Silence Demands a Rapture
Comments RKM: I do disagree with the content of this article. Please go to the Debate section and read others that disagree with this theory.
By Ed Stevens
(Preterist1@aol.com)
PREFACE BY THE AUTHOR
First of all I want to acknowledge and thank Garrett Brown for patiently
nudging me for more than five years to look at J.S. Russell's rapture
theory. I first got acquainted with Garrett through the tapes of the 1993
Covenant Eschatology Symposium in
I resisted the rapture theory ("kicking and screaming") for a long
time. It just didn't make sense. At first I didn't even see it as a
"possible" interpretation. But Garrett's persistence was
eventually rewarded. It was the definition and usage of the Greek word
"harpazo" ("caught up" in 1 Thes.
I also want to thank Walt Hibbard and Arthur Melanson for being willing to join
me in teaching and promoting this view of the rapture. Both these men are
long-term players in the Preterist movement and have been a tremendous
encouragement to me. May God bless them richly.
In the pages below I will share some of the reasons I believe the rapture
theory deserves our serious consideration. I'm not suggesting this just for
fun. I know many will think this theory is about as loony as UFO
mania. But I'm after TRUTH like all of us are. And I'm simply
following where Scripture and history are forcing me to go. I wish I
could stay with popular theories, but like Luther said, "My conscience is
chained to Scripture."
Please give it your most
objective appraisal.
INTRODUCTION: WHAT
ARE WE SUGGESTING HERE?
In preparation of my speech on the "History of Eschatology" for the
2002 Bible Prophecy Conference in
I was also reading Sam Frost's new book, Misplaced Hope, which is an excellent
rebuttal against Jonathin Seraiah's critique of Preterism. His book
reminded me again of the extreme lack of writings by Christian leaders
immediately after AD 70. Indeed, Sam did a marvelous job of further
minimizing the number of post-70 documents even more by suggesting that
Barnabas and Clement may have been written before AD 70. This makes the
number of post-70 "Apostolic Father" writings even fewer. It
was not the purpose of Frost to solve the mystery of the post-70 silence, but
rather simply to assume it as fact throughout his book. And it is this
silence, which all church historians acknowledge, that pushes me toward the
rapture view.
How could it be that some of the apostles and their traveling companions lived
through the events of AD 70 without recognizing the significance of it and
saying something about it? This is the single most significant factor
shaping the history of eschatological study that I am aware of. All of
church history and its consequent interpretation of Bible Prophecy is deeply
affected by this silence. Even the so-called
"de-eschatologizing" process of New Testament theology was heavily
affected by this silence which everyone assumes indicated a
non-fulfillment.
Every student of church history is puzzled by the silence. Even futurists
acknowledge the strange absence of historical material coming from the three
decades immediately after AD 70. But no one spends much time trying to
figure out why that silence is there. It doesn't affect futurist eschatology
nearly as much as it does the Preterist. For futurists, it is merely a
frustration. But for Preterists it is a critical lack of documentation at
the very time when we need significant historical validation of eschatological
fulfillment. Our critics often use this lack of historical documentation
as evidence against the Preterist view. Only Scripture has absolute
authority to define our doctrinal belief system, and historical considerations
can only have value when they confirm and explain the fulfillment of the
Biblical predictions. But, historical considerations can play a very
significant role in Biblical interpretation when the Bible predicts specific,
detailed and imminent events. That detail demands fulfillment, and it is
subsequent history that either validates or nullifies it. That is the
case here. The NT writers gave specific, detailed expectations to the
first century church about what they could expect to happen very soon.
Since we do not have any historical validation of those expectations being
fulfilled, a "documentation problem" has surfaced.
It is this
"silence" that this book will examine and try to understand.
WHAT WAS THE PRE-70 CHURCH EXPECTING?
Unless we grasp how much the pre-70 church was expecting to see and experience
when the Parousia arrived, we will not understand the problem of their silence
after AD 70. So let us begin by looking at their anticipations.
What did the apostles tell them that they would see and experience at the Parousia?
Here's a great example of this: 2 Thes. 1:6-10 --
"For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who
afflict you, and to GIVE RELIEF TO YOU who are afflicted and TO US AS WELL when
the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming
fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do
not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. These will pay the penalty of
eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of
His power, when He comes to be GLORIFIED in His saints on that day, and to be
MARVELED AT among all who have believed-for our testimony to you was
believed."
Notice what Paul promises to the Thessalonians. Their Jewish persecutors
would be repaid with affliction at the Parousia, when Christ would come from
heaven in flaming fire to destroy them. Question: Did the Jews get
that destruction in a tangible and visible way? Did they SEE it and
EXPERIENCE it? Or was it merely some kind of "spiritualized"
fulfillment that was not recognizable by the physical senses?
Notice what else Paul says would happen at the Parousia. When Jesus was
"revealed" (implying they would see Him "unveiled") at his
coming/Parousia, he would be "glorified" by His saints on that day,
and "MARVELED AT among all who have believed." Question:
Where is the record of this happening? Did it happen? Was it
documented? Why not? Paul says they would not only see him
"revealed" at his return (a theophany), but would "marvel at
him" in the company of all other true believers. We know it was
going to happen to physically alive people since he says it will occur at his Parousia
when he gives relief to them and all others who were alive and suffering
in the tribulation at that time. When and where did this happen?
How did it happen? Why don't we have those folks after AD 70 telling the
story about how glorious it was to be in His presence and marvel at His
majesty? Why are these folks, who supposedly were going to see this
marvelous vindication and relief, so silent afterwards? They should have
been dancing in the streets! If they were still around after seeing the Parousia
and marveling at Christ in His presence, how could they do anything but talk
about it afterwards (assuming they were still alive and on the earth)?
Their silence speaks volumes, especially since a few verses later (2 Thes. 2:1)
Paul mentions their "gathering together to him" at His Parousia. If
this isn't a promise of a rapture, I simply don't know what else to make of
it. The silence about Christ's Parousia from folks who were
definitely promised to SEE it and experience it is very
significant! Either those folks in the first century saw it and were
taken to be with Christ immediately, or they did NOT see it at all and were so
embarrassed or disillusioned about the non-fulfillment that they went away
quietly and never spoke of it again.
But this second option is not an option for Preterists, since Paul states
emphatically that when Christ comes, His saints will see it, and they will be
vindicated and rewarded by it, and will marvel at Christ in the company of all
the other believing saints. It becomes impossible to account for their
silence afterwards unless they were removed from the scene by something like a
rapture. And that is exactly what Paul alludes to three verses later (2
Thess. 2:1) when he reminds them about the "gathering to Him" at His Parousia.
How would the Thessalonians have understood this? What would their
expectations have been?
Can you imagine how they would have felt immediately after AD 70 if they had
not witnessed Christ's Parousia, nor marveled at Him in his coming, nor been
"gathered" to Him in any visible, tangible sense?
Disillusionment is not the word for it. Outrage or indignation would be more
like it. They would have been screaming "foul" at the
non-fulfillment, or the false expectations they were given by Paul! They
would have joined the chorus of the "mockers" in 2 Pet. 3:4 who were
singing: "Where's the promise of His Parousia?" Why don't
we hear some complaints after AD 70? Why are they so silent? Were
they "gathered to Him" just like Paul promised? Is that the
"upward call" (Phil.
1 John 3:2 is another
example. John clearly says that those who were true "children
of God" would definitely see Christ at His Parousia and become like
him. This is not apocalyptic language. There is a very real
expectation here. He says they would see Christ return and would be made
like Him at His coming. Did they see Him return? Did they remain on
earth afterwards? If so, why didn't they (apostle John especially) tell
anyone about what they saw and experienced?
John claimed they would SEE Him at his return, and that they would know it when
he came. Who can believe that John was still around and knew that the Parousia
had happened, but refused to say anything about the fulfillments that he knew
had occurred? Even if they were fulfilled in a "spiritual-only"
way he should STILL have at least explained that much of it, if he was still
around. He would still claim a past fulfillment for the Parousia.
But we don't even have that! We have nothing from any of those apostolic
men or their traveling companions about ANY KIND of fulfillments at AD
70. Surely they didn't all die in the persecution (Timothy, Titus, Luke,
Apollos, Barnabas, Gaius, Aristarchus, etc.)? Did all these guys fail to
perceive the fulfillments? Or were they gone with Christ? If they
were still around, they would have been UNABLE to refrain from declaring their
utter amazement at the fulfillments they had just witnessed and participated
in.
Besides the 1 Thess. 4 text which clearly teaches a "catching up" of
the living and remaining saints at the Parousia, there are other texts which
either assert or imply a rapture. Here's another example -- John
14:3.
"If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and RECEIVE YOU TO
MYSELF, that where I am, there you may be also."
Notice that Jesus promises to return to them after he has prepared a place for
them in the heavenly realm (John 14:1-3). He says he will come back and
"receive [them] to himself," so that where he is (heaven), they would
be also. Jesus also said that apostle John would "live and
remain" until He returned (John 21:22f). And Mat. 16:27-28 says that
there would be more than one of them alive at Christ's return ("some of
those standing here"). Mat.
This sure sounds like the same thing Paul was talking about in 1 Thes. 4,
doesn't it? Wonder where Paul got the idea from? (Jesus
maybe? John 14:3?) You see, if Jesus didn't come back and
"receive the living and remaining ones to Himself" then there were
not 12 occupied thrones in the period (AD 66-70) when Christ was
"present" (in his Parousia) judging the twelve tribes for their
covenantal unfaithfulness. John 14:3 (along with Mat.
Parousia had occurred, yet you were not "received to Himself" and
taken to heaven where he is, and were not seated on a throne at His side,
nor riding the heavens with Him as He and His angels judged the 12 tribes
and avenged the blood of His saints for that three and a half years of His
"visitation" (Parousia) -- how would you feel? Would you be
scratching your head wondering what happened? "Where is the promise
of my "reception into heaven," and my throne at Christ's side, and my
judging the twelve tribes? My eyes are not seeing what my ears have heard promised."
It was awareness of such an "about to come" "terrifying
expectation of judgment" against the Jewish nation that drove apostle Paul
in his missionary zeal to save some of them before the End. "Knowing
therefore the TERROR of the Lord [that awaits the unbelieving Jews] we persuade
men." Indeed. But Paul didn't stop there. He also knew
that the faithful "sanctified" true Christians would be rewarded with
an "upward call" (Phil. 3:14) in which their bodies would be
"changed" (1 Cor. 15:51) or "transformed" (Phil. 3:21) from
mortality to immortality as they were "gathered" (2 Thes. 2:1;Mat.
24:31), "received" (John 14:3), or "caught up" (1
Thes.4:17) into the "presence" (2 Thes. 1:10) of Christ at His Parousia.
There are too many of these promises to simply ignore. They all reinforce
one another. The saints would have been more than disillusioned if
nothing visible or tangible happened at the Parousia.
In view of all the many apostolic statements about what they would see and
experience at the Parousia, what should we reasonably expect to hear from them
immediately after AD 70 if they were still around? We should have heard
jubilant and ecstatic claims of fulfillment coming from their mouths and
pens. Wonderful descriptions of the glorious advent of Christ from heaven
with his angels rewarding them and destroying their persecutors. Instead,
we find a "deafening silence." Therefore, we have to ask whether
these saints ever got what they were expecting!
There is no chance that the Parousia would occur and they not see it.
They would have been complaining with the "mockers" if it had not
occurred. Paul, Peter, John and all the apostles said and believed that
they would see the Parousia and experience the relief and reward that would
come with it. They would marvel at him in His Parousia. So if they
were still around, the only way they could be silent about it is if the Parousia
didn't occur at all. If it occurred, they would have seen it and
experienced it. If they were still around afterwards they would have said
something or wrote something about it. Fiery torture could not have kept
them from proclaiming it from the housetops. They would have been
ecstatic.
And it is not just the apostles who were silent. All the leadership of
the church is silent. People like Luke, Timothy, Titus, Apollos,
Barnabas, Silas, Gaius, and Aristarchus are silent as well. Surely not
all of these guys were killed in the persecution. Some of them must have
survived beyond AD 70 if there was no rapture. Why didn't some of them
say something about the fulfillments they had just witnessed at the Parousia?
The whole church and all the apostolic traveling companions and leadership were
silent about the Parousia.
The New Testament canon
closed abruptly at AD 70, and left us hanging without any information about
when, where, and how these leaders died, or where they were buried. They
vanish without a trace leaving no record of what their experience of the Parousia
was like.
The post-70 church which was composed of those who were left behind, obviously
failed to recognize the time of Christ's second "visitation," the
same way the Jews failed to acknowledge His first coming.
o Luke 19:44 and they will level you to the ground and your children within
you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not
recognize the time of your VISITATION."
o 1 Pet. 2:12 Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the
thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may because of your good
deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of VISITATION.
This later passage by Peter implies that the saints would know it when Christ
returned. His true saints expected to see and experience the vindication
and reward on that day of visitation. Well, did they get their reward and
see his return? Why didn't they say anything about it? Why the
silence? Were they ashamed of Christ at His coming? The NT writers
say only the wicked would shrink away in shame at His coming. His saints
would draw near and glorify Him and marvel at Him in his presence! I
don't see how that joy and ecstasy could have subsided so completely and
rapidly by AD 71 and following.
Something is wrong
with this picture. If these folks were still around, they would be
venting their exuberation and exhilaration. Where is it? Why don't
we hear it? Why the silence?
SILENCE WHICH DEMANDS A VERDICT
Futurists use this silence to minimize the importance of AD 70 by saying,
"Surely if AD 70 was as significant as you say, the leaders of the post-70
church would have said something about it, especially if it was the Parousia.
Since they ignore it, the implication is that it was not significant for
Christians, and certainly could not have been the Parousia." This
silence also affects the "Partial Preterist view, since it gives them no
historical support for their "some kind of coming at AD 70."
There is a "documentation problem" for the rapture view, BUT it is
not as significant a problem as it is for the non-rapture Preterist.
Absence explains the silence better than their continued presence does. A
continued presence is what creates the "documentation problem" in the
first place. So, this "documentation problem" is not really
much of a "rapture" documentation problem at all. But our
critics have clearly pointed out how it is a "Parousia, resurrection, and
judgment" documentation problem. The lack of documentation for a
rapture is only one-fourth of the whole package. All of us Preterists
(regardless of our position regarding the rapture) still have a "Parousia
documentation problem."
For non-rapture Preterists, I would contend that the way they explain the lack
of documentation for the Parousia is the same way I would explain the lack of
documentation for a rapture. But absence works better for the rapture
view than continued presence does for the non-rapture position.
Partial Preterists and futurists do not accept the non-rapture (continued
presence) explanation of the lack of documentation for the Parousia. It
really does not offer a real solution to the problem. It merely begs the
question. So when a non-rapture Preterist asserts that the rapture Preterist
has a "documentation problem," it leaves three fingers pointing back
at him. The non-rapture Preterist has three other events to find
documentation for (Parousia, resurrection and judgment). But the rapture
theory provides a documentation solution to all three of these
events. A rapture easily explains why no Christian after AD 70 mentioned
the occurrence of the Parousia (they weren't around to document it). The
non-rapture view can't have that explanation in his bag of apologetic tricks,
and so he is burdened with a radically greater "documentation
problem" than the rapture Preterist.
If there was NO rapture, then apostle John and a whole bunch of the other
leaders of the church (e.g., Apollos, Luke, Timothy, Titus, Barnabas, Gaius,
Aristarchus, etc.) must have lived beyond the destruction and would have
witnessed the fulfillment of the Parousia, resurrection and judgment. Why
didn't they say something about the fulfillments? Did John suddenly lose
all the knowledge about eschatology that he had when he wrote the book of
Revelation and 1 John
Could it be that the reason they say nothing about the fulfillment of the Parousia
is because they were not still around to document it??? Gasp!!! (A
rapture?) Isn't it SINFUL for a Preterist to even think such a thing,
much less even dare utter the "R" word? Nope! J. S.
Russell a century ago showed that it is perfectly consistent for a Preterist to
believe in a rapture.
Mat. 16:27-28 says that "some" of the 12 disciples would still be
alive at Christ's return. We know John was one of those (John
21:22f). But he was not the only one. Christ says
"some." So it seems there would be at least two of the original
12 still alive at the Parousia. Did they remember Jesus' promise to
return before they died? Matthew obviously did, and so did apostle
John.
After 70 AD, when John supposedly lived beyond it (according to tradition), did
he actually know that the Parousia had occurred (like he claimed he would -- 1
John
You see, it is not the Rapturists
who has a "documentation problem" here. It is the non-rapture Preterist
who has the problem.
Silence demands an absence,
since a continued presence could not have been silent! My previous
non-rapture explanations for the rapture texts have reached dead ends
(historically, grammatically and contextually). They no longer seem
credible in view of the "deafening silence" that pervaded the church
immediately after AD 70, when they should have been shouting from the housetops
that Christ had returned. This "deafening silence" of the apostolic
voice after AD 70 speaks volumes about what had happened. It is a
"documentation problem which points explicitly toward a rapture removal of
the true saints at the Parousia. If there wasn't a rapture, then all Preterists
have an insurmountable "documentation problem." We would have
to explain why John and the other remaining apostles were not bemoaning
their failure to see the Parousia and be rewarded in the fashion they
were expecting. There is simply too much "silence" for us to
explain away
without a rapture removal.
The rapture is the only consistent way I have found to solve this "Parousia
documentation problem." Again, there is no documentation problem for
the rapture. We would not expect any documentation of a rapture from the
"sleepers" who were left behind. They were not awake and did
not know what had happened. And they were certainly not allowed to see
it, any more than the 50 prophets in Elijah's day were allowed to see His
translation into heaven (2 Kings 2). They couldn't document something
they didn't see or even know occurred.
Questions: If the Parousia occurred and some of the apostles (John and at least
one other) were among the faithful ones who were "watching and
waiting" and recognized it, why didn't they say so after AD 70 if they
were still around? Did they suddenly lose their ability to speak and
write? Did John see it like he said he would (1 Jn.
Something is drastically wrong with this picture! The silence is
SCREAMING -- a "deafening" silence so LOUD that even our critics have
heard it. Why haven't we?
Where's the beef? Why didn't apostle John state clearly for the record
that the things he had just written in the book of Revelation had now been
fulfilled? If he was still around and had not been "received to
Christ" like John 14:3 promised, then was he so disillusioned by the
non-fulfillment of John 14:3 and the lack of seeing the Parousia that perhaps
he was struck dumb and was unable to say anything? Or maybe he lost all
memory of what Jesus had said and just decided (like Roman Catholic tradition
asserts) to go through the countryside teaching nice "love one
another" platitudes and avoid mentioning the HUGE events that had just
occurred? Preposterous, you say? Exactly! It would take more
blind faith to believe that, than to simply understand that Christ kept his
word and "received [the remaining disciples] to Himself" along with
all the other faithful true sanctified believers who "waited anxiously"
for His return, and whose "spirits and souls and BODIES" were
preserved complete and blameless until the Parousia (1 Thes. 5:23), at which
time they were "caught up" (1 Thes. 4:15-17) to accompany Him during
the three and a half years of His Parousia presence (AD 66-70).
It is obvious from what little writings we have from the period (AD 70-150)
that the whole post-70 Church was unaware of Christ's return in AD 70.
And we have no writings of any apostles or their close disciples after AD
70. For some reason we do not know anything for certain about WHEN they
died, WHERE they died, HOW they died, or where they were buried. They
vanish without a trace. All the traveling companions of Paul (Silas,
Luke, Timothy, Titus, Gaius, Aristarchus, etc.) are silent. It is not likely
that they all died in the persecution. Surely several of them would have
survived the "tribulation" and lived on beyond AD 70.
There is a tradition that the Christians (evidently the mere
"professing" ones only) who fled to
I see this silence as the very proof of the rapture at the Parousia. They
wrote nothing about it because they were no longer around to write about
it. Surely if apostle John and those other leaders of the pre-70 church
had still been around at the time of the Parousia they would have seen it and
said something about it. Silence can only be explained by one of two
things: either non-fulfillment of the Parousia, or a rapture
removal. The silence allows no other options.
DIDN'T JOHN & OTHERS LIVE BEYOND AD 70?
Those reading this might very well object that there is a strong tradition that
John the apostle lived beyond AD 70 until the reign of Domitian. If he
did, the "reception into heaven" promise of John 14:3 was not
fulfilled. It means John would have been left behind, and that
cannot be. If John's longevity beyond AD 70 could be proven, it would
certainly bring the rapture theory into serious question.
The continuation of apostle John beyond AD 70 is a complex historical problem,
as Kenneth Gentry has noted in his book, BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL (pages
47ff). Since Gentry believes the rapture is merely the "catching
up" of all living saints to heaven at a supposed yet future "end of
history," he naturally has no problem believing John lived beyond AD 70,
but he mentions that there are those who did take another position on
that. Some church father writings failed to understand which
"Domitian" was being discussed in regard to the persecution of
Christians. What is not widely known is that one of Nero's legal
names was "Domitian." This created confusion about WHEN John
was exiled to
This tradition about there being two different "Domitians" (one of
them Nero) is not the only evidence against John's longevity on the earth
beyond AD 70. There is also church father evidence that there were two
different "Johns" in
We know that John and "some" of the other twelve apostles would live
up until the time of the Parousia (Mat. 16:27f), but there is no clear
reference to their staying on earth afterwards. In fact, we have
some fairly clear statements that they would not remain on earth, but rather go
to heaven where Christ was at His Parousia (John 14:3).
The statements in John 21:22-23 when compared to Mat.
John is quick to
point out that it did not necessarily mean that he wouldn't die. BUT, and
this is the big point that is missed by most, John didn't rule out the
possibility that he might NOT live on earth beyond the Parousia. If there
were no thoughts of a possible "ascension" or "rapture" he
would have quickly and clearly affirmed that he would eventually die. The
way John hedges his statements here looks to me like he remembered what Jesus
had promised in Mat.
I believe John and the rest of the remaining apostles and true Christians (the
"saints" or sanctified ones) were "caught up" to be with
Christ at His Parousia (but not the mere professing or untrue
Christians). If they had still been around after AD 70 they would have
mentioned the fulfillments that had just occurred, especially if apostle
John was one of the ones still around. John literally "wrote the
book" on AD 70 (the book of Revelation).
For him to have been around
afterwards and not mention the fulfillments of the book he wrote is more than a
"documentation problem." It would raise serious objections
against the whole Preterist view. I think the full weight of this problem
needs to be felt by Preterists, and answered in a convincing way. We have
brushed it off and ignored it to our own hurt. It's time we took it
seriously and dealt with it.
This silence not only affects the Preterist view, but the partial Preterist as
well. If AD 70 was some kind of "judgment coming" in some sense
as they suggest, why didn't some of the post-70 writers who lived on both sides
of AD 70 mention the fulfillments of Mat. 24:1-34, at least as a limited coming
idea? We don't even have that! It is as if AD 70 never
happened. They don't even mention it, much less even give it some kind of
limited coming status.
If John the apostle was still around and saw no value in explaining or even
mentioning the incredible fulfillments of his book, why should we? Was it
because he didn't understand the fulfillments, or was it because he simply did
not SEE Christ at his Parousia? The later facilitates the former.
If he didn't SEE the Parousia, then he would not have understood the
fulfillment, and would not have been able to claim or explain the
fulfillment. In 1 John
WHAT ABOUT THOSE LEFT BEHIND?
Those left behind simply did not realize what had happened. They might have
thought the leadership all died in the tribulation, or were exiled, put in
prison, or otherwise consumed by the Romans in their galley ships, theaters, or
mining camps. They were not spiritually discerning and therefore missed
the Parousia, resurrection, rapture and judgment. They were spiritually
asleep when Christ returned.
It is also possible that the number of folks "snatched away" might
have been smaller than we think. In Luke 18:8 Jesus said, "...when
the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?" And in Mat.
24:10-24, "At that time many will fall away ... Many false prophets will
arise and will mislead many. ...most people's love will grow cold. ...For false
Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and
wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect." There
is a significant implication here that there might not be a large number of
true saints left at the time of Christ's return.
Because the ones left behind were not true Christians at the time of the
rapture, they were not spiritually discerning enough to recognize that the
Parousia had taken place. They couldn't document something they didn't see or
even know occurred. They were like the 50 prophets who watched as Elijah
was taken to heaven in chariots of fire. They did not see what Elisha
saw. They were not spiritual enough to see into the heavenly realm like
Elisha was (2 Kings 2). All they saw was a tornado whisk Elijah up into
the air. They went looking for his body for three days, in spite of the
fact that Elisha told them what had really happened.
The ones "left behind" did not know that Christ had returned, and had
not seen it because they were not allowed to be privy to it. So they
could not tell anyone about it. This absence of the true Christians
immediately after AD 70 would certainly explain the "deafening
silence" that occurred, and the lack of information we have about all the
apostles and their close disciples and traveling companions.
The post-70 "left behind" church had the writings of the apostles
(our New Testament) to plant in the hearts of men and grow a new crop of
Christians. And that is how the church perpetuated itself, in spite
of the fact that the apostles and their traveling companions and all the true
and faithful Christians were "snatched away."
HOW DID THIS AFFECT THE
In the second century when it became apparent to the church fathers that the
eschatological events had not occurred in the first generation as predicted
(according to their nature of fulfillment expectations), they began to separate
the redemptive prophecies from the eschatological prophecies. They
started claiming the redemptive prophecies had been fulfilled, but that the
eschatological prophecies were still future (but imminent). There
are occasional references in the Church Fathers to a complete fulfillment of
the "soteriological" (redemptive) prophecies, mainly in the
apologists against the Jews. But nowhere do they claim the eschatological
prophecies were fulfilled.
In the NT the apostles discussed soteriology (salvation) in tight connection
with eschatology (final things). By the middle of the second century, the
Church Fathers had already disconnected eschatology from soteriology and were
claiming that all the soteriology was fulfilled, but that the eschatology was
still future.
By the middle of the second century they began to postulate a slight delay in
the return of Christ. In my debate with Joseph Balyeat (1992) posted on
the IPA web site (www.preterist.org), and in my two responses to Dr. Kenneth
Gentry (STEVENS RESPONSE TO GENTRY) and Gary DeMar (QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
AFTERLIFE) available in book form from IPA, I explained how this shift in the
Church's understanding of the TIMING occurred.
This ignorance of the left behind folks also explains why the church went into
immediate confusion and made so many departures from the NT patterns so soon
after AD 70. Their leadership was gone. But at least they did have
the writings of the NT to guide them, and those should have been
sufficient to keep them on track. But they didn't follow them closely
enough.
WHEN DID THIS OCCUR AND HOW DO WE LABEL IT?
So where does this place the rapture chronologically, and how do we classify
this particular rapture position in relation to the tribulation? I see
the rapture as occurring in AD 66, at the time the Jewish war with
Josephus mentions that they saw the angelic armies in the clouds in AD 66 just
before the war with
1. AD 62-66 (Satan released for short time -- Great Tribulation on the Church)
2. AD 66 (the Return of Christ, Resurrection, Rapture)
3. AD 66-70 (Christ's continued presence for Wrath and Judgment)
Notice there is a seven-year period involved here. The rapture occurs in
the middle of that period after the Great Tribulation on the Church, but before
the Wrath is poured out upon the Jewish nation. This would be classified
as a "mid-trib" or pre-wrath position, depending on how the
"tribulation" is defined. If both the tribulation on the church
and the wrath outpouring on the Jewish nation are included in the
definition of the "tribulation" then the rapture would be
"mid-trib." If we define "tribulation" as being only
the tribulation on the church, and the wrath outpouring as what happened to the
unbelieving Jews, then this concept of the rapture could be called
"post-trib, pre-wrath." But the best term to classify it is
"mid-trib."
I understand the Parousia to have been a three and a half year PRESENCE (AD
66-70) in which He judged the Jewish nation for "all the blood that has
been shed on earth from the blood of Abel" until AD 66. Christ
came in AD 66 to begin that judgment. He resurrected the dead out of Hades
(in the unseen realm) and "snatched away" his living and remaining
true saints to him in the heavenly realm. The twelve apostles sat on
thrones next to him as He rode the heavens with his angelic armies to judge the
Jewish nation. They all accompanied Christ in the unseen heavenly realm
and watched their vindication and avengement upon the Jewish nation.
HAD ANYTHING LIKE THIS HAPPENED BEFORE?
Some questions we need to consider: Why is this rapture idea so difficult
for modern thinkers to accept? Is it really something totally new that
God had never done before? Why didn't the ones left behind see it happen,
or at least discern that it had happened?
I suspect that one of the big reasons why so many folks today have difficulty
accepting the idea of a rapture is because of our technological mindset which
considers supernatural events a little far-fetched and hard to believe.
So many of us look for a naturalistic explanation for every miracle in the
Bible so that we can minimize the miraculous events down to a "safe"
non-threatening level. This is nothing more than "dumbing down"
the Bible to fit our modern mindset, rather than educating our hearts to
understand what the Biblical writers were really saying.
There is nothing "out of character" for God to rescue or reward His
servants with something like a rapture or an escape from threatening
circumstances. He had done similar things many times throughout the
Bible (e.g. Enoch, Noah,
Elijah and Elisha were "seers" in the sense that they could see into
the spiritual realm and see angelic activity that all other humans were not
permitted to see. Apostle Paul was "caught up" into the third
heaven to see some of those things. John in the book of Revelation
was also able to "see" these things. The two witnesses in Rev.
11 were taken up to heaven, as was the male child in Rev. 12. Stephen at
his martyrdom saw Jesus standing in the heavenly realm. Philip was
"snatched away" from the desert road and found himself at
Azotus. The angels became visible at Jesus' birth. The
transfiguration enabled some of Jesus' disciples to see Moses and Elijah who
were not normally visible. The ascension was attended by two angels, and
they saw Jesus ascend into the Glory Cloud. Apostle Paul saw and heard
things at his conversion that no others standing close by were able to
discern. Enoch and Elijah were actually "caught up" in a similar
way to Jesus' ascension, without experiencing physical death.
The Parousia of Christ in AD 66 was attended with his angels. Josephus
records the sighting of the angels in the clouds. This was one of those
"theophanies" which had repeatedly occurred throughout the Old
Testament period. God's presence and activity was not always seen
by human eyes . Usually it only "appeared" to those to
whom God wished it to be seen by.
There were those
occasions when the clouds were literally rolled back like a scroll to open a
window into the heavenly realm so that men on earth could see what was going on
there. This is not "out of character" for God's dealings with
his creatures. It is simply "out of experience" for people since
God consummated his plan of redemption at AD 70. It is not something that
we have seen since AD 70. Therefore, we have a hard time believing
it happened back then also.
It was only seen by those whom Christ wanted it to be seen by. That was
the way the "theophanies" of God throughout redemptive history always
occurred.
They were not seen by
everyone. Sometimes it was only the enemies who saw His appearance just
before they were destroyed, or only the righteous, true followers of God who
were spiritual enough to be allowed to see it. The rest were left in the
dark, or "left behind." The parable of the wise and foolish
virgins, and other passages about being sanctified and blameless in order
to "see" the Lord at His Parousia give us a hint that
those who were "foolish" or not "sanctified" would not see
this event, nor even know that it occurred.
It evidently was a
matter of "spiritual discernment." There is nothing at
all "out of character" with the sightings of angelic armies in the
clouds mentioned by Josephus. It perfectly fits the OT pattern of
theophanies and angelic appearances. This was a real event that
historically validates the prophetic accounts in our NT. Jesus said there
would be angels with Him when He returned in the clouds. Why should it
surprise us if it really happened that way? Why is it so hard to
believe?
The ones left behind did not recognize the time of Christ's visitation, and
therefore did not teach a fulfilled eschatology. But they kept right on
thinking and teaching that Christ's return was imminent in their lifetime and
in their generation, until it became evident in the second century that it had
not been fulfilled according to their expectations of the TIME. There
were three writers who suggested this delay concept (Shepherd of Hermas,
Justin, and 2 Clement). They started manipulating the time statements by
suggesting there might be a slight delay (but still imminent). That delay
got extended further and further until eventually there was no thought of
anything but an indefinite delay. It never seemed to occur to them that
their expectations about the NATURE of the event had been wrong and that the
event had already occurred.
HAS ANYONE ELSE EVER SUGGESTED THIS?
I am not the first one to invent this rapture idea. Four scholars a
century ago (J.S. Russell, Milton S. Terry, Richard Weymouth, and Ernest
Hampden-Cook) suggested the AD 70 rapture idea, and wrote several pages in
defense of it in their books. They suggested that there may have been a rapture
of the true Christians, so that the mere professing (but not true)
"Christians" were left behind to carry on. I am merely
reminding all of us about their theory, and asking us to keep it in the back of
our mind as the best way (maybe the only way) of resolving the
"documentation problem."
These four scholars were certainly not superstitious wackos. They were
well-educated theologians of their day, yet understood the spiritual way in
which God accomplishes his work. They recognized that the rapture fit the
pattern of God's theophanies and redemptive work in the Old Testament.
And the rapture idea was not invented in the 1800's by a Scottish girl named
MacDonald. Numerous church fathers mention the "catching up" in
their discussion about the end time events. The Greek fathers especially
used it in the sense of a literal catching up from the earth into
heaven. They were in a much better position to know what it meant than we
are. If they understood the Greek word "harpazo" to mean a
literal "snatching away" from earth to heaven, it would be a little
presumptuous for us to redefine the word using some spiritualizing
concept. So it is not new at all to suggest that the saints would be
"caught up" from earth to heaven at the Parousia. The
early church understood it that way and mentioned it in their writings.
CONCLUSION:
In summation, I would affirm that the rapture scenario that I have outlined
here provides a much better explanation of the "documentation
problem" for the Parousia, resurrection and judgment than any that have
surfaced so far in the Preterist movement. And I believe it provides the reason
why there was such a remarkable silence in the period immediately after AD 70
when we would expect the early church to be announcing the Parousia in a big
way. Documentation was lacking because there was no one left behind to
tell the story.
This is the only historically plausible explanation I have seen to account for
the ignorance of the post-70 church. If there was not a rapture, there
should have been plenty of Christians still around after AD 70 who had
witnessed the Parousia, and some of them (especially the apostles or their
traveling companions) would have said something about it if they were still
around. If apostle John was still around (which this rapture theory
denies), surely he would have said something about what he had just seen at AD
70. It is impossible (in my thinking) for John to have still been on
earth after AD 70 and not say something about the Parousia having
occurred. The only way Preterists can have a plausible explanation for
this "deafening silence" is a rapture.
We modern Preterists have danced around this problem and swept it under the
carpet for decades. We have lacked a historically, grammatically and
contextually credible answer. So far the only thing that has been
forthcoming is what those four scholars (Russell, Terry,
This theory is the only explanation that has answered the problem in a
convincing and satisfactory manner for me. It makes more sense to me than
any of the other theories that have been offered so far. The texts I
mentioned above, the "documentation problem," and the "deafening
silence" have forced me to move in this direction. All I can do is
urge you to take a serious look at it. If it doesn't make sense to you,
no problem. Let me know what you think about it. Would love to have
your evaluation of it. Thanks for considering it.
First Edition --
Printed Copy available for $4.00 (including postage)
(c) Copyright 2002 by the author, Ed Stevens. All Rights Reserved.
Published by:
International Preterist Association.
Phone: 814-368-6578
Email: preterist1@aol.com
Visit our website at: www.preterist.org