Rapture: The End-Times Error That Leaves the Bible Behind (55 page)

Of course, Jesus did not leave this authority with the leadership of old Israel.
Ekklesia
is the word that the Old Testament Septuagint used to refer to Israel as the “People of God” (
BFB
, 190). Jesus applied this word to His Church and then put His disciples into the places of leadership over His new people of God (Matt. 16:18–19). His disciples argued over the pecking order of the new Church leadership, but they never seemed to doubt that the leadership itself had been delegated to them. The God-given teaching authority of those men who are successors of the first Apostles is called the Magisterium.

Like Herod in Matthew’s account, we need to consult the leadership of God’s people when we try to understand Scripture. It is not enough to claim that by being knowledgeable or degreed or studious or holy, we are protected from error in our understanding of the Bible. For we can misunderstand Bible prophecy even when it is being fulfilled right before our eyes. Jesus told His disciples that John the Baptist was the greatest of the Old Testament prophets: “Among those born of women there has risen no one greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of Heaven is greater than he.” Then He let them in on a secret: John’s ministry was the fulfillment of the return of Elijah that had been prophesied in the Old Testament: “If you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah, who is to come” (Matt. 11:11–14).

Jesus tells His disciples much the same thing in Matthew 17:9–13, which follows the Transfiguration. He was referring to the well-known prophecy of Malachi 4:5: “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of the Lord comes.” The entire Jewish nation of the first century seemed to be holding their breath, waiting for Elijah to come and prepare the way for the Messiah. Jesus said that John the Baptist was this prophet.

Yet some of Jesus’ disciples had earlier been disciples of John. They had probably been present when John had answered the questions of the Jewish leaders. “The Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask [John], ‘Who are you?… Are you Elijah?’ He said, ‘I am not’ ” (John 1:19, 21). Although Jesus claimed John was Elijah, John had denied it!

The best way to reconcile these two passages is to admit that John did not have a clear understanding of how the Old Testament prophecies were being fulfilled. The fulfillment was not just happening before his very eyes; he was a central player in the drama! We must never forget that it is very difficult to study Scripture, especially prophecy, in isolation from God’s ordained leadership. This was true even for a man as holy as John the Baptist.

Some Catholics seem to think that they can use the historical critical method (higher criticism) on the Old Testament without affecting belief in the Gospel. Modernist Protestants proved the naiveté of that idea long ago. What is used on one part of Scripture will inevitably be used on all. In the case of higher criticism, the result more often than not is the undermining of true faith.

The four Gospels are a special case. Although all of Scripture is without error, the Church defines the nature of the Gospels more specifically. Not only are the Gospels without error whatsoever; they are to be understood as
reliable history
. Thus, the Church emphatically closes the door on the modern idea that there might be a “historical Jesus” who must be unearthed from the Gospel accounts of the “Christ of faith.” The Church further defines the authorship of the four Gospels as “apostolic.”

Unfortunately, this clear teaching of the Church is too often ignored in America. Let me give you an example. To question the historical reliability of the Gospels stands in direct opposition to what Vatican II specifically teaches. Yet I have heard many Catholic homilies suggesting that the Gospels are historically unreliable for various reasons. One criticized the accuracy of the Gospels because they speak of the “brothers” of Christ.

The obvious conclusion may sound rather harsh. This homilist had received such poor training in the seminary that he did not know what you may already know: that the word
brother
in Hebrew could just as easily mean “uncle” or “cousin.” The most elementary search of a Bible concordance will substantiate this. This is why the culture and language of the writer
must
be understood when interpreting Scripture. (My book
Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic
discusses this at some length.)

Yet it seems as if, when this priest was in training, no one explained the Hebrew culture and language to him and his fellow seminarians. My guess is that his professors took the easy way out: any time they did not understand something in the Bible, they assumed it was an error. But it becomes all too easy to assume that the Bible is mistaken when the real problem is that we are too lazy to work at understanding it. It takes very little work to point out “errors” in the Bible; it makes a person sound so intelligent and sophisticated without any labor. It is hard work to delve below the surface of the text, do some research, and substantiate the Church’s historical teaching.

The Church teaches us there are no errors in Scripture. Modern skeptics claim there are errors and inconsistencies. It really boils down to a simple issue: who is more to be trusted? Is my own intellect or the wisdom of modernist scholars to be trusted fully, or should I submit my intellect to the spiritual authority of its Maker? As St. Augustine wrote, “God wished difficulties to be scattered through the Sacred Books inspired by Him, in order that we might be urged to read and scrutinize them more intently, and experiencing in a salutary manner our own limitations, we might be exercised in due
submission of mind
”
(EPT)
.

Rather than take the easy solution of accusing the Bible of an error, St. Augustine proposed the following in a letter to St. Jerome: “If in these books I meet anything which seems contrary to truth, I shall not hesitate to conclude either that the text is faulty, or that the translator has not expressed the meaning of the passage, or that I myself do not understand” (
EPI
, 1:3). This threefold admission of human frailty—copyist error, translation error, and personal inability to understand God’s thoughts—is an example of true intellectual humility from one of the greatest minds in history.

As students of Scripture, our first goal must be to “clarify the true meaning of Scripture”
(SME)
. As St. Jerome wrote, “The office of a commentator is to set forth, not what he himself would prefer, but what his author says.” When that is done, rather than take the easy way out by accusing the Holy Writ of an error, it is our job “to find a satisfactory solution, which will be in full accord with the doctrine of the Church, in particular with the traditional teaching regarding the
inerrancy of Sacred Scripture
”
(DAS)
.

Am I making too much of our Catholic view of Scripture? No, I am not. Does this issue really cause people to leave the Church and join the rapturists? Yes, it does.

I speak from experience. Before I became Catholic, I actually encouraged people to leave the Church over just these issues. When I served as a Fundamentalist missionary, my job description included teaching classes on how to get your friends and acquaintances to convert to rapturist Christianity. It is a false dichotomy, but when faced with accepting a reliable Church or a reliable Bible, many will choose the reliable Bible. That false dichotomy has caused Catholics to doubt the Church’s authority.

There are many sincere Catholics who have experienced the risen Christ in their lives. Then they have been in the pew when the homilist called the Real Presence into doubt. Or they have heard a theologian explain the miracles of Jesus in simplistic, naturalistic terms. Or they have read an otherwise loyal Catholic catechist call into question the historical reliability of the Gospel narrative. A devout Catholic instinctively understands, even if he is unable to explain why, that a denial of the reliability of the Scriptures undermines the Church’s authority. The rapturists’ wholehearted belief in the supernatural inspiration and complete reliability of the Bible is a major reason people find rapturist theology so appealing. Remember, that was the lesson we gleaned from St. Irenaeus’s arguments with the Gnostics.

The average Catholic in America may be undereducated in his Faith, but he is certainly not stupid. He knows that if the small miracles recorded in the Gospels were made up and inserted by the early Church, there is no compelling reason to believe in big supernatural events, such as the Resurrection. The idea of an Incarnation is much more miraculous than finding a coin in a fish’s mouth (Matt. 17:26). The average Catholic knows in his heart that, without the supernatural, apostolic succession and even Catholicism itself is a fraud. When the Catholic teacher, deacon, or priest takes on the role of a modernist skeptic, he drives the devout into the waiting arms of the Protestant rapturists. Believe me, if Catholic modernists open the door, rapturists will gladly put out the welcome mat.

As Catholics, we must recognize the modernist heresy for what it is: an attempt to pervert both halves of the Mass. Modern skepticism is really not all that different from the early heresies that the early saints spilled their blood to refute. Our struggle with modern skepticism will not be easy, but it will be worth it. We must answer the unremitting assault on the Liturgy of the Eucharist and the Liturgy of the Word. Until we do, sincere Catholics who really believe in the supernatural message of Christ will continue to gravitate to places where they can be sure the supernatural will not be denied. Unfortunately for them, they will find less of the supernatural there than they suppose.

Where do we go from here? We have looked at passages in the Bible individually, trying to understand them in the way most consistent with historical events, the views of the early Church, the guidance of the Magisterium, and—most important—the context of Scripture itself. In this last chapter, we will take a slightly wider view, in an attempt to summarize the teaching of the Church concerning the end of the ages. Make no mistake: the Church’s message is a message of
hope
.

First, we know that
Christ will return
. Rapturists often imply that because Catholics do not subscribe to an imminent secret rapture of believers only, we do not long for the return of Christ. This is absolute nonsense.

The creed we recite every Sunday makes it abundantly clear that we hope for Christ’s return: “He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead.” This hope is also considered part of the mystery of faith we proclaim with the priest when we say, “Christ has died; Christ is risen; Christ will come again.”

The Scriptures read during every Mass declare the hope of Christ’s return as a central focus of the Catholic Faith. This hope has been central since His first advent. The angels asked the disciples at the time of the Ascension, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into Heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into Heaven, will come in the same way as you saw Him go into Heaven” (Acts 1:11).

Lest Catholics misunderstand the Liturgy and Scripture, the
Catechism
emphasizes the Church’s hope in the second coming: “Christ’s reign is yet to be fulfilled ‘with power and great glory’ by the king’s return to earth” (
CCC
, par. 671).

Modern pessimists can learn a lesson from this unchanging hope of the Church. The fifteenth century saw popular fears similar in many ways to the paranoia of our day. Common wisdom held that the world was soon going to be destroyed. In 1459, Pope Pius II tried to allay these fears by clearly stating that “the world should [not] be naturally destroyed”
(CUM)
. Christ is going to come back to a world that is still in existence. He will be the One to replace this old world with a new Heaven and a new earth. Perhaps it is a sign of twenty-first-century egoism that we believe it is possible for us to destroy the earth completely. No fear: we won’t. God will.

Further, we know that Christ will return
in these last days
. We have already determined that the end of the ages started with the Messiah’s first advent, so we will not belabor the point (GR9). But next time you see a cartoon depicting a man with a sandwich board declaring, “The end is near!” remember that the Church declares, “The end is already
here
.” It has been here since the most important event of all history: the coming of the Son of God in the flesh.

This is such a settled issue for the writers of the New Testament that it almost seems superfluous to pick out certain verses. But here are a few of them.

On the day of Pentecost, St. Peter declared in his first apostolic sermon that the promised “last days” had arrived (Acts 2:17–18). St. Paul agreed with this appraisal: he wrote that his generation was the one “upon whom the end of the ages has come” (1 Cor. 10:11). The writer of Hebrews also perceived the first advent as the beginning of the last days: “In these last days He has spoken to us by a Son” (Heb. 1:2).

The present successor to Peter has also reaffirmed this idea. In his general audience on April 22, 1998, Pope John Paul II stated, “We must not forget that for Christians the ‘
eschaton
,’ that is, the final event, is to be understood not only as a future goal, but as a reality which
has already begun
with the historical coming of Christ. His Passion, death, and Resurrection are the supreme event in the history of mankind, which has now entered its final phase.”