The rapture is not a scriptural doctrine but a modern invention, born of mistranslation, nurtured by speculation, and sustained by cultural imagination.
By Matthew A. McIntosh
Public Historian
Brewminate
Introduction
Few doctrines have so profoundly shaped the imagination of modern evangelicalism as the “rapture.” From pulpits to paperback novels, from the prophetic charts of itinerant preachers to the global reach of the Left Behind series, the notion of believers suddenly vanishing into the sky has captured both fascination and fear. Yet for all its cultural prominence, the rapture remains a theological latecomer. The term itself is absent from Scripture, deriving instead from the Latin rapiemur in the Vulgate translation of 1 Thessalonians 4:17, where Paul writes that the faithful will be “caught up” (ἁρπαγησόμεθα) to meet the Lord in the air.1 What was once a descriptive verb has, over centuries of interpretive layering, become the centerpiece of an elaborate eschatological system.
This system, especially as formulated in the dispensationalism of John Nelson Darby and popularized through the Scofield Reference Bible in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, divided the return of Christ into two distinct phases: a secret removal of the Church prior to a period of tribulation, followed by a visible Second Coming in glory.2 Such a two-stage framework, however, is foreign to the writings of the early church, the medieval scholastics, and even the Reformers. Patristic eschatology envisioned a single climactic advent of Christ, encompassing resurrection, judgment, and renewal, not a covert evacuation of the faithful.3
The purpose of this essay is threefold. First, it will trace the history of belief in the rapture, situating it within the broader tradition of Christian eschatology and the recurrent phenomenon of “end times” predictions. Second, it will demonstrate that the rapture as commonly taught is not a scriptural doctrine but rather a product of linguistic missteps, exegetical distortions, and theological innovations of the modern era. Finally, it will examine why such predictions have persisted despite repeated failure, and what their endurance reveals about the cultural and psychological allure of eschatological speculation.
The stakes are not merely academic. To mistake the fleeting hope of a secret deliverance for the biblical promise of resurrection and new creation is to risk distorting the gospel itself. By recovering a clearer view of the eschatological hope proclaimed in the New Testament, one grounded in the unity of Christ’s return rather than divided into speculative stages, the church may be better equipped to face the future with fidelity rather than fear.
Biblical Texts Often Appealed to by Rapture Proponents
The central biblical passage invoked in support of the rapture is Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians, particularly 4:13–18. Here Paul comforts believers concerned about those who had “fallen asleep,” assuring them that at the Lord’s coming (parousia) the dead in Christ will rise first, and then those still alive “will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air” (v. 17). Proponents of the rapture seize upon the verb ἁρπαγησόμεθα (harpagēsometha, “we shall be snatched” or “caught up”), arguing that it implies a sudden removal of the church from the earth prior to a time of tribulation.4
Yet a closer examination undermines this reading. First, the text offers no suggestion of a two-stage return of Christ. The context is singular: the parousia, or advent, which in the New Testament refers to the visible, climactic return of Christ.5 To divide this advent into a secret preliminary coming for the saints and a later public coming with them introduces a theological bifurcation foreign to Paul’s discourse. The concern of the Thessalonian believers was not whether they would miss an escape into heaven, but whether their dead would share in the resurrection life at Christ’s return. Paul’s reassurance centers on the resurrection and reunion, not evacuation.6
The imagery of “meeting the Lord in the air” also deserves closer attention. The Greek word ἀπάντησις (apantēsis), rendered “meeting,” commonly referred in antiquity to the civic custom of a delegation going out to greet a visiting dignitary and then escorting him back into the city.7 In that cultural framework, Paul’s metaphor suggests not believers whisked away to remain in heaven, but a people rising to welcome their returning king, who then descends to reign in renewed creation. This reading coheres with broader Pauline eschatology, which consistently envisions the transformation of the world rather than its abandonment (cf. Rom. 8:18–23; 1 Cor. 15:20–28).
Other passages often marshaled in defense of the rapture similarly fail to sustain the weight placed upon them. In 1 Corinthians 15:51–52, Paul declares that “we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet.” Advocates interpret this as a description of the rapture, yet the focus remains on resurrection and transformation, not departure. The temporal marker, “at the last trumpet,” places the event firmly at the eschatological climax, not prior to it.8
The Synoptic Gospels add further complexity. In Matthew 24:40–41, Jesus speaks of two men in the field, one taken and one left, and two women grinding grain, one taken and one left. Popular rapture teaching has read these verses as depicting believers vanishing while unbelievers remain. However, in context, the “taken” more likely refers to those swept away in judgment, just as the people of Noah’s day were “taken” by the flood (Matt. 24:39).9 The passage, therefore, may describe not a secret deliverance of the faithful, but the sudden judgment of the unprepared.
John 14:1–3 is sometimes appealed to, with Jesus’ promise, “I will come again and take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.” Yet nothing in the text specifies a two-stage return. The promise is eschatological and relational: the presence of Christ with his people, whether by resurrection or consummated return. Revelation, likewise, depicts the saints meeting Christ but offers no clear support for a pretribulational removal. Instead, it portrays the church enduring persecution, bearing witness, and sharing in the final victory of the Lamb (Rev. 7:13–17; 12:11).
Taken together, the supposed rapture texts form a fragile exegetical foundation. When examined in context, they consistently point toward resurrection, transformation, and the climactic advent of Christ, not a secret extraction of the faithful. The doctrine arises less from the plain sense of the passages and more from a theological framework imposed upon them in later centuries.
The History of “Rapture” Belief and End-Times Speculation
Early Christianity and the Patristic Witness
In the earliest centuries of Christianity, eschatological hope centered on the resurrection of the dead, the final judgment, and the renewal of creation. The apostolic fathers (Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp) spoke often of Christ’s return, yet none envisioned a secret removal of believers from the earth.10 Instead, their language reflects continuity with Pauline and Johannine themes: a visible advent, the vindication of the martyrs, and the consummation of God’s kingdom.
The major patristic theologians reinforced this view. Irenaeus, in Against Heresies, described the resurrection as a public event inaugurating Christ’s reign, not as a hidden evacuation.11 Augustine, though allegorical in many respects, firmly located Christian hope in a unified parousia that would bring both judgment and renewal.12 The “rapture,” in the modern sense, is conspicuously absent. To argue otherwise requires an anachronistic reading back into texts that simply do not bear such a meaning.
Medieval and Reformation Eschatology
Throughout the medieval period, speculation about the end times certainly flourished. Apocalyptic fears during plagues, millenarian movements, and visionary literature attest to the intensity of eschatological imagination. Yet none of these traditions proposed a two-phase coming of Christ. The eschatological schemas of figures such as Joachim of Fiore divided history into epochs, but they did not suggest a secret rapture prior to tribulation.13
The Reformers, too, while polemicizing against Catholic eschatology and sometimes identifying the papacy with the Antichrist, spoke of a singular Second Coming. Martin Luther, John Calvin, and their contemporaries warned against idle speculation and date-setting. Calvin, commenting on 1 Thessalonians 4, emphasized the resurrection and comfort of believers, not a hidden disappearance.14 Once again, the historical record shows continuity with the early church: expectation of Christ’s return, but no doctrine of rapture.
Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century Precursors
The first faint glimmers of something resembling “rapture” teaching appeared in early modern eschatological speculation. Joseph Mede’s Clavis Apocalyptica (1627) proposed a more elaborate prophetic timetable, though without a secret removal of the saints.15 The Baptist minister Morgan Edwards, writing in the eighteenth century, produced an eschatological essay that some later interpreters claim anticipated a pretribulation rapture.16 Yet Edwards’s scheme was idiosyncratic and lacked the systematic separation of comings later championed by dispensationalists.
Even where eschatological fervor rose, among Puritans in New England, for example, the emphasis was on millennial expectations and the visible return of Christ, not on believers vanishing from the world. Cotton Mather speculated on prophetic chronology but never articulated a rapture doctrine. The overwhelming pattern remained: Christians awaited the resurrection and final judgment, not a secret flight to heaven.
Nineteenth-Century Formulation: Darby and Dispensationalism
The decisive shift occurred in the nineteenth century with the work of John Nelson Darby (1800–1882), leader among the Plymouth Brethren. Drawing on earlier apocalyptic enthusiasm, Darby systematized a theology that divided salvation history into distinct dispensations. Central to this framework was the conviction that Christ would first return invisibly to snatch away the church before the onset of tribulation, only later to appear publicly in glory with his saints.17
Darby’s teaching spread through the Brethren movement and across the Atlantic, gaining foothold in American evangelicalism. The publication of the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909, with its annotated notes explicitly teaching the rapture, ensured that Darby’s interpretation reached an unprecedented audience.18 What had been a niche teaching became mainstream in fundamentalist and evangelical circles, shaping entire generations’ eschatological imagination.
Twentieth and Twenty-First Century Popularization
The twentieth century saw the rapture move from theological circles into mass culture. Prophecy conferences, revival meetings, and Bible colleges propagated dispensational charts of the end times. Hal Lindsey’s The Late Great Planet Earth (1970) became one of the best-selling books of the decade, presenting geopolitical events through the lens of imminent rapture.19 By the 1990s and early 2000s, Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins’ Left Behind series brought the imagery of sudden disappearances, tribulation, and Antichrist to millions of readers worldwide.
In popular evangelicalism, the rapture was no longer a debated interpretive option but a presumed certainty. Yet this certainty stood in stark contrast to the historical record: for nearly eighteen centuries of Christian thought, no such doctrine existed.20 Its late emergence underscores its fragility. It is not an apostolic inheritance but a modern innovation, sustained more by cultural imagination than biblical mandate.
Critical Examination: Translation, Context, and Theological Problems
The Question of Translation: Harpazō and Raptura
At the center of rapture theology lies a single verb: ἁρπάζω (harpazō), used in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 to describe the faithful being “caught up” with the resurrected in the air.21 In its semantic range, harpazō can mean to seize, snatch away, or carry off by force.22 Nowhere, however, does the word carry the connotation of a secret or preliminary removal prior to a final event. The Vulgate rendered it as rapiemur (“we shall be snatched”), from which the English “rapture” ultimately derives.23 A common noun, raptura, later entered Latin theology and, much later still, Protestant eschatology. Thus the very term “rapture” owes its existence not to inspired Scripture but to the trajectory of Latin translation and subsequent interpretive tradition.
This linguistic genealogy matters. Doctrines built on a mistranslated or overextended term risk misrepresenting the apostolic witness. While Paul clearly promises a dramatic transformation and meeting with the Lord, nothing in the text suggests a staged removal distinct from the climactic advent of Christ. The modern doctrine depends not only on a particular translation but also on a theological superstructure foreign to the New Testament.
The Context of Parousia
Equally significant is Paul’s use of the term parousia, typically translated “coming” or “advent.” In the Greco-Roman world, a parousia referred to the arrival of an emperor or dignitary, greeted with civic celebration.24 New Testament usage consistently applies the word to the visible, glorious return of Christ at the end of the age (cf. Matt. 24:27; 1 Cor. 15:23). Nowhere does the word denote a secret or partial appearance. To split the parousia into two phases (first hidden, then public) is exegetically unwarranted. As George Eldon Ladd observed, “The parousia of Christ is one event, not two; it is the single climactic return of the Lord.”25
The Problem of Apantēsis
Further undermining the rapture schema is the Greek word ἀπάντησις (apantēsis), translated “meeting” in 1 Thessalonians 4:17. Classical and biblical usage suggest a technical meaning: the act of going out to greet a visiting dignitary and then escorting him back.26 Thus the picture Paul paints is not of believers disappearing into heaven but of the church rising to welcome Christ and accompanying him as he descends to renew creation. N. T. Wright has noted that this background renders the rapture interpretation implausible: “The point is precisely not that the saved believers stay up in the air somewhere, but that they come down again with the Lord as he arrives.”27
Theological Tensions of the Rapture Doctrine
Beyond linguistic issues, the rapture teaching creates theological incoherence. By positing a sudden evacuation of believers prior to tribulation, it undermines the New Testament’s repeated calls to endurance and faithful witness in suffering (cf. Mark 13:13; Rev. 12:11). The church, in this scheme, escapes the very trials that shape its eschatological identity. Moreover, it risks fostering an escapist spirituality, one in which creation is abandoned rather than redeemed. This stands at odds with the New Testament’s vision of a renewed heavens and earth, where God dwells with his people (Rev. 21:1–4).
Dispensational rapture theology also forces an artificial distinction between Israel and the church, treating them as two separate peoples with separate destinies.28 Yet Paul insists in Ephesians 2:14–16 that Christ has broken down the dividing wall, creating “one new humanity” from Jew and Gentile. To reintroduce a bifurcation undermines the unity of salvation history.
The Consequences of Speculation
Finally, the rapture doctrine invites precisely the kind of speculation against which Jesus warned: setting dates, forecasting signs, and seeking secret knowledge. Since the nineteenth century, rapture believers have repeatedly predicted specific years or even days, only to face disillusionment when events failed to materialize.29 Such failed prophecies not only discredit the doctrine but also bring reproach upon the church’s witness. The biblical warnings remain: “Concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only” (Matt. 24:36).
In sum, the rapture as a theological construct collapses under critical scrutiny. Its linguistic foundation is tenuous, its exegetical coherence lacking, and its theological implications problematic. Far from offering comfort, it distorts the biblical hope of resurrection, renewal, and the visible triumph of Christ.
Failed “Rapture” and End-Times Predictions as a Test Case
The Millerite Disappointment
Few events illustrate the hazards of rapture speculation more vividly than the Millerite movement of the nineteenth century. William Miller, a Baptist preacher, calculated that Christ would return between March 1843 and March 1844, later narrowing the date to October 22, 1844.30 Thousands of followers, some selling property and abandoning farms, awaited what became known as the “Great Disappointment.” When the day passed uneventfully, disillusionment swept through the movement, with many leaving Christianity altogether.31 Though Miller never spoke of a “rapture” in the modern sense, the episode demonstrates the dangers of precise date-setting and the psychological devastation that follows prophetic failure.
Twentieth-Century Forecasts
The twentieth century produced its own catalogue of failed predictions. In 1988, Edgar Whisenant, a former NASA engineer, published 88 Reasons Why the Rapture Will Be in 1988, distributing millions of copies through churches.32 The dates he proposed, September 11–13, came and went without incident. Whisenant recalculated, setting new dates in 1989, 1993, and 1994, each failing in turn. Harold Camping, founder of Family Radio, gained national attention with predictions of the rapture in 1994 and again in May 2011, later revising to October of the same year.33 Each failure eroded credibility, leaving behind shattered expectations and, in some cases, financial ruin for adherents who had sacrificed savings in anticipation of the end.
Twenty-First Century Speculation
The dawn of the twenty-first century brought no reprieve. Some rapture advocates tied their predictions to the year 2000, fueled by millennial anxieties and computer “Y2K” fears.34 Others identified astronomical alignments, blood moons, or geopolitical events as harbingers of imminent removal. More recently, predictions surrounding 2017, connected to numerological interpretations of Revelation 12, circulated widely online.35 And in September 2025, yet another widely publicized date passed without incident, prompting both ridicule from skeptics and disappointment among believers.36 The repeated cycle has become predictable: anticipation, fervor, failure, and re-interpretation.
Sociological and Theological Consequences
The persistence of failed predictions raises critical questions about the theological framework that generates them. If Jesus explicitly warned that “concerning that day and hour no one knows” (Matt. 24:36), why do rapture proponents continue to proclaim precise dates? The answer lies in the psychological allure of certainty: the hope of privileged knowledge, the thrill of anticipation, and the fear of missing out. Yet the consequences are severe. Beyond personal disillusionment, failed prophecies undermine the credibility of the church in the public square, reducing the gospel to a spectacle of failed mathematics.37
Moreover, these predictions often produce an ethic of withdrawal. Believers, convinced of imminent departure, may neglect engagement with society, stewardship of creation, or long-term commitments. As Russell Moore has argued, “A church fixated on evacuation is poorly equipped for perseverance.”38 The irony is stark: a doctrine meant to instill hope instead generates disillusionment, ridicule, and disengagement.
A Pattern of Error
The pattern is unmistakable. From Miller’s Great Disappointment to Whisenant’s pamphlets, Camping’s broadcasts, and contemporary online prophets, rapture predictions have consistently failed. Each failure not only exposes the fragility of the doctrine but also validates the warnings of Christ and the apostles against speculation. Far from being a mark of biblical fidelity, the obsession with rapture dates reveals the peril of reading Scripture through the lens of modern anxiety rather than apostolic witness.
Skeptical Alternatives and Theological Coherence
Amillennialism and the Unity of the Parousia
One of the most enduring critiques of the rapture doctrine comes from amillennialism, which interprets the “millennium” of Revelation 20 symbolically rather than as a literal thousand-year reign.39 Amillennialists hold that Christ’s parousia is a single climactic event: the resurrection of the dead, the judgment of all, and the consummation of God’s kingdom. In this framework, texts like 1 Thessalonians 4 describe not a two-stage coming but the ultimate transformation of creation. Augustine, whose City of God became definitive for much of the Western tradition, articulated precisely such a unified eschatology.40
By refusing to split the parousia, amillennialism avoids the theological problems of a secret removal while preserving the central Christian hope: that Christ will return once and for all to renew heaven and earth. This perspective provides a coherent alternative to rapture teaching, one rooted in centuries of tradition rather than nineteenth-century innovation.
Postmillennialism and the Hope of Transformation
Postmillennialism, though less popular in modern evangelicalism, offers another alternative. Emerging strongly in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, postmillennialists believed the gospel would gradually transform society, ushering in an age of righteousness before Christ’s return.41 While critics sometimes caricatured this view as naïvely optimistic, it at least directed Christian energy toward cultural engagement rather than withdrawal. In stark contrast to rapture escapism, postmillennialism encouraged believers to labor for justice, education, and reform, confident that Christ’s kingdom was advancing in history.
Though modern wars and social upheavals dimmed postmillennial optimism, the framework remains important as a counterpoint. It illustrates that eschatological hope need not foster disengagement but can energize Christian participation in the world’s renewal.
Historic Premillennialism
Historic premillennialism, unlike dispensationalism, teaches that the church will endure tribulation before Christ’s visible return and subsequent reign. Figures such as George Eldon Ladd argued that this perspective better fits the biblical narrative of perseverance and suffering.42 Rather than promising escape, it calls the church to endurance in the face of trial, echoing the message of Revelation that believers conquer “by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony” (Rev. 12:11).
While historic premillennialism retains a belief in a millennial reign distinct from the final renewal, it avoids the sharp disjunction between Israel and the church and resists speculation about hidden comings. Its coherence lies in accepting suffering as integral to the church’s witness, a theme consistently reinforced across the New Testament.
Theological Emphases Beyond Speculation
Across these traditions, a common thread emerges: eschatology should orient believers toward faithful living rather than anxious speculation. N. T. Wright has emphasized that Christian hope is not about evacuation but about new creation, God’s ultimate intention to heal and renew the world.43 To preach a secret rapture is to diminish this hope, reducing it to escapism rather than transformation.
Moreover, alternatives highlight the continuity of salvation history. Paul’s vision of Jew and Gentile reconciled in one body (Eph. 2:14–16) resists dispensational rapture theology, which artificially divides God’s purposes. Likewise, Revelation envisions the saints enduring tribulation, not escaping it. To be faithful to Scripture, the church must reject frameworks that undercut unity, perseverance, and renewal.
Coherence and Credibility
The persistence of the rapture doctrine, despite its exegetical and historical weaknesses, reveals the power of cultural imagination. Yet the alternatives demonstrate that Christian eschatology is richer and more coherent without it. Amillennialism’s unified parousia, postmillennialism’s transformative hope, and historic premillennialism’s emphasis on endurance each provide more biblically grounded visions of the end. Together, they testify that the church has never needed the rapture doctrine to sustain its hope.
In fact, by recovering these alternatives, the church may regain both credibility and clarity. No longer tied to cycles of failed prediction, it can proclaim the biblical hope of resurrection and new creation with integrity. The promise is not that believers will vanish but that all things will be made new.
Conclusion
From its supposed exegetical foundation in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 to its cultural prominence in late modern evangelicalism, the doctrine of the rapture rests on fragile ground. The word itself, drawn from the Latin rapiemur and later raptura, bears no independent theological weight in Scripture. The Greek verbs and nouns Paul employed point to transformation, resurrection, and a royal welcome of the returning Lord, not a covert evacuation of the faithful. The larger biblical context consistently envisions a single climactic parousia, where Christ descends in glory, the dead are raised, and creation is renewed.
Historically, the rapture as popularly taught is strikingly novel. The patristic, medieval, and Reformation traditions knew nothing of a two-stage coming. It was only in the nineteenth century, through the system of John Nelson Darby and the dissemination of the Scofield Reference Bible, that the doctrine gained traction. In the twentieth century, amplified by Hal Lindsey’s prophecies and Tim LaHaye’s novels, it became not only a theological claim but a cultural phenomenon. Yet its repeated failure to deliver (whether in Miller’s Great Disappointment, Whisenant’s pamphlets, or Harold Camping’s broadcasts) exposes its speculative instability.
Theologically, the rapture undercuts the New Testament’s call to perseverance and diminishes its vision of new creation. It fosters escapism rather than faithfulness, division rather than unity, fear rather than hope. By promising believers a secret deliverance from tribulation, it distorts the gospel’s summons to witness even unto suffering, echoing the pattern of the crucified and risen Christ.
In contrast, the church has long possessed richer and more coherent eschatological frameworks: the amillennial vision of a unified parousia, the postmillennial hope of cultural transformation, the historic premillennial emphasis on endurance. Each preserves the biblical promise that Christ will return once and for all to raise the dead, judge the world, and renew creation. None requires the fragile scaffolding of a secret rapture.
The lesson is clear. The rapture is not a scriptural doctrine but a modern invention, born of mistranslation, nurtured by speculation, and sustained by cultural imagination. Its history of failed predictions underscores the wisdom of Jesus’ warning: “You know neither the day nor the hour” (Matt. 25:13). The true hope of the church is not flight from the world but the transformation of it, the day when death is swallowed up, when every tear is wiped away, and when the earth itself is made new. That hope, not the rapture, is the gospel’s eschatological promise.
Appendix
Footnotes
- Latin Vulgate, 1 Thess. 4:17; Rapture, in Wikipedia, last modified September 2025.
- Timothy F. Ice, “A Brief History of the Rapture,” Pre-Trib Research Center (1998).
- George Eldon Ladd, The Blessed Hope: A Biblical Study of the Second Advent and the Rapture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), 20–35.
- Rapture, in Wikipedia.
- Ladd, Blessed Hope, 20–22.
- Ibid., 30–35.
- N. T. Wright, Surprised by Hope (New York: HarperOne, 2008), 132–33.
- Richard Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 108.
- Anthony A. Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 171.
- Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Magnesians, in The Apostolic Fathers, ed. Bart D. Ehrman (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003), 2:117–25.
- Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.35.1.
- Augustine, City of God, 20.6–21.
- Bernard McGinn, Visions of the End: Apocalyptic Traditions in the Middle Ages (New York: Columbia University Press, 1979), 120–45.
- John Calvin, Commentary on 1 Thessalonians 4, in Calvin’s Commentaries, trans. John King (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 233–37.
- Joseph Mede, Clavis Apocalyptica (London, 1627).
- Timothy F. Ice, “Morgan Edwards: Another Pre-Darby Rapture Advocate,” Bibliotheca Sacra 148 (1991): 66–67.
- John Nelson Darby, Synopsis of the Books of the Bible (London: G. Morrish, 1820).
- C. I. Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1909).
- Hal Lindsey, The Late Great Planet Earth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970).
- Ladd, Blessed Hope, 40–50.
- 1 Thess. 4:17.
- Frederick W. Danker, ed., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 134–35.
- Vulgate, 1 Thess. 4:17.
- Colin Brown, New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 898–902.
- Ladd, Blessed Hope, 20–21.
- Dale C. Allison, Matthew 19–28 (ICC; London: T&T Clark, 2004), 390–91.
- Wright, Surprised by Hope, 133.
- Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Wheaton: Victor, 1993), 47–65.
- Predictions and Claims for the Second Coming of Christ, in Wikipedia, last modified September 2025.
- Sylvester Bliss, Memoirs of William Miller (Boston: Joshua V. Himes, 1853), 256–65.
- David L. Rowe, God’s Strange Work: William Miller and the End of the World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 201–20.
- Edgar C. Whisenant, 88 Reasons Why the Rapture Will Be in 1988 (Nashville: World Bible Society, 1988).
- Harold Camping, 1994? (New York: Vantage Press, 1992); Harold Camping, We Are Almost There! (Oakland: Family Stations, 2008).
- Paul Boyer, When Time Shall Be No More: Prophecy Belief in Modern American Culture (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992), 136–42.
- Mark Hitchcock, Blood Moons Rising: Bible Prophecy, Israel, and the Four Blood Moons (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2014), 55–67.
- Dani DiPlacido, “The Internet Is Disappointed the Rapture Didn’t Happen,” Forbes, September 24, 2025.
- John Barton, The Theology of the Book of Amos (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 95.
- Dan Claire, How Missing the Rapture Turned Me into a Pastor,” Christianity Today, July 27, 2016.
- Hoekema, Bible and the Future, 174–92.
- Augustine, City of God, 20.7.
- Jonathan Edwards, A History of the Work of Redemption (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1974), 305–12.
- Ladd, Blessed Hope, 110–22.
- Wright, Surprised by Hope, 137–42.
Bibliography
- Allison, Dale C. Matthew 19–28. International Critical Commentary. London: T&T Clark, 2004.
- Augustine. City of God. Translated by Henry Bettenson. London: Penguin, 2003.
- Bliss, Sylvester. Memoirs of William Miller. Boston: Joshua V. Himes, 1853.
- Bauckham, Richard. The Theology of the Book of Revelation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
- Blaising, Craig A., and Darrell L. Bock. Progressive Dispensationalism. Wheaton: Victor, 1993.
- Boyer, Paul. When Time Shall Be No More: Prophecy Belief in Modern American Culture. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992.
- Brown, Colin, ed. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976.
- Calvin, John. Commentary on 1 Thessalonians 4. In Calvin’s Commentaries. Translated by John King. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996.
- Claire, Dan. “How Missing the Rapture Turned Me into a Pastor.” Christianity Today. July 27, 2016.
- Darby, John Nelson. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. London: G. Morrish, 1857–1820.
- Danker, Frederick W., ed. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
- Edwards, Jonathan. A History of the Work of Redemption. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1974.
- Hitchcock, Mark. Blood Moons Rising: Bible Prophecy, Israel, and the Four Blood Moons. Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2014.
- Hoekema, Anthony A. The Bible and the Future. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.
- Ignatius of Antioch. Letter to the Magnesians. In The Apostolic Fathers. Edited by Bart D. Ehrman. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003.
- Irenaeus. Against Heresies. Translated by Dominic J. Unger. New York: Paulist Press, 1992.
- Ladd, George Eldon. The Blessed Hope: A Biblical Study of the Second Advent and the Rapture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956.
- Lindsey, Hal. The Late Great Planet Earth. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970.
- Mede, Joseph. Clavis Apocalyptica. London, 1627.
- McGinn, Bernard. Visions of the End: Apocalyptic Traditions in the Middle Ages. New York: Columbia University Press, 1979.
- Rowe, David L. God’s Strange Work: William Miller and the End of the World. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
- Scofield, C. I. The Scofield Reference Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 1909.
- Whisenant, Edgar C. 88 Reasons Why the Rapture Will Be in 1988. Nashville: World Bible Society, 1988.
- Wright, N. T. Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church. New York: HarperOne, 2008.
Originally published by Brewminate, 09.26.2025, under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license.
About the Author
