There are a lot of myths and misunderstandings that come up anytime someone begins discussing “the Snatching Away” (which is what those of us in the body of Christ tend to call the event generally known as “the Rapture,” although, for the sake of familiarity, I’ll refer to it as the Rapture for the duration of this post). Whether it’s due to simple lack of study or due to willful ignorance, I can’t say for sure, but whenever the topic comes up, somebody invariably reveals their lack of knowledge about the subject by sharing one or more of the many myths and misunderstandings I’m going to cover in this post.
- John Nelson Darby invented the Rapture.
Darby certainly helped popularize the idea of the Rapture in modern times, but the doctrine predated him by almost two millennia (since it was first taught by the apostle Paul). Just because most Christians had forgotten the doctrine between the time Paul taught about it and Darby’s time doesn’t mean it’s a new invention. There were plenty of doctrines that were forgotten between Paul’s time and centuries later as well, so the argument that it wasn’t popular until recently doesn’t really help. Besides, if we’re rejecting doctrines for being considered “new” (although really just being rediscovered after being forgotten), Evangelicals and other Protestants need to reject the Protestant Reformation and should all become Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox (whichever you happen to believe is the original Christian church). That said, he didn’t discover it himself. It was actually known and taught at various points between the time of Paul and the time he learned about it, even if it wasn’t a popular doctrine until then.
- Darby learned about the Rapture from a prophetic vision by a teenage girl named Margaret MacDonald.
Anyone who grew up in the Plymouth Brethren as I did laughs whenever they hear this because it’s obvious the one making this claim isn’t familiar with the doctrines of Darby’s denomination. First of all, the Brethren were quite sexist (and often still are), and would never accept any teaching from a female. But even if the “vision” had been given by a male, Darby would have still rejected it because the Brethren are cessationists and believe that legitimate prophetic visions ended during Paul’s time, so he would have rejected any such vision as a deception, either by the one speaking the “prophecy” or by demons giving the “prophecy” to the speaker.
Regardless, if you read the so-called prophecy, it appears that it was actually just about the idea known as the Post-Tribulation Second Coming of Christ anyway, and not about the Rapture at all, so this entire myth is based on a complete misunderstanding of what the supposed prophecy said in the first place.
- Jesus’ statements about His Second Coming don’t seem to line up with the doctrine of the Rapture.
This is true, and there’s a very good reason for this: He wasn’t talking about the Rapture. Jesus only ever spoke about the Second Coming when He talked about His return. The Rapture was a mystery, meaning a secret, until the apostle Paul revealed it. Until then, Jews were looking forward to the resurrection of the just which will happen “at the last day” (this is a reference to the last day of the current eon, or age, not the last day of the world, which will take place about 1,000 years later), but anyone who does the math, comparing the numbers in the book of Daniel to the numbers in the book of Revelation, will discover that this resurrection won’t occur until 75 days after Jesus steps foot on the Mount of Olives. Meanwhile, Paul told us that the dead in Christ will rise first (referring to those in the body of Christ who are dead, not to be confused with the saints in the Israel of God who will be resurrected at the resurrection of the just), then they, along with those in the body of Christ who are still alive, will be caught up to be with Christ in the air, but the gathering of the living saints to Jesus at the Second Coming appears to happen when Jesus fully returns to the earth, so the difference in timing shows us that these must be two separate events, with the Rapture predating the Second Coming by at least 3 and a half years, although probably actually by 7 or more years. This is easily understood by those of us in the body of Christ because we know that we are not the same as the group of believers known as the Israel of God (these are the saints who will be raised at the resurrection of the just, as well as those who will be gathered to Jesus at His Second Coming). The body of Christ has a heavenly destiny, to reign among the celestials (which is why we meet Christ in the air), while the Israel of God will be ruling over the Gentile nations here on the Earth (which is why they’ll be gathered to Jesus on the Earth when He returns).
- NT Wright proved the Rapture is a false doctrine.
NT Wright seemed to be unaware of the difference between the body of Christ and the Israel of God when he wrote his somewhat famous article on the Rapture, and when you begin at the wrong starting point you’re pretty much guaranteed to end up in the wrong place as well.
- When the Rapture occurs, there will be chaos on earth, including crashed vehicles and airplanes, because so many people will have disappeared, including all the Christians driving and piloting those crashed vehicles and planes.
Only members of the body of Christ will be caught away in the Rapture, and there are very few actual members alive today (likely only a few thousand of us at most, it’s been estimated). Members of the Christian religion aren’t in the body of Christ (due to believing a false gospel), so they won’t vanish at that point, and will have to go through the Tribulation. Instead of chaos, odds are high that almost nobody (perhaps nobody at all) will even witness anyone being taken to the heavens when it occurs, and the relatively few people who are caught away will more likely be treated as missing persons cases since the world won’t even know the Rapture happened. (If you aren’t sure how one joins the body of Christ, I wrote about it in detail my free eBook.)
- The Rapture isn’t mentioned anywhere in the Bible.
This is the easiest myth to disprove. Because, aside from what Paul wrote in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, which is the passage that describes what will happen when the Rapture occurs, there’s also Philippians 1:18-23, where Paul outright states his desire that the Rapture occur soon. Of course, most people assume Paul’s statement in verse 21 that, for him specifically at that particular time (it’s important to note that this verse isn’t talking about believers in general, but was about Paul’s circumstances at the time he wrote these words), “for to me [Paul] to live is Christ, and to die is gain,” to try to prove that he believed his death would bring him immediately to be with Christ in heaven, once again ignoring the context of the verses before these words, not to mention the verses after them as well, and the context of the surrounding verses make it pretty obvious that the “gain” Paul was referring to there would be a gain to the furtherance of the message he was preaching while in bonds, which his martyrdom would surely accomplish (the idea that the “gain” referred to going to heaven as a ghost is reading one’s presuppositions about the immortality of the soul into the passage, but since the Bible tells us that the dead are unconscious and gone until their physical resurrection, this obviously can’t be the case). I’ll admit, the way his statement was translated into English in most Bible versions confuses many people, and so a lot of people assume that by, “yet what I shall choose I wot not,” Paul was saying he hadn’t yet decided which option he was going to select, as if it was up to him. But whether he lived or died wasn’t actually up to him at all — it was up to the Roman government (well, from a relative perspective at least, although it was ultimately up to God from an absolute perspective). Yes, the phrase “what I shall choose” can mean “what I will select,” but it can also be interpreted more figuratively as meaning, “what I would prefer,” and this interpretation fits the facts far better (and fits what the original Greek can also mean as well — oh, and for those who aren’t aware, the word “wot” in this verse in the KJV simply means “know”). With that in mind, I believe it’s clear that Paul was simply saying he didn’t know (if we take the way the KJV translates this verse literally) — or perhaps that he wouldn’t let it be known (if we read his statement rhetorically, as some believe he meant, and as the original Greek can also mean) — whether he would prefer the option of continuing to live as a prisoner in bonds, which did seem to be helping the word to be spread more boldly, or if he’d instead prefer the option of being put to death and letting his martyrdom help the cause even more than his current state was doing, but that he was “stuck between a rock and a hard place” regardless, so to speak (which is a valid interpretation of “in a strait betwixt two” in modern-day colloquialism, both in English and in the original Greek), since neither of these two options were particularly pleasant for him as an individual. As far as his next statement goes, I believe he was just saying that he’d prefer a third option over either of the first two, with that alternative to the first two options being “having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better,” because if Christ were to come for His body while Paul was still alive, he wouldn’t have to suffer through being a prisoner orthrough being put to death, but would instead get to escape his captivity without having to die (through the Rapture), to “ever be with the Lord” in heaven in an immortal body, which would be a far more enjoyable option for him than living as a prisoner in a mortal body or being executed could possibly be (although he did seem to conclude that he probably wasn’t going to actually experience any of these three options, but would instead be set free, and would even get to visit his readers at a later time). And yes, there are those who believe that “having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ” should be read in a more figurative manner, in the sense that, from his perspective, the first thing Paul would “experience” after his death would be meeting Christ as He resurrected Paul’s physical body from the dead at some point in the future (and, since Paul did eventually end up dying at some point after writing that — although possibly not until much later, since many believe that he did end up going free after writing this epistle, as he seemed to suspect he would — this actually is what his next conscious moment will indeed be for him when he’s finally resurrected from the dead in the future), and that Paul actually did want to die because that would be the better of the two available options for him (with the second option simply being to continue living as a mortal and going free from prison, if this interpretation is correct), but I don’t believe this interpretation can possibly be correct. For one thing, Paul had just finished saying that he didn’t know if he actually wanted to continue living in a mortal body or if he instead would prefer to die (or that he wasn’t going to make it known which of those two options he’d prefer, if those who believe he was speaking rhetorically are correct), so I don’t see how “having a desire to depart” could mean that his preference was actually for death as it would appear he was saying if he was referring to dying by the word “depart” (especially since, as I just mentioned, if that was what he was talking about, his next statement — “Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you” — would then have to be the second option he was considering, rather than his continued imprisonment being that second option, which seems quite problematic as he didn’t appear to be saying he saw this as something he was actually desiring at all, and also seemed to be saying he definitely desired the option of “departing” over any other possible option). This is why I don’t see how either of these two options could be the conundrum he was facing if he didn’t actually know which option he’d prefer (or if he wasn’t going to say which option he’d prefer), and is one reason I think that the three options I mentioned in connection with the first interpretation (imprisonment vs death vs being saved from either of those outcomes via the Rapture — with his release from prison being the outcome he actually saw as being the most likely to happen rather than as being one of the options he was even considering) have to be the options he was referring to. Besides, he’d previously said that he didn’t want to die at all, as we know from his figurative statement in 2 Corinthians 5 about his preference to avoid death prior to his quickening, and this is yet another one of the reasons I’ve concluded that we have to interpret “having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ” as referring to departing this earth while still alive (via the Rapture) than it does to departing this life (via death).
I could go on, but I want to keep this post short. If you want to learn more about the Rapture, though, there’s a list of good articles on the topic at the bottom of this page, below the following table which contains some of the significant differences between the Rapture and Jesus’ Second coming (for a PDF of the below table, please click here):
| The Rapture/Snatching Away | The Second Coming |
|---|---|
| 1 Thessalonians 4 to 5 / 1 Corinthians 15 | Revelation 19 to 20 / Matthew 24 |
| Jesus meets believers in the clouds and takes them up to the heavens | Jesus comes publicly in judgement, and His feet touch the Mount of Olives |
| Tribulation (Daniel’s 70th Week) follows | Christ’s millennial Kingdom follows |
| No signs necessarily preceding (Imminent event) | Preceded by many signs (Prophecy) |
| Precedes the Day of the Lord | Part of the Day of the Lord |
| Concerns the church called the body of Christ | Concerns both Israel and the unbelieving world |
| A mystery before Paul (meaning kept secret until revealed in Paul’s writings) | Revealed in both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures (Prophecy) |
| Believers are rewarded | Believers are rewarded and unbelievers are punished |
| Leaves creation unchanged | The curse is lifted from the earth |
| Before a time of wrath | While God’s wrath is being poured out |
| Only believers affected | All are affected |
| Believers go up to heaven | Believers enter kingdom of heaven on earth |
| Christ Jesus comes for the church called the body of Christ | Jesus Christ comes for the church called the Israel of God |
| Followed by the Judgement Seat of Christ | Followed by the Judgement of the Nations |
| Will happen in an instant, in the twinkling of an eye | Will happen slowly, with six to seven years of prophesied events before and during |
| No angels are involved in the gathering of Christ’s body | Angels will be sent to gather all still living Israelites together for judgement |
| No horses are involved | Jesus retums riding a white horse |
| The world is deceived by Satan after | Satan is bound after |
| Believers’ bodies transformed into glorified, quickened (immortal) bodies like Christ’s | Dead believers who are resurrected 75 days after the Tribulation ends will be given quickened/immortal (but not glorified) bodies, while living believers (those saved during the Tribulation) enter the Millennial Kingdom in their mortal, earthly bodies (but will remain alive thanks to the fruit of the tree of life) |
| Antichrist revealed soon after | Antichrist defeated, and cast into Lake of Fire soon after |
- A Study on the Timing of the Snatching Away (Christ’s Coming for the Body of Christ is Distinct from Christ’s Coming with All of His Messengers)
- Before the Pangs Begin: A Defense of the Imminence of the Snatching Away
- The Timing of the Snatching Away in Relation to the 70th Week (part 1)
- The Timing of the Snatching Away in Relation to the 70th Week (part 2)
- Why the snatching away will precede “the Lord’s day” (part one)
- Why the snatching away will precede “the Lord’s day” (part two)
- The snatching away of the body of Christ