Additionally, Stevens insistence upon visibility (to true Christians) makes Jesus' coming on the clouds different natured from all previous comings of this type in OT times. It seems to me that this treatment is employing the same type of side-stepping technique (or “bag of apologetic tricks”) as Tommy Ice uses in his treatment of "this generation" in Matt. 24; Luke 21; Mark 13—i.e., it is a different generation than all the other NT uses of this phrase. Both of these treatments are interpretations by exception. They are inconsistency and largely deductive.

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-20 – Stevens notes that there are a “few writings” from the A.D. 70-150 period and that “the whole AD 70 Church was unaware of Christ’s return in AD 70.” They were also unaware that the entire Church had supposedly been taken out of the world. This silence speaks volumes, as well. Even Josephus did not mention it. Nor did Eusebius. Nobody back then.

p-21 – Those Christians who fled to Pella and other places are labeled by Stevens as the “sleepers” and “not true Christians.” How he knows this to be true is not clarified. It is pure speculation and assertion, and, therefore, weak.

p-23 – Again, my concern is that the physical-removal-in-A.D.-70 rapture proposition will feed those who opt for the non-fulfillment option mentioned first here.

p-24 – Regarding Stevens’ challenge for “any student of Church History to find . . . mention” of “the second coming, the final resurrection, and the final judgment” in AD 70-300 writings of the church fathers – I challenge him to find any mention of these in the Bible. Where are Christ’s comings ever limited to only two? Even Hebrews 9:28—which is the closest you will get—does not limit. If it does, then Jesus’ subsequent coming to John on the Isle of Patmos is the next chronological coming documented by Scripture itself. Likewise, where are resurrection and judgment ever limited to a “final” one after which there will be no more. These cessationist phrases and concepts are simply non-scriptural. For example, is Hebrews 9:27 no longer applicable?

p-23-28 – At the least, these possible explanations are just as valid as Stevens’ rapture idea. But the fact is, we just do not know why there was such a silence and a void of documentation. It still is a mystery.

p-29 – Stevens contends that “if John the apostle lived beyond AD 70 . . . . [his] ‘reception into heaven’ promise of John 14:3 was not fulfilled.” But this assumes a time-limitation factor that is not in the text. Later, he imposes the same time limitation upon Jesus’ prayer for his disciples and all believers in John 17 (see comments for pp-43-44).

p-30 – Stevens maintains that preterists have “brushed . . . off and ignore” the documentation problem. He insists that “it’s time we dealt with it in a serious and convincing way.” This is not the best choice of language for winning others over to you point of view. I, for one, do not find his rapture explanation convincing.

He correctly recognizes that the “big three events” (return, resurrection, judgment) “occurred in the unseen spiritual realm.” But what he fails to recognize here is that the “catching up” was part of the resurrection.

p-31 – To the contrary, the rapture does not do “a more credible job of explaining how folks after AD 70 could be so silent about the occurrence of the big three events,” as Stevens claims. He simply has not addressed several other key texts mentioned at the start of this critique and has adopted a cessationist treatment of John 17.

p-34 – I must respectfully disagree, Stevens has not proved his case that there is “no other viable option besides a rapture.”

As he says, “the silence points either to non-fulfillment or their absence from the scene via rapture.” This just adds ammunition to those who opt for the former. Again, Silence Demands A Rapture is the theme of this booklet, and not Expectations Demand A Rapture, as its title states.

But I agree with him on this point: “this is a very disturbing idea once it sinks into your consciousness.”

His false coupling of these two statements that “the ‘time’ statements demand an AD 70 parousia, and the ‘expectation statements’ demand a rapture to explain the silence” is unfortunate. It compares apples to oranges and inductive to deductive.

p-35 – The fact that no one apparently noticed that all the Church (true saints) was missing is just as much of a documentation problem for Stevens as the one he is trying to solve. Again, silence “proves” nothing or anything.

Removal of physical bodies of alive believers in A.D. 66-70 or whenever would go against Jesus’ prayer for his disciples and all believers in John 17. On pages 43-44 Stevens inadequately addresses this difficulty. But it also goes against Hebrews 9:27, Isaiah 9:7, and Hebrews 12:27-28, none of which he mentions or addresses.

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.

p-38-40 – Stevens is right in that a rapture-removal of the Church would not “destroy” the “continuity or perpetuity” of the kingdom. But it would cause it to decrease in contradiction to Isaiah 9:7. This removal would also be problematic for Hebrews 12:27-28.

His idea of a “new crop of Christians” starting from scratch is also highly problematic for the same reasons. Even Russell, in the “Afterword” of his book The Parousia (that IPA intends to insert), did not have the entire Church removed—only part. Lastly, comparing the making of this “‘rupture’ argument” (made by a fellow preterist) to “walking right into the Romanist ‘successionist’ camp and surrendering without a fight” is uncalled for.

p-40 – I cannot believe that Stevens would write a sentence like this: “But God has never depended on the availability of humans to get His Word preached and taught.” Unless, this assertion is highly clarified, God almost always (expect for a donkey) used the availability of humans to get His Word preached, taught, and written down.

p-41 – See again comments for p-38-40. Also, Stevens’ claim that “the Kingdom is a heavenly Kingdom” misses the point that it is also located and functioning on earth as well.

p-42 – But he adds to this confusion by further claiming that “it is a ‘heavenly Kingdom, not an earthly one.” Again, it is located and functioning in both heaven and on earth.

p-43-44 – In this critic’s opinion, this cessationist treatment of Jesus’ prayer for his disciples and for all believers is the linchpin of this whole rapture theory. While Stevens acknowledges that “This [John 17:15] certainly does sound like Jesus was wanting the apostles to stay in the world for some reason . . .”, he negates this text by introducing a time-restriction element that simply is not there nor in any other text. He insists that there is a “wider context”—i.e., Matt. 19:28 and John 14:3. But there is no time-restriction element in these, either. Yet he asserts that Jesus’ prayer, and particularly the portion mentioning not taking them out of the world, was only until “at that time” when He returned. If this is true (and it is not), then the rest of Jesus’ prayer for all believers was likewise time-restricted and does not apply, post A.D. 70. That, too, is highly problematic. Fact is, this time element is not in the text nor in a wider context. It has been imported in a manner reminiscent of futurist devices employed to explain away other A.D. 70 time statements and fulfillment contexts.

p-45 – Grammatical definitions and usage of certain words in lexicons and commentaries do not establish what 1st-century expectations actually were.

p-46-49 – Stevens asserts that “not all of the folks alive then would die before the parousia . . . . [but] would be ‘snatched away in clouds’ . . . . without dying . . . . without experiencing physical death.” Then, what does one do with the verse and expectation created by Hebrews 9:27 (“Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment”)? Stevens does not say.

p-50 – Stevens maintains that “context itself is the final arbiter in every usage” and not necessarily the definition from a lexicon. Unfortunately, this is the same argument used by Thomas Ice to change the meaning of “this generation” in Matthew 24 from all its other uses in the NT.(2)

p-52 – Stevens limits the “caught up” experience to only those alive in A.D. 66-70. He writes that “those who died after AD 70 were not ‘caught up’ at death into the air for a meeting with Christ.” I agree they are not “caught up” in the manner described by Stevens. But I disagree with his manner. See Shattering the ‘Left Behind’ Delusion (Bradford, PA.: International Preterist Association, 2000), pp-101-111; 115-118 for a different understanding of the ongoing nature of this established spiritual resurrection reality.

p-55 – Stevens uses the example of Josephus’ documentation of angels appearing in the sky. He admits that “it is [only] assumed that the commander of hosts, Jesus, was with them” and implies that this “visible appearance of the angelic armies (accompanying Jesus) at that time” means Jesus was visible, as well. But Josephus and many others who supposedly saw this were not “true believers.” How does that fit with his theory? He does not say.

p-57 – Stevens claims that “Christ descends from heaven into the air where the clouds are.” In a few moments I will refute this location. But then he says that this “aer” is the atmosphere around us . . . . the spiritual realm.” This location I will affirm.

p-57-58 – He puts down those who teach a catching up in a “metaphysical sense,” or a “‘spiritual gathering into the Kingdom’ idea,” or in “a metaphorical . . . idea.” In contrast, he offers that “Paul is indeed predicting a real snatching away.” This implies that the other idea is not real. Such could not be further from the truth. Again, he claims that Paul’s “catching up” is not something that post-A.D.-70 saints can experience. I disagree (see reference under p-52, again).

p-59 – Stevens fails to mention the most important “cloud” of all the clouds mentioned in Scripture. That is, the “great cloud of witness” that they/we are surrounded by (Heb. 12;1). And just look who is in that cloud—see Hebrews 12:22-24.

p-60-63 – Several charges are leveled here, anonymously but principally, at yours truly and what I wrote in my Shattering the ‘Left Behind’ Delusion book regarding the meaning of the Greek word aer and the location of Paul’s catching up (1 Thess. 4:17). Here is a list of some of those charges which I will now re-address: