What do you think?
Rate this book
Evidence for the Rapture: A Biblical Case for Pretribulationism
Is the rapture still going to happen? And if so, when? With contributing scholars from schools like Moody Bible Institute, Dallas Theological Seminary, and The Master’s Theological Seminary, Evidence for the Rapture is a convincing and thoroughly biblical case for the rapture. This collection of exegetical essays looks at the rapture from a number of biblical the words of Jesus in the Gospels, Paul’s teachings in the epistles, and even prophetic and apocalyptic literature. In sound exegetical technique, the authors corroborate Scripture’s main teachings on the end times to provide a trustworthy and concise treatment of a multi-faceted issue. For the last several hundred years, the doctrine of a pretribulation rapture has been a fixture in many churches and institutions. Evidence for the Rapture is a fresh polish upon this long-standing doctrine.
- GenresBiblical Studies
288 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 2015
15 people are currently reading
38 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
July 24, 2017
Evidence For the Rapture: A Biblical Case For Pretribulationism - General Editor John Hart is a compilation of several essays by several men in defense of the pretrib rapture.
I wanted to read this book primarily because it is a topic that our church is examining at the moment (we're in Matthew 24). We've been wrestling with the concept of the rapture and are actually leaning strongly in a Post-tribulational direction. My dad, a pastor has held a pretrib rapture stance for all of his life, until recently, and he wants to make sure that there is no compelling exegetical argument that he has not heard defending a pretrib rapture (and he's heard many arguments for it). I saw that this book was available for me to choose in the reviewing program I'm a part of and so I snatched it up.
Each chapter of the book deals with various arguments for a pretrib rapture, dealing with texts like 1 and 2nd Thessalonians, Matthew 24, and Revelation, and topics like the Day of the Lord and the separation of the church and Israel. Having read the arguments in this book I haven't been convinced that we need to stop heading in the direction of a posttrib rapture. I'll give some of my reasonings below:
One of the first arguments given is the "imminence" of the return of Christ. We are told in God's Word that no one knows the day or the hour, not even the Son, but only the Father. (Mat 24:36) We are told that His coming will be like a thief in the night (Matt 24:43-44). The author of this particular chapter, dealing with Matthew 24, Robert L. Thomas, argues that verses like these (and others) indicate that this particular coming of Christ will be without any warning. As to the verses in Matthew 24 that seem to indicate that there will be signs to be looked for that will be indicators of His returning to the earth in a short time (Matt24:33), Thomas explains that he believes that certain parts of Matthew 24 (like 24:4-28) are dealing with the time WITHIN Daniel's 70th week, and are speaking of one being able to realize the nearness of His return to earth (parable of the fig tree "then ye see all these things, know ye that he is nigh") in the 2nd Coming. Other parts (after vs. 36) are dealing with the BEGINNING of the 70th week of Daniel, which in Thomas' view, also includes Christ's return to gather up His church in the rapture, has NO signs, could begin at any moment, and is inaugurated by the snatching away of the church from the earth. "…the beginning of the week will catch everyone by surprise."
But I am not seeing, in the text, how one can, all while keeping the context intact, separate the coming of the Son of Man into two comings or two "phases" of one coming, as one of the writers put it. And I don't see any warrant for seeing one of the 'comings' as only a partial return to earth. The text of Matthew 24 seems to indicate that Christ is speaking about one coming of Christ, and that this coming of Christ will be a return to the earth. It also indicates there will be certain signs that "He is near" and yet we do not "know the day or the hour". When you think about it, even at the time when the signs of His nearness are seen we will still not necessarily know the day or the hour of His return. Yes the Abomination of Desolation marks the middle of the week, but we are given two countdowns at the end of Daniel, both of which seem to count down from the time the abomination of desolation is set up (Daniel 12:11-12). If we say that Christ is returning immediately at the end of the three and a half years, do we count down from the very hour and minute that the Abomination is set up? Or are we counting days in general? Perhaps Christ will come at midnight at the beginning of the day immediately following 3 1/2 years. Or perhaps he will come at noon on that day. And what time are we using? If we are in America at the time that this happens then Israel is in a different time zone than we are. So, do we calculate from the time it is set up in our time? What calendar are we using? Jewish, Gregorian, babylonian?(assuming there will be such a thing at the time).
The essay writers point out that Christ uses the example of a thief breaking into a house, and that He also says that it will be as in the days of Noah. But It seems that those illustrations are more for demonstrating what it will be like for the unbelievers, those who are not watching. We know that believers (whom we presume will be watching) will not necessarily be overtaken by that day as a thief (1st Thess 5:4), though it will overtake the unbelievers like one. As to the days of Noah, yes unbelievers were ignorant of the day and the hour of the flood and were in the midst of daily activity when it came but a friend recently pointed out to me that Noah ended up knowing the day of the flood before hand. He was told when it would happen seven days before (Gen 7:4). He did not necessarily know the hour, but he knew the day and was told what to do before that day (go in to the ark).
One of the most recurring arguments pretribulatonists use, included in the arguments in this book, is that the church must not experience the wrath of God. One of the verses used for this position is 1 Th 5:9: "For God appointed us not unto wrath, but unto the obtaining of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ". One of the essay writers, Kevin D. Zuber, uses 1 Thessolonians 5 to argue that since we are not appointed to wrath and since we are not of the "realm of darkness" that unbelievers are in and are children of the light(see 1 Th 5:4-5), therefore we will be raptured out of the world before the wrath of the Lord is dealt out upon the earth. Here are some of his statements: "Since the rapture will take all living saints to be with the Lord at the same time that the day of the Lord commences, no believer need fear that he will be found in the day of the Lord." "...neither they nor any saint will enter the day of the Lord". "Since believers are nonparticipants in the realm of darkness, they have 'the promise of non-participation in "the day of the Lord"".
I do not see that that is what Paul was getting at. Paul tells the Thessalonians ""For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. When they are saying, Peace and safety, then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall in no wise escape. "(1Th 5:2-3) This sudden destruction comes upon UNBELIEVERS (those of the darkness) as a thief in the night. "But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief: for ye are all sons of light, and sons of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness; so then let us not sleep, as do the rest, but let us watch and be sober."(1Th 5:4-6) It doesn't even look as though Paul is even hinting that they would not go through the tribulation. He tells them that they are not in darkness, and that therefore the day shouldn't come as a surprise to the believers, but it doesn't say that God will remove them from the earth at that time. Believers will not be those saying, "peace and safety", and they will have things to watch for, such as the Abomination of desolation, and must be very careful not to apostatize from the faith (at that time there will be many extremely good deceivers leading people astray - Matt 24:23-24).
When Paul tells the Thessalonians that they are not destined for wrath but for salvation through Christ, we know that this is talking about our soul's salvation from the eternal wrath of God, not the temporary wrath that He will pour out upon the earth at the end. Zuber argues that Christians will not be on the earth during the temporary wrath of God upon the world. But we know that this is not the case. It looks as though perhaps millions (or more) of believers (apparently not just Jewish Christians) will be on the earth during that time (Rev 7:9-14, Rev 6:9-11,Rev 12:17, Dan 7:21-27). There will be Christian martyrs during the tribulation, but this does not mean that those martyred are experiencing God's wrath, but rather the wrath of Satan. If one holds to the view that only those who are in darkness are the ones that live through the tribulation then they would need to believe that those who become believers once the tribulation begins are among those who are "appointed unto wrath"! Are the so-called "tribulation saints" living in darkness rather than the light? Are the 144,000 Jewish believers "appointed unto wrath" and "living in darkness"? I do not see how one can biblically hold that view.
Another of the arguments given in this book is that," Paul routinely described the church ,or the body of Christ, as consisting of all people from all nations on equal footing as join heirs in one new man or spiritual organism….(quotes Galatians 3:28: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female…. " and Eph 2:14) "…Thus national barriers or boundaries no longer positionally divide believers from one another in the church age. Today, the preeminent servant of God is no longer national, ethnic Israel but rather the church, or the body of Christ, consisting of believers in Jesus from all nations…." the argument goes on making the case that the book of Revelation tells of "a time when national barriers will once again be erected as God will again use national Israel as His special instrument to bless the world…the Pauline concept of the church as a body with no national barriers is also absent from this time period."
When I look at those passages I do not see that it says that God broke down ethnicities, but rather that He included Gentiles, as Gentiles, in the people of God, thus making salvation by grace through faith and available to all people, breaking the wall of hostility between the Jews, who had the God-given law and ordinances to set them apart from the nations/Gentiles. This fits with passages like Acts 15, where the Apostle Peter is dealing with Jews who insist that Gentiles must keep the law of Moses in order to be saved, "And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will." (Act 15:7-11)
Yes, in Christ there is no Jew, Greek, male or female, but this apparently does not mean that there are no Jews, Greeks, Males or females in the church, nor does it mean that they cannot have distinct roles. If this is what being in the church means then females would be allowed to be pastors and to hold authority over men because gender barriers would be broken down, as well as ethnic barriers. If gender has no relevance in the church then passages like 1 Tim 2:11-15 and Eph 5:22 contradict Galatians 3:28.
It would seem then that the Gentiles and Jews have been brought together in one body, all while staying Jews and Gentiles in the process. The Jews are saved as Jews and the Gentiles as Gentiles. This fits with what the Scripture tells us of the church, (see Eph 2:13-22; Eph 3:6)
Israel appears to exist even during the "times of the Gentiles", and the so-called church age. Paul speaks about how "he is a Jew who is one inwardly" (Romans 2:29), not merely with the outward qualifications but with the inward "circumcision" of the heart(but still with those outward qualifications). If there are no Jews in the church then why did Paul use the term? Yes we have verses like "For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel…" (Rom 9:6), but, and I know most pretrib folks would agree with me in this, members of Israel to whom God has chosen to show mercy, they are Israel (Romans 11:7). God did not cast off all of Israel, Paul himself pointed out that he himself was an Israelite and that there was, even at that time, a remnant of Israel who believed (Romans 11:5). The believing remnant of Israel, then and now, is the "the Israel of God" in Galatians 6:16, and, here is where I differ from pretrib rapture people, the "Israel of God" is apparently a part of the church. God is the God of both Jews and Gentiles, not by taking away their ethnic identity but by saving both by faith, thus making it possible to save Jews and Gentiles as Jews and Gentiles. The church is not a body of indistinguishable parts, but a body made up of many parts with different functions (1Cor 12:14-21).
And this fits the picture of the bride of the Lamb, in Revelation 21, This city has twelve gates with the names of the twelve tribes of Israel and the wall of the city has 12 foundations with the names of the 12 Apostles of the Lamb (see vs. 12-14).
I do not see that it is biblical to believe that God will set up the "wall of enmity" between Jews and Gentiles again in the future, nor to think that that believing Gentiles of that time will be made "strangers and aliens" yet again. Rather it appears more biblical to believe that any believing Gentile at that time will still have "access in one Spirit", with the Jews, to "the Father"(Eph 2:13-22). They will still be reconciled to God together, as Jews and Gentiles, "in one body through the cross(vs 16)". This body will still be "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone"(Eph 2:20). I repeat: that fits with the picture of the bride of the Lamb pictured in Revelation 21: 9-14 which includes the twelve sons of Israel.
I am still a premilennialist who has strong dispensational leanings, I still believe that God has a plan for Israel, that they will repent when Christ comes again and that He will give them the promised earthly land of Israel in the future and that Christ will reign over them for a thousand years on this earth. But I think that it is biblical to believe that even that this saved Israel of the future will be a part of Christ's body, the church. The Israel of God is a separate entity from Gentiles who are chosen of God, but they are 'separate' and yet in one body, the church. In other words, I believe that it is biblically consistent to think that the church will be on the earth during the tribulation, and that living believers will be gathered up/raptured with the resurrected saints when Christ comes again to the earth at the end of the tribulation.
I thought that the writers of this book did a good job at defending their points, they made sense, they just didn't make enough biblical sense to me, for reasons like the ones given above. I just wasn't convinced. But It was a very interesting and intriguing read, I would recommend it to anyone wanting to study the pre-trib rapture position.
If you would like to read my full review, you can see it on my blog (link on my profile page)
Many thanks to the folks at MoodyNewsroom for sending me a free review copy of this book!
I wanted to read this book primarily because it is a topic that our church is examining at the moment (we're in Matthew 24). We've been wrestling with the concept of the rapture and are actually leaning strongly in a Post-tribulational direction. My dad, a pastor has held a pretrib rapture stance for all of his life, until recently, and he wants to make sure that there is no compelling exegetical argument that he has not heard defending a pretrib rapture (and he's heard many arguments for it). I saw that this book was available for me to choose in the reviewing program I'm a part of and so I snatched it up.
Each chapter of the book deals with various arguments for a pretrib rapture, dealing with texts like 1 and 2nd Thessalonians, Matthew 24, and Revelation, and topics like the Day of the Lord and the separation of the church and Israel. Having read the arguments in this book I haven't been convinced that we need to stop heading in the direction of a posttrib rapture. I'll give some of my reasonings below:
One of the first arguments given is the "imminence" of the return of Christ. We are told in God's Word that no one knows the day or the hour, not even the Son, but only the Father. (Mat 24:36) We are told that His coming will be like a thief in the night (Matt 24:43-44). The author of this particular chapter, dealing with Matthew 24, Robert L. Thomas, argues that verses like these (and others) indicate that this particular coming of Christ will be without any warning. As to the verses in Matthew 24 that seem to indicate that there will be signs to be looked for that will be indicators of His returning to the earth in a short time (Matt24:33), Thomas explains that he believes that certain parts of Matthew 24 (like 24:4-28) are dealing with the time WITHIN Daniel's 70th week, and are speaking of one being able to realize the nearness of His return to earth (parable of the fig tree "then ye see all these things, know ye that he is nigh") in the 2nd Coming. Other parts (after vs. 36) are dealing with the BEGINNING of the 70th week of Daniel, which in Thomas' view, also includes Christ's return to gather up His church in the rapture, has NO signs, could begin at any moment, and is inaugurated by the snatching away of the church from the earth. "…the beginning of the week will catch everyone by surprise."
But I am not seeing, in the text, how one can, all while keeping the context intact, separate the coming of the Son of Man into two comings or two "phases" of one coming, as one of the writers put it. And I don't see any warrant for seeing one of the 'comings' as only a partial return to earth. The text of Matthew 24 seems to indicate that Christ is speaking about one coming of Christ, and that this coming of Christ will be a return to the earth. It also indicates there will be certain signs that "He is near" and yet we do not "know the day or the hour". When you think about it, even at the time when the signs of His nearness are seen we will still not necessarily know the day or the hour of His return. Yes the Abomination of Desolation marks the middle of the week, but we are given two countdowns at the end of Daniel, both of which seem to count down from the time the abomination of desolation is set up (Daniel 12:11-12). If we say that Christ is returning immediately at the end of the three and a half years, do we count down from the very hour and minute that the Abomination is set up? Or are we counting days in general? Perhaps Christ will come at midnight at the beginning of the day immediately following 3 1/2 years. Or perhaps he will come at noon on that day. And what time are we using? If we are in America at the time that this happens then Israel is in a different time zone than we are. So, do we calculate from the time it is set up in our time? What calendar are we using? Jewish, Gregorian, babylonian?(assuming there will be such a thing at the time).
The essay writers point out that Christ uses the example of a thief breaking into a house, and that He also says that it will be as in the days of Noah. But It seems that those illustrations are more for demonstrating what it will be like for the unbelievers, those who are not watching. We know that believers (whom we presume will be watching) will not necessarily be overtaken by that day as a thief (1st Thess 5:4), though it will overtake the unbelievers like one. As to the days of Noah, yes unbelievers were ignorant of the day and the hour of the flood and were in the midst of daily activity when it came but a friend recently pointed out to me that Noah ended up knowing the day of the flood before hand. He was told when it would happen seven days before (Gen 7:4). He did not necessarily know the hour, but he knew the day and was told what to do before that day (go in to the ark).
One of the most recurring arguments pretribulatonists use, included in the arguments in this book, is that the church must not experience the wrath of God. One of the verses used for this position is 1 Th 5:9: "For God appointed us not unto wrath, but unto the obtaining of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ". One of the essay writers, Kevin D. Zuber, uses 1 Thessolonians 5 to argue that since we are not appointed to wrath and since we are not of the "realm of darkness" that unbelievers are in and are children of the light(see 1 Th 5:4-5), therefore we will be raptured out of the world before the wrath of the Lord is dealt out upon the earth. Here are some of his statements: "Since the rapture will take all living saints to be with the Lord at the same time that the day of the Lord commences, no believer need fear that he will be found in the day of the Lord." "...neither they nor any saint will enter the day of the Lord". "Since believers are nonparticipants in the realm of darkness, they have 'the promise of non-participation in "the day of the Lord"".
I do not see that that is what Paul was getting at. Paul tells the Thessalonians ""For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. When they are saying, Peace and safety, then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall in no wise escape. "(1Th 5:2-3) This sudden destruction comes upon UNBELIEVERS (those of the darkness) as a thief in the night. "But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief: for ye are all sons of light, and sons of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness; so then let us not sleep, as do the rest, but let us watch and be sober."(1Th 5:4-6) It doesn't even look as though Paul is even hinting that they would not go through the tribulation. He tells them that they are not in darkness, and that therefore the day shouldn't come as a surprise to the believers, but it doesn't say that God will remove them from the earth at that time. Believers will not be those saying, "peace and safety", and they will have things to watch for, such as the Abomination of desolation, and must be very careful not to apostatize from the faith (at that time there will be many extremely good deceivers leading people astray - Matt 24:23-24).
When Paul tells the Thessalonians that they are not destined for wrath but for salvation through Christ, we know that this is talking about our soul's salvation from the eternal wrath of God, not the temporary wrath that He will pour out upon the earth at the end. Zuber argues that Christians will not be on the earth during the temporary wrath of God upon the world. But we know that this is not the case. It looks as though perhaps millions (or more) of believers (apparently not just Jewish Christians) will be on the earth during that time (Rev 7:9-14, Rev 6:9-11,Rev 12:17, Dan 7:21-27). There will be Christian martyrs during the tribulation, but this does not mean that those martyred are experiencing God's wrath, but rather the wrath of Satan. If one holds to the view that only those who are in darkness are the ones that live through the tribulation then they would need to believe that those who become believers once the tribulation begins are among those who are "appointed unto wrath"! Are the so-called "tribulation saints" living in darkness rather than the light? Are the 144,000 Jewish believers "appointed unto wrath" and "living in darkness"? I do not see how one can biblically hold that view.
Another of the arguments given in this book is that," Paul routinely described the church ,or the body of Christ, as consisting of all people from all nations on equal footing as join heirs in one new man or spiritual organism….(quotes Galatians 3:28: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female…. " and Eph 2:14) "…Thus national barriers or boundaries no longer positionally divide believers from one another in the church age. Today, the preeminent servant of God is no longer national, ethnic Israel but rather the church, or the body of Christ, consisting of believers in Jesus from all nations…." the argument goes on making the case that the book of Revelation tells of "a time when national barriers will once again be erected as God will again use national Israel as His special instrument to bless the world…the Pauline concept of the church as a body with no national barriers is also absent from this time period."
When I look at those passages I do not see that it says that God broke down ethnicities, but rather that He included Gentiles, as Gentiles, in the people of God, thus making salvation by grace through faith and available to all people, breaking the wall of hostility between the Jews, who had the God-given law and ordinances to set them apart from the nations/Gentiles. This fits with passages like Acts 15, where the Apostle Peter is dealing with Jews who insist that Gentiles must keep the law of Moses in order to be saved, "And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will." (Act 15:7-11)
Yes, in Christ there is no Jew, Greek, male or female, but this apparently does not mean that there are no Jews, Greeks, Males or females in the church, nor does it mean that they cannot have distinct roles. If this is what being in the church means then females would be allowed to be pastors and to hold authority over men because gender barriers would be broken down, as well as ethnic barriers. If gender has no relevance in the church then passages like 1 Tim 2:11-15 and Eph 5:22 contradict Galatians 3:28.
It would seem then that the Gentiles and Jews have been brought together in one body, all while staying Jews and Gentiles in the process. The Jews are saved as Jews and the Gentiles as Gentiles. This fits with what the Scripture tells us of the church, (see Eph 2:13-22; Eph 3:6)
Israel appears to exist even during the "times of the Gentiles", and the so-called church age. Paul speaks about how "he is a Jew who is one inwardly" (Romans 2:29), not merely with the outward qualifications but with the inward "circumcision" of the heart(but still with those outward qualifications). If there are no Jews in the church then why did Paul use the term? Yes we have verses like "For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel…" (Rom 9:6), but, and I know most pretrib folks would agree with me in this, members of Israel to whom God has chosen to show mercy, they are Israel (Romans 11:7). God did not cast off all of Israel, Paul himself pointed out that he himself was an Israelite and that there was, even at that time, a remnant of Israel who believed (Romans 11:5). The believing remnant of Israel, then and now, is the "the Israel of God" in Galatians 6:16, and, here is where I differ from pretrib rapture people, the "Israel of God" is apparently a part of the church. God is the God of both Jews and Gentiles, not by taking away their ethnic identity but by saving both by faith, thus making it possible to save Jews and Gentiles as Jews and Gentiles. The church is not a body of indistinguishable parts, but a body made up of many parts with different functions (1Cor 12:14-21).
And this fits the picture of the bride of the Lamb, in Revelation 21, This city has twelve gates with the names of the twelve tribes of Israel and the wall of the city has 12 foundations with the names of the 12 Apostles of the Lamb (see vs. 12-14).
I do not see that it is biblical to believe that God will set up the "wall of enmity" between Jews and Gentiles again in the future, nor to think that that believing Gentiles of that time will be made "strangers and aliens" yet again. Rather it appears more biblical to believe that any believing Gentile at that time will still have "access in one Spirit", with the Jews, to "the Father"(Eph 2:13-22). They will still be reconciled to God together, as Jews and Gentiles, "in one body through the cross(vs 16)". This body will still be "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone"(Eph 2:20). I repeat: that fits with the picture of the bride of the Lamb pictured in Revelation 21: 9-14 which includes the twelve sons of Israel.
I am still a premilennialist who has strong dispensational leanings, I still believe that God has a plan for Israel, that they will repent when Christ comes again and that He will give them the promised earthly land of Israel in the future and that Christ will reign over them for a thousand years on this earth. But I think that it is biblical to believe that even that this saved Israel of the future will be a part of Christ's body, the church. The Israel of God is a separate entity from Gentiles who are chosen of God, but they are 'separate' and yet in one body, the church. In other words, I believe that it is biblically consistent to think that the church will be on the earth during the tribulation, and that living believers will be gathered up/raptured with the resurrected saints when Christ comes again to the earth at the end of the tribulation.
I thought that the writers of this book did a good job at defending their points, they made sense, they just didn't make enough biblical sense to me, for reasons like the ones given above. I just wasn't convinced. But It was a very interesting and intriguing read, I would recommend it to anyone wanting to study the pre-trib rapture position.
If you would like to read my full review, you can see it on my blog (link on my profile page)
Many thanks to the folks at MoodyNewsroom for sending me a free review copy of this book!
August 3, 2024
A wonderful resource for examining key texts from a PreTrib point of view. I didn't read every entry, but the ones I did read were good. I found Thomas's article on "imminence", Hart's article on Matt. 24, and Zuber's article on 1 Thessalonians quite helpful. Hart's article on Matt. 24 was particularly interesting, given the fact that it is essentially standard orthodoxy for PreTrib proponents to see Matt. 24:36-44 as NOT referring to the rapture but rather a taking away in judgment. Hart was very persuasive arguing against that for a PreTrib rapture, although I cannot say I'm convinced. All in all, I think good Biblical arguments can be made for both a Pre and PostTrib rapture. I'm sure the controversy will continue either until we are raptured or the tribulation begins... Or until the tribulation doesn't really begin because it's symbolic and we are already living in it...
July 6, 2019
Exegetical arguments from various authors so the quality varies. Overall helpful if inconsistent argumentation for the pretribulational position.
July 31, 2025
Required reading in Seminary.
While I did enjoy the flow and layout, I thought it lacked further explanation at times.
While I did enjoy the flow and layout, I thought it lacked further explanation at times.
November 17, 2015
For anyone interested in studying more about the rapture of the church, a book by Moody Publishers offers a wealth of reading.
The title, “Evidence for the Rapture: A Biblical Case For Pretribulationism,” is a mouthful. But the book provides plenty of spiritual food for the mind, as you would expect from a book published by Moody.
The book contains 10 essays by Christian scholars who make a case for a pretribulational rapture, or the rapture of the church taking place before the tribulation. The general editor is Dr. John F. Hart, a Bible professor at Moody Bible Institute, where he has taught for more than 30 years. Another contributor is Dr. Robert L. Thomas, who helped put together the New American Standard Bible.
Their sources include: the words of Jesus in the Gospels; Paul’s Epistles; prophetic literature; apocalyptic literature; and Israel’s history.
In the introduction, Hart writes that pretribulationists believe they can answer what seems to be contradictory end times prophecies in the Bible. The Rapture is when Jesus will take the church up to Heaven and will happen at a time that cannot be predicted, pretribulationists believe. Sometime after, the tribulation, a seven-year period of divine judgments, will take place, they believe.
“From the pretribulation viewpoint, all other viewpoints of the rapture have a greater difficulty in adequately explaining the passages that teach an imminent, any-moment coming of Jesus,” Hart writes. “For once the tribulation begins, multiple signs will foretell Christ’s coming.”
Because of the complexity of end times prophecy, there are various Christian viewpoints about the timing of the rapture in relation to the tribulation.
Dr. Michael A. Rydelnik is yet another contributor to the book. He is a professor of Jewish studies at Moody Bible Institute and a frequent commentator on Moody Radio programs.
Rydelnik argues that the nation of Israel is central to the tribulation.
“During the tribulation, God will once again make Israel His primary concern,” Rydelnik writes. “Although God will certainly express His wrath for sin during the tribulation and ultimately judge the Gentile nations, nevertheless, God’s emphasis will once again be on the Jewish people.”
Thus, Rydelnik argues, the church will be absent from the earth during the tribulation. The church is present in the first three chapters of Revelation but not later. He argues this makes a case for a pretribulation rapture. Further, Jesus promises the church in Philadelphia that He will remove them before the “hour of testing.” Rydelnik argues that this promise applies to every church around the world. God will complete the church’s work during the Rapture, he writes.
If you are a Christian who believes in a different viewpoint of the rapture, no doubt you will take issue with “Evidence For the Rapture.” There is no way I can highlight in this column every point the 10 contributors make, so I would urge you, dear reader, to study the book for yourself. The same goes for any of you, dear readers, who are not Christian: If you disagree with the premise, read the book so you can try to refute it. If you are a Christian who believes in the pretribulational rapture, this book would prove invaluable in studying the topic.
The title, “Evidence for the Rapture: A Biblical Case For Pretribulationism,” is a mouthful. But the book provides plenty of spiritual food for the mind, as you would expect from a book published by Moody.
The book contains 10 essays by Christian scholars who make a case for a pretribulational rapture, or the rapture of the church taking place before the tribulation. The general editor is Dr. John F. Hart, a Bible professor at Moody Bible Institute, where he has taught for more than 30 years. Another contributor is Dr. Robert L. Thomas, who helped put together the New American Standard Bible.
Their sources include: the words of Jesus in the Gospels; Paul’s Epistles; prophetic literature; apocalyptic literature; and Israel’s history.
In the introduction, Hart writes that pretribulationists believe they can answer what seems to be contradictory end times prophecies in the Bible. The Rapture is when Jesus will take the church up to Heaven and will happen at a time that cannot be predicted, pretribulationists believe. Sometime after, the tribulation, a seven-year period of divine judgments, will take place, they believe.
“From the pretribulation viewpoint, all other viewpoints of the rapture have a greater difficulty in adequately explaining the passages that teach an imminent, any-moment coming of Jesus,” Hart writes. “For once the tribulation begins, multiple signs will foretell Christ’s coming.”
Because of the complexity of end times prophecy, there are various Christian viewpoints about the timing of the rapture in relation to the tribulation.
Dr. Michael A. Rydelnik is yet another contributor to the book. He is a professor of Jewish studies at Moody Bible Institute and a frequent commentator on Moody Radio programs.
Rydelnik argues that the nation of Israel is central to the tribulation.
“During the tribulation, God will once again make Israel His primary concern,” Rydelnik writes. “Although God will certainly express His wrath for sin during the tribulation and ultimately judge the Gentile nations, nevertheless, God’s emphasis will once again be on the Jewish people.”
Thus, Rydelnik argues, the church will be absent from the earth during the tribulation. The church is present in the first three chapters of Revelation but not later. He argues this makes a case for a pretribulation rapture. Further, Jesus promises the church in Philadelphia that He will remove them before the “hour of testing.” Rydelnik argues that this promise applies to every church around the world. God will complete the church’s work during the Rapture, he writes.
If you are a Christian who believes in a different viewpoint of the rapture, no doubt you will take issue with “Evidence For the Rapture.” There is no way I can highlight in this column every point the 10 contributors make, so I would urge you, dear reader, to study the book for yourself. The same goes for any of you, dear readers, who are not Christian: If you disagree with the premise, read the book so you can try to refute it. If you are a Christian who believes in the pretribulational rapture, this book would prove invaluable in studying the topic.
January 17, 2017
Put simply, this book is misrepresented by its cover. It's not a comprehensive defense of pre-trib, but a somewhat loose collection of individual papers on the rapture. They don't build a cumulative case, nor do they address every important issue or opposition to pre-trib.
The primary issue is that too much is assumed for a book claiming to be "a biblical case". The most glaring omission is any exegetical section on Daniel 9. The authors simply assume a future 7-year tribulation period. So an essential plank to the pre-tribulational viewpoint is completely presupposed. There is no chapter setting the stage by defining the tribulation, the distinction between Israel and the church, etc. These significant points are all assumed also.
The authors scarcely answer pre-wrath, a popular and growing viewpoint. Many arguments in this book are irrelevant against anything other than post-trib. I was also disappointed by the level of scholarship in some of the chapters. There were several leaps of logic, faulty conclusions, etc.
Surprisingly, the best chapter was the final one by Michael Svigel, defending an uncommon reading of Rev 12. He believes the woman giving birth to the son caught up to heaven is actually Israel birthing the church, and the church being raptured before the tribulation. This view was popular, even the primary prooftext, of many early dispensationalists. Svigel's level of scholarship was exceptional and his argument unexpectedly compelling.
Contrary to the title of the book, I would suggest readers look elsewhere for a comprehensive defense of pre-tribulationism.
The primary issue is that too much is assumed for a book claiming to be "a biblical case". The most glaring omission is any exegetical section on Daniel 9. The authors simply assume a future 7-year tribulation period. So an essential plank to the pre-tribulational viewpoint is completely presupposed. There is no chapter setting the stage by defining the tribulation, the distinction between Israel and the church, etc. These significant points are all assumed also.
The authors scarcely answer pre-wrath, a popular and growing viewpoint. Many arguments in this book are irrelevant against anything other than post-trib. I was also disappointed by the level of scholarship in some of the chapters. There were several leaps of logic, faulty conclusions, etc.
Surprisingly, the best chapter was the final one by Michael Svigel, defending an uncommon reading of Rev 12. He believes the woman giving birth to the son caught up to heaven is actually Israel birthing the church, and the church being raptured before the tribulation. This view was popular, even the primary prooftext, of many early dispensationalists. Svigel's level of scholarship was exceptional and his argument unexpectedly compelling.
Contrary to the title of the book, I would suggest readers look elsewhere for a comprehensive defense of pre-tribulationism.
March 26, 2016
Many individuals would debate pretribulationism; some say that there will be a rapture but question the time of great affliction and other's question the rapture itself. John F. Hart, along with a number of Professors and Theologians confirm both the pre-tribulation and the rapture in Moody Press's publication - Evidence for the Rapture. This book contains a wealth of information with The New American Standard Bible used as it's main reference. This resource is deep and to understand it's concepts must be thoroughly studied.
With the focus being on the rapture wherein Jesus returns in the sky to round up his church of the day and those who have passed there is also much to be said about the events that surround Christ's return.
The contributors successfully confirm how Isreal is central to the tribulation and how they set up for the second coming. They also elaborate on how the church is absent from the Earth but present in Heaven during the tribulation.
This book is thorough and has a strong argument for it's naysayers. I was given the opportunity to review this publication for Moody Press in exchange for my views.
With the focus being on the rapture wherein Jesus returns in the sky to round up his church of the day and those who have passed there is also much to be said about the events that surround Christ's return.
The contributors successfully confirm how Isreal is central to the tribulation and how they set up for the second coming. They also elaborate on how the church is absent from the Earth but present in Heaven during the tribulation.
This book is thorough and has a strong argument for it's naysayers. I was given the opportunity to review this publication for Moody Press in exchange for my views.
March 29, 2017
Although I think some of the contributors were better than others (something which happens in a book with many different contributors) I did appreciate what they all brought to the table. I can tell they were all well researched and they did try to make their points convincingly. Being said, I am not quite sure how well the book went at achieving it's goal. While I personally agreed with many of the points in it, I am not sure I would have been persuaded to change my view if I came in with a different one coming in. Not the greatest book on the subject, but it still might be worth the read for those who are interested.
Read
October 7, 2018Evidence for the Rapture contains a wealth of information and is an insightful read. This resource is deep and to understand it's concepts must be thoroughly studied. A thoroughly written book that has a strong argument for the naysayers.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews