What do you think?
Rate this book
Counterpoints
Three Views on the Rapture
This format allows the reader to see the three positions in dialogue with one another, thus clarifying the distinctiveness and revealing the strengths and weaknesses of each.
268 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1984
13 people are currently reading
190 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 - 14 of 14 reviews
April 8, 2020
Richard Reiter's essay on the progress of Dispensational approaches to the rapture over the last 120 years or so was really informative.
Thoroughly enjoyed Doug Moo's contributions. He is such a level-headed exegete who is so careful in his analysis and generally tries to resist dogmatic interpretations where the evidence is flimsy.
These books can be approached in a variety of ways. My own approach was centered on exposure - seeing how various perspectives on the rapture marshal the biblical evidence and deals with their own weaknesses. Since this approach does not entail a thorough analysis of all the passages mentioned in the book the opposing arguments are unlikely to sway my present conviction - yes, I admit to confirmation bias.
Still, this book can be read in other ways which will allow it to challenge one's convictions at a more serious level.
In summary, answers to the following questions will be quite revealing as to which perspective on the timing of the rapture one leans toward (accepting a premillennial understanding):
1. How do we understand the imminence of Christ's return?
2. What role does Revelation 3:10 play in relation to the rapture?
3. What is the extent of the Day of the Lord?
4. What is the extent of divine wrath in relation to the Great Tribulation?
5. What does it mean for the church to be protected from God's wrath?
6. Are there legitimate distinctions between rapture and second advent passages?
7. How do we deal with people in unglorified bodies in the Millennial Kingdom?
Thoroughly enjoyed Doug Moo's contributions. He is such a level-headed exegete who is so careful in his analysis and generally tries to resist dogmatic interpretations where the evidence is flimsy.
These books can be approached in a variety of ways. My own approach was centered on exposure - seeing how various perspectives on the rapture marshal the biblical evidence and deals with their own weaknesses. Since this approach does not entail a thorough analysis of all the passages mentioned in the book the opposing arguments are unlikely to sway my present conviction - yes, I admit to confirmation bias.
Still, this book can be read in other ways which will allow it to challenge one's convictions at a more serious level.
In summary, answers to the following questions will be quite revealing as to which perspective on the timing of the rapture one leans toward (accepting a premillennial understanding):
1. How do we understand the imminence of Christ's return?
2. What role does Revelation 3:10 play in relation to the rapture?
3. What is the extent of the Day of the Lord?
4. What is the extent of divine wrath in relation to the Great Tribulation?
5. What does it mean for the church to be protected from God's wrath?
6. Are there legitimate distinctions between rapture and second advent passages?
7. How do we deal with people in unglorified bodies in the Millennial Kingdom?
January 20, 2016
Interesting and thought-provoking. This book provides the basics to the three major theories about the Rapture of the church. No matter which view you now hold, you may find yourself changing your long-held beliefs after reading this book.
August 14, 2015
Three premillennialists arguing over the time of the rapture. Pretty excited to sell this back for some money.
April 29, 2018
Though the book is dated (pre-wrath has replaced mid-tribulationism), it remains valuable for a number of reasons. Reiter’s essay on the development of American premillennialism is worth the price of the book. Many have a tendency to lump all premils as rednecks who are looking for the Red Heifer. But what Reiter shows is that early premillennials were aware of difficulties in the system, and they tried to fix them.
Feinberg gives the standard pre-tribulational argument. Key argument: God has not only exempted the church from God’s wrath, but from the season of God’s wrath (Feinberg 58, 63). Feinberg’s key argument is that Revelation 3:10 means that God will keep the church out of the tribulation.
He further claims there must be an interval of time between the Rapture and the 2 Coming (72). The Millennium has nonglorified bodies. And since all wicked will be immediately judged in the Second Coming (Matt. 25:31-46), then there must be a category of saved yet nonglorified bodies?
Response: Douglas Moo
The most fatal argument is that the martyred saints in Revelation 6 are asking God when his wrath will begin? This implies it hasn’t happened yet. Therefore, the time of Tribulation is not totally a time of wrath.
Response: Gleason Archer
Feinberg admits that the Day of the Lord referred to in 2 Thess. 2:3-4 does not start until the middle of the week (Feinberg 61). This is very close to pre-wrath.
Douglas Moo gives the post-trib argument, and since it is relatively familiar to American evangelicals, I will focus on Gleason Archer’s mid-tribulational view. It never gained much ground and has since been replaced by pre-wrath.
The Case for the Mid-Seventieth Week Rapture
The rapture will precede the second advent of Christ. So far that sounds like pre-trib, but there are a few differences. Archer places the rapture in the middle of Daniel’s 70th week.
Rider on the White Horse in Revelation 19. This is the big weakness of post-tribulationism. Where do these saints come from (Archer 120). These saints appear to have already been “clothed” (2 Cor. 5:2; 1 John 3:2).
Two phases of the Parousia (cf. response to Moo, 213ff). There is no hint of apocalyptic struggle in the primary rapture passage (1 Thess. 4:13-18). In verse 14 it says “God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep through (dia) Christ Jesus.” Those who have died in Christ will not be raised until the rapture (214). They will not accompany the Lord in his descent without their resurrected bodies.
Conclusion
So who won? Not really anyone. Feinberg made a few good points, but his church/israel dichotomy hamstrung his whole project. Moo’s responses were fairly good but post-trib is just so complex that I can’t follow him. Archer’s placing the rapture midway through the 70th week is interesting, if a bit arbitrary. I think Alan Kurschner’s recent teaching on pre-wrath holds more promise.
Feinberg gives the standard pre-tribulational argument. Key argument: God has not only exempted the church from God’s wrath, but from the season of God’s wrath (Feinberg 58, 63). Feinberg’s key argument is that Revelation 3:10 means that God will keep the church out of the tribulation.
He further claims there must be an interval of time between the Rapture and the 2 Coming (72). The Millennium has nonglorified bodies. And since all wicked will be immediately judged in the Second Coming (Matt. 25:31-46), then there must be a category of saved yet nonglorified bodies?
Response: Douglas Moo
The most fatal argument is that the martyred saints in Revelation 6 are asking God when his wrath will begin? This implies it hasn’t happened yet. Therefore, the time of Tribulation is not totally a time of wrath.
Response: Gleason Archer
Feinberg admits that the Day of the Lord referred to in 2 Thess. 2:3-4 does not start until the middle of the week (Feinberg 61). This is very close to pre-wrath.
Douglas Moo gives the post-trib argument, and since it is relatively familiar to American evangelicals, I will focus on Gleason Archer’s mid-tribulational view. It never gained much ground and has since been replaced by pre-wrath.
The Case for the Mid-Seventieth Week Rapture
The rapture will precede the second advent of Christ. So far that sounds like pre-trib, but there are a few differences. Archer places the rapture in the middle of Daniel’s 70th week.
Rider on the White Horse in Revelation 19. This is the big weakness of post-tribulationism. Where do these saints come from (Archer 120). These saints appear to have already been “clothed” (2 Cor. 5:2; 1 John 3:2).
Two phases of the Parousia (cf. response to Moo, 213ff). There is no hint of apocalyptic struggle in the primary rapture passage (1 Thess. 4:13-18). In verse 14 it says “God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep through (dia) Christ Jesus.” Those who have died in Christ will not be raised until the rapture (214). They will not accompany the Lord in his descent without their resurrected bodies.
Conclusion
So who won? Not really anyone. Feinberg made a few good points, but his church/israel dichotomy hamstrung his whole project. Moo’s responses were fairly good but post-trib is just so complex that I can’t follow him. Archer’s placing the rapture midway through the 70th week is interesting, if a bit arbitrary. I think Alan Kurschner’s recent teaching on pre-wrath holds more promise.
May 18, 2017
The first section by Feinberg is probably the most convincing. Moo's argument is good for Post-trib. The middle section is largely irrelevant today, as Archer's position has been pretty well supplanted by the pre wrath view in the newer edition of this volume. The historical essay which begins the book is worth the price of the book for anyone interested in the history of dispensationalism, whether they agree with the theology or not.
August 4, 2019
First of all, thank you to all those involved in this project. It was neat to read the opinions of the others and understand their rebuttals. That being said, this book was a bit over my head in a few parts. Even though it was a bit of a struggle, I took extra time and stuck with it. No matter what stance you may hold, this book is a great guide to each side.
June 8, 2021
While I appreciated the ability to see each view and the rebuttals, I confess that the book left me a bit more confused than when I started.
May 7, 2024
This book is a great summary on rapture positions. I’ve been thinking a lot about this lately as I am transitioning to posttrib… based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. Excellent book!
November 2, 2008
Wow, eschatology is always a tough subject as is this book.
One of the main reasons that I bought this book is that three professors from the same seminary Trinity Evangelical Seminary, all propose different viewpoints on when the rapture will take place. ( pre-trib --Paul Feinberg, mid-trib --Gleason Archer and post-trib --Douglass Moo)
They all respect each other and each other's viewpoints. They believe that the time of the rapture is not clearly defined by scripture; hence, they are supportive of each other having different views.
First, a dark overview is given on how the church had split in times past over this issue and who possibly developed each view originally. Then it was argued that it should be studied because it is in the Bible and is part of theology. They also state "those who find the question of the Rapture insignificant and uninsteresting; they pride themselves in being above the battle. But this is wrong. Theologically, no aspect of revealed truth is unimportant... Practically, the time of the Rapture is significant because we aspire to know the whole counsel of God."
Then the book really begins! Each view is clearly stated based on biblical exposition. After each view the other two authors refute the view. The end result is a fair overview of pre-trib, mid-trib and post-trib premillenialism.
All author's agree on one thing "I cannot, indeed must not, allow this conviction (timing of rapture) to represent any kind of barrier to full relationships with others who hold differing convictions"
A good book, but not life changing either.
One of the main reasons that I bought this book is that three professors from the same seminary Trinity Evangelical Seminary, all propose different viewpoints on when the rapture will take place. ( pre-trib --Paul Feinberg, mid-trib --Gleason Archer and post-trib --Douglass Moo)
They all respect each other and each other's viewpoints. They believe that the time of the rapture is not clearly defined by scripture; hence, they are supportive of each other having different views.
First, a dark overview is given on how the church had split in times past over this issue and who possibly developed each view originally. Then it was argued that it should be studied because it is in the Bible and is part of theology. They also state "those who find the question of the Rapture insignificant and uninsteresting; they pride themselves in being above the battle. But this is wrong. Theologically, no aspect of revealed truth is unimportant... Practically, the time of the Rapture is significant because we aspire to know the whole counsel of God."
Then the book really begins! Each view is clearly stated based on biblical exposition. After each view the other two authors refute the view. The end result is a fair overview of pre-trib, mid-trib and post-trib premillenialism.
All author's agree on one thing "I cannot, indeed must not, allow this conviction (timing of rapture) to represent any kind of barrier to full relationships with others who hold differing convictions"
A good book, but not life changing either.
November 18, 2015
Had to read this for a class on eschatology. Not my first choice for a book on this subject, but it was interesting reading the different views on the rapture. Being a partial preterist, I'm not convinced any of these views are correct since all of them assumed a futurist and premill approach to eschatology. Although Moo's post-trib argument was the most cogent, in my opinion.
June 4, 2013
Archer fascinates me... he knew better than to be premill... and even in that he knew better than to engage a book like this... This was required reading during my seminary days... nowadays, I am inclined to responds to books like this as a waste of perfectly good paper.
June 3, 2014
A good book to read together with Robert g. grouse’s the meaning of the millennium. They are essentially of the same scholarly style – an article for a particular position followed by responding articles from the other two. (3 positions – pre-trib, mid-trib and post-trib).
October 21, 2014
Helpful primer. The responses help expose the weaknesses of each view. I'm a post-trib.
October 3, 2016
Good catalogue of the individual rapture views and beliefs.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews