Thank you for taking the time to engage with the points I raised. I appreciate your thoughtful and Scripture-centered approach, and I believe conversations like this are vital to help sharpen us.
Let me clarify where I’m coming from when I say the Rapture is a “new” doctrine and considered “secret” in some circles.
#1. “New” Doctrine
It’s true that harpazō in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 clearly refers to a sudden catching away, and that Paul teaches a future transformation of believers (1 Cor. 15:51–52). However, the claim that the specific framework of a pre-tribulational rapture—as distinct from the second coming—was taught consistently from the apostolic age onward is harder to establish historically. While the concept of believers meeting the Lord in the air is biblical, the systematized teaching of a two-stage return of Christ (rapture first, then visible return) is what many—including scholars of church history (Mark Noll, George Marsden, Douglas Sweeney, et. al)—describe as “new,” in the sense that it was popularized in the 19th century by John Nelson Darby and then spread widely through the Scofield Reference Bible and dispensational theology.
Early church writings overwhelmingly speak of a single return of Christ, not a separate secret event, but a public return. That’s the sense in which the doctrine is considered historically “new”—not that the biblical texts are new, but that the interpretation separating the rapture from the second coming as two events emerged relatively recently in church history.
#2. “Secret” Event
You're right to point out that Paul communicated these things publicly to the churches. However, when critics label the rapture as “secret,” they are usually referring to how some pre-tribulational systems depict the event—namely, that it happens without warning, without signs, and without public visibility (e.g., believers vanish, leaving the world in confusion). This is often contrasted with the public, visible, triumphant return of Christ described in passages like Revelation 19.
So, while the doctrine itself is not hidden in Paul’s writing, the manner in which it’s been taught—especially in popular media or speculative eschatology—has given rise to the characterization of it as a “secret rapture.”
In Summary:
The disagreement is less about whether believers are caught up to be with Christ (we agree that Paul teaches this) and more about how and when this happens in relation to the second coming. My concern is not with the biblical event itself, but with the system of interpretation that has sometimes overshadowed the broader biblical narrative of resurrection, renewal, and Christ’s cosmic reign.
Thank you again for reading and commenting. I appreciate the opportunity to wrestle together with God’s Word and the hope we both share in Christ’s return.
TMF, I hear what you’re saying/writing & agree with the majority of it, but… I came to faith in the Jesus Ppl Movement & yet, never had this “hurry” urgency or an escapist theology. I realize I may not fit into any specific theological box (I don’t want to either, as I’ve written about recently), but i think we need to be careful about generalizing the effect of these issues you’re writing on.
I see the influence & impact you’re describing, but I believe any critically thinking person doesn’t have to be carried along by that current. Maybe I’m just naïve about that, or maybe I still hold to a childlike faith.
My experience as a pastor in SoCal (an epicenter for the JPM, esp with Calvary Chapel based/influenced ministries) wasn’t to feel hurried or pressured by a soon-coming return of Jesus. I believed in that (still do), but in pastoring & cross-cultural missions in SE Asia, my focus was always (still is) engagement with those around me. I’m called to disciple & mentor people to Jesus.
Maybe I’m just reacting here, but what you describe as “missioholism” seems to me the mandate of the GC. If we look at church history, there are lots of side eddies & similar elements of failure as in Israel’s history. I see that as human nature. A nature that must be denied & reckoned dead.
But again, maybe I’m just overreacting here. BTW, I like art & history too. 😉
Thank you for this thoughtful and gracious pushback—it’s clear your heart beats for the mission of Jesus, and I deeply respect that. You’re right to call out the danger of overgeneralization, especially with something as broad and diverse as the Jesus People Movement. The truth is, it touched people in very different ways depending on their community, church, and personal wiring. I absolutely believe you when you say you didn’t experience the kind of escapism or hurried urgency I described—and I’m actually encouraged by that! It’s a reminder that God was (and is) at work in ways that defy easy categories.
What I’m trying to name with “missioholism” isn’t a new mandate but a return to the heart of the Great Commission—one that resists both cultural captivity and theological reductionism. I’m not calling people to more doing, but to a more holistic being and doing, rooted in the Kingdom Jesus preached.
I also appreciate your reminder that critically thinking believers don’t have to be swept along with every cultural or theological trend. That said, scholars like Mark Noll and George Marsden have shown how deeply cultural forces—especially in American evangelicalism—shape our theology and practice, often without us realizing it. I think that’s where the caution comes in. It’s not that everyone is swept away, but that many are unaware of the currents they’re already in.
You’re not overreacting—you’re engaging critically, and that’s exactly what we need. I really appreciate you taking the time to share your experience. And yes—art and history are where theology often comes alive for me too. 😉
Would love to hear more of what you’ve written—feel free to send it my way.
I like what you’re writing & where, I believe, you’re coming from & it needs to be said. I DO think a lot of what you’re pointing out has led to the deconstructionist & progressive trends, which are both the fruit of what you’re bringing out & probably the overreaction to it all.
Actually, I DID overreact (not the first time or last, I’m afraid). I think because I believe a lot of the shallowness of evangelicals & the overreach of deconstructionists & progressives is because “we” (church leaders in general) move off of the essentials of the gospel.
I guess that’s my gig 🤷♂️focusing on foundational truths. It’s too much to put in a note (so I wrote a book about it 🤣), but when we returned to the US after 15 years overseas, I realized something major was missing– intentional, relational discipleship. We’ve got a lot of biblical info available, but the church in America is weak. I know, that’s an over generalization, but it’s what I observed then & still see now, 20 yrs later. It grieves me 😐.
When I’ve had opportunity to disciple young men, who probably have more formal education than me, I’m stunned when they are surprised when I draw simple truths out of a Bible text. Is the American church a “mile wide & an inch deep” now?
Simple truths can still be deep, but are we willing to spend time waiting on the Lord (we used to say that a lot back in the day) to hear Him & let Him reveal the truth embedded in His Word.
Ok, enough rambling for now. 😄
I’ll be on the lookout for your posts, thanks for your gracious response!
“The concept of the rapture—where believers are taken up to meet Christ in the air—does not appear in the early church writings and only emerged in the 19th century through Darby. This idea, largely absent from the historical Christian tradition, has surprisingly become central to many modern evangelical eschatologies.”
From my recent piece:
Key Word
Verse 17: “caught up” | Latin: “rapiemur” v. “rapio” | Greek: “harpazô” (to snatch, seize, or take suddenly).
Context: There is disagreement that the phrase in v17 indicates a “catching away by force” that happens in an instant (“in the twinkling of the eye”). Proponents believe the object of that “catching away” is the Church—those redeemed Christ followers alive on earth when the Rapture occurs. Some opponents concede that the language indicates a “catching away,” but tie such an event to the second coming of Christ. From their perspective, those Raptured immediately return to the earth with Jesus to witness the battle of Armageddon.
In either case, Paul believed in the imminence of the Rapture.
Provenance for the Rapture
This portion of the letter dispels two common misrepresentations regarding the Rapture:
It is a new doctrine;
It is a “secret” event.
Paul writes:
“For this we say to you by the word of the Lord . . .”
The Lord Jesus Christ revealed the Rapture doctrine to Paul over twenty centuries ago. Doctrinal provenance is well established.
Paul disseminated this letter to the Church, so it was not a “secret” to readers or those who heard and preached it over the succeeding 20 centuries.1
Conclusion: The Rapture is neither “new” nor a “secret.” Paul describes the Rapture to the Corinthian Church this way:
Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed—in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. —1 Corinthians 15:51-52
The original Greek word represented by “mystery” is mustérion, defined as:
A mystery, secret, of which initiation is necessary; in the NT: the counsels of God, once hidden but now revealed in the Gospel or some fact thereof; the Christian revelation generally; particular truths or details of the Christian revelation.
Paul’s words to the Church in Thessalonica and Corinth introduce the doctrine of the Rapture early in Church history and confirm a prophecy found in Amos:
“Surely the Lord God does nothing, Unless He reveals His secret to His servants the prophets.” —Amos 3:7
This article is riddled with inaccuracies. One of the most glaring-
“The concept of the rapture—where believers are taken up to meet Christ in the air—does not appear in the early church writings and only emerged in the 19th century through Darby. This idea, largely absent from the historical Christian tradition….”
Have you not read 1 Thes?
“For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” 4:16-17
Just one of MANY biblical references which clearly express this truth. Darby didn’t invent the idea of meeting the Lord in the air, Paul wrote about it explicitly in the scriptures.
Thank you for taking the time to read and respond. It’s clear that you have a deep love for Scripture, and I truly appreciate that. You’re absolutely right to highlight 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17—it’s a powerful and hope-filled passage that has encouraged believers for generations. Paul’s teaching about being caught up to meet the Lord in the air is a central part of Christian hope and has always been held by the Church.
The article doesn’t deny that event. Rather, it points out how interpretations of it have changed over time. The early church consistently saw Christ’s return as a single, visible, and glorious event—what we now call the Second Coming. It wasn’t until the 19th century that John Nelson Darby introduced the idea of two separate comings: first, a secret rapture before a tribulation, and later a public return. That framework simply doesn’t appear in early Christian writings or the broader church tradition until that point. Even modern rapture proponents like John MacArthur acknowledge its recent origin.
Reading Darby’s interpretation back into Paul’s words commits what’s known as an anachronistic fallacy—projecting later ideas into earlier texts. The church has always believed we will meet Christ at His return, but how and when that takes place has been understood differently across time. The two-stage return, in particular, is a relatively new development in the long history of Christian theology.
Thank you for the clarification. The quote that I took from your writing seemed to take an absolute stance that there was not evidence for a Biblical rapture (I know rapture is not a Bible word per se, but I believe we both have a common understanding of what I’m referring to when I use that word to describe a Biblical event.)
I also realize we are both fully persuaded in our own minds what we believe on this topic, and neither of us will make any headway to change the others mind. However, I also firmly believe that neither viewpoint will keep either of us out of heaven. This is not a salvation issue.
With that being said, upon in-depth study I firmly believe that the vast majority of the pre-Nicaean church held a PRE millennial view.
It wasn’t until Augustine of Hippo (395-430ish AD) wrote “City of God” that an Amillennial viewpoint was adopted by a large portion of Christendom. This is due to the fact that Hippo painted an allegorical viewpoint of scripture and paired that with apostolic gifts and thus created a false idea that earth is the “kingdom” which was a hotbed for amillennial beliefs .
However, there is a thread of believers who have held the Pre Mill view that the early church believed throughout all of church history.
Thank you for taking the time to engage with the points I raised. I appreciate your thoughtful and Scripture-centered approach, and I believe conversations like this are vital to help sharpen us.
Let me clarify where I’m coming from when I say the Rapture is a “new” doctrine and considered “secret” in some circles.
#1. “New” Doctrine
It’s true that harpazō in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 clearly refers to a sudden catching away, and that Paul teaches a future transformation of believers (1 Cor. 15:51–52). However, the claim that the specific framework of a pre-tribulational rapture—as distinct from the second coming—was taught consistently from the apostolic age onward is harder to establish historically. While the concept of believers meeting the Lord in the air is biblical, the systematized teaching of a two-stage return of Christ (rapture first, then visible return) is what many—including scholars of church history (Mark Noll, George Marsden, Douglas Sweeney, et. al)—describe as “new,” in the sense that it was popularized in the 19th century by John Nelson Darby and then spread widely through the Scofield Reference Bible and dispensational theology.
Early church writings overwhelmingly speak of a single return of Christ, not a separate secret event, but a public return. That’s the sense in which the doctrine is considered historically “new”—not that the biblical texts are new, but that the interpretation separating the rapture from the second coming as two events emerged relatively recently in church history.
#2. “Secret” Event
You're right to point out that Paul communicated these things publicly to the churches. However, when critics label the rapture as “secret,” they are usually referring to how some pre-tribulational systems depict the event—namely, that it happens without warning, without signs, and without public visibility (e.g., believers vanish, leaving the world in confusion). This is often contrasted with the public, visible, triumphant return of Christ described in passages like Revelation 19.
So, while the doctrine itself is not hidden in Paul’s writing, the manner in which it’s been taught—especially in popular media or speculative eschatology—has given rise to the characterization of it as a “secret rapture.”
In Summary:
The disagreement is less about whether believers are caught up to be with Christ (we agree that Paul teaches this) and more about how and when this happens in relation to the second coming. My concern is not with the biblical event itself, but with the system of interpretation that has sometimes overshadowed the broader biblical narrative of resurrection, renewal, and Christ’s cosmic reign.
Thank you again for reading and commenting. I appreciate the opportunity to wrestle together with God’s Word and the hope we both share in Christ’s return.
TMF, I hear what you’re saying/writing & agree with the majority of it, but… I came to faith in the Jesus Ppl Movement & yet, never had this “hurry” urgency or an escapist theology. I realize I may not fit into any specific theological box (I don’t want to either, as I’ve written about recently), but i think we need to be careful about generalizing the effect of these issues you’re writing on.
I see the influence & impact you’re describing, but I believe any critically thinking person doesn’t have to be carried along by that current. Maybe I’m just naïve about that, or maybe I still hold to a childlike faith.
My experience as a pastor in SoCal (an epicenter for the JPM, esp with Calvary Chapel based/influenced ministries) wasn’t to feel hurried or pressured by a soon-coming return of Jesus. I believed in that (still do), but in pastoring & cross-cultural missions in SE Asia, my focus was always (still is) engagement with those around me. I’m called to disciple & mentor people to Jesus.
Maybe I’m just reacting here, but what you describe as “missioholism” seems to me the mandate of the GC. If we look at church history, there are lots of side eddies & similar elements of failure as in Israel’s history. I see that as human nature. A nature that must be denied & reckoned dead.
But again, maybe I’m just overreacting here. BTW, I like art & history too. 😉
Thank you for this thoughtful and gracious pushback—it’s clear your heart beats for the mission of Jesus, and I deeply respect that. You’re right to call out the danger of overgeneralization, especially with something as broad and diverse as the Jesus People Movement. The truth is, it touched people in very different ways depending on their community, church, and personal wiring. I absolutely believe you when you say you didn’t experience the kind of escapism or hurried urgency I described—and I’m actually encouraged by that! It’s a reminder that God was (and is) at work in ways that defy easy categories.
What I’m trying to name with “missioholism” isn’t a new mandate but a return to the heart of the Great Commission—one that resists both cultural captivity and theological reductionism. I’m not calling people to more doing, but to a more holistic being and doing, rooted in the Kingdom Jesus preached.
I also appreciate your reminder that critically thinking believers don’t have to be swept along with every cultural or theological trend. That said, scholars like Mark Noll and George Marsden have shown how deeply cultural forces—especially in American evangelicalism—shape our theology and practice, often without us realizing it. I think that’s where the caution comes in. It’s not that everyone is swept away, but that many are unaware of the currents they’re already in.
You’re not overreacting—you’re engaging critically, and that’s exactly what we need. I really appreciate you taking the time to share your experience. And yes—art and history are where theology often comes alive for me too. 😉
Would love to hear more of what you’ve written—feel free to send it my way.
Here’s my latest post-
https://substack.com/@tripkimball/note/p-162162661?r=2de9nt&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
I like what you’re writing & where, I believe, you’re coming from & it needs to be said. I DO think a lot of what you’re pointing out has led to the deconstructionist & progressive trends, which are both the fruit of what you’re bringing out & probably the overreaction to it all.
Actually, I DID overreact (not the first time or last, I’m afraid). I think because I believe a lot of the shallowness of evangelicals & the overreach of deconstructionists & progressives is because “we” (church leaders in general) move off of the essentials of the gospel.
I guess that’s my gig 🤷♂️focusing on foundational truths. It’s too much to put in a note (so I wrote a book about it 🤣), but when we returned to the US after 15 years overseas, I realized something major was missing– intentional, relational discipleship. We’ve got a lot of biblical info available, but the church in America is weak. I know, that’s an over generalization, but it’s what I observed then & still see now, 20 yrs later. It grieves me 😐.
When I’ve had opportunity to disciple young men, who probably have more formal education than me, I’m stunned when they are surprised when I draw simple truths out of a Bible text. Is the American church a “mile wide & an inch deep” now?
Simple truths can still be deep, but are we willing to spend time waiting on the Lord (we used to say that a lot back in the day) to hear Him & let Him reveal the truth embedded in His Word.
Ok, enough rambling for now. 😄
I’ll be on the lookout for your posts, thanks for your gracious response!
We differ regarding two key points:
The Rapture is “new” doctrine;
The Rapture is “secret.”
From your piece:
“The concept of the rapture—where believers are taken up to meet Christ in the air—does not appear in the early church writings and only emerged in the 19th century through Darby. This idea, largely absent from the historical Christian tradition, has surprisingly become central to many modern evangelical eschatologies.”
From my recent piece:
Key Word
Verse 17: “caught up” | Latin: “rapiemur” v. “rapio” | Greek: “harpazô” (to snatch, seize, or take suddenly).
Context: There is disagreement that the phrase in v17 indicates a “catching away by force” that happens in an instant (“in the twinkling of the eye”). Proponents believe the object of that “catching away” is the Church—those redeemed Christ followers alive on earth when the Rapture occurs. Some opponents concede that the language indicates a “catching away,” but tie such an event to the second coming of Christ. From their perspective, those Raptured immediately return to the earth with Jesus to witness the battle of Armageddon.
In either case, Paul believed in the imminence of the Rapture.
Provenance for the Rapture
This portion of the letter dispels two common misrepresentations regarding the Rapture:
It is a new doctrine;
It is a “secret” event.
Paul writes:
“For this we say to you by the word of the Lord . . .”
The Lord Jesus Christ revealed the Rapture doctrine to Paul over twenty centuries ago. Doctrinal provenance is well established.
Paul disseminated this letter to the Church, so it was not a “secret” to readers or those who heard and preached it over the succeeding 20 centuries.1
Conclusion: The Rapture is neither “new” nor a “secret.” Paul describes the Rapture to the Corinthian Church this way:
Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed—in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. —1 Corinthians 15:51-52
The original Greek word represented by “mystery” is mustérion, defined as:
A mystery, secret, of which initiation is necessary; in the NT: the counsels of God, once hidden but now revealed in the Gospel or some fact thereof; the Christian revelation generally; particular truths or details of the Christian revelation.
Paul’s words to the Church in Thessalonica and Corinth introduce the doctrine of the Rapture early in Church history and confirm a prophecy found in Amos:
“Surely the Lord God does nothing, Unless He reveals His secret to His servants the prophets.” —Amos 3:7
This article is riddled with inaccuracies. One of the most glaring-
“The concept of the rapture—where believers are taken up to meet Christ in the air—does not appear in the early church writings and only emerged in the 19th century through Darby. This idea, largely absent from the historical Christian tradition….”
Have you not read 1 Thes?
“For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” 4:16-17
Just one of MANY biblical references which clearly express this truth. Darby didn’t invent the idea of meeting the Lord in the air, Paul wrote about it explicitly in the scriptures.
Thank you for taking the time to read and respond. It’s clear that you have a deep love for Scripture, and I truly appreciate that. You’re absolutely right to highlight 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17—it’s a powerful and hope-filled passage that has encouraged believers for generations. Paul’s teaching about being caught up to meet the Lord in the air is a central part of Christian hope and has always been held by the Church.
The article doesn’t deny that event. Rather, it points out how interpretations of it have changed over time. The early church consistently saw Christ’s return as a single, visible, and glorious event—what we now call the Second Coming. It wasn’t until the 19th century that John Nelson Darby introduced the idea of two separate comings: first, a secret rapture before a tribulation, and later a public return. That framework simply doesn’t appear in early Christian writings or the broader church tradition until that point. Even modern rapture proponents like John MacArthur acknowledge its recent origin.
Reading Darby’s interpretation back into Paul’s words commits what’s known as an anachronistic fallacy—projecting later ideas into earlier texts. The church has always believed we will meet Christ at His return, but how and when that takes place has been understood differently across time. The two-stage return, in particular, is a relatively new development in the long history of Christian theology.
Thank you for the clarification. The quote that I took from your writing seemed to take an absolute stance that there was not evidence for a Biblical rapture (I know rapture is not a Bible word per se, but I believe we both have a common understanding of what I’m referring to when I use that word to describe a Biblical event.)
I also realize we are both fully persuaded in our own minds what we believe on this topic, and neither of us will make any headway to change the others mind. However, I also firmly believe that neither viewpoint will keep either of us out of heaven. This is not a salvation issue.
With that being said, upon in-depth study I firmly believe that the vast majority of the pre-Nicaean church held a PRE millennial view.
It wasn’t until Augustine of Hippo (395-430ish AD) wrote “City of God” that an Amillennial viewpoint was adopted by a large portion of Christendom. This is due to the fact that Hippo painted an allegorical viewpoint of scripture and paired that with apostolic gifts and thus created a false idea that earth is the “kingdom” which was a hotbed for amillennial beliefs .
However, there is a thread of believers who have held the Pre Mill view that the early church believed throughout all of church history.