Customer Reviews

Three Views on the Rapture

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

Three Views on the Rapture assumes a premillennial eschatology and contrasts the three primary rapture views. It is scholarly and probably not for the average reader. For the student of eschatology it is a very interesting work. The authors are quite respectful of one another, yet not fearful to mix it up. I recommend it only for those who already have some knowledge of issues concerning premillennial eschatology.

The format, three predominant views of premillenialism set side by side intrigued me. I was a little bit disappointed because all three scholars are from the same school, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. I was also slightly disappointed because the book is quite dated, going back to the an early 80's prophecy conference. A lot of prophetic viewpoints have changed since then, which affect interpretations and schools of thought in eschatology.

But, overall I was duly impressed. Feinerg, Archer and Moo are fine conservative scholars, and each make an impressive case for their stance as to the timing of the premillenial rapture. In my opinion, Archer stands out among them, and does an excellent job of setting forth the mid-tribulational rapture.

Not a great eschatology work, but an adequate synopsis of widely held views. I agree with the other reviewers that it is not for the novice, but for someone already familiar with premillenialism and end-times prophecy. It's a read and pass-on, no permanent place on my shelf kind of book.

The timing of the rapture is a matter of much debate these days, and in order to have a discussion in what I call "the James 3 tradition" (respect, love, humility, and grace), it helps to have an accurate understanding of what the other positions are and why others hold to them. As such, this book does a good job of describing three of the four main premillennial positions on this topic. I believe the omission of the emerging and rapidly mainstreaming prewrath position, however, was an unfortunate oversight that I hope will be corrected in future editions.

One of the most fascinating aspects of this book is its introduction that discusses the development of the pretrib, midtrib, and posttrib positions. When one understands how these positions developed and why one gained more steam and notoriety than others, one begins to understand why popularity alone does not determine orthodoxy.

Interestingly, the origination of the pretrib concept in the early 1800s and its rapid deployment throughout the evangelical circles in the 1900s had less to do with good practices of scriptural interpretation than a response to the amillennial interpretations that had dominated for centuries, combined with popular exposure to this position due to power and resources of its defenders during a time of relative scriptural ignorance among the general population. The midtrib and posttrib positions developed in the academic circles in response to the perceived error of rapidly popularizing pretrib position, but they came too late; pretrib had already become entrenched. Such background is fascinating and necessary for any student of the rapture and helps to put the positions themselves into perspective.

The presenters of each of the three positions covered in this book are well chosen, and they provide good, overall assessments of the academic proof-texting of each of these three views. The back-and-forth debates between the holders of each position expose the reader to the basic reasoning behind them, as well as the strengths and flaws in each argument. They also expose the fact that none of these positions can stand strong against critical scrutiny and holds firm only in isolation. Hence, my disappointment that the prewrath view was not included in this discussion.

I think this is a terrific book for anyone wanting to gain grace and understanding in the rapture debate. I do not recommend it because any of the three presentations are, in themselves, convincing (they are not). Rather, I recommend it as an important backgrounder and primer on three of the four primary positions from an academic (rather than popular) perspective and a good sense of how and why they developed.

-- H. L. Nigro, author of Before God's Wrath: The Bible's Answer to the Timing of the Rapture

It is interesting to read a defense of three main views on when the rapture will take place -- before, in the middle of, or at the end of the Great Tribulation. As with other books in the Counterpoints series, the language is very technical (especially for the non-theology-specialist) and the presentation is very thorough. A major weakness of this book was that all the authors presume a premillennial interpretation of the Bible, which is by no means a universally agreed-upon view. Unlike the other books in the Counterpoints series, I was unable to choose one author with whom I most agreed, because *all* of them assume (without even proving) premillennialism to be true. The doctrine of the Rapture is a Christian doctrine, not just a premillennial one, and so the book suffers from its restricted format. Also, the highly-technical exploration is difficult to follow at times, and the highly-detailed introduction to the book (on the history of Premillennialism) was far too lengthy for anyone without a specific, scholarly interest in just such a topic. Those who believe in a premillennial interpretation and who can handle the technical jargon in this book will probably find it a very welcome and thorough examination of the Rapture. As for me, I found it an interesting exploration into how some other Christians may think, but found little that I could apply to my own spiritual life or theology.

I'm going to apply this commentary for the entire Counterpoint Series published by Zondervan Publishing Company. My compliments to that company for creating this series. I initially purchased "Four Views on the Book of Revelation" but soon realized it was only one in a series. I got so much out of that volume, that I decided to purchase the entire set to study and keep for reference. My spiritual growth has been remarkable as a result. Seminary students and professionals would probably enjoy this series, which seems geared for them. But this series is also excellent for those college-educated laypeople who feel inclined to enhance their understanding of Christian theology. That is, with one caveat: Buy a decent theological dictionary to refer to at first. It probably won't get used much after about the third book you choose to read, but initially you will be need it to be confident of some of the terms used among advanced theologians. Then, the Counterpoint series will give you a full understanding of many different concepts and concerns of the Christian faith which have been applicable from early on until the present. I've learned a lot, and the only way I think I could do better is if I were enrolled in Seminary. A list of all the titles I am aware of from this series is:

Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?
Five Views on Law and Gospel
Five Views on Sanctification
Four Views on Hell
Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World
Four Views on the Book of Revelation
Three Views on Creation and Evolution
Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond
Three Views on the Rapture
Two Views on Women in Ministry

The most exciting thing about this book is the way that the contributors can disagree about this topic and yet not let it hinder their fellowship or their love for one another. I have seen schools and churches that would not allow more than one view to be taught because it would "cause confusion and division." This book blows that idea out of the water. Regardless of where you end up in your own view, every believer should mirror the attitude of these gentlemen. It's not a watershed doctrine, so let's talk about it and then go have a cup of coffee and share our love of the Lord!

Upon reading Three Views of the Rapture, I was not sure what to expect. Coming from church circles (Mennonite and Pentecostal) where eschatology was a vague assortment of rampant and disassociated proof-texting, as well as a indiscriminate application of Deuteronomy 29:29 ("The secret things belong to the LORD") and vague "Jesus wins" statements, I knew I had a default view of the rapture that was neither informed nor biblically articulate. Beyond that, I knew that the various positions I had encountered were variations of misunderstandings of mid-tribulationalism and post-tribulationalism, so I was not sure what to expect. Honestly, in my youth I was taught that matters of eschatology boiled down to "our experts and proof texts versus their experts and proof texts" and though I don't believe that anymore, I had a tiny inkling of skepticism that one position would stand out above the other two. Gladly, this was not the case (though I admittedly found the book a difficult read, given the technical level of argumentation and the sophistication of the arguments presented).

That being said, one of the things that impressed me the most in Three Views of the Rapture was the level of scholarly presentation and interaction in the positions presented. Entering in, I was not terribly familiar with Paul Fienberg, but both Douglas Moo and Gleason A. Archer were familiar names to me, and I was pleased at the high level of representation they brought to their respective fields. Their cases were technical (albeit verbose) and showed a generally high view of scripture. The interaction between them was very cordial, articulate, respectful and worthy of emulation for anyone (especially myself) who ever interacts with other Christians on important theological issues where there is slight, or profound, disagreement. Given the tone of interaction currently present in other, more popular works dealing with eschatology (specifically some of the Preterist literature that I have read...i.e. the mind numbingly arrogant "Anyone who disagrees with Preterism is a Primate" tone of Hank Hannegraff and Gary Demar), it was encouraging and exemplary to see three accomplished Bible scholars interact and disagree as brothers in the faith, united by one Lord. For those wondering why Preterism wasn't included, it's simply because it's never been a widely recognized position (Even currently, there's less than a half dozen biblical scholars of significance who are Preterists).

Though there was a high level of interaction, I definitely was not convinced by all three arguments, but that's one of the best features of the "multiple views" series of books; encountering articulate positions of other camps to evaluate. Fineberg's argument for Pre-tribulationalism was fantastic, as were his interactions and refutations of the presentations of his opponents. I found his arguments regarding the promise of exemption from not only the event of, but the time of, divine wrath to be very compelling and unconvincingly refuted, though I found his argument of the Greek preposition 'ex' to possibly "denote a position outside its object with no thought of prior existence within the object or of emergence from the object" to be verbose and a bit excessively long. His exhibition of the difference between the passages dealing with the rapture and the second coming was also very well done, as was his defense of that position in the light of the criticisms to which his opponents exposed it. I appreciated Fineberg's great explanation of the concept of immanency in his rebuttal of Archer, along with his responses to Moo regarding the various parallels between the Olivet Discourse and the Thessalonian epistles as well as Moo's exegetical treatment of the various passages in 1 and 2 Thessalonians.

Of the other two positions, I found that Moo's was the second most well represented position. He did make some decent points on the lack of explicit teaching regarding the exemption of believers from the Tribulation, and he definitely showed a desire to take a serious look at the relevant passages of scripture. I liked some of what he said about the believers being promised to escape divine judgment, not the day of the Lord itself (186) and I appreciated much of his rebuttal of preterism regarding the Olivet Discourse (191-192). I definitely did not find his frequent arguments from silence convincing though, like when he commented on how the lack of the term 'ekklesia' in Revelation only showed that God was not addressing specific churches (201) or that Paul's lack of telling believers that they'll be exempt from the Tribulation in 1 Thess. 4:13-18 shows that they may then be in it.

Of the three, I found I was the least impressed by Gleason Archer's treatment of his position. Archer did make a biblical case and he had a few good points, like his point that Revelation 3:10 was addressed to a specific church and not the universal church (118), but even that point made problems. I honestly struggled with Archer, especially when he made comments like how the rapture was not possible before 1967 (132) or how personal escape from agony in the Tribulation is likely not what the Scripture talks about since many Christians have to suffer cancer and heart disease (134). With points like that, which showed either a misunderstanding of his opponents positions or a misrepresentation of them, I had a hard time taking him seriously. I would like to see the Mid-Trib position argued by someone who showed a little more familiarity with their opponents arguments and relied on a little less sensational argumentation.

All in all, Three Views of the Rapture is a highly recommended resource that I will read again and share with others who have questions about the issues around the timing of the rapture. It's a good book to give the casual theologian a general introduction to the various positions (except Preterism), with the exception of the technical language.

I agree with the last reviewer on just about everything. It's helpful to have the three predominant views about the rapture side-by-side. The upside is that each view is presented by someone who believes it, so it gets a fair presentation. There's a downside to the format, too. Since each author offers a rebuttal to each of the others, and then later in the book presents his own argument, there's a lot of redundancy. Since there are three authors, there are always two rebuttals for each viewpoint, and sometimes they make the same counterpoints or wind up presenting the same point again when its their turn to express their view. The book would have been improved by heavier editing. (Something a writer does't usually argue for, but in this case I think authors writing rebuttals may not have known what the other guy was going to say in his rebuttal.)

A friendly discussion of three points of view regarding the rapture. Gives pros and cons to each view. I did, however, find this book a bit tedious at times because some of the arguments get repeated and most of the scriptures that are referenced give reference numbers only (rather than quotes) so I constantly had to stop and look them up. But, at least, it was a fair presentation.

This book presented great arguements by great scholars. Personally, I was impressed with Douglas Moo (Post-Trib. view) arguement. The only real arguement within the three views is between the Pre and Post Trib. The Mid-Trib. scholar, Archer, tries to present a valid arguement but really doesn't stand weight with the others. This book is not really for a beginner in theology due to the in depth discussions on Greek terminology and some Hebrew, but there is still some simple and basic arguements that even a Bible reader could understand.