Seven Biblical Problems with Tim LaHaye’s Rapture
Tim LaHaye’s Left Behind series misled many evangelical Christians into thinking . . . well, to stop thinking. Unfortunately, LaHaye’s fictional works are not his only writings flawed. His scholarly defenses of his eschatological beliefs are also riddled with presumptions contradictions. A serious study of Scripture reveals the emptiness with which he bases his interpretations. Following, are seven examples of the errors LaHaye made claiming that certain Bible passages refer to the Rapture. All parenthetical citations reference the Tim LaHaye Prophecy Study Bible.
1. LaHaye describes one event as two events. He teaches that 1 Thessalonians 4:16–5:11 strictly refers to the Rapture while Matthew 24 teaches only about the glorious appearing (pp. 1152-54, 1410-11). However, the complications with comparing the two passages make this assessment untenable. The following table demonstrates the identical topics addressed by Jesus and Paul.
The contexts of both passages involve the return of Christ, and the language overwhelmingly supports that they are the same return and not two distinct parts. Paul described the same event in chapter 5 as in chapter 4 and understood the parousia and glorious appearing to be the same event.
John further confirms that Jesus and Paul are talking about the same occurrence in his description of the seventh angel sounding the trumpet. Both 1 Thessalonians 4:15–17 and Revelation 11:15–18 refer to God’s trumpet, heavenly voices, the Lord’s possession of the world, the dead rising to face judgment, saints reunited with the Lord, and Christ’s kingdom being eternal. It is evident that Jesus did not teach of his own two-part return, and neither Paul nor John was aware such a message. These two passages in particular cannot be dismissed as the authors’ inability to comprehend their own prophecies (as some have suggested based on an extended application of Daniel 12:4); rather, they can be trusted because both authors received their messages directly from the Lord (1 Thess 4:15; Rev 1:1, 11; 4:1).
2. LaHaye claims the disciples understood the Rapture. He proposes that John 14:1–3 is the first time in biblical history that the Rapture is revealed (pp. 1269-70). If so, how were the disciples to understand that Jesus was referring to his return in two stages? They would be incapable of discerning such an implication. In the seven instances in Revelation that Jesus tells John “I am coming,” he never once expresses any language that conveys he is coming twice (Rev 2:5, 16; 3:11; 16:15; 22:7, 12, 20). Therefore, if Jesus were revealing his two-part return in John 14:3, this teaching would become explicit somewhere in John’s vision of the last days. It is also unreasonable that Matthew 24 would teach the Great Tribulation without mentioning the Rapture while John 14 implies the occurrence of the Rapture without mentioning the Great Tribulation, especially if one is the precursor for the other.
3. LaHaye distorts the plain meaning of Paul’s words. 2 Thessalonians 2 pertains to the return of Christ. This is established in chapter 1 by Paul’s teaching that the Lord will return “with his mighty angels in flaming fire” (2 Thess 1:7; cf. Ps 29:7; Isa 66:15; Rev 19:14). LaHaye rightly concludes that this prophecy pertains to the glorious appearing; however, he mistakenly applies 1:10 to the Rapture (p. 1414), even though Paul explicitly includes it with the previous verses by stating, “on that day.” This interpretation is completely unwarranted since Jesus’ unity with the saints includes no language of catching up or transformation into his likeness. Furthermore, the implication of a Rapture for a future generation contradicts the suffering and tribulation that Paul taught the church of Thessalonica to expect (1 Thess 1:4–7). There appears to be no reason for LaHaye to switch meanings except to create his own context for chapter 2.
4. LaHaye misrepresents Paul’s intentions. He informs readers that Paul has intentionally comforted “millions” with “the pretribulational Rapture doctrine” in 1 Thessalonians 4:18 by implying that they will not have to endure the seven-year tribulation (pp. 1609-10). There are four problems with this teaching: (1) LaHaye fails to address that Paul’s audience was ignorant of the seven-year tribulation let alone the need for escape from such an event. (2) Paul would not know that he was bringing comfort to millions but only those to who escaped the time of the trial of which he referred. (3) LaHaye avoids defending the reason Paul’s audience would be comforted by a future generation escaping worldly tribulation. (4) Just as there is no explicit teaching on the Rapture throughout the Bible, there is also no explicit teaching on the seven-year tribulation. Therefore, building the Rapture doctrine on the presupposition of a seven-year tribulation will lead one to commit theological fallacies.
5. LaHaye equates tribulation with wrath. He explains without biblical support that the wrath of 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10 and 5:9 exclusively applies to the seven-year tribulation (pp. 1407, 1412). LaHaye fails to convey how Paul’s contemporaries benefited from this prophecy or why Paul taught that Jesus rescues “us,” Paul and his fellow first-century Christians. Associating wrath with tribulation and claiming that Christians avoid both fails to account for the terrible trials that Christians have encountered since the time of Nero through the present and counters Jesus’ promise that Christians assuredly have tribulation (John 16:33).
6. LaHaye interprets present tense verbs as past tense verbs. He insists that the great multitude from Revelation 19:1 implies the raptured church are those who experience the marriage and marriage supper in verses 7–9 (p. 1529). This assumption that the great multitude is the raptured church is difficult to support since John never declared that the church gets raptured. Additionally, the marriage of the Lamb “has come,” as in, “has now come.” The Greek phrase does not imply past tense, which is why the English translations do not present it as such. Jesus returns not with his bride but for his bride, and this return precedes the feast. Likewise, the text reads, “Blessed are those who are invited,” not “Blessed were those who were invited.” If John wished to express how the raptured church was returning to earth from a seven-year reward party, then he would have worded it differently.
7. LaHaye adds to Daniel’s Prophecy. Daniel 9:24–27 is the sole leg on which LaHaye’s seven-year tribulation theory stands, and this interpretation is replete with assumptions. Tim LaHaye explains how the seventy-weeks prophecy implies more than it states.
A gap apparently exists in this prophecy between the sixty-ninth and seventieth week. Many prophecy scholars believe that this gap corresponds with the Church Age; therefore, as long as the Church Age continues, the ‘seventieth week of Daniel’ will remain future. According to this teaching, after Christ raptures His Church, the clock of God’s judgment will count off the final ‘week’ of Daniel. This ‘seventieth week’ of Daniel (v. 27) then is synonymous with the seven-year Tribulation (p. 1011).
LaHaye’s choice of words exposes his weak exegesis. Consider his phrase, “According to this teaching, after Christ raptures His Church.” Neither Christ, the Rapture, nor the church are mentioned in this passage. Twisting the seventy-weeks prophecy into a seven-year tribulation is an unwarranted stretch, but to read into it the existence of the Rapture is farcical.
Conclusion. Be wary of any biblical teaching that promises that God rescues a privileged generation from worldly trials and tribulation. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Rapture is erroneously taught by American evangelical churches to be in relation to the Return of Christ and/or the Great Tribulation. Take heed! Once accepted into our belief system, this is the precise moment when our most common misunderstandings occur. Read the texts most commonly used to support Rapture theology and discover that the “catching up” (known as the Rapture) is always associated with the resurrection of the dead, which occurs on judgment day.
14 July 2020
