An Exchange On the AD 66 Rapture Theory
Get my Book "How Is This Possible"
Just recently, on Facebook, Tom Riggle and Edward Stevens, both proponents of the idea that there was a literal rapture of the faithful saints off of the earth in AD 66, and I, had a brief discussion. The reason I say brief is that when I posted the information- and challenge- below, they both abandoned that discussion. The discussion took place on 11-5-2025. As of the posting of this article this morning (11-10-2025) neither man has responded to the points or arguments that I raised.
In light of the claim that a rapture occurred in AD 66, I recently asked the question (worded slightly differently): how could the saints in Thessalonica and Ephesians have possibly believed the rapture or the resurrection had already happened. (I have added some punctuation and grammatical corrections).
Edward E. Stevens responded: Don K. Preston, where is the biblical text which clearly teaches that “the Thessalonians believed that the rapture had already taken place”? The only passage which might lend itself to that idea is 2Thes 2:1-3 –
2Th. 2:1- Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him,
2Th. 2:2 - that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that THE DAY OF THE LORD HAS COME .
2Th. 2:3 - Let no one in any way deceive you, for IT WILL NOT COME unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,
Consider the following points:
• In 2Thes 2:2, the Greek word enestēken (lit. “in-standing”) DOES NOT mean “had already taken place” as you falsely asserted. Instead, the Greek lexicons define it as meaning “has arrived or is present now” (literally: “in-standing”). It is a Verb, 3rd pers. singular, perfect active indicative (Predicate).
• It was NOT the Thessalonian saints who were teaching this, but rather it was some false teachers who were trying to deceive them.
• And it was THE DAY OF THE LORD (not the Parousia or Gathering/Rapture) which those false teachers were claiming “has arrived, or is present, or has begun.” The Day of the Lord was a period of time during which God intervened in the affairs of a nation to reward his saints and destroy his enemies. It was not a one-day event like the resurrection or rapture. It was a period of time during which all the endtime events occurred.
Thus, this passage DOES NOT teach what you have asserted.
Nice try, though!
I responded to Stevens' claim:
Let me address Edward E. Stevens' post:
Concerning 2 Thessalonians 2:2 where Paul said don’t let anyone deceive you into believing that the Day of the Lord had already occurred. Ed made a bold claim:
//In 2Thes 2:2, the Greek word enestēken (lit. “in-standing”) DOES NOT mean “had already taken place” as you falsely asserted. Instead, the Greek lexicons define it as meaning “has arrived or is present now” (literally: “in-standing”)//.
Thank you, Ed, for destroying your own argument! Folks did you catch the subtlety in Ed’s post? He says that enesteken – (a word I have researched extensively, btw, and discuss in my book How Is This Possible? Stevens claims that the word in the perfect tense DOES NOT MEAN “had already taken place.” BUT wait! He then adds that the Lexicons render it as ““has arrived or is present now””!
So, on the one hand, Edward E. Stevens assures us that enesteken does NOT mean has already taken place or is already present, but it means has arrived! This is double speak!
If I special order a new couch and the store calls me and says, “Your couch has arrived,” I am pretty sure that means it was already present!!
Perhaps Ed can explain to how something “has arrived and is present,” but that it has not already taken place!!
Stevens contradicts the vast majority of translations. On BibleGateway.com our text is translated in the following ways:
Already, Already come, Already present, Already here, etc. 27 times; Has Come 14 Times; Already begun- two times; Is present two times At Hand and direct parallel’s –> 11 Times.
(I may possibly have missed one or two but this is very close).
So, only 13 or so translations do NOT render the text in a past tense which communicates that the Day of the Lord had in fact already occurred and was present!! Evidently, Stevens believes he is more of a Greek Scholar than all of these translators. That is more than bold.
Stevens tells us
//And it was THE DAY OF THE LORD (not the Parousia or Gathering/Rapture) which those false teachers were claiming “has arrived, or is present, or has begun.” The Day of the Lord was a period of time during which God intervened in the affairs of a nation to reward his saints and destroy his enemies. It was not a one-day event like the resurrection or rapture. It was a period of time during which all the end time events occurred.//
Stevens sees the gathering as the rapture. He tells us that “THE DAY OF THE LORD (not the Parousia or Gathering/Rapture) which those false teachers were claiming “has arrived, or is present, or has begun.”
So, for Stevens,
1. The parousia was one event.
2. The rapture / gathering (episunaogogee, 2 Thess. 2:2-2) was one event.
3. The Day of the Lord is yet another event! This is literally amazing– and specious! This is a modified Dispensational argument.
In Matthew 24:30-31 Jesus said the gathering - (the episunagogee of 2 Thess. 2)– would be IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE TRIBULATION. That “gathering” would be at the parousia (which is what the apostles asked about in 24:3)! There is no temporal gap between these events! It is a false dichotomy to separate them.
Stevens puts the rapture in AD 66- which was BEFORE, NOT AFTER, THE TRIBULATION!
In 1 Thessalonians 4:13f, the parousia (v. 15, 17) is the time of the resurrection / rapture! There is no temporal disjunction between these events, as Stevens is attempting to show.
Stevens says it was not the Thessalonians who were saying the Day of the Lord had already come, but “some false teachers who were trying to deceive them.” That is a red herring, straw man argument that proves nothing.
The point is that some at Thessalonika, like those in Ephesus, were saying that the end had already come: Hymenaeaus and Philetus were saying that the resurrection- thus, the rapture- was already past! (The Greek is totally unambiguous). So, when Stevens says that there is only one text that could possibly be used to prove that some were saying the rapture was already past, he is throwing up a cloud of dust and smoke. He is patently wrong.
This totally falsifies Stevens’ view! Stevens believes that 1 Thess. 4 was the resurrection which was synchronous with the rapture! Stevens admits this– or at least has. To say one was past was to say “both” were past!
Some at Ephesus were teaching that the resurrection was past.
The Resurrection and Rapture are synchronous events- Per Ed Stevens.
Therefore, to say that the resurrection was past was to say that the rapture was past.
Peter said the Day of the Lord was the time of the destruction of “heaven and earth.” What heaven and earth was that, Edward Stevens? (I predict silence!-- Edit-- and that is, as of this posting, precisely what I have gotten). If you identify “heaven and earth” as the temple, this destroys your response, because that would mean that some at Thessalonika were saying– in AD 51-52- that the Temple and Jerusalem had already been destroyed in the Day of the Lord!
Note that in 1 Thessalonians 4, Paul speaks of the parousia (v. 15, 17) and the resurrection (rapture). He then says in 5:1-- But concerning (peri de) the times and the seasons, brethren, you have no need that I should write to you. 2 For you yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night.
Grammatically, his statement "But now concerning the time and the seasons" refers back to the antecedent referent of the parousia, concerning which they had no need for anyone to teach them. And it likewise means that the parousia of 4:15, 17 was the Day of the Lord! Stevens is attempting to create a false distinction! (The same conflation between parousia and Day of the Lord is found in 2 Peter 3).
Thus, my question remains valid-- (Edit-- and unanswered!!). If the rapture was the removal of the church from the earth how could anyone believe that it had already taken place– especially when you still had the churches in Rome, Corinth, Thessalonika, Ephesians, Colossians, etc, not to mention the still living and present apostles and prophets in those churches, still present!
Stevens’ attempt to delineate between the parousia, the rapture and the Day of the Lord is one of his more disingenuous and specious arguments. It truly is an argumentum ad desperatum! It wasn’t even a nice try!
For an in-depth study of this entire issue see my book, How Is This Possible?
On the current site: original page ↗