Review of The Popular Handbook on The Rapture

Book review of the "Popular Handbook on the Rapture" by Tim LaHaye, Thomas Ice and Ed Hindson

Experts Speak Out End-Times  prophecy

What is a manual? It is a reference book, usually created by experts who have compiled the accumulated knowledge on a topic in writing in an orderly manner. Does the handbook for the rapture fulfill the requirements of a reference book?

First of all, I have to trumpet it out so that everyone can hear it: the handbook on the Rapture is an occult work. I, too, would not have been able to recognize it if God had not miraculously pointed it out. Call it coincidence, I call it guidance. Looking for a theme, at that time I was dealing with the rapture theme, I wanted a little variety. As if by chance, I leafed through the Internet on the website of the Missionary Work Mitternachtsruf and thought to myself: Which external events are offered at the moment? And what must I say, the next topic was about the rapture and the event should take place in Austria. It was immediately clear to me that I should go there. In a big hotel these friendship meetings take place every year since some years, which are organized and paid by a brother living there. And so I travelled there excitedly by car to get to know Norbert Lieth personally. His topic, as already mentioned, was the rapture. During the event Norbert Lieth praised LaHaye's book as a useful manual that could be purchased at the book table. The title, which I found to be all too high and pompous, starting with the word "manual", challenged me. I was also curious about who the experts were and what I could learn from them, so I bought two copies.  

Arriving home, I arranged a meeting with an expert on occultism. We met in a restaurant. Until then, we both didn't know what the content of the book was. Curiously I freed my copy from its foil packaging and leafed through the table of contents with interest. As if by chance, I decided to read a few pages from the third chapter. On page 70 LaHaye mentions that he was just 10 years old, the death of his father, which does not leave a reader untouched. Then follows the scene, which we now take a closer look at. LaHaye writes:  

What had happened, what is LaHaye describing here? The pastor performed a magical ritual. By placing his (left) hand on the coffin and raising his right hand to the sky, the ray of the sun is to strike the one to whom the magic saying applies.  The "wonderful words" lull the reader, distract him from the spiritual cult. Because it is adorned with words from the Bible, it is almost impossible to be impious of one's own accord, and so every touch of critical questions is internally blocked in advance.  And so nobody comes up with the idea of reading anything other than a touching story in front of an open grave.

As a naïve reader, I found nothing conspicuous. Only in the scene in which the pastor lays his hand on the coffin during his speech did I take a short prick, because this seemed unusual to me. Which pastor does that? Well then, the pain and suffering that Tim LaHaye experienced when he was 10 years old moved me and so I just went outside to think about what I had read. I opened the book and handed it over to the expert, asked him to read exactly this section and then went outside without saying a word. Actually, I intended to talk about the pain and suffering, but it all came differently. With a bang of the drum the expert told me: The pastor does magic, just like the magician does and can be seen on tarot cards.

I was shocked and didn't want to believe it at first. Because I didn't know the tarot at all, I was shown pictures from the internet. On the map we see the magician in the same pose as in the scene described by LaHaye. With the left hand touching a table or other object and with the right hand, with an object or without, pointing towards the sky, the magician announces his magic saying. With this hint in my luggage I read the book attentively in the following weeks.

My first movements during and after reading the passage above are exactly what LaHaye is trying to achieve. He is suggestive in his remarks. He knows that compassion for a 10-year-old boy who has just lost his father and stands traumatized in front of an open grave has such a strong effect on the reader that he can and will hardly pay attention to other details of the scene. The mind is flooded with emotions and the factual things are veiled. In this way our objective view is clouded.  It therefore takes time for the floods of emotions to retreat.

As much as I was pleased with the text passages telling about the rapture, I was disappointed to find out that they had opened their mouths too wide when they praised their book as a manual by experts and spread the poison among the people. Even a little leaven of esotericism and freemasonry acidifies the whole book. I came to the conclusion that the self-proclaimed experts are not what they say they are.  With their findings they are on the wrong track. Next we found a little leaven from the Pharisees, that is the teaching of those who rise above the people.  When they discredit the allegorical interpretation, sometimes more, sometimes less, and have committed themselves to the literal interpretation, they oppose the teaching of the apostle Paul. He writes to the Galatians, reminding them that the covenants with Hagar and Sarah must be understood allegorically. The Galatians and also the team around LaHaye should have come to the allegorical interpretation practice themselves, because Paul asks: "Do you not hear the law?" With which ears may the Galatians and with which ears Tim LaHaye, Thomas Ice and Arnold Fruchtenbaum have read the words of the law?

Therefore, if the covenants with Sarah and Hagar have a pictorial meaning, which texts of the Bible then refer to the two treaties, for they are treaties or not? The answer is actually quite simple: all the texts of the Bible speak of the marriage contracts between God and Sarah, which is the heavenly covenant and between God and Hagar, which is the earthly covenant. Sarah is the head wife and Hagar the concubine. If all books of the Bible speak of the two covenants, then all texts also contain an allegorical level. And this is exactly what Priska and Aquila represent. Priska means old, historical and Aquila means eagle. The historical texts of the Bible must then all be interpreted figuratively, both to the covenant with Sarah and to the covenant with Hagar. And the ingenious thing about the allegorical narrative is that it can tell of both covenants at the same time and then, by the way, also confirms the literal tradition.

Lahaye, however, already torpedoes the pictorial interpretation on the first pages.  He speaks of attacks by dissenters, presents them as aggressors and at the same time accuses them of a refusal attitude. With this he suggests to the reader that the experts are the friendly ones, do not attack anyone, but have to defend themselves against the unjustified attacks with the handbook for the rapture. LaHaye and his team, only they belong to the right-thinkers, only they are the experts.

With their claim they demand that they belong to the scholars who founded a research institute especially for this purpose. LaHaye and the experts belong to the faction of the Nicolaitans in the church of Jesus. How does Jesus comment on this group? The Lord praises Pergamos and says: "But you have this that you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, whom I also hate. The Greek word Nikolaites means "victory over the people". Here Jesus reveals his hatred of clericalism, which teaches that the people are ignorant and that they, the experts, must tell Christians what can be taught, how the texts must be understood, how the people must live, and much more. If we also want to be praised by the Lord, then we should do what the Lord does: we should hate the works of the experts. Do the books also belong to their works? My answer to this is clear and unequivocal. Yes, the book also belongs to the works of the Nicolaitans.

With the (almost exclusively) literal interpretation they try, contrary to Paul's teaching, to make their teachings palatable to the reader. The question then arises: Who is right? Are LaHaye and his colleagues right and Paul is the liar or LaHaye and his co-authors are wrong and Paul tells the truth?

In the interweaving of dispensationalism with the theme of the Rapture, they distance themselves from the Jews. The doctrine of dispensationalism must be understood as the most deceitful form of anti-Semitism introduced by the adversary of man. If God hated Esau, then hatred means, so the translation of the Greek word also , "to love less". That means then, whether Jew or Greek, whoever despises the birthright is less loved by God. God loved Jacob more because he appreciated the birthright. There are many Jews today who have attained the birthright because they believe in Jesus their Lord. Paul gave us an unequivocal answer to this question 2000 years ago when he asked the rhetorical question: Has God rejected his people? Listen to the answer, you supposed experts: "That is far off". Paul answers the Romans of Rome. In the eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, the apostle then wants to say: "Whoever does not want to and hardens his heart against the love of the Lord, according to his will, will also have his heart hardened, just as it was hardened with a branding iron. This applies both to the Jew first and to the Greek.

But Esau had not hardened his heart, but wept bitterly. We can read in the Letter to the Hebrews that God loved both Esau, who first despised the birthright, but then wished for a blessing, just like Jacob. It is unmistakably said in chapter 11 that both Jacob and Esau were blessed with regard to future things. Future things are always related to the Messiah's Kingdom of Peace. When both experience a blessing in the 1000 year kingdom, then both are Called and both are Chosen. But there is a clearly defined difference between Jacob and Esau, and it was recorded in the Law of Moses: The firstborn inherits twice.  How the double inheritance is formed must be researched.

In 1 Corinthians 15, as anyone can check, there is no mention of the Rapture, but only of the resurrection. LaHaye, like the Exclusive Brothers, cheat the Rapture into the chapter. But the mystery of which Paul speaks is not the resurrection and certainly not the Rapture, but the transformation of the mortal body into an immortal body. This is the mystery in 1 Corinthians 15. Neither the Resurrection nor the Rapture could be a mystery at all, for we are told that the Pharisees already believed in the Resurrection, in contrast to the Sadducees. During the ministry of Jesus, people could see it with their eyes and experience it in the physical flesh: The Messiah wakes the dead. However, the dead who were brought back to life by Jesus did not receive another body, but their old body was restored. The Rapture was no secret for the Jews either; it is already mentioned in the Old Testament. Enoch and the prophet Elijah were caught up into heaven.

The dilemma of Tim LaHaye between the literal and allegorical interpretation was probably also due to the fact that he never heard or read a conclusive allegorical interpretation. If he argues on page 22 (in the German translation) with the words of another person that someone who interprets both the story of creation and the Rapture literally will then also be correct in all other doctrinal questions, then this is a serious error. This shows us that LaHaye never really got to know God's way of speaking. Of course, the creation story as a historical event must be understood literally, but at the same time it contains an allegorical level that goes hand in hand with the literal text and simultaneously indicates that the literal texts are true. The allegory always confirms other texts from the Bible and leads to deeper knowledge of the truth. This applies to both the Old Testament and the New. When the New Testament speaks of the Rapture of Faithfulness, these texts must be understood literally. But literally only from the Greek original text. Every translator is overwhelmed if he wanted to translate all variants of meaning. It took many thousands of pages to describe every detail. And yet it is true that the New Testament books also have an allegorical level. It's just that nobody has really bothered to explore this level thoroughly.  

To put it mildly, the book of the Nicolaitic LaHaye contains many other superficial and absurd descriptions. Apparently there are good passages, such as on page 33, paragraph 3 (in the German translation), where he recommends the study of the Bible and especially the person of Jesus. But at this point we must remember the female magician from Acts 16. She, too, as far as I can judge, did not preach anything wrong. Why did Paul intervene anyway? She was possessed and made her masters a lot of money. Parallels to LaHaye must attract attention, because his occult novel series, which he published with a co-author, washed a lot of money into the coffers of him and others, also in Germany. From one source either sweet or bitter can bubble, neither is possible. If truth seems to bubble out of the bitter source, then we must assume behind it the antichristian spirit that proclaims another Jesus by means of the Bible.

LaHaye became a prisoner of the antichristian spirit who crept into the church of Jesus through occult and esoteric-Masonic ideas. On page 63, LaHaye speaks in self-glory of the novel series "Left Behind", which triggered a tremendous hype in the USA.  The books were also successfully published in German and have become a bestseller for the publishing house. Didn't those in charge examine the work thoroughly? Didn't they realize that the books are saturated with esoteric-ocult ideas and practices? It is a shame that the large Christian publishing house Gerth Medien let itself be infected by this hype. And so they let the seduction continue in Germany and sold the drug in our country.  Didn't they consider, not even later, that their trade with foreign and intoxicating spiritual goods is punishable by law?

As a reminder: In volume 7 of his novel series "Left Behind", LaHaye and Jenkins reveal their spirit and the cat out of the bag. They recommend occult practices that even occultists and Kabbalists strongly warn against. One has to ask oneself seriously: Why does the missionary organization Mitternachtsruf include such authors? Because they are blind?  Why do they publish "The Rapture Handbook"? Because they have made themselves one with the thoughts of Tim LaHaye and his co-authors?

We have to ask even more seriously: What do Norbert Lieth and the leading Brothers of the Mitternachtsruf have to do with occult things?

We are suffering and everyone should and must hear it.

Whoever interprets the Bible literally, as LaHaye propagates, is rushing people and nations together and abuses the Bible for this purpose. In the prophet Amos some nations are judged by God. In the first chapter it is the Syrians, represented by the capital Damascus. Then follow Gaza, Tyre, Edom and Amon. And in the second chapter it is Moab and Judah. Of course, God speaks of judging. But there are scribes today who use such and similar narratives from the Bible to stir up tension in the Middle East, whether consciously or unconsciously, so be it left open. LaHaye also does this in his book and unfortunately many others, as well as Norbert Lieth, Roger Liebi and many more, if they only grant Israel the role of the last one who receives his blessing only at the end. The experts look in the mirror every day and have not recognized each other. Who of them knows that we have identified them with Moab or with Edom? Who of those who are Separate suspects that we have metaphorically unmasked them with Judah? And who from the evangelical world would suspect that the judgment of which the Lord speaks in Amos 1 and 2 must be interpreted as referring to the six churches which we find described in John's Revelation?

Hear what God says about you! Amos 3: Hear this word the Lord speaks about you, children of Israel. Why Israel? Is Israel spoken of in the first chapters? At least in the second chapter we read that God speaks to Judah and actually speaks to all Israel. When will the judgment come? In Amos 3, 7 it is said. Let us listen attentively to the following sentence and try to remember where similar things are expressed in the Bible: For the Lord, Yahweh, does nothing unless he has revealed his secret to his servants the prophets.  We find its New Testament equivalent where? Of course, in Revelation 1, 1: Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must happen quickly. And what must happen quickly is also reported by the prophet Amos, among others.

Verse 8: The lion roared, who should not be afraid? The Lord, Yahweh, has spoken, who should not prophesy? Where do we find the lion of Judah roaring? In Revelation. Where is prophesying in plain language before all other books of the Bible? In Revelation. Where does God take revenge on the lawless? In Revelation. Amos 3, 9 points directly to Laodicea: Call out about the palaces (the houses of the rich) in Ashdod (the place of revenge) and about the palaces in the land of Egypt (the houses of oppression) and say: "Gather on the mountains of Samaria (observation tower) and see confusion (second Babylon) in her midst (the Lord stands outside the door, the divorce letter in her midst) and the oppressions (abundant divisions) of tyranny inside." Verse 9: And they do not know how to do the truth (2th Thessalonians 2), prophesies the Lord, (they) accumulate violence, with a swelling breast they take revenge by force, in their (self-) exaltation.

Not only Tim LaHaye and Arnold Fruchtenbaum, but also the Swiss Roger Liebi and many others testify to their faith by adhering to the literal interpretation, especially with regard to Israel. They are about to become false teachers when they succumb to the antichristian spirit. We must repeat it again for all scholarship: The historical texts are reliably handed down and true and have a literal meaning. The interpretation, however, must be allegorical and twofold. One time the allegorical level of the heavenly bride must be explored and the other time the allegorical level of the earthly bride must be interpreted.

The experts and their inaccuracies

LaHaye quotes Colossians 3, 4 and, as he says, refers the verse to the second coming of Christ, but for what purpose, which he does not name because he does not know it?

Let us now work out who is coming and for whom. The letter to the Colossians must be assigned to the church of Laodicea, which does not know the Rapture in itself, because it has already taken place.  In order to prove our interpretation, we take a closer look at the verse: When the Christ, our life, will be revealed, then you too will be revealed with him in glory. The promise applies to the Colossians, the church of Laodicea and also the church of Thyatira; all three form the church of the Last Days, the church after the Rapture. This, of course, must now be explained. The letter to the Colossians in the canon of the New Testament quite "accidentally" forms the seventh teaching letter. For every reader it is clearly recognizable that historically Laodicea forms the seventh church. If we sort the seven churches according to the festival cycle, then we find that the church of Thyatira is also in seventh place. (The seven feasts of the Lord are described in Genesis 23. Further information can be found at: https://simson-project.com/ )

If we read the verse quoted earlier again and take a closer look by means of the Greek dictionary, then we can see that Paul does not speak of the Rapture. The Christ "revealed" literally means that the Christ "appears visible". The expression does not describe the Rapture, because at this event we will be moved towards the Lord and no one on earth will really know about the place of our first rendezvous and certainly not watch it. The visibility of Christ therefore speaks of Christ and his heavenly bride when they return to earth together and can be seen by all the nations of the earth. This is also made clear by Paul's distinction between Christ on the one hand and the personal pronoun "you" for the Colossians on the other.

Now we read the verse a third time: When Christ, our life, will be revealed, then you too will be revealed with him in glory. To whom will Christ be revealed? To the people. To whom will the Colossians be revealed? To the people. All who live on earth will see Christ in his heavenly glory and all men will see the earthly glory of the Colossians.  But what are the Colossians? As a church she forms the earthly bride.

That is why God calls the earthly Jerusalem Oholiba in Ezekiel - my tent in her, because Christ comes to Jerusalem with his tent, which is the heavenly bride. And now we also understand the name Ohola, with the meaning "her tent". Her tent is the third temple, the house itself, which comes down to earth as a tent and is described in Ezekiel and can never be built by men.

The second coming always connects LaHaye with two events, the Rapture and the Second Coming, that is the second visible appearance of the Messiah. The two events are not always clearly separated from each other and lead to confusion for the reader.  In addition, things that belong together are separated.

Example: On page 74 (in the German edition) he deals with two expressions.

He sees the expressions as two events. But how can a hope be an event? Rather, it is the case that hope refers to an event or not? He then temporally separates the two expressions. He places the blessed hope before the tribulation and the apparition of glory after the seven years.

Now we examine whether Tim LaHaye has drawn the right conclusions.

In the Bible, everything has its meaning in many ways. For example, in which book the words appear and how often they are used in the Bible are of immense importance. Both the frequency of the words and the book in which they occur give us a finely knit framework.  

The term "godliness" refers to the happiness of eternal life that every born-again carries as a sure hope. The hope of bliss is the hope of the state of eternal life. The words godly and godliness appear seventeen times in the New Testament and then only in four letters, eight times in the first and two times in the second letter to Timothy, in the letter to Titus twice and in the second letter of the apostle Peter, five times.

This would give us a first indication that the three letters that are to be assigned to the second part of the festival cycle are to be applied to the three autumn feasts of Leviticus 23.

The first four feasts of Leviticus 23 are the spring feasts.

This would also inaccurate the table on page 75 (in the German edition). The heading of the first column "Rapture/Blessed Hope" is wrong. If the rapture had taken place, and a laggard would look at the table, he might perhaps come to the conclusion that his faith does not contain blissful hope and thus fall into deep depression and completely destroy his faith. It is therefore important to know the Word of God very well so as not to stumble in doctrine. Tim LaHaye often stumbles.

He stumbled on page 75 and also in other passages of his book. He extends the tribulation to seven years, the Lord says, again clearly that the great tribulation lasts 42 months and not a day longer. In order to also specify the months and the number of days, the 42 months are given as exactly 1260 days.

Chapter 6 is headed with the title: The doctrine of an imminent Rapture. The article was written by Wayne A. Brindle, he already interprets in the title, even before Wayne Brindle tries to explain himself, his ignorance. Nowhere in the Bible do we find such a teaching. Even though the disciples of that time lived in the hope that Jesus would return in their lifetime, we cannot speak of a doctrine of near expectation. But Brindle writes: In apostolic time, ..., Christians expected the return of Jesus ... and no prophetic event must necessarily precede it. A statement I have heard countless times from other preachers, but it is not covered by the New or the Old Testament. Nor can they recognize it because they prefer the literal interpretation.

But the post-route of Asia Minor comes to our aid again. The seven churches on this route, to which we have assigned the teaching letters of the New Testament, the building materials from Leviticus 23, the first chapter of the Book of Esther and many other passages, do indeed give us an indication of the time of the Rapture. In a nutshell, we can say that after about 2000 years the house, which is the third temple, will be completed and God himself will bring out the keystone, Jesus.  Jesus is the foundation stone and the keystone, Jesus is the first and the last. The review of church history already makes it clear that we do not need to seek the teaching in the Bible that the Rapture is imminent.

Wayne Brindle cites John 14:1-3 on page 107 (in the German edition) as an argument for an imminent Rapture. First of all we have to say that there is nothing about a temporal proximity, but only that Jesus prepares a spot (special place). This is the place that is prepared only for the bride. It is dishonest to relate the words of verse 1 to the Rapture. But he then adds one more thing and says that the Rapture is an antidote to fear. I only know one remedy that works against all sufferings and fears and much more:  Jesus comforts the disciples even before they flee from fear in the same night and invites them to believe in God and in Him - comfort as an upfront payment. Only then does Jesus come to speak about his father's house and the place that he personally prepares.

When Wayne Brindle describes the Greek word tachus - soon or quickly - on page 110 (in the German edition), he does not fail to mention that this word has always been a problem of interpretation. Brindle then simply interprets: "Most likely Jesus said that the Rapture was imminent and could take place at any moment." He refers to Revelation 22:12 in which Jesus says, "I am coming soon, and my reward with me." Brindle and many scholars have not yet realized that we do not have to seek the Rapture in Revelation, not even in chapter 22, because the Bride is already in heaven. Do we hear her speaking in 22:17? And the Spirit and the bride say, Come, and whosoever heareth it say, Come; and whosoever thirsteth, let him come: let him that will take the water of life for free. Then the Lord Himself speaks, and concludes His words with the promise: Yes, I am coming quickly. Amen. Whoever follows the invitation of the Spirit and the bride and comes to Jesus, Jesus will come to him and give him his reward.

Is the Rapture already to be found in 1 Corinthians 1:7? Wayne Brindle thinks that the Rapture is indicated in verse 7. Well, then let's read from verse 7b: by waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will also fortify you to the end. If the Corinthians expect the revelation of the Lord Jesus and it then comes, why do they have to be fortified to the end? Brindle did not study the text, how else does he come up with the idea that the Rapture can be found here? His lack of knowledge of Scripture is becoming increasingly apparent. In his opinion, the word expect, Greek apekdechomai, should always refer to "Christian hope". We search in the lexicon and find what we are looking for. The word apekdechomai is used for the first time in Romans 8:19 for the longing wait of creation, for it also waits for redemption from transience.

In the same way Wayne Brindle continues: "The Greek word Apokalypsis (Revelation) refers in different parts of the New Testament to either the Rapture or the second coming of Christ." This statement is also incorrect. Let us read the first scriptural passage in which the word revelation is used: Now, Lord, you release your servant, according to your words, in peace; for my eyes have seen your salvation which you have prepared before the face of all nations; a light for the revelation of the nations and for the glory of your people Israel. This said Simeon, who entered the temple at Jerusalem, and when he saw Joseph and Mary with Jesus, he went to Mary, took the child in his arms, and began the hymn of praise for the Lord which we quoted before.

Another passage where Wayne Brindle thinks he can see the Rapture is in 1 John 3:2:

Beloved, now we are children of God and it has not yet been revealed what we will be; we know that when it will be revealed we will be like him because we will see him as he is. The text says that the author and the addressees are children of God. However, it is not yet clear what they will be. Isn't it strange that both the author and the recipients don't know what they will be? John alludes here to the relationship with the Lord, but not to the Rapture. (Details on this cannot be described at this point, because the explanation would go beyond the scope of the book criticism, especially since the criticism already exceeds the usual extent).

See https://simson-project.com/ for an introduction to the Hebrew Epistle. html - the four women of Jacob and their relationships with him.

On page 112 Wayne Brindle confuses the Day of the Lord with the Day of Christ. In the second letter to the Thessalonians it says in Greek η ημερα του Χριστου (after the textus receptus). In the scientific text of Nestle Aland Kyriou is written, but Nestle Aland proved to be unreliable in our studies and omitted texts in crucial places and thus eliminated among other things the evil one.  

The Day of Christ must be strictly distinguished from the Day of the Lord. Let us hear what the Prophet says about the Day of the Lord: "But who can endure the day of his coming, and who will stand at his appearance?" Thus the Lord does not speak with his bride. Moreover, in Judaism a day begins about 6:00 p.m., depending on the season, but always at dusk. In the same way also the day of the Lord begins, after the sunset. By this time the bride will have long since been in the Father's house. Or does anyone believe that the Lord lets his bride go out alone at that hour of the night?

It is already clear from the first letter that it must be said in the 2nd Thessalonian Day of Christ. In 1 Thess. 5, 2 Paul writes: "For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord thus comes as a thief in the night."

Much of what Wayne Brindle writes starting on page 113 (in the German edition) gets confused because he cannot distinguish between the Day of the Lord and the Day of Christ. He assumes, like Tim LaHaye, that Titus 2:13 speaks of the Rapture. We have already explained above that this is not the case.

Wayne Brindle also believes to have discovered the Rapture in the Epistle of James and in the Epistle of John. As we have already said above, the letters of James, John, Peter and Judas must be assigned to the last round on the post-route of Asia Minor. Without examining the texts I can already say now: The last seven doctrinal letters do not know the Rapture. If we examine the passages cited by Brindle, then the Second Coming of the Lord and the Rapture are thrown into one pot, shaken vigorously and then presented to the reader.