Origins of the Secret Pre-trib Rapture

[Choose Wisely]

Choose Wisely - I TRULY hope that you were joking around.

Anyone who expects to miss the Tribulation Period because they expect to be taken away, is SADLY mistaken and has been horribly deceived.
If I knew today who the antichrist was and told you, you would NOT believe that it was him because you were still here. THAT is exactly what Satan wants.

Don't be fooled because the standard pre trib model is in error (Matt 24 is not the second coming of Christ, it is the second harvest). There will be a pre tribulation rapture and it is not too far off.

 

[Biblewriter]

Again where does it specifically state in Daniel that there is a 2000 year or more gap? It seems like you are interpreting the last week to fit a particular eschatology belief in a futurist Anti-Christ. If we are to take the 70 weeks, 490 days and interpret them to be 490 literal years we should interpret them as 490 consecutive years unless clear statements of scripture can be identified which states that the last week is to be delayed for 2000 or more years into the future.

The length of this delay is never stated in scripture. But every Christian writer who commented before the year 200 on when these things would take place, and whose works have been preserved, thought that it would be at the end of earth's six thousandth year. ( Epistle of Barnabas, chapter XV, Against Heresies, by Irenaeus, book V, chapter XXVII, sections 2-3 and book V, chapter XXXIII, section 2) Since they used the chronology of the Septuagint, that would mean that they expected the gap to be around 450 to 500 years.

Every other Christian writer who wrote on Bible Prophecy before the year 200, and whose works have been preserved, said there would be a future kingdom on this earth that would last a thousand years. (Dialogue With Trypho, by Justin Martyr, chapters LXXX-LXXXI and Eusebius' comments on Papias, The Church History, by Eusebius, book III, chapter XXXIX, sections 12-13.)

Indeed, in the early church this opinion was so all prevalent that in the fifth century Justin wrote that "We should therefore concur with the traditional interpretation of all the commentators of the Christian Church, that at the end of the world, when the Roman Empire is to be destroyed, there shall be ten kings who will partition the Roman world amongst themselves. Then an insignificant eleventh king will arise, who will overcome three of the ten kings." (Jerome’s comments on Daniel 7:8, as found in “Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel,” translated by Gleason L. Archer, Jr., published by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1958.)

So this was taught by essentially "all the (early) commentators of the Christian Church."

But that, of course, does not make it correct. Your question was about "clear statements of scripture" that show this delay. So let's look at the seventy week passage.

"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy." (Daniel 9:24)

First, we need to understand that, although most of our English translations say seventy weeks, the Hebrew word translated weeks was shabuwa' (word number 7620 in Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary) This word was used in the Old Testament for both a period of seven days and a period of seven years. Only the context could show whether days of years was meant. An in this case, the context clearly shows that the meaning could not even possibly been days. So it is not simply interpretation to take seventy weeks as meaning 490 years. This is a fully legitimate significance of the Hebrew words used here.

"Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times." (Daniel 9:26) Here we have sixty-nine weeks, or 483 years, from the going forth of the commandment to Messiah the Prince. Some claim that there is historical evidence that the triumphal entry occurred exactly 483 years, to the day, after the signing of this order. I cannot personally testify as to the accuracy of this claim. But history indeed confirms that it occurred at approximately that time.

But now the account itself contains a break:

"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined." (Daniel 9:25-26)

Two things were to happen after the sixty-two week second part of this account. And we know that both of them indeed happened exactly as explicitly stated. “Messiah” would “be cut off,” and “the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.” Messiah was indeed cut off, and the city and the sanctuary were indeed destroyed. We know from history that these two events did not happen within a seven year period. Most historians feel that the actual date of Jesus’ birth was 4 BC. Since Jesus lived thirty-three years, that makes his death in 29 A.D. But the city was not destroyed until 70 A.D., forty-one years later. So even if there are small errors in the accepted dates of history, we absolutely know that “the city and the sanctuary” were not destroyed in the same week (seven year period) that our Lord was crucified. So here we see an absolutely undeniable break in the scriptural account of the seventy weeks.

But the last week is treated differently. It does not even say that this is the seventieth week. The only reason we know that it is the seventieth week is because all the rest of the weeks had already been used up. So this week had to be the seventieth one. We read:

"And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate." (Daniel 9:27)

Now many want to believe that this verse speaks of the cross. They want to interpret the word “for” in this verse as “in,” and claim that this was speaking of Jesus confirming God’s covenant with us in one week, and claim that Jesus was crucified at the middle of the seventieth week. But even if accepted history were indeed that far in error, this still makes the work of confirming the covenant extend three and a half years beyond the death of Jesus. But when Jesus was hanging on the cross, He cried, “it is finished.” (John 19:30) So the prophecy simply does not “work” under this assumption.

So I have to conclude that the scriptures do indeed show a gap in the prophecy of the seventy weeks.

 

[Super Kal]

Don't be fooled because the standard pre trib model is in error (Matt 24 is not the second coming of Christ, it is the second harvest). There will be a pre tribulation rapture and it is not too far off.

and when it doesn't happen, I'll be here, waiting to tell you and every other pre-tribber, that includes you, biblewriter, "I told you so."

 

[John S]

Kal - When it doesn't happen, they won't believe you that so and so is the antichrist.

 

[earagun]

Don't be fooled because the standard pre trib model is in error (Matt 24 is not the second coming of Christ, it is the second harvest). There will be a pre tribulation rapture and it is not too far off.

circling birds usually indicates something is dead.......hmmm

 

[Chris81]

The length of this delay is never stated in scripture. But every Christian writer who commented before the year 200 on when these things would take place, and whose works have been preserved, thought that it would be at the end of earth's six thousandth year. ( Epistle of Barnabas, chapter XV, Against Heresies, by Irenaeus, book V, chapter XXVII, sections 2-3 and book V, chapter XXXIII, section 2) Since they used the chronology of the Septuagint, that would mean that they expected the gap to be around 450 to 500 years.

Every other Christian writer who wrote on Bible Prophecy before the year 200, and whose works have been preserved, said there would be a future kingdom on this earth that would last a thousand years. (Dialogue With Trypho, by Justin Martyr, chapters LXXX-LXXXI and Eusebius' comments on Papias, The Church History, by Eusebius, book III, chapter XXXIX, sections 12-13.)

Indeed, in the early church this opinion was so all prevalent that in the fifth century Justin wrote that "We should therefore concur with the traditional interpretation of all the commentators of the Christian Church, that at the end of the world, when the Roman Empire is to be destroyed, there shall be ten kings who will partition the Roman world amongst themselves. Then an insignificant eleventh king will arise, who will overcome three of the ten kings." (Jerome’s comments on Daniel 7:8, as found in “Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel,” translated by Gleason L. Archer, Jr., published by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1958.)

So this was taught by essentially "all the (early) commentators of the Christian Church."

But that, of course, does not make it correct. Your question was about "clear statements of scripture" that show this delay. So let's look at the seventy week passage.

"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy." (Daniel 9:24)

First, we need to understand that, although most of our English translations say seventy weeks, the Hebrew word translated weeks was shabuwa' (word number 7620 in Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary) This word was used in the Old Testament for both a period of seven days and a period of seven years. Only the context could show whether days of years was meant. An in this case, the context clearly shows that the meaning could not even possibly been days. So it is not simply interpretation to take seventy weeks as meaning 490 years. This is a fully legitimate significance of the Hebrew words used here.

"Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times." (Daniel 9:26) Here we have sixty-nine weeks, or 483 years, from the going forth of the commandment to Messiah the Prince. Some claim that there is historical evidence that the triumphal entry occurred exactly 483 years, to the day, after the signing of this order. I cannot personally testify as to the accuracy of this claim. But history indeed confirms that it occurred at approximately that time.

But now the account itself contains a break:

"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined." (Daniel 9:25-26)

Two things were to happen after the sixty-two week second part of this account. And we know that both of them indeed happened exactly as explicitly stated. “Messiah” would “be cut off,” and “the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.” Messiah was indeed cut off, and the city and the sanctuary were indeed destroyed. We know from history that these two events did not happen within a seven year period. Most historians feel that the actual date of Jesus’ birth was 4 BC. Since Jesus lived thirty-three years, that makes his death in 29 A.D. But the city was not destroyed until 70 A.D., forty-one years later. So even if there are small errors in the accepted dates of history, we absolutely know that “the city and the sanctuary” were not destroyed in the same week (seven year period) that our Lord was crucified. So here we see an absolutely undeniable break in the scriptural account of the seventy weeks.

But the last week is treated differently. It does not even say that this is the seventieth week. The only reason we know that it is the seventieth week is because all the rest of the weeks had already been used up. So this week had to be the seventieth one. We read:

"And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate." (Daniel 9:27)

Now many want to believe that this verse speaks of the cross. They want to interpret the word “for” in this verse as “in,” and claim that this was speaking of Jesus confirming God’s covenant with us in one week, and claim that Jesus was crucified at the middle of the seventieth week. But even if accepted history were indeed that far in error, this still makes the work of confirming the covenant extend three and a half years beyond the death of Jesus. But when Jesus was hanging on the cross, He cried, “it is finished.” (John 19:30) So the prophecy simply does not “work” under this assumption.

So I have to conclude that the scriptures do indeed show a gap in the prophecy of the seventy weeks.

A very well written post! I don't doubt that the early christian pre-mellianalist believed in a future anti-christ and a distinctive set time for the tribulation. However, that period of tribulation as understood by historic pre-mellialist as a period of 3.5 years not 7 years. If you just read revelations in the context of what is written in the book itself, a 3.5 year tribulation seems to be well justified.

When you look at the 490 years and add that time period to the date of Artaxerxes' Decree at 457 BC you get the date 34 AD. I believe that the 70 weeks of Daniel is about Christ 1st coming. I would have to admit that there are many different interpretations as to how exactly the last week fits within Christ life, death, and mission of the early church. So no I do not have an exact answer as to how to interpret this final week of Daniel. I simply believe that it makes more sense to interpret Daniels 70 weeks as 490 consecutive years and believe that it reasonably fits within the time frame of Christ's first coming.

 

[Biblewriter]

A very well written post! I don't doubt that the early christian pre-mellianalist believed in a future anti-christ and a distinctive set time for the tribulation. However, that period of tribulation as understood by historic pre-mellialist as a period of 3.5 years not 7 years. If you just read revelations in the context of what is written in the book itself, a 3.5 year tribulation seems to be well justified.

I agree that at least some of them expected it to last 3-1/2 years. But my reading of their work makes me think that this was because they were only talking about what we today call "the great tribulation," or the last half of Daniel's seventieth week. This opinion of mine comes from the fact that Irenaeus explicitly stated that the tribulation would be "when the church is suddenly caught up," (I quoted it earlier in this thread) but also had the church suffering under the Antichrist.

When you look at the 490 years and add that time period to the date of Artaxerxes' Decree at 457 BC you get the date 34 AD. I believe that the 70 weeks of Daniel is about Christ 1st coming. I would have to admit that there are many different interpretations as to how exactly the last week fits within Christ life, death, and mission of the early church. So no I do not have an exact answer as to how to interpret this final week of Daniel. I simply believe that it makes more sense to interpret Daniels 70 weeks as 490 consecutive years and believe that it reasonably fits within the time frame of Christ's first coming.

The edict of 457 B.C. was not the edict to restore and to build Jerusalem. That was in 444, if the historians are correct. The 457 edict was a re-enactment of a 538 edict to rebuild the temple and renew Jewish worship. This had been revoked due to false accusations from the enemies and was re-enacted in 457, again if the historian's dates are correct. (You may have noticed that I am not over-confident of their dates.)

link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artaxerxes_I

I mentioned that some claim that the 444 edict was 483 years to the day before the triumphal entry into Jerusalem. I found a website with the calculation, but I think they take it to the date of his death, not the triumphal entry. They base it on an assumption that the edict went out on the first day of the month mentioned in Nehemiah 2:1, claiming that it was customary to omit the exact day if something occurred on the first day of a month. They also assume that the edict went out the same day that Nehemiah talked to the king.

Link:
http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/bible-studies/daniel/study015/page02-decree-to-rebuild-jerusalem.html

But even if these assumptions are completely wrong, their calculation indeed shows that, if the historian's dates are correct, Jesus indeed died within a month or so of the expiration of Daniel's sixty-ninth week.

 

[Chris81]

The edict of 457 B.C. was not the edict to restore and to build Jerusalem. That was in 444, if the historians are correct. The 457 edict was a re-enactment of a 538 edict to rebuild the temple and renew Jewish worship. This had been revoked due to false accusations from the enemies and was re-enacted in 457, again if the historian's dates are correct. (You may have noticed that I am not over-confident of their dates.)

link:
Artaxerxes I of Persia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I mentioned that some claim that the 444 edict was 483 years to the day before the triumphal entry into Jerusalem. I found a website with the calculation, but I think they take it to the date of his death, not the triumphal entry. They base it on an assumption that the edict went out on the first day of the month mentioned in Nehemiah 2:1, claiming that it was customary to omit the exact day if something occurred on the first day of a month. They also assume that the edict went out the same day that Nehemiah talked to the king.

Link:
Messiah Is Alive - Decree To Rebuild Jerusalem

But even if these assumptions are completely wrong, their calculation indeed shows that, if the historian's dates are correct, Jesus indeed died within a month or so of the expiration of Daniel's sixty-ninth week.

Interesting, previously I was not sure from what starting point you were adding the 483 years to arrive at the date of Christ death. If nothing else these threads tend to bring some clarity to one another's theological beliefs.

 

[Cool_Hand_Luke]

Let's study the origins of the pre-trib rapture.
So the doctrine of a secret pre-trib came from the vision of a 15 year old Scottish Girl. John Darby then incorporated this belief of the secret rapture into his futurist theology and there in lies the origins of dispensational theology!

So, by the information posted in this thread, Chris would you now recant your original position?
(I lump the Scottish girl and Darby together as you have done)
http://www.christianforums.com/t7602975-8/#post58916380

Shouldn't even be a question about it. It is a proveable fact that Darby did not invent the pretrib rapture.

 

[Chris81]

So, by the information posted in this thread, Chris would you now recant your original position?
(I lump the Scottish girl and Darby together as you have done)
http://www.christianforums.com/t7602975-8/#post58916380

No, the matter of where Darby received the idea of the pre-trib rapture has not yet been addressed as part of this thread. In fact we have veered off course as we usually do from the original intent of the OP. (This is partly my fault, admittedly!) Though I did enjoy discussing the meaning of the 70th week of Daniel.

Getting back to the intent of the OP. Does it not seem a bit odd that this girl has a vision of a pre-trib rapture and then shortly within the same frame of history, Darby himself writes and preaches about a pre-trib rapture. Now to say that Darby would never have incorporated any theological ideas from Irving's congregation because of his dislike of their core beliefs and practices, is actually not a slam dunk argument. Remember that the Anabaptist were terribly persecuted by the calvinist yet many baptist have strong calvinist beliefs incorporated into as part of their theology. People often incorporate the ideas of the things they agree with even while not particularly liking those whom were the originator of those ideas.

No, the question still remains, where did Darby derive his pre-trib rapture doctrine? Based on my understanding, Darby stated that the idea of the pre-trib rapture came to him as a matter of personal revelation and not as a matter of uncovering a previously understood truth by the process of scouring the early church historical documents.

 

[zeke37]

No, the matter of where Darby received the idea of the pre-trib rapture has not yet been addressed as part of this thread. In fact we have veered off course as we usually do from the original intent of the OP. (This is partly my fault, admittedly!) Though I did enjoy discussing the meaning of the 70th week of Daniel.

here is the original published version of the vision.
I bolded some points, so that we can all see that this is NOT a PRE trib account at all.

why it became known as such is beyond me???

What follows is the version of Margaret Macdonald's revelation as published in The Restoration of Apostles and
Prophets In the Catholic Apostolic Church (1861).
MARGARET'S REVELATION

"It was first the awful state of the land that was pressed upon me.

I saw the blindness and infatuation of the people to be very great. I felt the cry of Liberty just to be the hiss of the serpent, to drown them in perdition.

It was just 'no God.' I repeated the words, Now there is distress of nations, with perplexity, the seas and the waves roaring, men's hearts failing them for fear. Now look out for the sign of the Son of Man.

Here I was made to stop and cry out, O it is not known what the sign of the Son of Man is; the people of God think they are waiting, but they know not what it is. I felt this needed to be revealed, and that there was great darkness and error about it; but suddenly what it was burst upon me with a glorious light. I saw it was just the Lord himself descending from Heaven with a shout, just the glorified man, even Jesus; but that all must, as Stephen was, be filled with the Holy Ghost, that they might look up, and see the brightness of the Father's glory.
I saw the error to be, that men think that it will be something seen by the natural eye; but 'tis spiritual discernment that is needed, the eye of God in his people.
Many passages were revealed, in a light in which I had not before seen them.
I repeated, 'Now is the kingdom of Heaven like unto ten virgins, who went forth to meet the Bridegroom, five wise and five foolish; they that were foolish took their lamps, but took no oil with them; but they that were wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.' 'But be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is; and be not drunk with wine wherein is excess, but be filled with the Spirit.'

This was the oil the wise virgins took in their vessels - this is the light to be kept burning - the light of God - that we may discern that which cometh not with observation to the natural eye.
Only those who have the light of God within them will see the sign of his appearance.

No need to follow them who say, see here, or see there, for his day shall be as the lightning to those in whom the living Christ is. 'Tis Christ in us that will lift us up - he is the light - 'tis only those that are alive in him that will be caught up to meet him in the air.
I saw that we must be in the Spirit, that we might see spiritual things. John was in the Spirit, when he saw a throne set in Heaven. But I saw that the glory of the ministration of the Spirit had not been known.

I repeated frequently, but the spiritual temple must and shall be reared, and the fullness of Christ be poured into his body, and then shall we be caught up to meet him.

Oh none will be counted worthy of this calling but his body, which is the church, and which must be a candlestick all of gold.

I often said, Oh the glorious inbreaking of God which is now about to burst on this earth; Oh the glorious temple which is now about to be reared, the bride adorned for her husband; and Oh what a holy, holy bride she must he, to be prepared for such a glorious bridegroom.
I said, Now shall the people of God have to do with realities - now shall the glorious mystery of God in our nature be known - now shall it be known what it is for man to be glorified. I felt that the revelation of Jesus Christ had yet to be opened up - it is not knowledge about God that it contains, but it is an entering into God - I saw that there was a glorious breaking in of God to be. I felt as Elijah, surrounded with chariots of fire. I saw as it were, the spiritual temple reared, and the Head Stone brought forth with shoutings of grace, grace, unto it. It was a glorious light above the brightness of the sun that shone round about me. I felt that those who were filled with the Spirit could see spiritual things, and feel walking in the midst of them, while those who had not the Spirit could see nothing - so that two shall be in one bed, the one taken and the other left, because the one has the light of God within while the other cannot see the Kingdom of Heaven.

I saw the people of God in an awfully dangerous situation, surrounded by nets and entanglements, about to be tried, and many about to be deceived and fall.

Now will THE WICKED be revealed, with all power and signs and lying wonders, so that it it were possible the very elect will be deceived - This is the fiery trial which is to try us. - It will be for the purging and purifying of the real members of the body of Jesus; but Oh it will be a fiery trial.

Every soul will he shaken to the very centre.

The enemy will try to shake in every thing we have believed - but the trial of real faith will be found to honour and praise and glory.

Nothing but what is of God will stand. The stony-ground hearers will be made manifest - the love of many will wax cold.

I frequently said that night, and often since, now shall the awful sight of a false Christ be seen on this earth, and nothing but the living Christ in us can detect this awful attempt of the enemy to deceive - for it is with all deceivableness of unrighteousness he will work - he will have a counterpart for every part of God's truth, and an imitation for every work of the Spirit.

The Spirit must and will be poured out on the church, that she may be purified and filled with God - and just in proportion as the Spirit of God works, so will he - when our Lord anoints men with power, so will he.

This is particularly the nature of the trial, through which those are to pass who will be counted worthy to stand before the Son of man. There will he outward trial too, but 'tis principally temptation.

It is brought on by the outpouring of the Spirit, and will just increase in proportion as the Spirit is poured out.
The trial of the Church is from Antichrist. It is by being filled with the Spirit that we shall be kept.

I frequently said, Oh be filled with the Spirit - have the light of God in you, that you may detect Satan - be full of eyes within -be clay in the hands of the potter -submit to be filled, filled with God. This will build the temple. It is not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord. This will fit us to enter into the marriage supper of the Lamb.

I saw it to be the will of God that all should be filled. But what hindered the real life of God from being received by his people, was their turning from Jesus, who is the way to the Father. They were not entering in by the door. For he is faithful who hath said, by me if any man enters in he shall find pasture.

They were bypassing the cross, through which every drop of the Spirit of God flows to us. All power that comes not through the blood of Christ is not of God.

When I say, they are looking from the cross, I feel that there is much in it - they turn from the blood of the Lamb, by which we overcome, and in which our robes are washed and made white. There are low views of God's holiness, and a ceasing to condemn sin in the flesh, and a looking from him who humbled himself, and made himself of no reputation. Oh! it is needed, much needed at present, a leading back to the cross.

I saw that night, and often since, that there will be an outpouring of the Spirit on the body, such as has not been, a baptism of fire, that all the dross may be put away. Oh there must and will be such an indwelling of the living God as has not been - the servants of God sealed in their foreheads - great conformity to Jesus - his holy holy image seen in his people - just the bride made comely by his comeliness put upon her.

This is what we are at present made to pray much for, that speedily we may all be made ready to meet our Lord in the air - and it will be. Jesus wants his bride. His desire is toward us. He that shall come, will come, and will not tarry.
Amen and Amen Even so come Lord Jesus.''

​

there is nothing pre trib about tis vision at all...
nothing.

 

[Chris81]

here is the original published version of the vision.
I bolded some points, so that we can all see that this is NOT a PRE trib account at all.

why it became known as such is beyond me???



there is nothing pre trib about tis vision at all...
nothing.

Originally, I prescribed to the belief that she was speaking of a partial pre-trib rapture. One in which the spiritually enlightened christians would be caught-up with the Lord in secret, while the rest of the church was refined through the process of tribulation. However, reading it over and over again in its full context, I am not so sure that this is the case. It seems likely that she could rather be speaking of how Christ shall come to revel himself spiritually to all true christians such that they may understand the signs of the future tribulation at the hands of the Anti-Christ and the second coming of Christ and his Kingdom. However, I would have to say that this is the type of writing that most pre-trib apologist would use to show evidence that someone other than Darby was the first to come up with the idea of the pre-trib rapture. I still wonder if he may have incorportated some ideas of the rapture from hearing of her vision. I will give you a few examples:

I saw it was just the Lord himself descending from Heaven with a shout, just the glorified man, even Jesus; but that all must, as Stephen was, be filled with the Holy Ghost, that they might look up, and see the brightness of the Father's glory.
I saw the error to be, that men think that it will be something seen by the natural eye; but 'tis spiritual discernment that is needed, the eye of God in his people.

I could easily see this being used by pre-tribs as an account of a secret rapture. The coming of Christ to rapture his chosen away that shall not be reveled to all by a loud entrance by the Lord but rather only the spiritually enlightened shall secretly be caught up with the him.

No need to follow them who say, see here, or see there, for his day shall be as the lightning to those in whom the living Christ is. 'Tis Christ in us that will lift us up - he is the light - 'tis only those that are alive in him that will be caught up to meet him in the air.

This could also be construed as a rapture event. The alive in Christ being caught up.

I felt that those who were filled with the Spirit could see spiritual things, and feel walking in the midst of them, while those who had not the Spirit could see nothing - so that two shall be in one bed, the one taken and the other left, because the one has the light of God within while the other cannot see the Kingdom of Heaven.

I think we have all heard the verse of "one shall be taken and the other left behind" as evidence of a pre-trib rapture by many on this forum.

This is what we are at present made to pray much for, that speedily we may all be made ready to meet our Lord in the air - and it will be. Jesus wants his bride. His desire is toward us. He that shall come, will come, and will not tarry.
Amen and Amen Even so come Lord Jesus.''

A common theme among pre-trib believers is the importance to ready one-self for the rapture. A claim could be made that a similar appeal is being made.


...Did Margaret MacDonald have a vision of a pre-trib rapture. Well, I admit that this seems questionable. Yet it should also be noted that by selectively taking bits and pieces of her vision one could be persuaded to believe that she did in fact speak of a pre-trib rapture. This is no different of a task than that of a pre-trib apologist who selectively takes pieces of the writings from earlier christian writers and claims that the pre-trib doctrine is rooted in the early beliefs of the church. Of course, as it is important to read the bible in its full context it is also important to read other people writings within the full context of what they have written in their life time.

So where does this leave-us. Right now, it appears the origins of the pre-trib rapture may lie entirely with Darby. This is a belief that was at one time affirmed by most Dispensationalist.

 

[Biblewriter]

No, the matter of where Darby received the idea of the pre-trib rapture has not yet been addressed as part of this thread. In fact we have veered off course as we usually do from the original intent of the OP. (This is partly my fault, admittedly!) Though I did enjoy discussing the meaning of the 70th week of Daniel.

Getting back to the intent of the OP. Does it not seem a bit odd that this girl has a vision of a pre-trib rapture and then shortly within the same frame of history, Darby himself writes and preaches about a pre-trib rapture. Now to say that Darby would never have incorporated any theological ideas from Irving's congregation because of his dislike of their core beliefs and practices, is actually not a slam dunk argument. Remember that the Anabaptist were terribly persecuted by the calvinist yet many baptist have strong calvinist beliefs incorporated into as part of their theology. People often incorporate the ideas of the things they agree with even while not particularly liking those whom were the originator of those ideas.

No, the question still remains, where did Darby derive his pre-trib rapture doctrine? Based on my understanding, Darby stated that the idea of the pre-trib rapture came to him as a matter of personal revelation and not as a matter of uncovering a previously understood truth by the process of scouring the early church historical documents.

I must begin by repeating the observation that there is exactly zero evidence that Darby even knew about the alleged vision. Until some such evidence is discovered, any and all allegations about a link are 100% pure, unadulterated, supposition.

But the thing about this that is most remarkable about this supposition is that both Frere and Cuninghame published pre-trib documents in the 1800's significantly before the alleged date of Margaret MacDonald's alleged vision, but no one is interested in claiming that Darby got the idea from them. Nor do they attribute it to Joseph Mede, who in the 1600's wrote about it and even used the word "rapture" in describing it. But they want to ascribe it to Margaret MacDonald because of the perception that her vision was inspired by a demon!

-------

In post 11, I made the comment that "This false accusation was first made in 1864 by a man named Samuel Prideaux Tergelles. Darby's associates never knew about the accusation until after both Darby and Tergelles had died. But Darby's associate of many years wrote a hotly worded rebuttal of the accusation on the 1880's." But to enlarge on that a little, The rebuttal contained, among other things, the information that Darby had told one of his associates that he had originally gotten the idea from a Mr. Tweedy. (This Mr Tweedy was highly regarded among the Plymouth Brethren, but not nearly as much so as Darby himself. He finished his life as a missionary in Bagdad.) This comment is particularly significant in view of the fact that it was not made in regard to any contention about the source.

The Plymouth Brethren, of whom Darby was one of the main leaders, did not consider the history of an idea as something even significant. Who had believed an idea in the past had, in their minds, zero significance. The only thing that counted was whether of not the scriptures taught it.


-------


The argument that Darby would not have given the vision any credence whatsoever, even if he had known about it, is far more that the Plymouth brethren's rejection of the core beliefs of Margaret MacDonald's church. It is rather that basing his belief, even in the smallest part, on such a vision would have done violence to Darby's own core beliefs. And he was so rigorous in applying these core beliefs in his own personal life that he caused himself a great deal of hardship, even to the point of splitting the very group he had himself founded, something he did more than once. He could easily have avoided two such splits with only small compromises, but he would not compromise.

Darby himself insisted that the only source for truth was the Bible itself. He wrote, “There can be no new truth, which would not be found in the word.” Also saying “The Scriptures are the only rule or standard of faith and practice.” (From “The Collected Writings of J. N. Darby” second ed., William Kelly, ed., London, G. Morrish, not dated. The first quotation is from Vol 1, pg 350. The second is from Vol 3, pg 98.) These are not just exceptional statements of this very prolific writer, but basic principles that he consistently applied.

An example of this is the following note he wrote to a woman about some dreams she and some of her friends had reported.

“Very dear sister, – I hear that some of the sisters have had dreams about the coming of Jesus. This has given me uneasiness, for although absent in body, I am with you in spirit, desiring and seeking the good of all of you, the dear redeemed ones of our precious Saviour. It is by the word of God, our rule and our light in these last days, that we must abide. I do not pretend to say that God may not give warning by a dream, for the word of God says that He can do so; but we must be much upon our guard. We have no need of a dream with respect to matters revealed by God... You will generally find that sisters are the ones who have seen these things, and I have not, moreover, noticed that it has brought them, or others, nearer to God... So I beg these sisters to weigh these things well, and not to allow themselves readily to put faith in these dreams, as if they came from God. Let them not allow themselves to be carried away by their imagination, lest they should fall into the snare of the enemy, and lest he should take advantage of this to shake the faith of some.” (From “The Letters of J. N. D.”, Vol. 1, pp. 93-94, second ed., William Kelly, ed., London, G Morrish, 1914)

This letter clearly shows that Darby denounced the idea that these dreams had come from God because we should rely only on the word of God. (by this he plainly meant the Bible) Notice also the scornful nature of his comment that “You will generally find that sisters are the ones who have seen these things.” Lest anyone imagine that this letter refers to Margaret MacDonald, please note that the subject was dreams, not a vision. The dreams, and those who had them, were plural, not singular. And the letter, which infers that Darby had only recently heard about the dreams, was dated March 5th, 1845, fifteen years after Margaret MacDonald’s alleged vision.

In addition to rejecting all supposed truth from extra-Biblical sources, Darby also rejected all teaching or preaching by women. He wrote that “I do not accept a woman’s going out to evangelize. I never saw a woman meddle in teaching and church matters, but she brought mischief upon herself and everyone else. If she sits down with a company before her to teach them, she has got out of her place altogether.” (From “The Collected Writings of J. N. Darby” second ed., Vol 26, pg 383, William Kelly, ed., London, G. Morrish, not dated.) Again, he wrote, “A woman cannot be a principle agent in the work. It is contrary to the ways of God. She may help, GREATLY help, but not be the principle agent.” (From “The Collected Writings of J. N. Darby” second ed., Vol 32, pg 341, William Kelly, ed., London, G. Morrish, not dated.)

Further evidence against the accusation that Darby got this idea from Margaret MacDonald’s supposed vision is Darby’s opinion of her group as a whole. She was a member of a group that called itself the "Catholic Apostolic Church." He called this group the Irvingites because their founder and main teacher was a man named Edward Irving.

Darby wrote of this group that:

“The people called Irvingites have been plainly convicted elsewhere of so much false doctrine, false practice, and false prophecy, and that by many of the Church of God, as to make it, when known, a question only of preserving God’s children against the deceits and crafts of Satan... they have been often charged with holding the sinful humanity of Christ, and many of their teachers and disciples have, to the writer of this and to other persons avowed it -- that He had the carnal mind, but kept it down or dead. Mr. Irving, bold and fearless in the statement of what he held, declared that his nature bristled with sin like quills upon a porcupine; and that the nature with which the Son of man was clothed poured forth from the center of its inmost will streams as black as hell; and that the Augean stable of this nature was given Him to cleanse; and, what was most material, the spirit which they profess to be the Holy Ghost, though it might not sanction the language, expressly sanctioned the doctrine, the doctrine to which it gave its sanction being, that the law of sin was there all-present.
“Now this was so plainly wicked and evil, and contrary to God’s word and Spirit, that they have, since they have been pressed with it, taken great pains, at least the subtler ones among them, to disclaim and deny this. I say the subtler ones; because it has been not long since avowed by some of their teachers to the writer of this. The way they have gotten over the Spirit’s having sanctioned it is, that they were not answerable for what was said, that is, in utterance by the Spirit, before the ordinances were set up. One of these very ordinances said to the writer of this, that the Spirit might have said it through prejudice to please Me. Irving. I only mention this to shew the unhappy degradation to which men may be reduced by giving way to the leadings of an evil spirit.” (From “The Collected Writings of J. N. Darby” second ed., Vol 15, pp 3-4, William Kelly, ed., London, G. Morrish, not dated.)

But it is not only the group that Darby condemned as Satanic, but their alleged prophetic visions. I boldfaced one comment about this above, But in addition to that comment, he further wrote that “It may not be generally known that the ‘gifts’ among the Irvingites were founded on this doctrine of Christ being a sinner in nature like ourselves. Mr. Irving’s statement was that he had long preached the ‘gifts,’ but there was nothing for the Holy Ghost to testify to; but when he preached this doctrine they came as a witness to it. His teaching moreover on the subject was confirmed by what was received as the prophetic power amongst them.”(From “The Collected Writings of J. N. Darby” second ed., Vol 6, pp 450-451, William Kelly, ed., London, G. Morrish, not dated.)

I will add as a footnote that my knowledge of Darby's writings does not come from summaries made by someone else to prove a point. I devoted literally years to a concentrated study of his writings. As a result of this study I honestly believe I have devoted more study to the doctrines of John Nelson Darby than any other living man. And as a further side note, only on the order of five to ten percent of all Darby's writings are even about eschatology. Most of his writing dealt with ecclesiology, which was the main reason I was interested in his writings.

 

[Biblewriter]

So where does this leave-us. Right now, it appears the origins of the pre-trib rapture may lie entirely with Darby. This is a belief that was at one time affirmed by most Dispensationalist.

I do not agree with your conclusion, but that is beside the point. I personally agree with Darby that the only significant observation is what the Bible actually says.

Who taught an idea in the past, or when they taught it, is, in my opinion, wholly irrelevant.

My contentions about the antiquity of the pre-trib idea and dispensationalism are not based on any thought that this adds any weight to the arguments involved. They are nothing more than an answer to those who attempt to disparage these concepts by claiming they are new.

 

[McQ]

Margaret McDonald and John Darby were not the first to preach about a pre-Tribulation Rapture . A sermon dating somewhere between 565 and 627 by Ephrem of Nisibis who was a Syrian church father wrote a sermon called "Sermon on the End of the World" a good 1,100 years before John Darby saw the Rapture happening "before" the Tribulation.
This is what he wrote:
'Why therefore do we not reject every care of earthly actions and prepare ourselves for the meeting of the Lord Jesus Christ, so that He may draw us from the confusion, which overwhelms all the world? .....All the saints and elect of God are gathered together before the tribulation, which is to come, and are taken to the Lord,in order that they may not see at any time the confusion which overwhelms the world because of our sins."
Pseudo-Ephrem, A.D. 372


I definitely believe in a pre-Tribulation rapture and I believe Scripture backs this up.

 

[Avelina777]

Let's study the origins of the pre-trib rapture.

Margaret McDonald, a 15 year old Scottish girl, and member of Edward Irving's congregation, had visions in early 1830 that included a Secret Rapture of believers before the appearance of the Antichrist. She informed Irving of her visions by letter. Irving then attended the prophecy conferences that began in Dublin Ireland in 1830 at Powerscourt Castle, where he promoted both Futurism and a Secret Rapture.

John Nelson Darby (1800–1882), a Church of Ireland clergyman, later with the Plymouth Brethren, attended a series of meetings on Bible Prophecy that began in 1830 at Powerscourt, Ireland, and at these conferences Darby apparently learned about the secret rapture as revealed by vision to Margaret McDonald, and promoted by Edward Irving, and he soon visited Margaret MacDonald at her home in Port Glasgow, Scotland. Darby later visited America several times between 1859 and 1874, where his Futurist theology was readily accepted.

So the doctrine of a secret pre-trib came from the vision of a 15 year old Scottish Girl. John Darby then incorporated this belief of the secret rapture into his futurist theology and there in lies the origins of dispensational theology!

That is absolutely 250% correct!!! Glad someone studies history!!

 

[Avelina777]

Furthermore there is evidence the girl was possessed!!

 

[zeke37]

Margaret McDonald and John Darby were not the first to preach about a pre-Tribulation Rapture . A sermon dating somewhere between 565 and 627 by Ephrem of Nisibis who was a Syrian church father wrote a sermon called "Sermon on the End of the World" a good 1,100 years before John Darby saw the Rapture happening "before" the Tribulation.
This is what he wrote:
'Why therefore do we not reject every care of earthly actions and prepare ourselves for the meeting of the Lord Jesus Christ, so that He may draw us from the confusion, which overwhelms all the world? .....All the saints and elect of God are gathered together before the tribulation, which is to come, and are taken to the Lord,in order that they may not see at any time the confusion which overwhelms the world because of our sins."
Pseudo-Ephrem, A.D. 372


I definitely believe in a pre-Tribulation rapture and I believe Scripture backs this up.

Scripture doesn't back it up at all.

the rapture is just after the dead return from heaven, with Christ at His Coming, and are raised back to life on earth.
1Thes4.

that happens on the last day, not years before the last day.
John6

 

[Avelina777]

Scripture doesn't back it up at all.

the rapture is just after the dead return from heaven, with Christ at His Coming, and are raised back to life on earth.
1Thes4.

that happens on the last day, not years before the last day.
John6

No it happens in the time of the end!! Which is going on now!!

 

[John S]

As Jesus said, "many will be deceived" - and many already have been - much to Satan's delight.
There will be NO Pre-Trib Rapture.