In sum, and in my opinion, Stevens’ cessationist treatment of John 17 and his failure to address and re-explain the latter six verses should be sufficient reasons to dismiss this theory, at this time. However, this critique is offered in the spirit of “testing” (1 Thess. 5:21; Acts 17:11) among brothers and sisters in the Lord. May the Lord guide us into wisdom and revelation regarding this matter (Eph. 1:17).

Title Problems:

First, the premise of the title does not necessarily hold true. For example, expectations no more demand a rapture than they demand that the kingdom be restored to Israel (Acts 1:6). Secondly, there is not a shred of evidence that 1st-century Jews or the NT Church were expecting to be removed from planet Earth. Stevens offers no historical or textual evidence to establish this expectation. His “statements of expectation” are only deductive interpretations and fail to establish 1st-century expectation. What was mostly being expected, and wrongly so, was that Roman rule would be removed and/or Israel elevated to a position of supremacy over all nations. Selected Comments and Critiques – by Page Number:

p-4 – Despite the up-front assertion that “this book is not primarily based on silence,” Silence Demands A Rapture would be a stronger, more appropriate, but more problematic title for the view presented herein. As most know, however, arguments from silence can be used to prove almost anything, yet prove nothing.

p-4 – The statement that “the ‘expectations statements’ do for the rapture view what the ‘time statements’ do for the Preterist view” is comparing apples to oranges and deductive inference to inductive reasoning. Moreover, Stevens fails to prove that the expectations of the early Church were for being removed from planet Earth. Arguing possible grammatical word meanings, such as for harpazo and aer, is not proof of expectations.

p-5 – “the literal rapture view deserves our serious consideration . . . . Thank you for giving it your most objective appraisal.” Hopefully, this is exactly what I have done.

p-6 – In this foreword, Hibbard characterizes those Preterists who take a “spiritualizing view,” as opposed to Stevens’ “literal view,” as “throwing out the baby with the bathwater.” He claims that we have “overly-spiritualized . . . the rapture and other eschatological events.” But being caught up in the spirit, while still alive and on earth, is a real and literal reality. After all, spirit is real and literal.

I, too, hope Stevens’ new booklet (and our responses to it) “will serve to strengthen the Preterist movement.”

p-7 – I cannot agree with Melanson’s assessments in his foreword that: “Ed has made a breakthrough of major proportions,” that this work is “the missing piece of the puzzle!”, that “this book is evidence in abundance for a literal rapture of the Church prior to AD 70,” and that “this book presents a convincing case.” In fact, the finality that is presented throughout this booklet and its tone in some places are additional concerns.

Melanson correctly points out that “Jesus taught his followers they would escape the wrath ready to be poured out.” But he falsely equates this with a physical-rapture removal. Their escape was to flee in obedience to our Lord’s instructions.

p-8 – Silence, and not expectations, is what “pushes” this view. Therefore, Silence Demands A Rapture would have been a better title. Yet arguments from silence are highly problematic.

Here, Stevens’ makes his assertion that it was the so-called “specific detailed expectations of the New Testament writers” which were given “to the first century church.” But nowhere is a removal from planet Earth ever mentioned as an expectation in either the NT or in any other literature—another silence.

p-9 – Admittedly, “a lack of documentation . . . for the occurrence of all the big three events at A.D. 70,” is a challenge for the Preterist position and perhaps a missing link. On the other hand, to claim that without this literal rapture explanation we are missing not only “a few links” but “the whole Preterist chain,” seems far overdrawn. Whether Stevens agrees or not, other explanations, which are also speculations, have been offered.

p-10 – If the Parousia was to be physically “seen . . . by the true Christians who were ‘spiritually discerning,’” why was a “sign” asked for and given to Jesus’ original disciples (Matt. 24:3, 30)? This issue was never mentioned or addressed. Also, a physical appearance of Deity would be a different-natured cloud coming from the long historical precedent established in OT times.

Stevens’ assertion that his “rapture view is the only way to settle this matter [the silence after A.D. 70] once for all” is merely substituting a solution from silence for a problem from silence. It is neither documentable or convincing. Moreover, there are many texts to the contrary that are not addressed herein.

p-11 – The scriptures cited in this section on what the pre-AD 70 saints expected do not necessitate or establish a physical rapture-removal expectation for the nature of this fulfillment. Stevens has not made his case here. He merely asserts it.

p-12 – One of my concerns is that this thesis plays right into the hands of futurists who will opt for Stevens’ “second option” of “non-fulfillment” and use this against the Preterist view.

p-13 – Stevens has not presented a convincing case that his view is “the most reasonable way to explain the silence.” Perhaps, it is a way and a theory. But there are just too many problematic texts to the contrary that he has not addressed.

For one, if only the “true ‘children of God’ would definitely see Christ at His Parousia,” How does this perspective fit with the “every eye” and “even those who pierced him” scenario (Rev. 1:7)?—unless, Stevens wants to advocate two different ways of seeing him. Unfortunately, he does not mention or address this verse anywhere in his booklet.

Jesus’ statement that in Matthew 19:28 that all twelve of his disciples would be seated on thrones with Christ and judging the twelve tribes does not, in itself, necessitate or demand, as Stevens assumes, that all of them be dead or raptured prior to A.D. 70. He even acknowledges that this “implies.” But that is deductive reasoning and weak.

The “real thorny ‘documentation problem’” mentioned here and throughout, works both ways. The physical-removal-in-A.D.-70 view suffers from this same problem.

p-15 – Here Stevens starts using the terminology of “the figurative-rapture view” to lump and label Preterists who disagree with his “literal rapture” view. This is an unfortunate terminology. Fact is, a catching up in the spirit realm, without one’s feet leaving the surface of planet earth, is literal, too.

He admits that “the lack of documentation for a [his] rapture is only one-fourth of the whole package.” But this illustrates the point that he is trying to solve a problem of silence with a solution of silence. It’s a weak proposition and just further “begs the question.” Thus, he argues that his view “doesn’t need to provide documentation since it does not expect to find any.” This is a classic argument from silence and/or a circular argument approach.

Somewhat disconcerting is his characterization of figurative-Rapturists as utilizing “its bag of apologetic tricks” and his claim that they are “stymied.” Few will agree with this depiction.

p-15-16-17 – He cites the people in heaven from Revelation 6, 7, and 14 as evidence of for his rapture. But there are other possible explanations for this—such as these being the Matthew 27:51-53 group, saints who died pre-A.D. 66-70, or part of the things that “will take place later” (Rev. 1:19).

p-35-38 – Let’s give Hymenaeus and Philetus a little credit. Most likely, the knew about or actually saw the bodies (soma) of many OT saints that came out of their graves and appeared around Jerusalem after Jesus’ resurrection (Matt. 27:51-53). This quite likely could have been the reason for their thinking that the resurrection was past. Paul only corrected the timing aspect. Paul said nothing concerning the nature of fulfillment.