By David Malcolm Bennett
In 2009 David Malcolm Bennett was awarded a PhD, through the University of Queensland for his dissertation "The Origins of Left Behind Eschatology". It was published in America in January 2010. It has 418 pages and costs US$22.99.
The famous Left Behind books by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins have been an enormous success. Though fiction, they present a particular and questionable end times theology of uncertain origins.
David Bennett has tried to unravel the origins of these Left Behind beliefs, including such controversial teachings as a pretribulation rapture of the Church, a two-stage return of Christ and the sharp distinction between Israel and the Church. He still welcomes any suggestions you may have to make about those origins. Please contact him by e-mail, see below.
One suggestion often made is that a pretribulation rapture is to be found in the Shepherd of Hermas, an ancient document, probably written early in the second century. However, after examining that document thoroughly I am prepared to say that that teaching is not there.
In fact, I have found that none of the Church Fathers of the first three centuries of Church history taught the collection of teachings that can be fairly described as Left Behind. Some specific teachings do appear, and some do not. Irenaeus, Tertullian and Lactantius are the closest to Left Behind but all three also taught important ideas incompatible with Left Behind. Full details are in the book.
I have also examined a sermon by Ephraem the Syrian (or one of his followers) and the teachings of Fra Dolcino, a medieval apocalyptist, to see whether they taught a pretribulation rapture, as some claim. The results of that specific research appear in "The Evangelical Quarterly" for April 2008.
In slightly more recent times Joseph Mede, a seventeenth century English scholar, wrote a letter that presented four hypothetical understandings of how the rapture might occur. One of these suggestions while not consistent with the pre-tribulation rapture of Left Behind is similar to it and may have been a source from which it emerged.
The book has eight chapters as below, with a bibliography and index.
Chapter 1 What is Left Behind?
Chapter 2 The Early Church and Beyond.
Chapter 3 From the Reformation to the early Eighteenth Century.
Chapter 4 Morgan Edwards and the Baptists.
Chapter 5 From the French Revolution to Edward Irving.
Chapter 6 John Nelson Darby and the Plymouth Brethren.
Chapter 7 The Popularization of Left Behind Eschatology.
Chapter 8 Conclusion and Postscript
See VIDEO ADV
David Malcolm Bennett has previously written a book entitled Why Left Behind Should Be Left Behind. This book places Left Behind teachings under the biblical microscope and finds them wanting. It also presents an end times view that is biblical and rational in a simple but not simplistic way. It costs US$13.99.
If you wish to obtain copies of these books, contact one of the following:
Alan S Bandy has called this volume an 'extremely well-written and informative' book (Alan S. Bandy, the Rowena R. Strickland Assistant Professor of NT & Greek, Oklahoma Baptist University).
Take a look at a review of "The Origins of Left Behind...."
Make sure you also visit David Malcolm Bennett's Christian Book Page:
David Malcolm Bennett's Christian Book Page
ANSWERS TO CRITICISMS
OF
THE ORIGINS OF LEFT BEHIND ESCHATOLOGY
It is my intention to answer criticisms of my book The Origins of Left Behind Eschatology on this website. This will save me responding in detail to individuals who may be asking the same questions or raising the same issues.
First, the matters under consideration here are the datings of the origins of various elements in Left Behind or Dispensational eschatology and when those elements came together to form a system, as examined in my book about the origins of Left Behind. I will not be arguing here for or against any particular millennial or other eschatological teaching, except where that might be necessary to deal with the dating issues. My views on eschatology are given in part in one of my other books Why Left Behind Should Be Left Behind.
CRITICISM 1
In my Origins of Left Behind I argue that the first person to teach a pretribulation or, more likely, a mid-tribulation rapture was Morgan Edwards in the eighteenth century (see my pp.172-92, especially p.179).
One critic (I will not use people’s names) referred me to a website where he argued that a pretribulation rapture is found in the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. This is Clement of Rome, who probably wrote towards the end of the first century AD. I will refer to this critic as “C1” and Clement simply by that name.
C1 admits that “the doctrine of the pretribulation rapture is never mentioned explicitly IN MODERN TERMS” in Clement’s letter, which is certainly correct. However, C1 goes on to say that that rapture “is very strongly implied” in the letter “by many examples provided of deliverance and salvation for Godly people and the overwhelming evidence is that tribulation and wrath is stored up for those who have rejected God…” He gives a number of examples of both God’s deliverance and judgment referred to in that letter. Examples of this deliverance include that God saved Enoch (in a rapture) and Noah and Lot (see Clement chapters 9 & 11). In contrast the flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah fell upon those who disobeyed God.
C1 goes on to state that he believes that Clement taught that this future tribulation will be God’s judgment, His End Times wrath, upon those who have not believed in Christ, and those alone. He says that it is clear that Clement believed that Christians will not experience that wrath. C1 is not arguing that Clement is teaching that Christians will escape persecution, but that they will escape the future outpouring of God’s anger. If they are going to escape this outpouring, then they must be removed from it, C1 presumes in a prior rapture.
More specifically, C1 notes that in chapter 50 Clement paraphrases Is. 26:20-21: “Enter into thy secret chambers for a little time, until my wrath and fury pass away; and I will remember a propitious day, and will raise you up out of your graves.” C1 says that verses 19-21 teach that “the resurrection will be before the … wrath or tribulation.” C1 does not specifically mention the rapture here, though something he later says suggests that he regards verse 20 (enter “thy secret chambers”) as a reference to it. The resurrection is certainly in focus here in Isaiah, being mentioned in verses 19 and 21, so both before and after the reference to God’s wrath.
But we must ask how does Clement understand these verses? In some preliminary comments Clement seems to regard them as teaching that the souls of those faithful to God in all ages will, at death, go to live in heaven and then at the End their bodies will be resurrected. He does not mention a rapture of the living. And though Clement seems to have expected a future outpouring of God’s wrath upon sinful humanity he does not appear to be outlining a timetable of End Times events.
C1’s ideas are based on too much supposition. While Clement certainly taught that God’s wrath would fall on non-Christians, but not Christians, this does not mean that he was teaching a pretribulation rapture. There are other ways of understanding Clement’s teaching in this letter. For example, if a future tribulation and God’s wrath (His final judgment) are distinct, in other words not the same thing, then C1’s whole argument collapses. Perhaps Clement believed that the last sequence of earthly events would be a period of persecution on earth, after which Christians would be taken up to heaven (1 Cor. 15:51-54 – at the last trumpet; I Thess. 4:14-17), which would immediately be followed by an outpouring of God’s anger upon those who remain on earth (1 Thess. 5:1-3; 2 Thess. 1:6-10; 2 Pet. 3:7). Or he may have believed that in God’s time the End would come, all would be assembled for the judgment, from which Christians would be ushered into heaven and non-Christians sent to hell.
Clement just does not teach a clear eschatological position. In fact, he says very little about such matters, except that faithful Christians who have died are even now experiencing eternal happiness (ch. 44 and 50), that one day Christ will return (ch. 23), that there will be a resurrection (ch. 24-26 and 50) and that God will judge humanity (ch. 28). He does not seem to mention the Book of Revelation, and his letter may have even been written before that book was composed or, at least, before it was widely circulated. In fact, Clement’s letter is primarily about how to live the Christian life.
C1’s understanding of Clement on these issues is highly speculative. We must conclude that Clement’s letter does not mention “The doctrine of the pretribulation rapture … explicitly” in any terms, ancient or modern. Nor can it be safely said that Clement even implied it.
C1 also argues that Polycarp (d. 155 AD) mentioned a pretribulation rapture. In chapter 7 Polycarp says, “whosoever perverts the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts, and says that there is neither a resurrection nor a judgment, he is the first-born of Satan.” C1 argues that resurrection here means the rapture and judgment the tribulation and, therefore, Polycarp is speaking against those who deny the rapture and the tribulation. However, this seems to be blatantly reading one’s own views into an ancient document. Polycarp says “resurrection” and presumably means the resurrection of the dead, not the rapture of the living.
I therefore conclude that Clement of Rome and Polycarp did not refer to a pretribulation rapture. I still believe that the pretribulation or mid-tribulation rapture first appeared in the eighteenth century in the works of Morgan Edwards.
CRITICISM 2
Another correspondent, “C2”, claimed that “a pre-trib rapture” is to be found in The Epistle of Barnabas (? early 2nd century), Justin Martyr (c.100-165), Irenaeus (2nd century) and Hippolytus (c.170-236). However, C2 gave no specific references to back up his claims. I deal with the rapture and the Early Church in pages 69-78 of my book, and I refer those who are interested to those pages. I have not been able to find a pre-trib teaching in any of the writers C2 mentions, nor in anybody else in the first 300 years of church history. I am aware that some see it in a passage in Against Heresies by Irenaeus. But in context I believe that what Irenaeus says is misunderstood, see my pages 70-72.
AN ARTICLE WRITTEN IN 2002 looked at an ancient document that I was unaware of when I wrote that book. The following are my comments on that article.
Codex Amiatinus (ca. 692-716)
James F. Stitzinger has written an article in The Master’s Seminary Journal (13:2, Fall 2002, pp. 149-71), which strongly suggests that a pretribulation rapture is mentioned in the ‘Codex Amiatinus’ (also known as the ‘Jarrow/Wearmouth Pandect Bible’). This Codex is a copy of the Vulgate Latin Bible copied in 692-716 AD in England. According to Stitzinger (pp.158-59), the heading to Psalm 22 (Psalm 23 in the Vulgate) in this codex reads: ‘Psalm of David, the voice of the church after being raptured.’ The last phrase is ‘post raptisnum’ in the original Latin. Stitzinger regards this as referring to a pretribulation rapture.
Stitzinger comes to his conclusion because early in the article he says, ‘The rapture in church history is really a history of pretribulationism’ (p.153) In other words, he has prejudged the issue, so when he sees a mention of the rapture in an historical document, except those from recent times, he assumes that it must be referring to a pretribulation rapture. This is a very unscholarly approach to research. When conducting research we should try to keep an open mind on the subject under consideration. On this subject we should ask questions of each reference to the rapture in the documents of the past. Such as, ‘What is the context(s) of the rapture reference and how might that affect the meaning?’ Leading from that, ‘What does the writer mean by “rapture”?’ If the rapture seems to be a carrying away into heaven, then it needs to be asked ‘Is it pre-trib, post-trib or something else?’ These and other questions always need to be asked. One cannot just assume that every rapture reference is pre-trib.
So is he correct in seeing this reference as a pre-trib rapture? It needs to be understood, first, that what has been quoted above is the entire quotation, nothing has been left out. Secondly, even if the final word is translated correctly, and a carrying or snatching up to heaven is intended (see below), there is not a hint about the timing. It does not say whether it is a pretribulation rapture or one that is post-tribulational, or even a-tribulational.
However, the problems with Stitzinger’s position do not end with the timing of it. We also need to ask, is the word raptisnum translated correctly? I am not a Latin scholar, but a bit of research indicates that this word is in the same family as rapio and rapina, which have such varied meanings as tearing, snatching, hurrying, being carried away, pillaging and robbing. It is worth noting, too, that it is from these words that we get our English word ‘rapine’, which refers to a very different carrying away than one to heaven. It is being taken captive by an enemy or bandits. In other words, this Latin word does not normally refer to being taken up to heaven and here it could refer to something very unpleasant.
We need now to examine the documentary context. The heading to Psalm 22 in this Codex says, ‘the voice of the church after being (?)’, with the meaning of the last word uncertain. Psalm 22 is a Psalm Jesus quoted when he was on the cross. It contains such phrases as ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ (v.1), ‘O my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer’ (v.2), ‘I am a worm and not a man, scorned by men and despised by the people’ (v.6) and ‘Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and feet’ (v.16). This Psalm does not sound the least like a church that has been raptured up to heaven. It sounds much more like a person or a church that is being persecuted on earth. The context in the document, therefore, suggests this very negative meaning, rather than a positive, heavenly one.
When all those things are considered, it does not seem possible that this document refers to a pretribulation rapture to heaven.
David Malcolm Bennett (August 2012, slightly amended June 2013)
