by Dr. Andy Woods
Thus far we have seen that Matthew 24:40-41 should not be given a rapture interpretation based upon the place of the Olivet Discourse in Matthew’s overall argument and based upon an examination of the textual details within and surrounding Matthew 24:40-41. This section furthers this same thesis by noting the inadequacy of the arguments for a rapture interpretation of Matthew 24:40-41. Such arguments include the use of paralambanō in verses 40-41, the rapture is in view in Matthew 24:31, the day or hour of the Second Advent can be discerned once the Tribulation period begins, that normal life activities as depicted in Matthew 24:40-41 could not take place at the end of the Tribulation period, and the peri de construction at the beginning of verse 36 signals an abrupt switch in subject matter.
The Use of Paralambanō in Matthew 24:40-41
One of the reasons various interpreters believe that the rapture is in view in Matthew 24:40-41 is because of Matthew’s switch from airō when describing those “taken” in the Flood in verse 39 to paralambanō when describing those “taken” in verses 40-41.1 Those who believe that the rapture is in view in verses 40-41 are quick to point out that paralambanō in these verses is the same word that John used to depict those taken in the rapture in John 14:3. According to this argument, Christ must also be describing taking believers to Himself in Matthew 24:40-41. However, several reasons make it apparent that Matthew’s use of paralambanō in these verses need not signal to the reader that the apostle has suddenly switched to a discussion of the rapture.2
First, paralambanō is a non-technical term. It is not a word that has the same definition everywhere it is used. While paralambanō can refer to the Lord taking believers to Himself (John 14:3), it also can refer to a taking away in a negative sense. For example, it is used to describe Satan taking Jesus to a venue for purposes of temptation (Matt. 4:5, 8), a demon taking other demons for the purpose of indwelling a man (Matt. 12:45), and Christ being taken away to be abused (Matt. 27:27) and eventually crucified (John 19:16). Thus, whenever paralambanō is used, its meaning must be determined from its context. As explained previously, the context of Matthew 24:40-41 involves judgment rather than deliverance.3
Second, it is possible for two different words for “taking” to describe the same event rather than different events. For example, 2 Kings 2 uses two different Hebrew words to describe Elijah being taken to heaven. Second Kings 2:1 uses alah to describe this taking. Second Kings 2:3, 5 uses laqach to describe the same event. Interestingly, John 19:15-16 uses both airō (v. 15) and paralambanō (v. 16) to denote the singular event of Christ being taken away for crucifixion. Why cannot Matthew 24:39-41 also use the same two words to allude to the singular event of Christ’s return in judgment?
Third, there is a logical reason for the use of two different Greek words in Matthew 24:39-41. When God took the unbelievers away into judgment in Noah’s day, he used an impersonal agency to do so: the floodwaters. However, when He takes the unbelievers away into judgment following His return, He will use a personal agency to do so: angelic beings. Although angelic beings are not specifically mentioned in Matthew 24:40-41, they are mentioned in the Matthean parallel passages describing the future judgment awaiting unbelievers at Christ’s Second Advent (Matt. 13:39, 49). Thus, the switch in Greek words in Matt. 24:39-41 may simply signal the different agencies that the Lord uses in judgment rather than a switch in a judgment-coming (Matt. 24:39) to a rapture-coming (Matt. 24:40-41). Thus, Toussaint summarizes, “The differences in verbs can be accounted for on the basis of accuracy of description.”4
Rapture in Matthew 24:31?
Many are confident that the rapture is in view in Matthew 24:40-41 because the rapture is also conspicuous in the same context (Matt. 24:31). Matthew 24:31 says, “And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.” Those who hold to a rapture interpretation of this passage point to the numerous similarities between the coming of Christ in Matthew 24:31 and other rapture passages such as 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 and 1 Corinthians 15:50-58. Examples of such similarities include Christ’s coming in a cloud (Matt. 24:30), the sounding of a trumpet, and the world-wide gathering of believers (Matt. 24:31).5 On account of these similarities with other well-known rapture passages, many are confident that the rapture is in view in Matthew 24:31 and thus also in Matthew 24:40-41.
However, it is a logical fallacy to assume that mere similarity is the same as equality. For example, although one can point to similarities between my two automobiles, this is not to say that one automobile is the same as the other. While there may be some points of similarity between Matthew 24:31 and other rapture passages, this does not necessarily mean that the two passages are speaking of the same event especially if it can be shown that there are substantial differences between the passages. Many observe that any similarities between Matthew 24:31 and other rapture passages are outweighed by substantial differences. Ice observes, “In 1 Thessalonians 4 believers are gathered in the air and taken to heaven, while in Matthew 24 they are gathered after Christ’s arrival to earth.”6 Sproule queries:
Where does Paul mention the darkening of the sun (Matt. 24:29), the moon not giving its light (Matt. 24:29), the stars falling from the sky (Matt. 24:29), the powers of the heavens being shaken (Matt. 24:29), all the tribes of the earth mourning (Matt. 24:30), all the world seeing the coming of the Son of Man (Matt. 24:30), or God sending forth angels (Matt. 24:31)?7
Feinberg similarly notes:
Notice what happens when you examine both passages carefully. In Matthew the Son of Man comes on the clouds, while in 1 Thessalonians 4 the ascending believers are in them. In Matthew the angels gather the elect; in 1 Thessalonians the Lord Himself (note the emphasis) gathers the believers. Thessalonians only speaks of the voice of the archangel. In the Olivet Discourse nothing is said about a resurrection, while in the latter text it is the central point. In the two passages the differences in what will take place prior to the appearance of Christ are striking. Moreover, the order of ascent is absent from Matthew in spite of the fact that it is the central part of the epistle.8
In order to equate Matthew 24:31 with the rapture passages, a reconciliation of all these differences is needed rather than merely highlighting a handful of similarities.
Also, Showers explains how the imagery of Matthew 24:31 has more in common with what the Old Testament predicts concerning Israel’s eschatological regathering rather than the church’s rapture.
First, because of Israel’s persistent rebellion against God, He declared that He would scatter the Jews “into all the winds” (Ezek. 5:10, 12) or “toward all winds” (Ezek. 17:21). In Zechariah 2:6 God stated that He did scatter them abroad “as four winds of the heavens.” . . . God did scatter the Jews all over the world. Next, God also declared that in the future Israel would be gathered from the east, west, north, and south, “from the ends of the earth” (Isa. 43:5-7). We should note that in the context of this promise, God called Israel His “chosen” (vv. 10, 20). . . Just as Jesus indicated that the gathering of His elect from the four directions of the world will take place in conjunction with “a great trumpet” (literal translation of the Greek text of Mt. 24:21), so Isaiah 27:13 teaches that the scattered children of Israel will be gathered to their homeland in conjunction with the blowing of “a great trumpet” (literal translation of the Hebrew). . . Gerhard Friedrich wrote that in that future eschatological day “a great horn shall be blown (Is. 27:13)” and the exiled will be brought back by that signal. Again he asserted that in conjunction with the blowing of the great trumpet of Isaiah 27:13, “There follows the gathering of Israel and the return of the dispersed to Zion.” It is significant to note that Isaiah 27:13, which foretells this future regathering of Israel, is the only specific reference in the Old Testament to a “great” trumpet. Although Isaiah 11:11-12 does not refer to a great trumpet, it is parallel to Isaiah 27:13 because it refers to the same regathering of Israel. In its context, this passage indicates that when the Messiah (a root of Jesse, vv. 1, 10) comes to rule and transform the world as an “ensign” (a banner), He will gather together the scattered remnant of His people Israel “from the four corners of the earth.”9
In fact, contextually, the regathering spoken of in Matthew 24:31 harks back to Matthew 23:37. There Christ expressed a desire to gather an unwilling first-century Israel. He clearly identifies His audience as Israel in verse 37 with the twofold repetition of the word “Jerusalem.” However, although first-century Israel was unwilling to be gathered by her Messiah, a future generation of repentant Jews will be regathered by Christ upon His return at the conclusion of the Tribulation. Matthew uses the same verb “gather” (episynagō) in both Matthew 23:37 and Matthew 24:31 in order to draw this connection.
Day or Hour Can Be Known in the Tribulation
Those who argue that Matthew 24:40-41 is speaking of the rapture rather than the Second Advent note that the context favors the rapture. It is contended that this point is especially true considering Matthew 24:36, which says, “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.” It is argued that the phrase “no one knows the day or the hour” (24:36) cannot be speaking of the Second Advent at the end of the Tribulation since people would know the time of that event. This event will take place exactly seven years after the Antichrist enters into the peace treaty with Israel (Dan. 9:27). Because Matthew 24:36 cannot be speaking of the Second Advent, it must be speaking of the rapture.10
However, the phrase in verse 36 could be given from the perspective of an unbeliever.11 Unbelievers will always be unprepared for Christ’s return regardless of what era of history they are living in. Matthew 24:42 exhorts believers to be alert. The same Greek verb for “alert” (grēgoreō) as used in Matthew 24:42 is also used in 1 Thessalonians 5:6 and Revelation 16:15. Both 1 Thessalonians 5:4-6 and Revelation 16:15 speak of the non-alert state of the unbeliever regarding Christ’s return. First Thessalonians 5:3 says, “While they are saying, ‘Peace and safety!’ then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman with child; and they will not escape.” By contrast, the child of God will not be caught off guard for Christ’s return since he is a child of the day rather than the night (1 Thess. 5:4).
Also, Revelation 16:15 provides the following parenthetical statement after the sixth bowl judgment: “Behold, I am coming like a thief. Blessed is the one who stays awake and keeps his clothes, so that he will not walk about naked and men will not see his shame.” Late in the Tribulation, this verse analogizes Christ’s return to a thief coming upon an unprepared victim. Thus, even after eighteen of Revelation’s nineteen judgments have transpired, unbelievers in the Tribulation will still be caught off guard by Christ’s return.
Interpreting verse 36 from the perspective of the unbeliever fits the parallel with Noah’s day (Matt. 24:37-39) that immediately follows verse 36 and concludes before verses 40-41. In Noah’s day, it was the unbelievers who were caught off guard when the Flood-judgment finally came (Matt. 24:39) despite Noah’s faithful warning of coming judgment (2 Peter 2:5) for 120 years (Gen. 6:3). Because Matthew 24:36 is similarly narrated from the perspective of the unbeliever, it can be understood as a reference to the Second Coming rather than the rapture. Although the time of the rapture is unknown to all, the time of the Second Advent at the end of the Tribulation period will be unknown to unbelievers.
Normal Life Activities at the End of the Tribulation?
Another argument used to contend that Matthew 24:40-41 is speaking of the rapture rather than Christ’s judgment-coming in His Second Advent at the end of the Tribulation relates to how normal life seems to be described in these verses. They speak of people working in the field, grinding at the mill, sleeping in the bed (Luke 17:34), etc…Given the global judgments of the Tribulation, how could normal life patterns be taking place prior to Christ’s Second Advent? Therefore, according to some, it makes far more sense to associate these events with the rapture before the Tribulation unfolds.12 Dave Hunt notes:
When Christ says, “As it was in the days of Noah and Lot,” it is absolutely certain that He is not describing conditions that will prevail at the time of the Second Coming. Therefore, these must be the conditions which will prevail just prior to the Rapture at a different time—and, obviously, before the devastation of the tribulation period.13
By way of response, the primary purpose of these verses is not to describe normal life patterns. Christ’s major point was to emphasize the unprepared state of the unbeliever. It is possible that verses 40-41 are a figure of speech depicting unbelievers being caught up in the system of the Antichrist during the Tribulation. Therefore these verses are not speaking of ordinary life. Unbelievers in the Antichrist’s system will be so caught up in everyday life that they will not be looking for Christ’s return. Consequently, they will be caught off guard when the Second Advent takes place. This point is the major one that Christ seeks to get across rather than describing life behavior at the Tribulation’s conclusion. To see more here is to push the point of the analogy too far.
In sum, the arguments used by those seeking to find the rapture rather than the Second Advent in Matthew 24:40-41 are answerable. Such arguments include the use of paralambanō in verses 40-41, the rapture is in view in Matthew 24:31, the day or hour of the Second Advent can be discerned once the Tribulation period begins, and that normal life activities as depicted in Matthew 24:40-41 could not take place at the end of the Tribulation.
“Now Concerning” Construction
A final argument used to argue for a rapture interpretation is the peri de construction found in Matthew 24:36. These Greek words are translated “now concerning,” and they typically communicate a change in subject matter. For example, Paul uses this and similar constructions frequently in First Corinthians in order to alert his readers to the fact that he is changing topics (1 Cor. 7:1, 25; 8:1; 11:2; 12:1; 15:1; 16:1, 12). Some argue that Matthew employs this construction in Matthew 24:36 in order to alert his readers to the fact Christ is switching subjects away from His judgment coming and to the rapture of the church. Thus, when Jesus said, “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone,” He was speaking of the rapture of the church rather than of His Second Advent at the end of the Tribulation period.14
However, although the peri de construction typically does call for a change in subject matter, it is unlikely that such an abrupt change of subject would be introduced at this point. When Paul employs the peri de construction throughout First Corinthians all of his switch in subjects are to related topics: namely, ecclesiastical problems plaguing the Corinthian Church. Similarly, in Matthew 24:36, the switch in subject would be to a related subject concerning Israel and the Tribulation rather than to a totally foreign topic. Radically shifting away from discussing the end time program for Israel and instead introducing and inserting something completely new in terms of content into this discourse, such as the blessed hope of the church, seems improbable.
Conclusion
Matthew 24:40-41 is not a rapture text. This point has been established through an examination of the role of the Olivet Discourse in Matthew’s overall argument, through an examination of the textual details within and surrounding Matthew 24:40-41, and by noting the inadequacy of the arguments for a rapture interpretation of Matthew 24:40-41. Since the rapture is not found in Matthew 24:40-41, interpreters are encouraged to look elsewhere in Christ’s teachings to find a reference to the rapture. The Upper Room Discourse (John 13‒17), which concerns God’s program for the church, rather than the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24‒25), which concerns God’s program for Israel represents far more fertile soil for such an inquiry. ■
_______________________
1. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Footsteps of the Messiah: A Study of the Sequence of Prophetic Events, rev. ed. (Tustin, CA: Ariel, 2003), 649.
2. Ibid., 180-81.
3. Toussaint, Behold the King: A Study of Matthew, 281; Walvoord, Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come, 193-94; Ed Glasscock, Matthew, Moody Gospel Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1997), 476-77.
4. Toussaint, Behold the King: A Study of Matthew, 281.
5. Robert H. Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), 135.
6. Thomas Ice, “Matthew 24:31: Rapture or Second Coming?,” online: www.pre-trib.org, accessed 31 August 2011, 2.
7. John A. Sproule, “An Exegetical Defense of Pretrib-ulationalism” (Th.D. diss., Grace Theological Seminary, 1981), 53.
8. Paul D. Feinberg, “Response: Paul D. Feinberg,” in The Rapture: Pre-, Mid-, or Posttribulational, ed. Richard R. Reiter (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 225.
9. Showers, Maranatha Our Lord, Come!: A Definitive Study of the Rapture of the Church, 182-83.
10. Fruchtenbaum, Footsteps of the Messiah: A Study of the Sequence of Prophetic Events, 649.
11. Thomas Ice, “An Interpretation of Matthew 24‒25, Part XXXV,” online: www.pre-trib.org, accessed 1 September 2011, 1-2.
12. Fruchtenbaum, Footsteps of the Messiah: A Study of the Sequence of Prophetic Events, 649-50.
13. Hunt, How Close Are We? Compelling Evidence for the Soon Return of Christ, 210-11.
14. Fruchtenbaum, Footsteps of the Messiah: A Study of the Sequence of Prophetic Events, 649.
Dr. Andy Woods is the Senior Pastor of Sugar Land Bible Church in Sugar Land, TX, and President of Chafer Theological Seminary. He is also a well-regarded conference speaker, author, and contributor to a number of journals and books.