This post follows a previous one on dispensationalism, "Rapture, what rapture?!"

Besides the classic "go-to" verse for "rapturists" - 1 Thessalonians 4:17 - a number of other popular verses have interpretations that are equally as valid, or moreso, than the dispenstionalist versions. Here are some of them with my thoughts on their interpretation...

John 14:1-3
The theme of God being "married" to His people runs through the whole Bible and this passage reflects this. It is the image of a bride-groom going to prepare a place at his parents' house before coming to the bride's home to collect her. But once the bride and groom are living together, there is no indication either that the husband (Jesus) is going to leave His bride at home to go to earth in the "second coming"; nor that he and the bride will do so together.

In line with many other Bible passages, both OT and NT, there is only one "second coming" and only one bridal ceremony. This passage does not, in my view, support the idea of a pre-second coming "rapture".

Matthew 24:36-44
This is part of Jesus' "Olivet discourse" on the times surrounding His second coming. It can be seen from two perspectives, neither of which validates a taking away of the saints as a separate event to Jesus' return to rule.

Jesus references the "days of Noah" to illustrate His point about the suddenness and unexpectedness of His return. The overall theme of this passage and onwards through the whole of chapter 25 is that God's people must be ready all the time for His return at any time.

Within that textual context, and since Jesus' reference is to the days of the flood, one could validly say that the ones "taken away" were the "baddies" being removed for judgement (as in the parable of the wheat and the tares, Matthew 13:24-30). In a time of such judgement you would want to be "left behind", not "snatched away"!

"Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left." (Matt 14:40,41)

The alternative view is that the illustration of the flood is simply  an indication of the suddenness of Jesus return, when His people will indeed be "snatched up" to join Him and welcome Him as He descends through the air (now there's a picture for you)! The ones left are the "unsaved", who will witness Jesus' return "on the clouds" but not be part of the welcoming team of believers. My point is that an objective view of this passage only supports the concept of a pre-return rapture if you are already wedded to the concept when you first read it. However, two relevant hermeneutic principles are (a) You cannot argue from silence and (b) Don't read your own ideas into a passage if they are not already there (eisegesis). 

Within the context of the rest of Matthew 24 and 25, an objective reading of this passage does not give either an explicit or implicit indication of a two-stage return of the King. If indeed we (believers) are to be snatched up to join Jesus as He returns, it will be to accompany Him in victory as He overcomes the evil one and begins His millennial rule on earth!

1 Corinthians 15:51-58

Paul and most other first generation apostles and believers expected Jesus to return in their lifetime. they saw His teachings of the end times events as being imminent and therefore taught with an urgency and a constant need to be ready at all times for this cataclysmic event.

...the shofar has multiple symbolism, including... prophetic warning, repentance, alertness... the ingathering of God's people in exile, final judgment and resurrection. (Stern, Jewish NT Commentary, on 1 Cor 15:52)

Taking Paul's cultural context as an orthodox Jew, his references to trumpets carry a lot of significance. Even today, if you are in Jerusalem at the time of the Feast of Trumpets and the Day of Atonement, trumpet blasts can be heard all over the city as rams' horns are sounded. Their message? Get ready for the coming of the King and His judgement; repent; be prepared!

Revelation 4-19

This encompasses most of Revelation, being the main body of John's apocalyptic visions. The case from the dispensationalists is that the church is not mentioned on earth in this large body of scripture; the reason binge that the church was raptured before the visionary events of 4-19 take place.

Immediate responses to this might include : 

• What about the 144,000 in chs 7 & 14 (on the earth)
• What about the "saints", who are overcome by the beast in ch 13:7 (on the earth)
• What about those who "die in the Lord from now on." (on the earth)
• What about the ones who "have come out of the great tribulation" in ch 7:14" (on the earth)
• What about "my people" called to come out of Babylon in ch 18:4 (on the earth)

Many argue that (a) the Holy Spirit is removed from the earth at the rapture, taken out of the way to allow the anti-Christ a free hand in the seven year period of tribulation (2 Thessalonians 2) and (b) that the above references are to people who turn to God during the tribulation. However, if we believe that the leading of the Spirit is necessary to bring us to salvation then there will be no "new Christians" during the tribulation period as there will be no Holy Spirit to convict them. In that case, who (on earth) are the above people??

I am not convinced from Revelation 4-19 of the absence of the church from the earth during the days before Jesus returns. Firstly you cannot argue from silence and secondly, what references there are (above) to God's people place them here on earth and suffering along with the rest of humanity.

To conclude, applying accepted principles of hermeneutics to the above passages leads one to interpretations that do not support the concept of a pre-tribulation/pre-millennial rapture of the saints. At the end of the day, the rapture is not a doctrine that affects my salvation prospects. Whether it happens or not, I am still confident in my relationship to God and that I will one day meet Him and live forever in His presence. So therefore I don't consider "rapturists" as heretics (some of my friends are rapturists!) and would never let a non-essential doctrine affect my relationships in the Body of Christ.

As St Augustine said, "In essentials, unity; in opinions, liberty; in all things, love".