The Rapture Plot

by Dave MacPherson

What They Are Saying About ... THE RAPTURE PLOT! Gary DeMar(President, American Vision): "A majority of prophecy writers and speakers teach that the church will be raptured before a future tribulational period. But did you know that prior to about 1830 no such doctrine existed. No one in all of church history ever taught pretribulational rapture. Dave MacPherson does the work of a journalistic private investigator to uncover the truth. The Rapture Plot is the never-before-told, true story of the plot - how plagiarism and subtle document changes created the 'mother of all revisionisms.' A fascinating piece of detective work." C. S. Lovett (President, Personal Christianity): You don't read very much of Dave MacPherson's work before you realize he is a dedicated researcher. Because his work has been so honest and open, his latest work, The Rapture Plothas produced many red faces among some of the most recognized rapture writers of our time. When their work is compared to his, it is embarrassing for them to see how shallow their research is." Robert A. Morey (President, California Institute of Apologetics): "Regardless of where you land on the rapture issue, Dave MacPherson's books on the historical origins of the secret rapture doctrine are a 'must read.' His documentation seems not only in context but ruthlessly honest. I recommend The Rapture Plot...." R. J. Rushdoony (President, Chalcedon): "Dave MacPherson has been responsible for major change in the eschatology of evangelical churches by his devestating studies of some of the central aspects thereof. In The Rapture Plot, Macpherson tells us of the strange tale of 'rapture' writings, revisions, cover-ups, alterations, and confusions. No one has equaled MacPherson in his research on the 'pretrib rapture.' Attempts to discredit his work have failed...." Paperback 320 pages

300 pages, Paperback

First published June 1, 1995

Reviews

[Theodore Knight · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is probably a five star book for someone that wants an exhaustive treatise about the origins of dispensationalism and the pre- tribulation rapture. The issue of the validity of the rapture doctrine is not specifically spelled out but it does seem the author believes it's not true. The rapture teaching is fairly modern as it was introduced in the early 1800's and the person's involved in promulgating it are named and discussed. Darby is considered the originator of it but the author seems to disagree.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

THE JOURNALIST ARGUES FURTHER THAT J.N. DARBY DID NOT ORIGINATE THE PRE-TRIB POSITION

Dave MacPherson is a journalist, as well as the author of books such as Incredible Cover Up and The Great Rapture Hoax. He wrote in the Preface to this 1995 book, "[This book is] the most complete analysis of the beginning of Protestant evangelicalism's most popular and most lucrative view of the future. Theologically, it's 'the any-moment, pretribulation rapture view'---the most important ingredient in a system known as dispensationalism... I will also unveil, for the first time, what has escaped all other researchers: my recent discovery of a plot in the late 1880s to cleverly revise what had long been accepted as the true account of pretrib development...

"The purpose of this book is not to share my personal views of the future. My only focus is on the past which, if analyzed with care, will help resolve differences on the rapture, the tribulation, and the millennium... I view all those with whom I disagree as fellow Christians. And I have found much value and inspiration in the earliest pretrib writings including John Darby's. Many of the earliest developers, however, had a weakness: the desire to be admired as an originator of new prophetic concepts."

After quoting six points from the writings of John Nelson Darby he observes, "Yes, what you've just read are truly John Nelson Darby's thoughts---thoughts of his that reportedly paved the way for his arrival of a pretrib rapture. But all of the words within quotation marks in the first 21 items, with the very same contextual connotations, are in Edward Irving's preliminary discourse in the first volume of the [Manuel de] Lazunza translation which was published in 1827!" (Pg. 90-91)

He summarizes, "we're forced to conclude that dispensationalism's century-old version of its own development should no longer be accepted for these reasons: 1. The Irvingites publicly taught a pretribulation rapture long before Darby did. 2. The underlying 'truths' (such as the church/Israel 'dichotomy') that supposedly led Darby to pretrib were taught earlier by others, none of whom was led to pretrib by these 'truths.' The same 'truths' were used for support only AFTER pretrib was established. The Irvingites were led to pretrib by Old Testament and New Testament SYMBOLS including the Jewish feasts, the two witnesses, and the man child---symbols adopted by Darby later on." (Pg. 135-136)

He adds, "In the final analysis, how should we view John Nelson Darby? We can't truthfully call him the ORIGINATOR of the pretribulation rapture view. He himself never claimed this, although he used phrases in his recollections that could have led others to think this of him." (Pg. 137)

He responds to a (rather) "personal" attack on him in Tim LaHaye's book, No Fear of the Storm: Why Christians Will Escape the Tribulation, saying, "Since my father had been a schoolmate of Biola's president at Princeton Seminary (hardly a pretrib school), I saw no harm in occasionally sharing copies of my father's 1944 book [Triumph Through Tribulation] with some student friends and some of my teachers. If the school had told me to stop this, I would have. If I had been a threat all year to Biola's 'official' position, why did it wait until just TWO WEEKS before the end of the school year to kick me out?" (Pg. 222-223)

He rejects John L. Bray's claim that Jesuit priest Manuel de Lacunza was "the pretrib originator. Lacunza looked for only the Revelation 19 coming which could happen only after the tribulation days were 'concluded,' as Lacunza put it. Bray also overlooked the fact that Lacunza compared his 'much before' expression with the then prevalent Catholic gap of only 'a few minutes' between the catching up and the touchdown in Jerusalem; a day or even an hour would be 'much before' when compared with such a gap. And Lacunza repeatedly equated 1 Thess 4's coming with Matthew 24's coming." (Pg. 265)

MacPherson's dramatic "journalistic" style may be "off-putting" to some, but this book will be almost "must reading" for anyone seriously studying biblical prophecy---whether or not they always agree with him.