Overview of Is the Rapture really biblical? Apostles, prophets and sacraments
In this episode of Ask NT Wright Anything from Premier Unbelievable, Mike Bird and Tom Wright answer three listener questions on controversial Christian topics: whether modern-day apostles and prophets are biblically valid, whether baptism and communion should be called sacraments or ordinances, and whether it is worth arguing with family and friends about rapture theology. Wright emphasizes caution about authority claims, a rich but non-magical view of the sacraments, and a more pastoral approach to end-times disputes.
Apostles and Prophets Today
Key distinction: New Testament usage is not one-size-fits-all
Tom Wright explains that the New Testament uses “apostle” in more than one way:
- In a restricted sense, apostles are those who saw the risen Jesus and were commissioned by him.
- In a broader sense, the term can refer to early Christian leaders and church planters.
He also notes that prophecy appears throughout the early church, but not as a rigid office with fixed rank.
Main concern: authority and hierarchy
Wright warns that some charismatic movements, while rejecting traditional hierarchy, end up recreating one under new titles like “apostle” and “prophet.” His concern is especially with leaders who:
- claim special authority over others,
- use spiritual titles to control people,
- or treat their own insights as binding commands.
Wright’s view
- Apostleship today should not be used as a self-bestowed title of authority.
- If the term is used at all, it should be in a loose historical sense for pioneer church planters.
- Prophecy can still function as a spiritual gift, but it must be tested with discernment and should not become a pedestal for status.
Mike Bird’s contribution
Bird adds that:
- apostles and prophets are foundational to the church, based on Ephesians 2:20,
- the church’s ongoing apostolicity is best expressed by faithful proclamation of the apostolic gospel,
- and the Spirit’s prophetic work continues, but not necessarily in a formal office of prophet.
Sacraments vs Ordinances
The basic difference
The second question asks whether baptism and communion are sacraments or ordinances.
Wright says the distinction is often more about language and emphasis than about totally different realities:
- Ordinance highlights that Jesus commanded these practices.
- Sacrament highlights the deeper theological meaning and grace-filled significance of them.
Why some churches prefer “ordinance”
Some free church traditions avoid “sacrament” because it can sound too Catholic or too mystical, as if the elements work magically.
Wright agrees that sacramental language has sometimes been misunderstood, but he rejects reducing baptism and communion to mere symbols or commands only.
His theology of the sacraments
Wright argues that the sacraments are signs of a bigger biblical truth:
- heaven and earth are meant to overlap and ultimately unite,
- the sacraments anticipate the coming new creation,
- and in baptism and the Lord’s Supper, God’s space and human space, and past/future/present, come together in a real but non-magical way.
Bottom line
- “Sacrament” and “ordinance” are both useful
- but neither should flatten the meaning of baptism and communion.
- Wright urges Christians not to dismiss them as “just symbols,” while also avoiding any superstition or magical thinking.
Ecumenical point
Bird notes that the Lord’s Table ultimately belongs to Jesus, not to any denomination. Wright agrees, stressing that the table is not Anglican, Baptist, or Pentecostal—it is the Lord’s Table.
Should You Argue About the Rapture?
The listener’s dilemma
The final question asks whether it is worth trying to persuade family members away from belief in the rapture.
Wright’s answer is pastoral and strategic: not every conversation needs to become a debate.
When to press and when to hold back
He says Christians need discernment about:
- when a conversation will be fruitful,
- when a dispute will only harden positions,
- and when it is better to preserve relationships.
He compares it to a schoolboy being taken in by a theory about Shakespeare and Francis Bacon: sometimes the other person is not in a place to hear the argument.
Why he rejects rapture theology
Wright says the classic dispensational rapture scheme is part of a larger end-times framework that is itself flawed. His main objections include:
- it is not the clearest reading of 1 Thessalonians 4,
- it imagines believers being taken away from earth instead of Jesus returning to renew creation,
- and it fragments the Bible’s broader story of resurrection and new creation.
He points instead to passages like:
- 1 Corinthians 15
- Philippians 3:20–21
These texts, he says, teach the return of Jesus, resurrection, transformation, and the renewal of creation—without requiring a rapture.
Practical advice
Wright suggests that rather than attacking loved ones over the kitchen table, it may be better to:
- recommend Surprised by Hope
- and, if relevant, God’s Homecoming
His hope is that a stronger biblical vision of resurrection and new creation will speak more persuasively than a direct argument.
Key Takeaways
- Apostles and prophets in the New Testament are not easily mapped onto modern church titles or offices.
- Be wary of leaders using spiritual language to claim unchecked authority.
- Baptism and communion are both commanded by Jesus and rich theological signs of God’s grace and new creation.
- The Lord’s Table belongs to Christ, not to any denomination.
- On the rapture, Wright recommends pastoral wisdom: sometimes it is better to offer better theology than to win a fight.
- The biblical end-times hope is not escape from creation, but resurrection and new creation.
Recommended Next Steps
- Read or revisit Surprised by Hope for Wright’s full argument on resurrection and eschatology.
- For questions about spiritual gifts and church authority, compare Ephesians 2, 1 Corinthians 12–14, and 2 Corinthians.
- When discussing contentious doctrines, prioritize discernment, humility, and relationship over winning arguments.