The recent release of the Left Behind movie has the critics of a pretribulational rapture out in full force. I will leave judgment of the artistic merits of the movie to the box office and movie critics, but I do want to challenge those who frequently misrepresent at least some of the pretribulationist’s textual positions. I encounter this so frequently that it seems evident that such critics have never actually read what pretribulational authors are actually saying.
A case in point is this video. According to this video there are three main texts that pretribulationists have misunderstood or misinterpreted. The first of these texts is Matthew 24:37-41. Here is a transcript that I have created from part of the video (the discussion of the Matthew text begins at about the 1:35 mark).
“The left behind folks have actually taken this text and flipped it right on its head to make it say the opposite and mean the opposite of what it in fact says and means. In the story, Noah and his family are those who are spared, those who are saved, those who are left behind. And those who are taken, the rebellious, are taken by the flood. So the coming of the Son of Man you actually want to be like Noah and his family. You want to be left behind. This is a good thing.”
The problem here is that many, if not most, pretribulationist authors actually hold that Matthew 24:37–41 is a Second Coming text and not a rapture text. Furthermore, pretrulationists often assert that the one’s taken away are taken away in judgment and those left behind therefore are the righteous. Consider the following examples from actual proponents of pretribulationalism.
John Walvoord:
“Like
the days of Noah, the time of the second
coming will be a period of judgment on the earth. Just as the flood came
‘and took them all away,’ referring to the judgment of unbelievers, so at the second coming, some will be
taken away. According to Matthew 24:40-41, ‘Then shall two be in the field; the
one shall be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the ill;
the one shall be taken, and the other left.’ Because at the rapture believers
will be taken out of the world, some have confused this with the rapture of the
church.
“Here,
however, the situation is the reverse. The
one who is left, is left to enter the kingdom; the one who is taken, is taken
in judgment. This is in keeping with the illustration of the time of Noah
when the ones taken away are unbelievers. The word for ‘shall be taken’ in
verses 40-41 uses the same word found in John 19:16, where Christ was taken
away to the judgment of the cross. Accordingly, no one can know the day or the
hour, but they can know that when the
second coming occurs, it will be a time of separation of the saved from the
unsaved” (John F. Walvoord, Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come (Chicago: Moody
Press, 1974), 193-94, my bold).
Walvoord
was considered one of the leading voices of pretribulational eschatology and note
that Walvoord published this forty years ago!
Stan Toussaint:
“A
problem exists as to the identification of the ones who are taken in verses
forty and forty-one. Is this a description of the rapture of the church or of
the taking of the wicked to judgment? Those who take the former position argue
that ‘to take’ (παραλαμβάνω), the verb used here, is to be
differentiated from ‘to take’ (αἴρω), the verb used here
in verse 39. It is asserted that παραλαμβάνω signifies the act
whereby Christ receives His own to himself. However, παραλαμβάνω
is also used in a bad sense (cf. Matthew 4:5, 8; John 19:16). Since it is
parallel in thought with those who were taken in the judgment of the flood, it is best to refer the verb to those who
are taken for judgment preceding the establishment of the kingdom” (Stanley
D. Toussaint, Behold the King: A Study of Matthew [Portland, Oregon:
Multnomah Press, 1980], 281, my bold).
Toussaint
goes on to quote from another pretribulationist, Charles Feinberg, in support
of his view. Feinberg states, “It will
be taking away judicially in judgment. The ones left will enjoy the blessings
of Christ’s reign on earth. This is the opposite of the rapture, where
those who are left go into the judgment of the great Tribulation” (Charles Lee
Feinberg, Israel in the Last Days: The
Oliver Discourse [Altadena, CA: Emeth, 1953], 27, my bold).
Once
again, observe the respective dates of publication (1980 and 1953
respectively).
John MacArthur:
“When
the Son of Man appears in His
second-coming judgment, then there
shall be two men in the field; one will be taken, and the other left. Two women
will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one will be left. Jesus
is giving a figure parallel to the
unbelievers of Noah’s day being taken
away by the judgment through the flood. When He returns, one will be taken to judgment and the
other will be left to enter the
kingdom. This is the same separation described in the next chapter by the
figures of the sheep and goats (25:32-46). The
ones left will be Christ’s sheep, his redeemed people whom He will preserve to
reign with Him during the Millennium” (John F. MacArthur Jr., Matthew
24–28, MacArthur New Testament Commentary [Chicago: Moody, 1989], 75, my italics).
MacArthur
is one of the best known preachers in America today. Please note that I am not
selecting obscure proponents of pretribulationism.
Louis A. Barbieri,
Jr.
“As
it was in Noah’s day, so it will be
before the glorious coming of the Lord. Two men will be in the field; one will be
taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will
be taken and the other left. Analogous to Noah’s day, the individuals who will be ‘taken’ are the wicked whom the Lord will
take away in judgment (cf. Luke 17:37). The
individuals ‘left’ are believers who will be privileged to be on the earth to
populate the kingdom of Jesus Christ in physical bodies. As the wicked were
taken away in judgment and Noah was left on the earth, so the wicked will be
judged and removed when Christ returns and the righteous will be left behind to
become His subjects in the kingdom” (Louis A. Barbieri, Jr., “Matthew,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An
Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 2
[Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985], 79, my italics).
Barbieri
may not be as well-known as some referenced here but The
Bible Knowledge Commentary was authored by Dallas Seminary faculty and is
one of the best-selling commentaries since its debut in 1983 (NT) and 85 (OT).
J. Dwight Pentecost:
In
his refutation of the partial rapture view, Pentecost states, “Matthew
24:41-42, ‘Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one taken and the other
left. Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.’ Again,
this passage is in that discourse in which the Lord outlines His program for
Israel, who is already in the tribulation period. The one taken is taken in judgment and the one left is left for the
millennial blessing. Such is not the prospect for the church” (Dwight J.
Pentecost, Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology [Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1958], 162, my bold).
Things to Come was originally
Pentecost’s doctoral dissertation (1956). According to the cover on the Amazon
link this volume has sold 215,000 copies. Things
to Come is also considered by many dispensational pretribulationalists to
be the go to text for eschatology.
Charles Ryrie
In
arguing against posttribulationists,
Ryrie states, “By contrast, the pretibulationalist sees the verses [Matt
24:40-41] as a general statement of the results of the specific judgments on surviving Jews and Gentiles at the Second Coming.
Those who are taken are taken into the
judgments and condemned, and those who are left successfully pass the judgments
and are left for blessing in the kingdom.”
Ryrie
states a paragraph later, “Pretribulationists support their view by pointing
out that according to verse 39 the Flood took the people of Noah’s day into
judgment; therefore, those taken at the
Second Coming will also be taken into judgment” (Charles C. Ryrie, Basic
Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth
[Wheaton: Victor Books, 1988], 492, see also the table on 493, my bold).
Ryrie’s
theology is a popular reference work for dispensationalists and pretribulationists.
Tin LaHaye and Thomas
Ice
LaHaye
and Ice do not deal specifically with many of the details in the Olivet
Discourse of Matthew 24, but they do at least hint at their understanding of Matthew
24:37-41 in stating, “However, just as the people of Noah’s day did not know
the day or the hour when the Flood would come to take them all away into judgment, so will unbelievers not know or be prepared for the glorious appearing
of Christ” (Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice, Charting the End Times, Tim
LaHaye Prophecy Library [Eugene: Harvest House, 2001], 37, my bold). The
authors earlier assert that, “One common mistake many Christians try to make
when they study this discourse is that they try to find the Rapture in this
message” (Ibid., 35).
Dallas Theological
Seminary Doctrinal Statement
http://www.dts.edu/about/doctrinalstatement
Article XX—The Second Coming of
Christ
We believe that the period of great tribulation in the earth
will be climaxed by the return of the Lord Jesus Christ to the earth as He
went, in person on the clouds of heaven, and with power and great glory to
introduce the millennial age, to bind Satan and place him in the abyss, to lift
the curse which now rests upon the whole creation, to restore Israel to her own
land and to give her the realization of God’s covenant promises, and to bring
the whole world to the knowledge of God (Deut. 30:1–10; Isa. 11:9; Ezek.
37:21–28; Matt. 24:15–25:46; Acts
15:16–17; Rom. 8:19–23; 11:25–27; 1 Tim. 4:1–3; 2 Tim. 3:1–5; Rev. 20:1–3).
My
bold. Notice that under article XX, Matthew 24:37-41 is listed as a Second
Coming text. Furthermore, article XVIII, “The Blessed Hope,” i.e. the rapture
does not list Matthew 24 at all.
Conclusion
This survey has sought to be thorough but is not exhaustive. Nonetheless, there seems to be sufficient grounds for offering the following four observations.
First, at best critics of a pretribulational
rapture can assert that some pretrib proponents understand Matthew 24:37-41 as
a reference to the rapture. But I have yet to hear a critic actually cite a
pretrib proponent of the view that they claim pretribulationists hold. This
is true with the video mentioned above. Indeed, the survey above suggests that there
are significant voices in dispensationalism that do not hold the view that
critics assert that they do.
Second,
the view of many (if not most) pretribulationists that Matthew 24:37-41 is a
Second Coming text and that those taken away are taken away in judgment and
those left behind are the faithful is not new
or obscure. Pentecost wrote nearly
sixty years ago and many well-known advocates of a pretribulational rapture
affirm this view (as noted above). I would challenge those that argue otherwise
to make their case by actually referring to pretribulational advocates. If
such a view is as widely held as the critics say, then doing so should not be
difficult.
Third,
the survey above does not imply that there are no pretrib advocates of Matthew
24:37-41 as a rapture text or that those taken away are the raptured. Frankly,
I would be surprised if there were none. But I have struggled to find them and
the critics have not been much help. But even if such voices could be found, I
think that this survey has demonstrated that one cannot argue with accuracy
that pretribulationists in general see Matthew 24:37-41 as a rapture text.
Fourth,
the doctrine of a pretrib rapture is certainly open to challenge and
examination. But such challenges should be done fairly and charitably. Critics
should not mischaracterize or straw-man the view.