The rapture and the Orthodox Church

[James F.]

I know the Orthodox Church doesn't believe in the pre tribulation rapture, but do you believe in any rapture at all? Like maybe a post tribulational rapture? Can you please explain to me your views on the matter and the views of the Orthodox Catholic Church? Thanks!
God Bless!

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

Dear James,

There are many different meanings that people today give to the term rapture. If you could be more specific about what you mean by it, I think that would help some of us to answer your question.

Aaron

[Shawn Lazar]

Hi James,

You might be interested to know that the Church Fathers were all premillennialists until the 4th century when Augustine steered the churches towards an a-millennial interpretation of Scripture. So, you might say the earliest church tradition was post-tribulational, or what some evangelicals call 'historic premillennialists' as opposed to the 'dispensational premillennialists'. (I'm sure you already know the difference between the two).

Cheers,
Shawn

[James F.]

Shawn, what is correct then? Any prophecy study I've done on the Orthodox Church has always said they were amillennialists. Should the Orthodox Church not go by what the earliest teachings were? Also, how did all the other 'rapture' teachings come about? Are they heresy? Is there not one small chance they are right?

Aaron, I mean the time when Jesus returns and snatches christians from the earth to be with Him {1 Thessalonians 4:16-17}, beit, before, during, or after the Tribulation.

[M.C. Steenberg]

You might be interested to know that the Church Fathers were all premillennialists until the 4th century when Augustine steered the churches towards an a-millennial interpretation of Scripture. So, you might say the earliest church tradition was post-tribulational, or what some evangelicals call 'historic premillennialists' as opposed to the 'dispensational premillennialists'. (I'm sure you already know the difference between the two).

I think one needs to be especially cautious with characterisations like this. 'Premillennialist' and 'Amillennialist', and certainly any form of 'Tribulational', are modern terms in the extreme. They represent a particular eighteenth- and nineteenth-century interpretation of the eschaton; it is deeply unfair to try to read such concepts and categories back on the early Church, or to read the writings of the early Church fathers as fitting somehow into one of these moulds or another.

In any case, it is not the case that the fathers prior to the fourth century had any common mind on the ways and hows of the end. Those who raised chiliastic questions at all generally did so as an extension of their cosmology of a seven-day creation with an eighth 'day' of rest, not as a reflection on eschatological matters in their own right - and certainly not as a reflection on tribulation or rapture.

INXC, Matthew

[Panagiotis]

I know the Orthodox Church doesn't believe in the pre tribulation rapture, but do you believe in any rapture at all? Like maybe a post tribulational rapture? Can you please explain to me your views on the matter and the views of the Orthodox Catholic Church? Thanks!
God Bless!

James,
The Orthodox Church has established the common belief in the Second Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, Amen.

The idea behind a "secret rapture" before the second coming of Our Lord Jesus Christ "taking away Christians" before the Apocalypse of our Blessed Apostle St. John unravel is a 17th Century Protestant interpretation of St. Pauls letter.

Christ is in our midst,
Panagiotis

[Kris]

I know the Orthodox Church doesn't believe in the pre tribulation rapture, but do you believe in any rapture at all? Like maybe a post tribulational rapture? Can you please explain to me your views on the matter and the views of the Orthodox Catholic Church? Thanks!
God Bless!

Peace,

Whilst I would be very cautious about using such a term, I suppose "post tribulation rapture" would not be too far off. That is, 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 being interpreted to refer to the Day of Judgment.

This article (http://www.tcgalaska.com/holycrosshermitage/pages/Orthodox_Life/rapture1.htm) is an Orthodox response to the "Rapture".

For further reading, I would recommend The Apocalypse: In The Teachings of Ancient Christianity (http://www.amazon.com/Apocalypse-In-Teachings-Ancient-Christianity/dp/0938635670/sr=1-1/qid=1157751126/ref=sr_1_1/103-4421263-7182218?ie=UTF8&s=books) by Archbishop Averky Taushev and Seraphim Rose, which is an excellent verse by verse commentary of the Apocalypse.

In XC,
Kris

[Paul Cowan]

I know the Orthodox Church doesn't believe in the pre tribulation rapture, but do you believe in any rapture at all? Like maybe a post tribulational rapture? Can you please explain to me your views on the matter and the views of the Orthodox Catholic Church? Thanks!
God Bless!

The term Rapture did not even exist until 180 years ago. And even then it was concocted by a distraut15 year old girl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_McDonald_(visionary))who had recently lost her brothers. All this was also set in a highly spiritually charged atmosphere of protestantism in her life. So is blame to be set on her or is she the product of delusion coupled with extreme emotional loss and spirituality? I can't say I have not said or done things in the moment of extreme emotionalism thinking I was speaking truth. But for her ideas to take off like they did is a source of concern for all of us today. I don't attempt to understand all the "ists" above, but I would say if Orthodox had to choose, we would fall more under the post-tribulation heading.

Paul

[Peter G.]

It's a misinterpretation from the original Greek texts, by protestants. Simple as that.

[Andrew Duncan Comb]

I held to this erroneous doctrine for quite few years! Thnakfully, I don't any longer. There are many scriptures that refute the Pre trib view. It also correlates with the two people of God false doctrine, hat is that God has a purpose for Israel, ad God has a purpose for the church, and the two are'n't to be mixed up. J.N Darby was the man that invented it all in the 19th century. The wee Scots lass that gave the prophecy that lent itself to the doctrine was McDonald I believe.

[Brian Mickelsen]

Hello Friends --- I have to say that although I have my own thinking about this topic (as you might imagine), I find that I am very much in agreement with the thoughts of Bishop Steenberg in His previous posting.

The desire to denominationalize (if that is a word) or label a biblical concept is the basis for division that is not scriptural in my opinion.

Also the point mentioned by Peter G. is honest in my view.

I feel that most of the groups that are preoccupied with eschatological interpretation use uncertainty to create a suggestable environment in the mind of the adherants. This is a prelude to hypnotism by the authority figures in many cases.

As examples of this hypnotism I offer the following.

I personally don't feel that it is a coincidence that many death cults originated with the Seventh Day Adventists. This group almost exclusively focuses on their interpretation of symbolic biblical concepts. Death cults led by Jim Jones - Charles Manson and David Koresh all originated with this group and the thinking associated with it.

I have a sensitivity to these groups because God brought me out of one of the pentacostal groups that are prone to such deception.

Others in this group are more qualified than I to comment on the original languages. I do know that the center of the "rapture" docrine is the concept of being "caught up" or seized by the Lord in order to meet with Him, 1 Thessalonians 4:17.

All symbolism aside, the result of this "seizure" or "catching away" mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 is that a person meets the Lord.

The tribulation or thousand year period of Revelation 20 is in itself is a part of the highly symbolic narrative. To combine two highly symbolic events such as the "thousand year period" and the seizure of the "Rapture" is unwise in the extreme. It is the blind leading the blind. Labeling the resultant and various theories as "pre or post" etc. is adding to the fantasy (in my opinion). This direction of eschatological study is popular but also total conjecture.

I don't know what the orthodox chruch teaches on this matter but I hope it is grounded in the clear teaching of the Bible and not in symbolism.

Brian

[Andrew Lohr]

Some friendly protestant resources, compatible with or coming close to what I think most of the Orthodox would hold: THE MOMENTUOUS EVENT, by W. J. Grier, short simple amillenial book that I think utterly refutes the Hal Lindsey/Tim LaHaye pretrib premil view. ("Standard amillenial fare" said the friend who loaned me Grier's book.) It tells the story of a late 2nd century Egyptian bishop visiting a district that had been overrun with premillenial errors, and in two days of friendly serious discussions persuading them to better views. It probably quotes Justin Martyr, mid 2nd century, saying he himself thought Jesus would come back and set up the millennium but 'many sound Christians think otherwise,' i.e. the early tradition was not solidly premillenial as some say. (I think one scholar--Alan Page????--read the early fathers and said incipient amillenialism was the leading view.) In this view, when Jesus comes back He will raise both Christian and non-Christian dead, and judge everyone (John 5:28-29)--a simple end, not complicated by 7 years and 1000 years and Israel and Church. The "rapture" is the resurrection of the Christian dead and the transformation of Christians--"we shall all be changed in the twinkling of an eye," 1 Cor 15.

My friend Peter Leithart in his book "THE KINGDOM AND THE POWER" (which argues that the most important thing the church can do to be good for society is to worship rightly) remarked incidentally that amillenialism is true because we are now in the millennium and its length is not exactly a literal thousand years; premillenialism is true because Jesus did indeed come to start the millennium, though at his FIRST coming; and postmillenialism is true because the gospel will prevail worldwide before Jesus comes back. Some call this combination of views "optimistic amillennialism."

Kenneth Gentry teaches that a lot of modern protestant prophetic speculation that has to be constantly updated (the antichrist is the Kaiser--no, Mussolini--no, Kissinger...) can be swept away by noticing that many New Testament passages that modern premillenialists apply to our near future were in fact fulfilled by the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, to which even the Book of Revelation looks forward; a minority viewpoint today, but Gentry has very carefully examined what the early fathers, the first few centuries, said, and from them as well as from Scripture he makes a good case and answers opposing arguments. Gentry may not care for "tradition" as such, but he pays careful attention to what those who were in the tradition wrote. THE BEAST OF REVELATION is one of Gentry's books along these lines; BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL is more thorough; Gentry's section of HOUSE DIVIDED has chapter summaries that are perhaps his briefest presentation. I think these three (and much more) are on the web at www.garynorth.com/freebooks (http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks), and Gentry sells some of them (and more) at his own www.kennethgentry.com (http://www.kennethgentry.com).

[Nina]

There is a chapter in the book:

The Truth of our Faith by Elder Cleopa of Romania

that explains the Orthodox teachings concerning the matter the first poster in this thread asks about. Chapter 16 - On the Thousand year reign (Chiliasm). pp. 199-212

[Edmund Sumner]

Gentry and the late David Chilton are the two best refuters of rapturism.

I like to explain the rapture thusly: The rapture is the change of the live Christians from mortality to immortality. It occurs immediately upon the heels of the resurrection of the dead Believers, and just the fall of fire from heaven to consume the Magogist army led by Satan.

The word amillennialism is a misnomer. Since the Scripture emphatically states that there WILL be a 'thousand years of Christian rule (pre-eminence)', it would behoove us to find out exactly what John meant.

[Father David Moser]

The word amillennialism is a misnomer. Since the Scripture emphatically states that there WILL be a 'thousand years of Christian rule (pre-eminence)', it would behoove us to find out exactly what John meant.

I don't think that this is actually what scripture says - reference please.

Fr David

[Edmund Sumner]

Certainly.

Rev 20:2-8 "And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years;

and he threw him into the abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time.

Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.

Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.

When the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison,

and will come out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war; the number of them is like the sand of the seashore."

So then, seeing as how Scripture states that there will be a period of time which it refers to as a thousand years, we would be wise as Believers to search out the meaning. The word, as you well know Brother Moser, is chilioi. My studies have led me to believe that this does not necessarily mean an exact 1000 years, but a long period of time. Unfortunately, many other Protestant believers are mired in a wooden literalism which demands that this period be just that...1000 years. John's use of the term basileuo in v4 leads me to believe that this long period of time refers to pre-eminence or control from heaven (through the Church and the teachings of Christ). Furthermore, I believe that Christ has indeed done this; i.e. ruled the nations with a rod of iron through the Church and His teachings, making Christianity the pre-eminent religion over all of the others on the earth. This has certainly been the case in recent history, has it not? Christianity has been the pre-dominant religion for over 1000 years. (Now however, we are starting to decline in that pre-eminence, leading me to believe that Satan may be loosed from his prison and that the Parousia may soon be at hand.)

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Brothers & Sisters,

Please let us address the clergy on the Forum as Father ('Fr') rather than Brother. This is their proper name and how we hold them in honour as we should.

Thank you.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Father David Moser]

Minor issues first.


The word, as you well know Brother Moser

You err twice here. First you give me a title which I do not have, that of "Brother". This is a monastic title which refers to monastic novices. I am not a monastic and so this title is completly improper for me. My proper title is "The Very Reverend Archpriest David", but it is customary and acceptable to shorten that to "Father David" Second you use my surname as though it were my proper name. The name I was given in Baptism and the name by which I was ordained is "David" not "Moser". Might I remind you that you are here in an Orthodox community and thus it is is only proper (not to mention polite) to conform to the Orthodox customs.

Now on to weightier matters:




Rev 20:2-8

So then, seeing as how Scripture states ... we would be wise as Believers to search out the meaning. ... My studies have led me to believe ... leads me to believe ... Furthermore, I believe ...

I respect that you have made such studies and that you have such beliefs, but your conclusions are not those of the teaching of the Orthodox Church. As our dearly beloved Fr Averky once said (not on this list, btw) to an inquirer who consistently began his statements about spiritual things with "But I think that ..." is that "the Church doesn't care what YOU (or any individual person) think - the Church teaches us what is the truth revealed to us by our Lord Jesus Christ and faithfully handed down to us through the Apostles." As you said, it is important to "search out the meaning", in fact it is necessary to not only "search out" the meaning but to humble ourselves and be taught the true meaning of the scripture by the Church, the Body of Christ, in which all the truth resides and is preserved untainted and undistorted. To that end, let me share with you the following:



20:1-3 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan. and bound him a thousand years. And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a Seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

After the defeat of Antichrist, 8t. John saw an angel descending from heaven who had a key to the abyss and a great chain in his hand. This angel "laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent...and bound him a thousand years..." St. Andrew of Caesarea interprets this passage in this way: by this "thousand years" one must understand the whole time from the incarnation of Christ to the coming of Antichrist. With the coming of the Incarnate Son of God on earth - and in particular from the moment of His redemption of mankind through His death on the Cross-Satan was bound, paganism was cast down, and there came upon earth the thousand-year reign of Christ. The thousand-year Kingdom of Christ on earth is to be understood as the victory of Christianity over paganism and the establishment on earth of the Church of Christ. The definite number one thousand is used here in place of an indefinite number, signifying the long period of time until the Second Coming of Christ.

20:4 And I saw thrones. and they sat upon them. and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus. and for the word of God. and which had not worshiped the beast. neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads or in their hands; and they lived with Christ a thousand years.

This picture symbolically depicts the kingdom of the Christian faith after the overthrow of paganism. Those who have assumed judgment and sit on the thrones are all Christians who have attained salvation. for to them has been given the promise of the Kingdom and the glory of Christ (I Th 2:12). From this choir the holy Seer of Mysteries singles out in particular "those that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for the Word of God," that is, the holy martyrs. St. John says. "I saw the souls of them that were beheaded." From this it is clear that these saints who participate in the thousand-year reign of Christ are reigning with Christ and performing judgment not on earth but in heaven, for it speaks here only concerning their souls which are not yet united with their bodies. From these words it is evident that the Saints take part in the governing of the Church of Christ on earth. and therefore it is natural and proper to appeal to them with prayers, asking their intercession before Christ with Whom they reign.

"And they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years." Their "living" is of a moral and spiritual nature. The holy Seer of Mysteries calls this "the first resurrection" (verse 5). while further on he speaks of the second bodily resurrection. This reigning of the Saints with Christ will continue until the final victory over the dark impious powers under Antichrist.. Then the resurrection of bodies will occur, and the last frightful Judgment will begin. when the souls of the Saints will be reunited with their bodies and will reign with Christ forever.

20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

The expression "lived not again" means the dark and difficult condition of the souls of the impious sinners after bodily death. It continues "until the thousand years were finished." As in many other places in Sacred Scripture, this particle "until" (in Greek eos ) does not signify the continuation of an action only to a certain boundary: on the contrary, it is a complete denial of any limit (see, for example, Matt. 1:25). In other words, it means that the impious dead are denied forever the blessed life.

20:6 Blessed and holy is He that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ. and shall reign with Him a thousand years.

"From the divine Scripture we know that there are two lives and two deaths: the first life is temporal and fleshly because of the transgression of the commandments, while the second is the eternal life promised to the saints for the keeping of the divine commandments. Corresponding to these there are two kinds of death: one fleshly and temporal, and the other eternal as chastisement for sins, which is the fiery gehenna. Consequently, it is understood that if here on earth one has lived in Christ Jesus and has come before Him after the first death (that is, bodily death) with fervent faith in Him and filled with His grace, then one has no need to fear the second death, that is, the fiery gehenna" (Saint Andrew).

These first six verses of the twentieth chapter of the Apocalypse have served as a pretext for the development of a false teaching concerning the "thousand-year reign of Christ on earth" which has received the name of Chiliasm. In essence it teaches that not long before the end of the world. Christ the Saviour will come again to earth, defeat Antichrist, resurrect the righteous, and make a new kingdom on earth. As a reward for their struggles and sufferings, the righteous will reign together with Christ for the course of a thousand years. and will enjoy all the good things of temporal life. Only then will there follow the second. universal resurrection of the dead, the universal judgment, and the general giving of eternal rewards. This teaching is known in two forms. Some say that Christ will restore Jerusalem in all its beauty and reinitiate the fulfillment of Moses' ritual law with all its sacrifices; and that the blessedness of the righteous will consist in all manner of sensual enjoyments. In the first century this teaching was held by the heretic Cerinthus and other judaizing heretics: the Ebionites. the Montanists. and in the fourth century by the Apollinarians. Others, on the contrary, have affirmed that this blessedness will consist in purely spiritual delights. In this latter form, chiliastic ideas were expressed first by Papias of Hieropolis; later they are to be found in the holy Martyr Justin, in St. lrenaeus. in Hippolytus. Methodius and Lactantius. In recent times it has been revived with certain peculiarities by the Anabaptists, the followers of Swedenborg, the Illuminati and Adventists. One must be aware, however, that neither in its first nor in its second form can the teaching of Chiliasm be accepted by an Orthodox Christian for the following reasons:

1. According to the chiliast teaching, the resurrection of the dead will take place twice: the first, a thousand years before the end of the world-when only the righteous will be resurrected; and the second. at the very end of the world, when sinners also will be resurrected. However, Christ the Saviour clearly taught only one universal resurrection of the dead. when both the righteous and the sinners will be resurrected and all will receive their final recompense (John 6:39-40; Matt. 13;37-43).

2. The Word of God speaks of only two comings of Christ in the world: the first in lowliness, when He came to redeem us; and the second in glory. when He will appear to judge the living and the dead. Chiliasm introduces one more-a third coming of Christ a thousand years before the end of the world. The Word of God knows no such thing.

3. The Word of God teaches only of two kingdoms of Christ: the Kingdom of Grace which will continue until the end of the world (I Cor. 15:23-26). and the Kingdom of Glory which will begin after the Last Judgment and will have no end (Luke 1:33; II Peter 1:11). Chiliasm, however, allows yet a third, as it were a middle kingdom of Christ. which will last only a thousand years.

4. The teaching of a sensual kingdom of Christ clearly contradicts the Word of God. according to which the Kingdom of God is not "food and drink" (Rom. 14:17); in the resurrection of the dead they do not marry nor give oaths (Matt. 22:30); the rights of the laws of Moses had only a prefiguring significance and were forever done away with by the more perfect New Testament law (Acts 15:23-30; Rom. 6:14; Gal. 5:6; Heb. 10:1)

Certain ancient teachers of the Church - Justin, Irenaeus and Methodius - held Chiliasm only as a personal opinion. At the same time there were those who decidedly rose up against it such as Caius the Presbyter of Rome. St. Dionysius of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Epiphanius. Blessed Jerome, and Blessed Augustine. To hold Chiliasm even as a private opinion was no longer permissible after the Church, at the Second Ecumenical Council in 381, condemned the teaching of the heretic Apollinarius concerning the thousand-year reign of Christ. At the same time this was confirmed by the introduction into the Symbol of Faith of the words "of His Kingdom there will be no end."

One must likewise know that the Apocalypse is a book which is profoundly mystical. and therefore to understand and interpret literally the prophecies contained in it-especially if such a literal understanding contradicts other passages of Sacred Scripture - is entirely opposed to the rules of hermeneutics. In such cases, it is correct to seek in perplexing passages a metaphorical or allegorical meaning.

20:7-8 And when the thousand years are expired.. Satan will be loosed out of his prison, and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog. to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

By the "loosing of Satan out of his prison" is to be understood the appearance of Antichrist before the end of the world. The liberated Satan will strive in the person of Antichrist to deceive all the nations of the earth, and will raise up Gog and Magog in battle against the Christian Church. St. Andrew says: "Some people think that Gag and Magog are the northern and most remote Scythian peoples or, as we call them, Huns, the most militant and numerous peoples of the earth. They are restrained from taking possession of the whole world only by the Divine right hand until the liberation of the devil. Others, translating from the Hebrew, say that Gog signifies 'one who gathers' or 'a gathering', and that Magog signifies 'one who is exalted' or 'exaltation'. And so, these names signify either a gathering of peoples or their exaltation. One must suppose that these names are used in a metaphorical sense to denote those fierce hordes who, at the end of the world, will arm themselves under the leadership of Antichrist against the Church of Christ."


From The Apocalypse of St John; An Orthodox Commentary compiled by Archbishop Averky (himself a great luminary of the faith).

Fr David

[Edmund Sumner]

We don't use the titles which your tradition uses, so I stand a little confused there, but no slight is intended.

I agree with your Archbishop with slight differences. The thousand years is a reference to the long rule of Christ over the nations through his people and not to some mythical reign on earth. The binding of Satan to prevent the deception of the nations is contrasted to the few short years (mikros chronos) of Satan's rebellion.

I do have serious questions about the whole 'antichrist' question. St. John does not appear to equate antichrist with anything echatological. The only uses the term 4 or 5 times in the whole of Scripture and none of the other Apostles or Prophets use the term at all. When John uses the antichrist term, it is in the context of the Gnostic heretics, but never to some dictator. The beast of Revelation appears to be Rome, Daniel's Fourth Beast, personified in evil Nero, whose gematria (the number of his name) adds up to 666. Satan upon his release from the abyss begins to act out as Gog, gathering the nations against God and his people. I understand Satan himself to be Gog and the godless of the world to be Magog. John is comparing Satan's gathering of the godless to the literal Gog and Magog of Ezekiel.

I am taught that Revelation 19 is the defeat of both pagan Imperial Rome and the apostate, Christ-rejecting leadership of the Jewish hierarchy in 70 AD at the great Tribulation. Once that was accomplished, the reign of Christ began in earnest and extends until the release of Satan.

I find the Orthodox teaching much more correct than that of the modern teachers who over literalize everything to their own detriment.

[Sean M.]

In recent times it has been revived with certain peculiarities by the Anabaptists, the followers of Swedenborg, the Illuminati and Adventists. One must be aware, however, that neither in its first nor in its second form can the teaching of Chiliasm be accepted by an Orthodox Christian for the following reasons:

This is interesting, who does he identify as the Illuminati?

Btw that commentary is exactly how I understand the interpretation of revelation.

[David Lanier]

I have very little I can offer, but perhaps these other resources may also be useful:

Another thread on Revelation here on Monachos.net (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?5615-Orthodox-commentary-on-the-book-of-Revelation)

This series of discussions (http://www.myocn.net/index.php/Beyond-the-Veil/)

These lectures:

Part 1 (http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/ourlife/the_end_times_part_1)
Part 2 (http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/ourlife/end_times_part_2)
Part 3 (http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/ourlife/end_times_part_3)
Part 4 (http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/ourlife/end_times_part_4)

[Andrew Prather]

I think one needs to be especially cautious with characterisations like this. 'Premillennialist' and 'Amillennialist', and certainly any form of 'Tribulational', are modern terms in the extreme. They represent a particular eighteenth- and nineteenth-century interpretation of the eschaton; it is deeply unfair to try to read such concepts and categories back on the early Church, or to read the writings of the early Church fathers as fitting somehow into one of these moulds or another.

In any case, it is not the case that the fathers prior to the fourth century had any common mind on the ways and hows of the end. Those who raised chiliastic questions at all generally did so as an extension of their cosmology of a seven-day creation with an eighth 'day' of rest, not as a reflection on eschatological matters in their own right - and certainly not as a reflection on tribulation or rapture.

INXC, Matthew

I know the beginning of this topic is quite old. But as I was reading, I couldn't help but notice within my mind a great reluctance and even resistance to put the modern labels on the Fathers and was quite glad that you cleared it up Father Irenaeus.



I respect that you have made such studies and that you have such beliefs, but your conclusions are not those of the teaching of the Orthodox Church. As our dearly beloved Fr Averky once said (not on this list, btw) to an inquirer who consistently began his statements about spiritual things with "But I think that ..." is that "the Church doesn't care what YOU (or any individual person) think - the Church teaches us what is the truth revealed to us by our Lord Jesus Christ and faithfully handed down to us through the Apostles." As you said, it is important to "search out the meaning", in fact it is necessary to not only "search out" the meaning but to humble ourselves and be taught the true meaning of the scripture by the Church, the Body of Christ, in which all the truth resides and is preserved untainted and undistorted. To that end, let me share with you the following:

Fr David

Father David, could you point me to the source in which Fr. Averky states that the Church does not care what we think about the matter? I would love to see it. I have been wanting to write a piece on how our own personal "me" interpretations do not matter (well, they matter, in that we are not to teach heresy, but they do not matter, because they cannot change the Truth of the Church). I deal quite a bit with Protestants, and I am always coming across the "me religion" and "my interpretation" and I wish to adequately express in a polite way that it isn't about us.

David Lanier.

Thank you for the sources and hopefully I will find time to read them.

In addressing the Protestant invention of the rapture, I noticed in this thread several claims as to who invented the Protestant doctrine. I saw mention of Darby and the young teenage girl. Both are correct, as are many others. No one person invented the doctrine it seems, but it was the effort of many over many years (and even today it seems to be continually developing.). The earliest I have come across the modern Protestant ideas about the rapture is in the 17th and 18th Centuries among several Puritan preachers, especially Increase and Cotton Mather.

http://books.google.com/books?id=nz5m0vZHYx8C&pg=PA170&dq=Increase+Cotton+Mather+rapture&hl=en&ei=v09DTN_lHsP-8AaHl6nUDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Increase%20Cotton%20Mather%20rapture&f=false

What I am referring to is on page 170. Hopefully everyone has access to that page.

http://books.google.com/books?id=VYq1MUnuhuMC&pg=PA330&dq=Mather+rapture&hl=en&ei=V1ZDTPGwLIKB8ga8rJjpDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=snippet&q=caught%20up&f=false

page 322 in this book.

[Father David Moser]

Father David, could you point me to the source in which Fr. Averky states that the Church does not care what we think about the matter?

That would be extremely difficult as my "source" was a personal conversation Fr A and I were having while driving around upstate NY when I was visiting Jordanville a good 10-15 years ago. We were swapping "convert stories". As you can probably tell from his posts here, he could be quite confrontational, but always in a loving big brotherly way and this story is a perfect example of it. Unfortunately I cannot imitate his tone and inflection (especially online) so you don't get the full effect.

Fr David

[Sean M.]

In addressing the Protestant invention of the rapture, I noticed in this thread several claims as to who invented the Protestant doctrine. I saw mention of Darby and the young teenage girl. Both are correct, as are many others. No one person invented the doctrine it seems, but it was the effort of many over many years (and even today it seems to be continually developing.). The earliest I have come across the modern Protestant ideas about the rapture is in the 17th and 18th Centuries among several Puritan preachers, especially Increase and Cotton Mather.

That was my understanding as well Andrew, but I heard one of those well know protestant evangelicals(I foget his name) on television, saying that Saint Epharim the Syrian taught something similar. Probably some spurious link, because he did preceed it with saying that none of the Early Church Fathers taught the rapture.

[John Konstantin]

The only thing that I took away from my NT studies concerning the Book of Revelation at seminary (Anglican) was the words of the late Principal Father Halliburton, that it was "a happy hunting ground for lunatics". I managed some 25 years of ministry without it becoming a bone of contention but then, that was the Church of England.

JK

[Alex Taylor]

That was my understanding as well Andrew, but I heard one of those well know protestant evangelicals(I foget his name) on television, saying that Saint Epharim the Syrian taught something similar. Probably some spurious link, because he did preceed it with saying that none of the Early Church Fathers taught the rapture.

I came across someone speaking of this issue:
http://www.talkjesus.com/evidence-bible-prophecy/24842-what-church-fathers-said-about-rapture.html

[Andrew Prather]

Sean and Alex. I haven't looked at the evidence for that nor do I think I have heard it before. But I do know that there are many works which have been attributed to Ephraim but are not really his works.

Hmm....maybe I did come across this before. I vaguely remember a Protestant bringing up Ephraim teaching something that supported Protestant doctrine. It might have been the rapture, because I think I claimed that prior to such and such a point it wasn't really taught and it wasn't accepted by the Church Fathers and then the person brought up Ephraim. Whatever the topic was, I looked up the reference and it turned out that it was a pseudographical work and Ephraim did not write it.

[Ronnie Shakespeare]

Hi Fr David

Would you say at this present moment in time satan is still bound or would you say he has already been loosed??
If he is still bound will we know when he has been lossed??

[Father David Moser]

Hi Fr David

Would you say at this present moment in time satan is still bound or would you say he has already been loosed??
If he is still bound will we know when he has been lossed??

Judging from the evil condition of my own life and spiritual struggle, I am sure that Satan is loose and is a rampaging lion seeking to devour my soul. Glory to God that He preserves me from the worst that the evil one can do.

There is a tradition within the Church that the Orthodox emperors were identified as "he who restraineth" the evil one by their God pleasing governance. When the last one (Tsar Martyr Nicholas II) was removed and martyred, then there was no longer anyone to restrain the evil one from working in society to create a culture leading to the destruction of the soul. From a source far removed from Orthodoxy, the Rolling Stones song "Sympathy for the devil" would also seem to support that idea.

Fr David Moser

[Evan]

Judging from the evil condition of my own life and spiritual struggle, I am sure that Satan is loose and is a rampaging lion seeking to devour my soul. Glory to God that He preserves me from the worst that the evil one can do.

There is a tradition within the Church that the Orthodox emperors were identified as "he who restraineth" the evil one by their God pleasing governance. When the last one (Tsar Martyr Nicholas II) was removed and martyred, then there was no longer anyone to restrain the evil one from working in society to create a culture leading to the destruction of the soul. From a source far removed from Orthodoxy, the Rolling Stones song "Sympathy for the devil" would also seem to support that idea.

Fr David Moser


Father, bless:

So were highly un-Orthodox emperors! Such are the evils of anarchy, according to St. John Chrysostom, commenting upon 2 Thessalonians:

One may naturally enquire, what is that which withholds, and after that would know (http://newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm), why Paul (http://newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) expresses it so obscurely. What then is it that withholds, that is, hinders him from being revealed? Some indeed say, the grace (http://newadvent.org/cathen/06689a.htm) of the Spirit (http://newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm), but others the Roman empire, to whom I most of all accede. Wherefore? Because if he meant to say the Spirit (http://newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm), he would not have spoken obscurely, but plainly, that even now the grace (http://newadvent.org/cathen/06689a.htm) of the Spirit (http://newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm), that is the gifts, withhold him. And otherwise he ought now to have come, if he was about to come when the gifts ceased; for they have long since ceased. But because he said this of the Roman empire, he naturally glanced at it, and speaks covertly and darkly. For he did not wish to bring upon himself superfluous enmities, and useless dangers. For if he had said that after a little while the Roman empire would be dissolved, they would immediately have even overwhelmed him, as a pestilent person, and all the faithful, as living and warring to this end.

In Christ,
Evan

[Father David Moser]

Father, bless:

So were highly un-Orthodox emperors! Such are the evils of anarchy, according to St. John Chrysostom, ...

Of course anarchy is one (rather obvious) danger, however, there are many other dangers in an ordered society that are soul destroying. Look for example at the culture of the US with our (over) emphasis on individualism and human rights. There are good aspects to these ideals, however, when pushed to the limits that we have today where every whim is indulged as an "individual right" and that which in the past would have been condemned as sinful or at least harmful to the general welfare of the society is now tolerated, sanctioned or even mandated by law. We have in this nation an ordered and powerful society, but it is a society which is not founded upon the salvation of the soul, but rather upon the "rights" of the individual.

I probably should stop here so that we don't go off into a political direction - I simply want to point out that while anarchy is indeed one danger, it is not the only one and while there is value even in an anti-Christian society, in the end that society can also become soul-destroying.

Fr David Moser

[Evan]

Of course anarchy is one (rather obvious) danger, however, there are many other dangers in an ordered society that are soul destroying. Look for example at the culture of the US with our (over) emphasis on individualism and human rights. There are good aspects to these ideals, however, when pushed to the limits that we have today where every whim is indulged as an "individual right" and that which in the past would have been condemned as sinful or at least harmful to the general welfare of the society is now tolerated, sanctioned or even mandated by law. We have in this nation an ordered and powerful society, but it is a society which is not founded upon the salvation of the soul, but rather upon the "rights" of the individual.

I probably should stop here so that we don't go off into a political direction - I simply want to point out that while anarchy is indeed one danger, it is not the only one and while there is value even in an anti-Christian society, in the end that society can also become soul-destroying.

Fr David Moser

You'll get no argument from me. One thinks of Solzhenitsyn. And also Blessed Jerome, interpreting "Render unto Caeser"-- something to the effect of, "Nothing ungodly." St. Basil similarly interprets St. Paul's arguments in Romans respecting conscientious citizenship. Perhaps it is precisely because the government has a just claim on conscience that a government that does not govern conscientiously is so terrifying.

In Christ,
Evan

[David Lanier]

Here is a video from elder Proclus (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jW0kM3oFLD8) where he says that all the demons have been loosed on the earth.

[Ronnie Shakespeare]

Judging from the evil condition of my own life and spiritual struggle, I am sure that Satan is loose and is a rampaging lion seeking to devour my soul. Glory to God that He preserves me from the worst that the evil one can do.

There is a tradition within the Church that the Orthodox emperors were identified as "he who restraineth" the evil one by their God pleasing governance. When the last one (Tsar Martyr Nicholas II) was removed and martyred, then there was no longer anyone to restrain the evil one from working in society to create a culture leading to the destruction of the soul. From a source far removed from Orthodoxy, the Rolling Stones song "Sympathy for the devil" would also seem to support that idea.

Fr David Moser

Hi Fr David

Thanks for you reply: This Thread has helped me to understand allot things more clearly:

Another thing that I am trying to understand is the Issue over 144,000: Some say this is the Church in heaven:
Some say this is the church on earth today:

Some like the Jehovah witnesses say This is the 144,000 Anointed Jehovah witnesses Who take the Bread and Wine: While the rest of the Jehovah witnesses are not allowed to take the bread and wine;

Some say this is a special 144,000 who follow the Lamb=Jesus were ever he Goes who are full time ministers over each church:

Some say when this 144,000 is complete: Jesus will Return:

[Father David Moser]

From Bishop Alexander's article (http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/revelat.htm) on the Apocalypse:


Symbols and allegories enable the Seer to speak of the essence of earthly events on a very high level of generalization; therefore, they are extensively used. Thus, as an example, the eyes symbolize knowledge, and many eyes symbolize perfect knowledge. A horn is the symbol of power or might. Long attire denotes the clergy; a crown, imperial worthiness; and whiteness, cleanliness or purity. The city of Jerusalem, the temple, and Israel are symbols of the Church. The numbers also have a symbolic meaning: three symbolizes the Trinity; four is the symbol for the world and order in the world; seven denotes completion and perfection; twelve denotes God's people and fruition of the Church (the numbers derived from 12, such as 24 and 144,000 have the same meaning). One-third denotes some relatively small part; three and a half years, the time of persecutions.

Archbishop Averky in his book, "The Apocalypse of St John;An Orthodox Commentary" says of the 144,000 in chap 14, "These are the chosen people of God from all the people of the earth, presented figuratively in the form of the 12 tribes of Israel." (p.151)

Fr David

[Herman Blaydoe]

I think I just figured out that we Orthodox do, indeed, believe in the Rapture.

We get taken up into Heaven at every Divine Liturgy to worship with the saints and angelic hosts!

Herman the weekly-raptured Pooh

[Paul Cowan]

That doesn't work Herman. Because we just as quickly get thrown back down to this hell hole. Well, ya'll do. Texas is heaven on earth.

[Kyrill Bolton]

That doesn't work Herman. Because we just as quickly get thrown back down to this hell hole. Well, ya'll do. Texas is heaven on earth.

Obviously, Paul stayed inside where it was air conditioned all day yesterday.

[David Franklin]

Paul,

You are sadly mistaken.

The order of word usage seems to be " 'arpazo" in Greek first, then "rapiemur" in the Latin vulgate (405 A.D.).

The root Latin word is "rapio" (first person singular present indicative active "I snatch away)." "Rapiemur" ("we shall be snatched away") is the first person plural future indicative passive.

"Rapturus" and "Raptura" would be the dative/ablative singular form of the future participle. The English language has no equivalent form.

"Rapture" is a perfectly suited word that has been brought into the English language to describe the future event of being "caught up together".

Just as "trinity", "baptism", "angel", "deacon" and many other Christian terms were brought into the English language from other languages.

[Paul Cowan]

English was not my strong subject in school. Neither was Greek. I only have the NKJV to read my theology. My protestant family use this same Book. They also were not strong in english or Greek. So if the PC and OC and RC are to be able to understand the OT & NT then would it not help us all out if the Book was written in a way that we could all understand the original equivalent forms for words? If they are hidden from us, then those of us who do not know to go looking for them are stuck with what Thomas Nelson gives us.

Paul

[Sacha]

I am surprised at what seems to be an 'allergic' reaction to anything rapture related by the OC, if indeed the feelings shared by many on this thread are representative of the church's teaching as a whole, I don't know.

Did the Lord Jesus not speak of the day of the Lord and what will happen to believers on that day?

Luke 17:31-35

“It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed. 31 On that day no one who is on the housetop, with possessions inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything. 32 Remember Lot’s wife! 33 Whoever tries to keep their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life will preserve it. 34 I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. 35 Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.”

[Kosta]

I am surprised at what seems to be an 'allergic' reaction to anything rapture related by the OC, if indeed the feelings shared by many on this thread are representative of the church's teaching as a whole, I don't know.

Did the Lord Jesus not speak of the day of the Lord and what will happen to believers on that day?

Luke 17:31-35

“It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed. 31 On that day no one who is on the housetop, with possessions inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything. 32 Remember Lot’s wife! 33 Whoever tries to keep their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life will preserve it. 34 I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. 35 Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.”

This is not interpreted as a rapture in Orthodoxy. Only that Christ will come as a thief in the night, that we wont know what hit us. The seperating of the wheat from the chaff will happen with suddeness.

[Sacha]

This is not interpreted as a rapture in Orthodoxy. Only that Christ will come as a thief in the night, that we wont know what hit us. The seperating of the wheat from the chaff will happen with suddeness.

Not sure what your point is in the above. I can agree with you the separation happens with suddenness. But that is not what is in contention here, namely the HOW of that separation.

Matt 24:

27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28 Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather. 29 “Immediately after the distress of those days “‘the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’

30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earthwill mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other."

The day of the Lord is spoken of in both Luke 17 and Matt 24 (both of which echo Isaiah 24-28), and they both describe the same event. Note carefully, that it is the coming of the Son of Man that is described, which precedes the Judgment. And this 2nd coming of Christ involves the gathering of His elect by the angels. The one taken from bed and the one taken away from grinding, these are the ones gathered by angels at the trumpet call. It is one and same event.

[Herman Blaydoe]

There are Orthodox Liturgical prayers that we might be taken up to meet our Lord in the clouds on His Second Coming, so this is not something the Church is unfamiliar with. We just don't buy into all that claptrap about secret Bible codes that predict the supposed date that this will happen or all that artificial "rapture" stuff invented by certain Protestants and we reject the heretical teachings of the Chiliasts (http://mikeblume.com/chiliasm.htm).

[Archimandrite Irenei]

The idea of 'the rapture' is entirely inconsistent with the patristic understanding of the Scriptures being mentioned.

[Max Percy]

The idea of 'the rapture' is entirely inconsistent with the patristic understanding of the Scriptures being mentioned.

Father Ireneues, Whilst this has the great advantage of clarity, it is a bit lapidary. It might benefit many of us, certainly me, if you could draw this out just a bit more.

[Paul Cowan]

A lapidary (the word means "concerned with stones") is an artist or artisan who forms stone, mineral, gemstones, and other suitably durable materials (amber, shell, jet, pearl, copal, coral, horn and bone, glass and other synthetics) into decorative items such as engraved gems, including cameos, or cabochons, and faceted designs

A secondary meaning of lapidary is pertaining to, about, "of inscriptions."

Another meaning is a treatise on the subject of precious stones,

Perhaps another word might be ambiguous?

How does the rapture fall in line with what we know of the lives of the saints that Christ came down and minstered to them or encouraged them to remain steadfast or for those that heard His voice at their departure receiving them into heaven?

Paul

[David Lanier]

Preacher's Institute recently published a nice article on the origins of the Rapture doctrine

http://preachersinstitute.com/2011/05/20/rapture-theologys-ominous-origins/

[Sacha]

Darby was indeed responsible for popularizing the idea. As much as I disagree with him and his followers (I don't believe in their pre trib ideas), I don't think it necessarily must follow that any common sense thinking about the word harpazo must be thrown out the window.

Harpazo means 'to seize forcefully' or to snatch away'. Whether you call it rapture or not, how can one ignore the plain meaning of the word? Why did St Paul want to convey the idea of a forceful seizing or snatching away?

Christ speaks of a gathering of His elect by the angels with a loud trumpet call, where some will be grinding or sleeping and taken away. St Paul mentions this trumpet call in 1 Thess 4:16

"According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air."

St Paul speaks of the trumpet call of God. Since he is speaking of the eschaton, why believe that this is anything different from what Christ spoke of in Luke 17:31?

Does the Orthodox church spiritualize what Christ says about the gathering of the elect by the angels and what St Paul says about being caught up to meet the Lord in the air?

[J.D. Duttweiler]

Sacha, the Orthodox Church doesn't reject the manner in which the Lord will receive those who are still alive at His return, just separating it in any manner from His return. The so-called "rapture" is part and parcel of the parousia of Christ - nothing "secret", "hidden" or distinct about it.

[Sacha]

Sacha, the Orthodox Church doesn't reject the manner in which the Lord will receive those who are still alive at His return, just separating it in any manner from His return. The so-called "rapture" is part and parcel of the parousia of Christ - nothing "secret", "hidden" or distinct about it.

Because the word 'rapture' carries the protestant connotation, let's avoid it altogether. Let's call it, being caught up in the air, as St Paul describes it, for those who are still alive when the Lord returns.

Can we then agree that when the Lord returns (only one event in the return, not a two part act as most protestants and followers of Darby believe), those believers who are alive will undergo a supernatural event whereby their physical location will be changed and they will be taken to be in the presence of the Lord, and this not of themselves, but due to the gathering carried out by the angels?

Herman above had mentioned that the liturgy 'might' (again, why the hesitation there?) mention something about being taken up to the clouds? If this is so, does the OC spiritualize the above (being caught up, taken away from daily tasks etc) and reject a literal interpretation?

[Father David Moser]

Can we then agree that when the Lord returns (only one event in the return, not a two part act as most protestants and followers of Darby believe), those believers who are alive will undergo a supernatural event whereby their physical location will be changed and they will be taken to be in the presence of the Lord, and this not of themselves, but due to the gathering carried out by the angels?

At the second coming, we who are in the Lord will indeed rise to meet him in the air - just as at the first coming, as He entered into Jerusalem the people came out of the city to meet Him and then accompanied Him, chanting praises, as he entered the city. We will rise to meet Him in the air and then accompany Him as He descends to judge the world. When you think of this event, think of Palm Sunday. The people didn't "disappear" mysteriously or even go to any mysterious destination - seeing the King approach, they ran out of the city to meet Him. He did not stop outside the city, or even pause, but just kept coming and the people, who had run out to meet Him came along with Him, still shouting and singing His praises.

And as an answer to the qeustion of whether the Orthodox Church "spiritualizes" the event and rejects a literal interpretation, the best answer is yes and no - both and neither. There is indeed a "spiritualized" interpretation and a literal interpretation that exist side by side and in complete harmony - there is no "either/or" here.

Fr David Moser

[Herman Blaydoe]

When I said "might", I was not referring to the event itself, but our specific participation in that event. The point of the prayer being that the Lord grant that I may (might) be one of the ones caught up, not that it might or might not happen.

Herman the ineloquent Pooh

[Sacha]

At the second coming, we who are in the Lord will indeed rise to meet him in the air - just as at the first coming, as He entered into Jerusalem the people came out of the city to meet Him and then accompanied Him, chanting praises, as he entered the city. We will rise to meet Him in the air and then accompany Him as He descends to judge the world. When you think of this event, think of Palm Sunday. The people didn't "disappear" mysteriously or even go to any mysterious destination - seeing the King approach, they ran out of the city to meet Him. He did not stop outside the city, or even pause, but just kept coming and the people, who had run out to meet Him came along with Him, still shouting and singing His praises.

And as an answer to the qeustion of whether the Orthodox Church "spiritualizes" the event and rejects a literal interpretation, the best answer is yes and no - both and neither. There is indeed a "spiritualized" interpretation and a literal interpretation that exist side by side and in complete harmony - there is no "either/or" here.

Fr David Moser

Regarding your comments about disappearing: what does the OC teach about Christ's words in Luke 17:34?

34 I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. 35 Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.”

The language above does not support the idea that people will be running out to meet Christ. It very clearly states that the people will be taken, greek word is paralambano, meaning joined with, received by transmitting. In other words, this action is being done to them and not by them.

[Father David Moser]

Regarding your comments about disappearing: what does the OC teach about Christ's words in Luke 17:34?

34 I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. 35 Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.”

In order to properly understand this single verse, it must be taken in context. All of the patristic commentary available to me at the moment takes not just this verse alone, but the entire section of vs 31-37 as a unit. The thrust of this section is that at the judgment, worldly standing or works will have no effect, but rather how that worldly standing or labor has been used to acquire the grace of God. And so it speaks of those who are wealthy (on the housetop - a place of rest and leisure) and those who are poor (in the field - a place of labor and toil). And lest we think that one estate is better than the other, he goes on to restate his meaning by saying "two men in bed" - that is two persons who are at ease (wealthy) and equal in all things (in the same bed) and yet one is taken (found righteous) and one left (found wanting). "Two women grinding at the mill" - that is two person who are laboring (poor) and equal in all things (same works, same suffering, same difficulty, same labor) and one is taken (found righteous) and the other left (found wanting). There is no indication in the patristic literature that there is any literal "disappearing".

You have created, I think, an artificial (but understandable) connection between the response of the faithful to the second coming and the Great Judgement itself and in doing so invented this thing called "the rapture" when in fact no such teaching has existed in Scripture. Having created this "rapture" you are now asking the Church to respond to something that doesn't exist and not satisfied when she simply says, "it isn't there".

Fr David Moser

[Sacha]

In order to properly understand this single verse, it must be taken in context. All of the patristic commentary available to me at the moment takes not just this verse alone, but the entire section of vs 31-37 as a unit. The thrust of this section is that at the judgment, worldly standing or works will have no effect, but rather how that worldly standing or labor has been used to acquire the grace of God...

"Two women grinding at the mill" - that is two person who are laboring (poor) and equal in all things (same works, same suffering, same difficulty, same labor) and one is taken (found righteous) and the other left (found wanting). There is no indication in the patristic literature that there is any literal "disappearing".


Fr David Moser

Thank you for elaborating. So I think it is fair to say that the patristic literature spiritualizes those verses about being taken. This must therefore imply, that they would also spiritualize the idea of the gathering of the elect by the angels, since Matt 24 and Luke 17 speak of the same event.

I don't mind the spiritualization, but remain unconvinced that the latter must therefore preclude a literal intepretation. To me, it is precisely because one has not acquired the Holy Spirit that one is left at the grindstone or in bed while the one with his/her lamp full will be taken (paralambano). So as you said earlier, there is both the spiritual and the literal at work here:


And as an answer to the qeustion of whether the Orthodox Church "spiritualizes" the event and rejects a literal interpretation, the best answer is yes and no - both and neither. There is indeed a "spiritualized" interpretation and a literal interpretation that exist side by side and in complete harmony - there is no "either/or" here.



But now you are changing your tune, and describe those events in Luke 17 as only spiritual and not literal...

[Father David Moser]

Another two part article on the Rapture, Will You Meet The Lord In The "Rapture" Or In Reality? - part 1 here (http://www.holycross-hermitage.com/pages/Orthodox_Life/rapture1.htm) and part 2 here (http://www.holycross-hermitage.com/pages/Orthodox_Life/rapture2.htm)

Fr David

[Herman Blaydoe]

But now you are changing your tune, and describe those events in Luke 17 as only spiritual and not literal...

Not at all. The Fathers are merely emphasizing the spiritual aspects, but there is still no literal "disappearing" going on here.

"Taken" is not necessarily a synonym for disappear, at least not in the Pooh dictionary.

Herman the Pooh

[Sacha]

Not at all. The Fathers are merely emphasizing the spiritual aspects, but there is still no literal "disappearing" going on here.

"Taken" is not necessarily a synonym for disappear, at least not in the Pooh dictionary.

Herman the Pooh

Herman, was Enoch taken up to be with God? Did he disappear?

[Paul Cowan]

I don't understand why there is confusion on being taken up versus disappearing. Why does someone being "taken up" equate to them disappearing? Enoch did not disappear, Elisha did not disappear, Jesus did not disappear, they were all taken up in bodily form. Just because scritpure says


34 I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. 35 Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.”

does not mean they will disappear as in poof gone. It just means they will in bodily form be taken from where they were. As Fr. David said,


think of Palm Sunday. The people didn't "disappear" mysteriously or even go to any mysterious destination - seeing the King approach, they ran out of the city to meet Him. He did not stop outside the city, or even pause, but just kept coming and the people, who had run out to meet Him came along with Him, still shouting and singing His praises.

I don't see your confusion Sacha?

Paul

[Sacha]

Paul, if Jesus says that two will be in bed, and one taken on that night, I see no reason to jettison the plain meaning of His words. Call that 'disappear' or taken up in bodily form, (I am fine with either) the reality is that the one left in bed will be wondering where the other one went. And by the way, since when did disappear necessarily imply 'going POOF!'? When some kid disappears from their family home, do the family members believe that they went poof? Or do they believe they were taken away as is sadly often the case? Most reasonable people would not make a big deal about disappear vs taken away. Neither should we, imho, in this discussion.

Enoch did not disappear? Fine, since everyone is put off by or allergic to the idea disappearing, let's call it being taken up. Gen 5:24 says this

"Enoch walked faithfully with God; then he was no more, because God took him away"

Re Father David's quote: He equated the people running to meet the King with this mysterious event described as taking place on the Day of the Lord. And as I've pointed out in an earlier post, those who will be changed in a flash at the last trump will be taken to the Lord (1 Cor 15:51), they are the subject of the action carried out by the angels. I'm sure these could be described as wanting to 'run to the Lord', but the text clearly states (paralambano) that something is being done to them. In my view, that 'something', is no different from what God did to Enoch, described in Gen 5, where he is described as, surprise surprise, being taken away. Enoch is a type of what will happen when the Lord returns.

My difference with Fr David is this, first he said that the church accepted both spiritual and literal readings, but then he seems to deny the literal reading of Luke 17:34-35.

So I will ask him again: can we all agree that Luke 17:34-35 refers to people being literally taken away (by a force outside of them) from where they are and what they are doing?

[Herman Blaydoe]

I think we are missing the conceptual forest for the semantic trees, getting lost in minutiae. Regardless of whether or not those "not taken up" see or don't see those "taken up", the idea of the "rapture" as espoused in these later days by the Protestants just ain't Orthodox, not because people do or do not "disappear" but because there is only one second coming of Christ and then the Judgement, without all the "tribulation" and "thousand year reign" and all the other baggage that "rapture" brings with it.

Orthodox Christians get "raptured", get taken into Heaven, every Divine Liturgy. I don't think we disappear but we do step outside time. The real question is which group we choose to be in when the event happens, not so much what happens.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain

Herman the rapturous Pooh

[Sacha]

I think we are missing the conceptual forest for the semantic trees, getting lost in minutiae. Regardless of whether or not those "not taken up" see or don't see those "taken up", the idea of the "rapture" as espoused in these later days by the Protestants just ain't Orthodox, not because people do or do not "disappear" but because there is only one second coming of Christ and then the Judgement, without all the "tribulation" and "thousand year reign" and all the other baggage that "rapture" brings with it.

Orthodox Christians get "raptured", get taken into Heaven, every Divine Liturgy. I don't think we disappear but we do step outside time. The real question is which group we choose to be in when the event happens, not so much what happens.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain

Herman the rapturous Pooh

I also believe that there is only one second coming of Christ. But that belief does not necessarily mean that what you casually dismiss as 'minutiae' will not take place. Was not Enoch a type of what will happen to believers when Christ does return? Again, I find the analysis of Christ's plain words in Matt 24 and Luke 17 presented so far stunningly inadequate. One says the liturgy contains references to an event where believers are taken away, then says that there is nothing literal about the event. Then a link is presented where Casabilas and others talk about a very real/literal event.

Regarding tribulation, I'm perplexed as to why you would think it only belongs in the category of all things rapture related (protestant theology). Isn't the book of Revelation filled with description of the tribulation?

In your determination to differentiate yourselves from protestants, you have thrown the baby out with the bath water, I'm afraid.

[Sacha]

From the link posted by Fr David, here is a quote from Nicholas Casabilas on the 'rapture':

"Those who have the body of Christ within them will rush to Christ with an irresistible motion in order that they may receive their proper place. Accordingly Paul, as he shows that this rush cannot be restrained, called it a carrying up [rapture], for he says, we shall be carried off in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air...

and in the same article it is said:

The New Testament mentions two different kinds of resurrection by use of Greek words that translate to "resurrection" and to "resurrection-from- out-of." Saint Theophylact of Bulgaria writes, "Whereas all men will be resurrected, but all will not have the... (resurrection-from-out-of). Indeed the sinners remain down on earth, awaiting the Judge. But the saints and the just, when they are gloriously resurrected, are caught up in the clouds, high in the air, in order to meet the Lord coming from the heavens to judge the world. For it is said: Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air ( I Thess. 4:17)."12 How does one become one of those caught up? St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain states, "It should be noted that the glory and Grace of the Holy Spirit which the souls of the saints receive even while they are here... this same glory will cover and clothe their bare bodies in the resurrection and make them to be caught up to heaven."

[Michael Stickles]

Regarding tribulation, I'm perplexed as to why you would think it only belongs in the category of all things rapture related (protestant theology). Isn't the book of Revelation filled with description of the tribulation?

It's not just "tribulation" as a stand-alone concept, but rather the common conception of a tribulation which occurs after the "taking up", followed by a literal thousand-year reign, and whatever else gets thrown in, all before the final judgement.

Much of the Orthodox opposition to the concept of "the rapture" - at least in what I've read - is primarily focused on the overwhelmingly dominant pre-tribulation, pre-millennial version. In other words, "rapture" as shorthand for an eschatology mostly similar to what you'd find in the Left Behind series. Not that there aren't problems with the other conceptions (pre-wrath, mid-trib, etc.), but the term "rapture" - used without any qualifiers or caveats - tends to be primarily understood in pre-trib pre-millennial terms even by those who don't hold to that theology.

[Sacha]

It's not just "tribulation" as a stand-alone concept, but rather the common conception of a tribulation which occurs after the "taking up", followed by a literal thousand-year reign, and whatever else gets thrown in, all before the final judgement.

Much of the Orthodox opposition to the concept of "the rapture" - at least in what I've read - is primarily focused on the overwhelmingly dominant pre-tribulation, pre-millennial version. In other words, "rapture" as shorthand for an eschatology mostly similar to what you'd find in the Left Behind series. Not that there aren't problems with the other conceptions (pre-wrath, mid-trib, etc.), but the term "rapture" - used without any qualifiers or caveats - tends to be primarily understood in pre-trib pre-millennial terms even by those who don't hold to that theology.


That's fair. My thoughts have been focused though on what happens after the tribulation when Christ returns. You could call it a 'post' trib view. As for the millenial reign, it's outside the scope of my questions, but I don't believe in a literal reign. My questions only center around those passages describing the harpazo that St Paul speaks of in 1 Thess 4 etc.

What I'm focused on especially is this: the words of Christ in Luke 17:34-35, aren't they straightforward? Why the great deal of hesitation and ambiguity around those verses?

[David Franklin]

The NKJV english translation of "ἅμα (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/260.htm) σὺν (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/4862.htm) αὐτοῖς (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/846.htm) ἁρπαγησόμεθα (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/726.htm) " = "shall be caught up together with them" is a very good one. Just because the english language does not have an equivalent word does not mean that a phrase with an equibalent meaning cannot be constructed.

Hebrew and Koine Greek are very precise and descriptive languages for their era's. I think Greek is in many ways still more decriptive than English. God prepared the languages of the manuscripts to preserve the meaning. I think you can trust the NKJV translation.

There are many resources available and many of them are free and online. Check out this.
http://bible.cc/1_thessalonians/4-17.htm
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Thessalonians+4%3A16-17&version=NKJV

[David Franklin]

Yes James,

I believe in the "rapture" event as decribed in 1 Thess and in 1 Corinthians 15. I do not know if it will be Pre-Trib, Mid-Trib or Post-Trib. Only God knows.

I am not well versed in RC or OC doctrine. So I cannot answer your specific question.

[Father David Moser]

I am not well versed in RC or OC doctrine. So I cannot answer your specific question.

I would like to remind the participants in this discussion that the focus of this forum is the Liturgical, Patristic and Monastic expression of Orthodox Christianity. Thus this discussion needs to remain focused on questions about the Orthodox faith, not on the discussion of non-Orthodox doctrines.

Fr David Moser

[J. K. Amra]

Why would anyone put their faith in a concept that was first introduced to a spiritually delusional population of "Bible Belt" USA at the time of the "Charismatic Revival", the "Rapture" movement played a precise role in the foundation of different "doomsday" sects. When so called "prophecies" of William Miller failed to come true in 1840's (a few decades after the Rapture doctrine was introduced to the public) concerning the return of Christ, Ellen G. White convinced her followers that Jesus actually did come back in 1844 (only invisibly). 'Another group that tried to hold to the 1844 date was led by Jonas Swendahl and was known as the Second Adventists. They believed that 1844 marked not the date of Jesus' return, but of the beginning of the last generation. Swendahl taught that Jesus would therefore return in 1874. One of Swendahl's followers was a former Presbyterian named Charles Taze Russell. When 1874 came and went, he concluded 30 years was not long enough for a generation. So he added 70 years to 1844 and concluded that Jesus would return in 1914. This and other differences led him to split from the Second Adventists and launch Zion's Watchtower and Herald of Christ's Presence. His followers became known as the International Bible Students, and they went about the country with the message, "Millions now living will never die!" Followers were to leave their churches and fellowship together. All churches were considered apostate, but God had provided a new channel for their instruction, Zion's Watchtower Tract Society. What began as the International Bible Students has become the Jehovah's Witnesses. The date of 1914 was changed to 1925, 1941, and 1975. What began as calling Christians out of their churches to prepare for Christ's return has become an anti-Christian cult.'

When it all comes down to is this; true wisdom and enlightenment is the ability to say "I do not know" like a hermit did in the Writings of the Desert Fathers concerning a meaning of a phrase in the Bible that troubled him, when he said this, he demonstrated his humility and an angel ministered to him.

One only need to read 2 Timothy 3-4 in order to see whats going on today with all of these "Rapture" beliefs.
"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."

Most Rapture believers don't even realize the satanic deception behind this doctrine, let me ask you this - A good portion of Protestants believe that Christ is going to rule the Earth for 1,000 years (this event is to happen in the future), so what's stopping these lepers from falling into the deception of the Antichrist when he will try and unite all religions into one and establishing his governmental rule, proclaiming to being the Jewish Messiah (who is awaited), the Muslim Al-Mahdi (who is awaited), the Buddha Maitreya (who is awaited), and all other "gurus" who are in place in order to deceive the masses?

I forget to mention that a good part of my post was from this site:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/harold_camping.htm

[Andrew Prather]

Why would anyone put their faith in a concept that was first introduced to a spiritually delusional population of "Bible Belt" USA at the time of the "Charismatic Revival", the "Rapture" movement played a precise role in the foundation of different "doomsday" sects.

That isn't quite correct Amra.



Most Rapture believers don't even realize the satanic deception behind this doctrine.


I agree



I forget to mention that a good part of my post was from this site:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/harold_camping.htm

Is that an Orthodox source?

I am currently working on an essay exploring the development of the notion of the rapture. The earliest document that rapture believers point to is a Pseudo-Ephraim sermon originally written in Syriac but preserved only in Latin manuscripts that date to the 7th and 8th and 9th centuries. The sermon does seem to mention a sort of pre-tribulation rapture, but it is debatable. If so, it would be the earliest source that we know of, and a sort of anomaly. The next writers would be Increase and Cotton Mather, very late 1600s and early 1700s. Next is Darby in the late 1820s, McDonald's vision in 1830 (if I remember correctly), and then it starts to explode, especially after Schofield publishes his bible in 1909. That is a very brief and simplistic overview. It is my opinion that we should not even use the term Rapture. It is a new term when referring to the Second Coming of Christ, if I am not mistaken.

Does anyone know if the Father's refer to it as the "harpazo"?