even have a named angel who has
the power to protect Hermas from this beast.
This is not the imagery of a pretribulational rapture, but of how the
pure will be protected in the coming tribulation. Hermas is not removed from the beast, but
only protected as the beast went by.
This tribulation may or may not be eschatological in nature in this
passage. Further, Hermas speaks about
how some Christians require suffering to purify them. Hermas even speaks of an angel of punishment
whose task is to oversee the torment of Christians who engage in luxuries and
evil deeds so that they may turn and be saved (64-66). This has nothing to do with a doctrine of
rapture, but much to do with a doctrine of purity and repentance.
The Nicene Creed
The Nicene Creed[9] is quite important to
consider because in affirming the Creed, a particular eschatology is also
affirmed. There a temporal ordering of
events in the Nicene Creed. This is not unimportant
nor accidental. The most relevant
section for the discussion of the rapture is found in the section on Jesus.
Who
for us men and for our salvation
came down from heaven and was incarnate
of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.
came down from heaven and was incarnate
of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.
He
was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate,
and suffered and was buried;
and suffered and was buried;
And
He rose on the third day,
according to the Scriptures.
according to the Scriptures.
He
ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father;
and is seated at the right hand of the Father;
And
He will come again with glory to judge the living
and dead. His kingdom shall have no end.
and dead. His kingdom shall have no end.
The
ordering of events here is quite important to understanding the Nicene
Creed. There is the incarnation, the
crucifixion, burial, resurrection, ascension, second coming, and an endless
kingdom. These events are all listed in
sequential and temporal order. What is
missing from the creed is any affirmation that His kingdom will end after 1,000
years of reigning on earth. The
significance of this should not be lost.
This means that in the 300’s the Church affirmed an eschatology that
precludes a literal millennial reign. At
the least, this means that the Church confessionally abandoned one of the major
and necessary precursors to belief in a rapture.
(Pseudo) Ephrem’s
Sermon
James F. Stitzinger quoted a line
from a sermon by (Pseudo) Ephrem which sounds very much as though the preacher
believed in a pre-tribulational rapture.
Stitzinger’s quote is as follows:
His important sermon, “On the Last
Times, the Antichrist and the End of the World,” (ca. 373) is preserved in four Latin manuscripts and is
ascribed to St. Ephraem or to St. Isidore.
If not written by Ephraem, it is written by one greatly influenced by him. This Pseudo-Ephraem sermon declares
the following: “All the saints and elect of God are gathered together before the tribulation, which is to come, and
are taken to the Lord, in order that they
may not see at any time the confusion which overwhelms the world because of our sins.”[10]
Being
a nerd with Church History skills, I did a double take when I read this
quote. I was quite surprised to
encounter a quote like this. Therefore,
I did some research and found a copy of (Pseudo) Ephrem’s Sermon “De fine extremo: De Antichristo.”[11] I am immensely thankful that James F.
Stitzinger cited the original document, as this saved me a good deal of time. However,
the text which he cited had no correlation to what he said that the text
said. The Latin utterly lacks anything
that could be considered an affirmation of the rapture. I could not even find something resembling
the quote which Stitzinger gave. I did
find a discussion of how the elect will flee from before the man of iniquity
during the tribulation and how those days would be cut short for the sake of
the elect (10). There is not even a hint
about a rapture. Rather, the preacher
speaks about how Christians will suffer during the last days.
The issues with (Pseudo) Ephrem’s
sermon are not even matters of interpretation, but of the actual wording of the
sermon. If another text of this sermon
has been uncovered, which said all the things that Stitzinger affirmed it did,
then there would still be some very serious text critical issues to resolve in
that there would be two texts of the same sermon saying very different things
indeed! As it stands, there is nothing
in (Pseudo) Ephrem’s sermon that clearly affirms a rapture. This sermon does speak about the suffering
which Christians will undergo during the tribulation and how the entire order
of the world will be changed during this time which precedes the Second Coming
(after which there is no millennial reign though according to the sermon).
The Medieval Era
Stitzinger argued that 14th
century work entitled The History of
Brother Dolcino the Arch-Heretic presented a pre-tribulational rapture.[12] This assessment is shared by Francis X.
Gumerlock who presented a paper entitled “Before Darby: Expanding the
Historical Boundaries of Pretribulationism.”[13] He was kind enough both
to quote the Latin and to offer an acceptable translation of the Latin as
befits a scholar and gentleman. Both are
quoted below:
“Item
[credidit et predicavit et docuit] quod intra illos tres annos ipse Dulcinus et
sui sequaces predicabunt adventum Antichristi et quod ipse Antichristus veniret
in hunc mundum finitis dictis annis tribus cum dimidio et postquam venisset,
ipse tunc et sui sequaces transferrentur in paradisum, in quo sunt Enoc et
Elias et sic conservarentur illesi a persecutione Antichristi, et quod tunc
ipsi Enoc et Elias descenderent in terram ad predicandum Antichristum, deinde
interficerentur ab eo vel eius ministris et sic regnaret Antichristus per plura
tempora. Eo vero Antichristo mortuo, ipse Dulcinus, qui tunc esset papa
sanctus, et sui sequaces reservati descendent in terram et predicabunt fidem
Christi rectam omnibus et convertent eos, qui tunc erunt vivi, ad veram fidem
Iesu Christi.”
“Again,
[Dolcino believed and preached and taught] that within those three years
Dolcino himself and his followers will preach the coming of the Antichrist. And
that the Antichrist was coming into this world within the bounds of the said
three and a half years; and after he had come, then he [Dolcino] and his
followers would be transferred into Paradise, in which are Enoch and Elijah.
And in this way they will be preserved unharmed from the persecution of
Antichrist. And that then Enoch and Elijah themselves would descend on the
earth for the purpose of preaching [against] Antichrist. Then they would be
killed by him or by his servants, and thus Antichrist would reign for a long
time. But when the Antichrist is dead, Dolcino himself, who then would be the
holy pope, and his preserved followers, will descend on the earth, and will
preach the right faith of Christ to all, and will convert those who will be
living then to the true faith of Jesus Christ.”
Before commenting on the
eschatological details, it is important to note that what has been related
above is a second hand report by an author who was not kindly disposed towards
the depart arch-heretic. Dulcino himself
was executed after his followers were crushed by a papal crusade in 1307.[14]
These statements could be
interpreted to be an event similar to a mid-tribulational rapture. The difficulty with this interpretation is
that is does not fit with the content of the lines directly after the above
quoted portion. Because directly after
this Dulcino is reported to have spoken of how his followers would enter into
paradise if they remained in Dulcino’s teachings when burned (at the stake) or
handed over to death (page 9, lines 5-9).[15] That is, it is not clear at all that the
first arrival of Dulcino and his followers into heaven would not happen through
physical death in a sort of martyrdom.
In fact, the context of the quotations appear to lend to the reading of
the entrance into paradise coming through physical death and not a “rapture.”
Apart from the context demanding an
interpretation other than a rapture, there are further eschatological
difficulties for this text supporting a dispensational understanding of the
rapture. Dulcino returns after the
tribulation (which lasts for a long and indefinite amount of time) and reigns
as pope and preaches the true faith of Jesus. I have yet to find any dispensationalist who
expects the raptured to return to earth and preach the true faith after the
tribulation let alone have a pope leading the way.
As I have briefly demonstrated, a
careful reading of The History of Brother
Dulcino the Arch-Heretic does not present a doctrine of the “rapture” prior
to Darby. Hitherto, I have yet to find
an honest and careful reading of any text prior to the 1800’s the clearly
presents the doctrine of the rapture let alone anything approximating that
doctrine as espoused by dispensationalists.
Rather, dispensationalism struggles in vain to find a historic
connection to Christian faith and practice before it entered the scene as a
doctrinal innovation in the 1800’s.
Therefore I view the rapture as a doctrine created in the 1800’s and a
divergence from the faith once and for all delivered to the saints.
Dispensationalism, unlike many of
these other innovations of the 1800’s, did not change the ontology of Jesus, the
Protestant cannon of Scripture, nor the style of worship. This meant Dispensationalism was accepted as
a stream of fundamentalist (and then later evangelical thought). This is the reason why, despite having no
historical antecedents, it was acceptable in American Protestant world.
It is important to note that dispensationalism
did however alter the view of how God relates to humanity, particularly
Christians. That is, dispensationalism
with its doctrine of the pre-tribulational rapture made God into a god who
would protect his people from suffering.
Even though this is a departure from the biblical presentation of
suffering and Christians, it was not so great a departure as to make
dispensationalism appear to be a completely different religion. Indeed, the aspectual alteration to the
relation of God with His people fits with the American religious ethos of the
“god” given rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Despite its natural fit within the American
ethos, the dispensational understanding of a pre-tribulational rapture was
never a part of the Christian faith until it was invented in the 1800’s and has
a deleterious effect upon a biblical understanding of suffering.
[1]
The
closest thing I have found to a “scholarly” presentation of the rapture in
history is this article written by James F. Stitzinger, "The Rapture in
Twenty Centuries of Biblical Interpretation." The Master's
Seminary Journal 13, no. 2 (Fall 2002): 149-71. Here is a link to the article (this link takes
you to the Master’s Seminary Website).
If you have an interest in seeing someone interact with primary sources
and thoughts from outside the tradition of the writer, do not read the pdf on
the other side of the link. You have
been warned.
[2] For an
explanation of how Darby’ concept of a rapture does not comport with what Jesus
actually said, see my earlier post.
[3] Edward Irving
(died 1834) appears to have first developed the theory of a post-tribulational
rapture, but this is still missing some of the nuances which Darby latter
added.
[4] Dispensationalism
is the belief that God divided human history into a series of sections called
dispensations and that the rules of his relation to humanity are different in
each of these dispensations.
[5] For another
example there is the Landmarkism that arose in Baptist circles in the
middle of the 1800’s. Landmarkism argued
that Baptists were not Protestant because they were the one true Church which
traced itself back to apostles. This was
done without any shred of historical evidence.
[6] Papias, Justin
Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, Tertullian, Lactantius, etc…
[8] I suspect that
the diminishment of the millennial view in the Early Church was tied directly
to the interpretation of prophecy in light of how the Apostles interpreted Old
Testament prophecy regarding the Messiah.
This would likely take an entire dissertation to prove.
[9] This is the
Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed which was originally composed at Nicaea in 325
and then expanded at Constantinople in 381.
[10] James F.
Stitzinger, "The Rapture in Twenty Centuries of Biblical Interpretation,”
157.
[11] Starting on
column 188 you can read the sermon here:
See, also, the more up to date text critical Syriac
by Edmund Beck, Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Sermones III (CSCO 320;
Louvain: Secrétariat du Corpus, 1972), 60-71.
Note,
I have not been able to view this newer text critical work because I would need
to drive at least two hours to get to a library to have a look at it. After engaging in such behavior during my
dissertation writing, I have little desire to do it again for the sake of a
blog post.
[12] Full Latin text here. I have not found an accessible English
translation of this work. The section
quoted begins at the bottom of page 8 on the link.
[13] Francis X.
Gumerlock, “Before Darby: Expanding the Historical Boundaries of
Pretribulationism” presented at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Evangelical
Theological Society Colorado Springs, Colorado November 14-16, 2001.
[14] Among other
interesting aspects of Dulcino reported in the history is that Dulcino did not
believe in all the books of the Old Testament.
[15] “He believed,
preached and taught that his sect and congregation having been judged heretics
by those who were church leaders and inquisitors of heretics, having been left
to the judges of the world, after having been burned (at the stake), and others
having been handed over to death, they have been saved, if they remain until
the very end in the teaching of Dulcino, they will come into paradise or at
least purgatory.”
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment