Magnolias in Antarctica

I am fond of referring to the Olivet Discourse as the Gettysburg of the Gospels, and the reason is obvious enough: Few passages of Scripture have seen more interpretive blood spilled over them than Jesus' definitive discussion with His disciples of what would occur in the end times, prior to and immediately following His physical return to establish His kingdom.

Certainly one of the most bitterly contested skirmishes centers on Matthew 24:29–31 (Immediately after the tribulation of those days...they shall gather together his elect...), and the fight is over whether Jesus is referring to the Rapture or the Second Coming. But there are a number of other skirmishes that arise in the Olivet Discourse, and one I had never dealt with in any depth came across my path recently—and it comes just a few verses later:

The conflict I'm referring to arises over the interpretation of verses 40–41, and focuses on the same issue—whether Jesus is talking about the Rapture or the Second Coming. And in the ensuing brouhaha, one must sort out just who is "taken" and "left" and where they are "taken" and "left."

A significant number of people in the Church tend to read this passage as referring to the Rapture, and see the ones "taken" as Church Age believers taken in the translation of the Church and those "left" as being those left behind to suffer through the judgments of the Tribulation.

Many other people, however, see this passage as referring to the Second Coming, but they view the "taken" and "left" motif in two different ways:

1. The ones "taken" are taken off to judgment and eternal punishment, while the ones "left" remain on earth to be received into the kingdom.

2. The ones "taken" are received into the kingdom, while the ones "left" are sent off to judgment and eternal punishment.

It depends to a certain extent on what you do with the Greek words translated "taken" and "left," which is something we will look at later.

Now, let me state this right up front: In my humble opinion, a nominal amount of study is sufficient to reveal that Matthew 24:40–41 is speaking of the Second Coming and not the Rapture, which occurs a minimum of seven years earlier (and quite possibly a few more). I have no statistics on the matter, but my sense has always been that a majority of commentators share this view. Let me emphasize, however, that even if that's true, it's irrelevant. Majority opinions do not define God's truth—God's Word does.

My main goal in this article is not to present an argument to end all arguments to support seeing the Second Coming in Matthew 24:40–41. Although I will briefly review why I am convinced this passage speaks of the Second Coming, I'd like to do something I have never seen anyone do before, and that's take a detailed look at one of the main arguments commonly used by those who read the Rapture into this passage.

And expose it as the weak, flimsy argument that it is.

I also want to discuss my personal view of the "taken" and "left" issue of verses 40–41, a passage that seems to leave so many believers not knowing if they are coming or going. Of course, I am fully aware that my view lines up with a number of outstanding Bible commentators, and is 180 degrees out from an equal number of equally outstanding Bible commentators whom I love and respect just as much as the ones I happen to agree with. That's fine—no problemo. Or as my Taiwanese wife Phoebe would say, mei guanxi.

It comes with the territory.

Finally, I have a few remarks about why reading the Rapture into a passage such as Matthew 24:40–41 is not as benign an issue as one might suppose, and in fact has the potential to do harm to the body of Christ.

Why not the Rapture?

It's worthwhile here to briefly discuss why so many people read Matthew 24:40–41, or that whole section from verses 36–44 as speaking in reference to the Tribulation and the Second Coming of Christ to the earth to establish His kingdom, and not the Rapture. And it has become a cliché:

Context is king.

I'm sure there are people out there who are getting sick and tired of hearing me yammer on about this, but they're just gonna have to get over it.

Far too many people end up giving short shrift to the context of the Olivet Discourse in their efforts to interpret an individual passage in a way that applies to the Church. I promised myself I would leave the soap box in the closet, but I just can't do it:

When you interpret a specific passage of
Scripture in a way that is in contradiction
to the surrounding context, you have erred.

Every day of the week and twice on Shabbat. The Jewish context of the Olivet Discourse extends all the way back to the fact that the entire Gospel of Matthew was written to first-century Jewish believers to help them understand why their Messiah was delaying the establishment of the kingdom God had promised them through Abraham's seed David (2 Sam. 7; 1 Chron. 17).

Jesus' Jewish disciples knew that He was the Messiah and that He would establish the kingdom at some point. But they knew nothing about the Church and even less about the Rapture, if that's possible.

It's an Old Testament thing: Understand that the disciples knew all about the messianic kingdom—it's in the Old Testament. They understood that Jesus the Messiah would establish Israel's kingdom (they were just under the false impression that it was going to be right away). And they finally understood that the Messiah would physically return at some point to do so—but they knew nothing of either the Church or the Rapture. So why would Jesus suddenly insert a reference to some strange event about which they knew nothing and that applied to a body of people that didn't exist yet and about which they also knew nothing...all in the middle of an in-depth discussion of a topic they did know something about and without a hint of explanation or clarification, or any contextual indication of a change of subject?

(Speaking of a change of subject...we'll get to that in the next section.)

The disciples fully believed they were on the brink of the kingdom and that they would be getting in the ground floor. Thus, when Jesus told them the temple would be completely demolished (Matt. 24:2), it blew their little Jewish world to smithereens. They knew the kingdom would require a working temple and that it would take decades to rebuild it, and so four of His befuddled disciples came to Jesus privately that night to get some answers. They basically wanted to know when the temple would be destroyed, and what would be the signs that would tell them it was nearly time for His physical return to establish the kingdom and launch the Messianic Age.

Their questions clearly involve the future of Israel and are framed in the context of the period leading up to the Second Coming—a period of time we know as the Tribulation. Jesus then proceeds to launch into a graphic description of a series of judgments that match up precisely with the seal judgments of Revelation 6 that fall during the first half of the Tribulation.

With me so far? So, even at this early stage, one could hardly be blamed for innocently inquiring:

"So...where exactly does the Church—which is raptured before the Tribulation even begins—fit into all this? How does that work?"

What Jesus is talking about doesn't apply to the Church—the Church isn't part of the topic under discussion, and Jesus drops clue after drop-dead obvious clue (the abomination of desolation in the temple, travel restrictions on Shabbat) that unmistakably establish the context of the entire discussion as pertaining to Israel during the Tribulation, followed by the Second Coming and the judgments that precede the establishment of the kingdom that determine who's in and who's out. This leads many to the following conclusion:

The Church is never mentioned and is nowhere in sight.

And this applies throughout the discourse. For example, a lot of people want to read the Church into the Parable of the 10 Virgins (Matt. 25:1–13). OK, let's think this one through carefully: You've got 10 virgins or bridesmaids (plural) headed to a wedding party (which follows the wedding ceremony). The Bridegroom is Christ, and it's obvious from the context that He's already whisked His betrothed off to the wedding ceremony (that's the Rapture).

Q. Where's the Bride (i.e. the singular Church)?

A. Hint: She's not outside the gate of her own wedding party, with half (?!) of her allowed in and the other half being refused admittance.

Anyone who has ever been to a wedding can vouch for the fact that the bride and the bridesmaids are two completely different things—and they certainly are here. When people insist on reading the Church into this parable, they are likely to come away with an aberration like a two-phase or partial Rapture.

As far as verses 40–41 are concerned, the context gives us no apparent reason to suddenly read the Rapture into them, in spite of the fact that "taken" and "left" admittedly have a sort of Rapturish flavor to them (something we will also look at later).

My point is that I am convinced that the only way to get the Church into the Olivet Discourse is to read it into a verse where it ain't.

Which is what people do, and which explains why we're here.

There are a number of other somewhat more technical reasons why bifurcating verses 2–35 from verses 36–44 by interpreting the former as speaking of the Second Coming and the latter as speaking of the Rapture makes no sense, but in my humble opinion the simple, straightforward context of the entire Olivet Discourse does the job quite nicely all by itself.

As it should. As it must.

The perils of peri de

One of the go-to arguments invariably trotted out by those who want to read verses 36–44 as referring to the Rapture is that Jesus, whom they openly admit has been speaking about the Second Coming up to that point, changes the subject in verse 36 and thus begins discussing something entirely different in the next few verses:

The opening words of this verse are typically translated something along the lines of "But of/about/concerning that day and hour" or "But as for that day and hour," and in Greek the words Matthew uses are peri de.

The argument goes like this:

Throughout the New Testament, the words peri de are invariably used to indicate a complete change of subject. For example, Paul uses this phrase repeatedly throughout 1 Corinthians to clearly indicate that he is going to introduce a whole new topic. And that's why Jesus is using it in Matthew 24:36—He was talking about the Tribulation and the Second Coming, and now He wants to shift to a different topic: the Rapture.

And you can almost get away with this argument...that is, until someone gets around to doing what I finally broke down and did:

The grunt work.

Here's the deal. The Greek phrase peri de is used a total of 16 times in the New Testament, and it is used in three different ways:

a. A reference to a certain time of day.
b. A complete change of subject.
c. More on a point related to the current subject.

These 16 usages of peri de include Matthew 24:36 above and its parallel version in Mark 13:32, so we're going to look, category by category, at the other 14 usages so we can make an informed decision concerning how the phrase is used in the Olivet Discourse, in both Matthew and Mark.

a. A reference to a certain time of day.

#1. Matthew 20:62

This is from the Parable of the Vineyard Workers, where the owner of a vineyard goes out to hire workers throughout the day and agrees to pay each of them the same amount. But when the ones who worked more hours see the ones who worked fewer hours get paid the same agreed upon amount, they feel slighted and grumble against the vineyard owner.

Peri de is simply being used to say "about five o'clock in the afternoon."

#2. Matthew 27:46

Jesus is on the cross, and is finally ready to "yield up the ghost." Same deal. Peri de is just a way to say "about three o'clock in the afternoon."

That dispenses with the first category, which only contains two usages. These two are irrelevant to the current discussion, and I'm only including them for the sake of completeness. Now, on to the second category.

b. A complete change of subject.

#3. 1 Corinthians 7:1

For these remaining usages of peri de, I want to include enough of the surrounding context so you can see how peri de is actually being used.

In the book of 1 Corinthians, Paul discusses a wide range of various Church-related issues and problems. For example, in chapter 6 he talks about settling lawsuits with other believers, then he gets off on how our bodies are members of Christ, and then in the last three verses he talks about how we should flee sexual immorality because our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit.

Then he opens chapter 7 by changing to another subject: "the things about which you wrote me," which, as you can see in the following verses, have to do with marriage relationships and related things.

#4. 1 Corinthians 8:1

At the end of chapter 7, Paul is discussing how to deal with unmarried people and widows. Then at the beginning of chapter 8, he completely changes the subject to the question of eating food sacrificed to idols.

#5. 1 Corinthians 12:1

At the end of chapter 11, Paul is discussing issues related to observing the Lord's Supper, and notice how Paul closes out the thought.

In chapter 12, Paul starts talking about spiritual gifts—a different subject.

#6. 1 Corinthians 16:1

In chapter 15, Paul is talking about the resurrection of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, the order of resurrection, the resurrection body, etc. In verses 51–53, Paul introduces the mystery of the Rapture.

Then in chapter 16, he totally shifts gears and starts talking about taking up collections for the saints and his travel-related plans.

#7. 1 Thessalonians 5:1

In 1 Thessalonians 4, Paul gives us what is arguably the premier Rapture passage of the entire Bible. It's all Rapture.

Then in chapter 5, he changes the subject and focuses on the day of the Lord (the Tribulation). Suddenly it's all Tribulation. He talks about how it will come as a thief in the night, and so on and so forth.

And that's it for the second category, or usages of peri de where the context makes it clear that the writer is changing to a completely different topic. Before we move on the third and final category of usages, however, a couple of things should be noted.

As you can see, peri de is used five times when the writer wants to change the subject; and in every single one of those five usages, the words peri de are the opening words of a new chapter. The Bible wasn't divided into chapters and verses until the sixteenth century; but when it was so divided the people who did it obviously took advantage of contextually clear changes of subject to assist them in doing so in a clear, logical manner.

Of course, it's not merely the words peri de that indicate a total change of subject, or the fact that those words start a new chapter—that's why in each case I went to the trouble of showing you the surrounding verses. In all five cases, it is 100 percent clear from the surrounding c-o-n-t-e-x-t that the writer is changing the subject.

There's that word again.

Now on to the third and final category.

c. More on a point related to the current subject.

#8. Matthew 22:31

As usual, the Sadducees (who didn't believe in the resurrection) are trying to trap Jesus with a trick question designed to get Him to say something that they can use to discredit Him. And as usual, they fail spectacularly.

The question deals with a woman who marries a series of seven brothers, all of whom leave her childless. Whose wife will she be after the resurrection? Jesus clearly isn't changing the subject in the middle of His answer—He's getting ready to set them straight on the issue once and for all. And He proceeds to do so with a stunning smackdown.

#9. Mark 12:26

This is a parallel version of the same incident involving the Sadducees in Matthew 22, and so everything I just said about #8 applies to this usage.

#10. John 16:11

Just like the word peri alone that is used in verses 9 and 10, the phrase peri de in verse 11 is merely being used to add one last point to a list concerning the topic under discussion. Obviously no change of subject.

#11. Acts 21:25

In Acts 21, the apostle Paul has returned form his third missionary journey and has arrived in Jerusalem, where he is warmly received by James and all the elders. But they inform Paul that false rumors have spread that he urges Jewish converts to abandon the Law of Moses, and they are certain that the Jews will quickly learn that he is back in town and will gather to condemn him (and the gospel he preaches).

Of course, Paul never preached that it was wrong to obey the Law of Moses or observe Jewish rituals, but rather that these things meant nothing in terms of righteousness or salvation. Paul consistently taught that salvation was through faith in the atoning sacrifice of Christ and that alone, but at the same time it caused Paul no heartburn whatsoever to demonstrate that he had full respect for the Law of Moses from a cultural standpoint.

James and the elders suggest that Paul ceremonially accompany and pay the expenses for four male Jewish believers who had taken a Nazarite vow, all in the hopes of sending a message to the Jews that he in no way condemned ceremonial Jewish practices. Of course, this was in regard to Jewish believers.

In the midst of all this, in verse 25 they mention in passing that they had given instructions for Gentile believers to simply avoid eating food offered to idols, blood, any animal that had been strangled, and sexual immorality. Just an added point related to the topic at hand, not a change of subject.

#12. 1 Corinthians 7:25

Recall that in usage #3 in 1 Corinthians 7:1, Paul changed the subject from how we should flee sexual immorality because our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit (chap. 6) to the topic marriage relationships (chap. 7).

Later in the same chapter, Paul is still fleshing out his teaching on the subject of marriage and adds some thoughts about those who are not married—at least not yet, and gives his opinion that they'd just as well stay the way they are. Not a change of subject, just an added point related to marriage.

#13. 1 Corinthians 16:12

Back in usage #6, we see Paul change the subject from the resurrection of Christ, the order of resurrection, etc. in chapter 15 to miscellaneous information related to his next missionary journey in chapter 16.

As Paul mentions a few items about his next journey in chapter 16, he says something about the fact that Timothy may come to them—and in verse 12, he mentions something in passing about the fact that a brother named Apollos might come as well.

The paragraph break at verse 12 certainly doesn't indicate a complete change of subject. Paul is just rattling off a few last details before closing.

#14. 1 Thessalonians 4:9

Paul starts off chapter 4 in his first letter to the Thessalonians talking about sanctification, or how to live in a manner pleasing to God. In verse 6, he mentions how we should never wrong or take advantage of a brother or sister in Christ, which speaks to brotherly love—a point he adds to in verses 9–12.

Now, some people might consider this a bit of a borderline case since there is a paragraph break at verse 9, but in my opinion—considering the context—verse 9 isn't so much a change of subject as it is adding more to the topic already under discussion: how to live in a manner pleasing to God.

And that's it. Recall that in all the usages of peri de in the second category, where the context clearly suggests a change of subject, the phrase peri de invariably begins a new chapter. In this third category, however, where the context suggests the writer is merely adding to a point related to the topic under discussion, note that peri de never begins a new chapter.

And that brings us to the Olivet Discourse. We'll focus on Matthew 24:36, but Mark's version of the discourse is sufficiently similar to Matthew's that whatever we determine in regard to the use of peri de in Matthew 24:36 will apply equally to Mark 13:32. Here's the entire text in question:

OK, the context of the Olivet Discourse has been Israel during the Tribulation up to this point, and Jesus has just given us a graphic description of the Second Coming in verses 29–31.

Liar, liar, pants on fire: If Jesus is giving us a graphic description of the Rapture in verses 29–31, then Paul is a liar. Paul introduces the Rapture as a "mystery" two decades later—in Greek a musterion: something that has never been revealed before and is only now being revealed by God. Hmm...

Then in verse 32, Jesus uses the illustration of the fig tree, and begins talking about how when they see the things that He's just described (i.e. the seal judgments early in the Tribulation) begin to come to pass, they will know His physical return to establish His kingdom is right around the corner (which is exactly what the disciples asked Him).

Then Jesus continues about how no one knows the day and hour except the Father, and...

S-C-R-E-E-E-C-H!! No one knows the day and hour of WHAT?! The day and hour of what He's been talking about the whole time: the signs that will indicate that His return is near, i.e. the judgments of the Tribulation. No one knows the day and hour of this period during which He will judge the nations of the world and purge Israel in preparation for the kingdom. Note that He's not referring to the isolated event of the Second Coming (or of the Rapture for that matter, which doesn't begin the Tribulation anyway). Jesus has just told them they would know when the time was getting close (the fig tree illustration), but withholds any information on the precise timing.

I think some people assume that since scripturally knowledgeable people during the Tribulation should be able to pinpoint the day of the Second Coming, Jesus must be talking about the Rapture—but it's not that simple. As Jesus will make crystal clear to His disciples just before He ascends back to heaven a little over 50 days later, the timing of the major end-time events is not for us to know in advance, because the Father has placed these things under His own authority (Acts 1:7). That includes the eschatological package as a whole, which begins with the Rapture, followed by the Tribulation some unspecified length of time later, which culminates with the Second Coming.

Then He gives an illustration about Noah and the Flood. Everybody was carrying on with their lives, and BOOM...they were caught unawares and got swept away while Noah and his family were safe in the ark.

And that brings me to an important observation. I believe one reason why many people struggle with whether parts of the Olivet Discourse such as this apply to the Rapture or to the Second Coming is because the Rapture and the Second Coming share a fundamental typological similarity:

Both the Rapture and the Second Coming
involve the righteous being removed so
judgment can fall on those remaining.

That's the pattern:

• At the Rapture, the Church will be removed and the judgments of the Tribulation will fall on those remaining.

• At the Second Coming, the Jewish remnant and the Tribulation saints will be removed (gathered into the land of Israel to be ushered into the kingdom), while judgment will fall on those remaining in the sense that they will be slaughtered and sent off to judgment in the spiritual dimension.

The same pattern appears several times in Scripture, from Lot and his family to Noah and his ark. So, when Jesus gives the illustration about Noah and those swept away in the Flood in verses 36–39, this absolutely applies to the Second Coming: The righteous (the Jewish remnant and the Tribulation saints) are gathered from all over the world to enter the kingdom so that judgment can fall on those remaining who have rejected God's grace and mercy.

So, the $64,000 question is this:

Q. Based on the preceding, are we being given sufficient contextual grounds anywhere in verses 32–39 to assume that Jesus has suddenly changed the subject from the Tribulation and the Second Coming to the Rapture?

A. No, absolutely not.

As a result, we have no choice but to place Matthew 24:36 (along with its parallel verse in Mark 13:32) into the third category of usages of peri de in which the writer is simply adding more to a point related to the topic already under discussion, and not completely changing topics.

And that means when we get to the "one will be taken, and one will be left" business in verses 40–41, we have no justifiable reason to believe that Jesus is suddenly talking about the Rapture.

Oh, that hissing sound you hear?

That would be the air escaping from a punctured peri de argument.

My take on "taken" and "left"

Now, I can hear a few people out there as I write this:

"C'mon, man...one taken, one left, just like in the Left Behind movies! How can this possibly not be the Rapture?! Are you blind?!"

Legally, yes...but that's beside the point. Truthfully, it's quite easy for me to see why such a large number of people read the Rapture into these two verses—there are precious few words in the English language that fit the Rapture any more perfectly than the words most commonly used in their translation.

The word "Rapture" flashes in the minds of many the instant they see the words "taken" and "left." And honestly, why wouldn't it? Unfortunately, this choice of words tends to obscure the fact that this verse applies equally well (better, in fact) to the Second Coming. And if we look at the Greek words being used, it becomes abundantly clear that this is the case.

Gotta throw this in: Yes, at the Rapture those not "taken" are "left." But guess what? The Bible never refers to those "left" at the Rapture.

This is one more reason I believe it's a mistake to read the Rapture into Matthew 40–41. Check it out for yourself—in every other reference to the Rapture anywhere in Scripture, two things are invariably true:

1. The context is always one of rejoicing and reward, not judgment.
2. No mention is ever made of those not raptured.

But neither of these are true in Matthew 24—the context is clearly one of judgment, not rejoicing and reward, and those "left" are definitely mentioned. Not exactly a smoking gun, but it should give one pause.

In Matthew 24:40–41, the Greek word being translated "taken" is a form of paralambano, which means to take alongside, to receive, to receive to oneself, to take. On at least one occasion it is used in reference to the Rapture, by Jesus at the Last Supper:

I have long believed that this is a veiled, oblique reference to the Rapture; however, one has to tread lightly here because like I said: If Jesus were "revealing" the Rapture in this verse, it would make Paul a liar. But Jesus isn't actually revealing anything specific about the Rapture per se, and is speaking in the broadest of generalities. The disciples don't really know exactly what He is referring to, and the only reason we do is because we have been afforded the luxury of hindsight.

"Oh, I see how it is, Bible Dude. First you use the context in the Olivet Discourse as an excuse to say Jesus isn't talking to His disciples about the Rapture, and now you claim He is talking to His disciples about the Rapture. Can't have it both ways, hoss!"

Touché, but...in light of the context of what Jesus is talking about at the Last Supper, none of this should cause anyone any heartburn. In John 14 Jesus is speaking in a context pertaining to the soon-to-be embryonic Church, promising them the Holy Spirit, etc. In the Olivet Discourse, the context is 100 percent Israel during the Tribulation. The fact that the disciples are Jews doesn't matter in this case: Jesus is talking about the future Church and they will soon be part of that future Church, and Jesus will certainly receive them to Himself to be with Him where He is...at the Rapture.

They will be part of the dead in Christ who rise first.

But the fact that John 14:3 is a reference to the Rapture certainly doesn't magically turn paralambano into a technical term that must always refer to the Rapture—because it doesn't. For example, Satan paralambano'ed Christ to the pinnacle of the temple and to the top of a high mountain during his efforts to tempt Him (Matt. 4:1–11).

At the Rapture, Jesus paralambano's the Church to be with Him in heaven. But at the Second Coming He paralambano's the Jewish remnant and the Tribulation saints to be with Him in the kingdom. In both cases He is receiving a group of righteous people to Himself—paralambano is perfect in both cases.

I admit I have spent time chewing on different possibilities, but at the end of the day I am satisfied that when Jesus says "taken" (paralambano) in Matthew 40–41, He means that He will receive the righteous unto Himself at the Second Coming to be ushered into the kingdom.

The Greek word translated "left" is a form of aphiemi, which means to send away, to release, to discharge, to leave alone, and it is commonly used in the context of divorce (1 Cor. 7:12).

But notice something interesting: If you translate aphiemi as "sent away" in verses 40–41, as it could and arguably should be, suddenly the Rapture makes no sense at all. After the Rapture, nobody is "sent" anywhere! But what about the Second Coming?

Oh baby. Untold millions of the unrighteous will be slaughtered and sent off to judgment in the spiritual dimension. It's gonna be gnarly:

And that's not His blood; it's the blood of His enemies.

So that's my take: At the Second Coming...

Christ paralambano's or receives the believing Jewish
remnant and the Tribulation saints into the kingdom.

Then He aphiemi's those remaining off to judgment
in the spiritual dimension after they are slaughtered.

I believe that's exactly what Jesus is describing in Matthew 24:40–41.

What's up with the vultures?

This interpretation of "taken" as the righteous being received into the kingdom and "left" as those remaining being sent off to judgment after being slaughtered also helps explain something that seems to lead some people off course in reference to the "taken" and "left" business.

Note that the Olivet Discourse is not the first time Jesus gives this particular kingdom-related teaching. Back in Luke 17, Jesus and His disciples are on their way to Jerusalem for what will turn out to be the final days of His earthly life, and a group of Pharisees ask Jesus when the kingdom would come (v. 20). Jesus launches into a slightly different version of the same teaching He would give the disciples a short time later on the Mount of Olives, giving them the illustration of Noah and the Flood, how they were eating and drinking and living their lives like normal and suddenly got swept away. He also mentions how the people of Sodom were doing the same, and Lot and his family were removed before it rained fire on those who remained.

Finally, he repeats the "one will be taken, and the other left" passage:

The Greek word translated "eagles" is a form of aetos, which can mean eagle, vulture, or bird of prey. Here, however, "vultures" would be a better translation since eagles do not seek out carrion like the birds in this verse.

Jesus also mentions the line about "Wherever the body is, there will the eagles be gathered together" in the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24:28). In Matthew 24, however, Jesus inserts it several verses prior to our "taken" and "left" passage, and it's not a response to a question. In Luke 17, however, Jesus gives this in response to the disciples' question of "Where, Lord?"

Most people tend to interpret the disciples' question of "Where?" as "Where will they be taken?" in spite of the fact that "taken" is mentioned first, not last. Presumably, this is due to the fact that if aphiemi is translated as "left," asking "Where?" makes little sense.

"Whaddya mean 'Where will they be left?!' Wherever they're at! Duh..."

So, people automatically skip over "left" and go back and attach the question to "taken." They then proceed to interpret the vulture line in some creative way that jives with the notion of people being paralambano'ed off to judgment.

Guilty as charged: I admit I've done this before, but as I got deeper into this it didn't take me long to see my error.

But when we translate aphiemi as "sent away" (which is a better, or at least less misleading translation), all of a sudden everything clicks into place. Grammatically, the disciples' question of "Where?" should apply to the last item mentioned, and their question now becomes a perfectly logical one:

"Where will those who are not received into the kingdom be sent off to?"

Remember: All the disciples were thinking about was the kingdom. They were preoccupied with how they would be ruling with Jesus in the kingdom, headquartered in the temple in Jerusalem. Let's face it: They thought their ship was about to come in and they were gonna hit the big time—ruling right alongside the Mashiach Himself, yessiree.

I believe Jesus wanted to wake them up to the harsh reality that the kingdom was only going to come with slaughter on a horrifying scale. They understood the paralambano part—they knew full well that when Jesus returned He would receive them into the kingdom. That's Old Testament stuff. "Where?" would have been a stupid question in regard to the "taken" or paralambano bit.

But they didn't have the full picture of what the coming of that incredible kingdom would entail—countless millions of people slaughtered, their bodies left lying all over the world for the birds of prey. The unrighteous aren't really going to be sent away anywhere, at least not in the physical sense—which is what the disciples were thinking when they asked that question. I believe Jesus wanted to awaken in them the sobering realization that His return would be accompanied by a terrible outpouring of God's wrath, and millions would be slain all over the world. I believe Jesus was basically saying to them:

"You want to know where the unrighteous are going to be 'sent off' to? Look for the vultures—that's all you need to know. Judgment is going to fall on them wherever they are, and that's where their bodies will remain, waiting for the vultures to feed on them. So get out there and preach the gospel as if people's lives depended on it...because it does, ya know?"

In the spiritual realm, however, they will be sent off to judgment and eternal separation from a God whose grace and mercy they staunchly rejected.

So, the next time I visit my family in Washington and I see an eagle, I know what I'm going to be thinking:

Can't touch this.

Magnolias in Antarctica

It pains me to see well-meaning people who have a pre-trib view of the Rapture read the Rapture into places in Scripture where it isn't, and the primary reason is that it so easily brings sound doctrine into disrepute.

The biblical doctrine of the pre-tribulation Rapture was given to the Church to be a purifying hope (1 John 3:2–3), and it is as sound as any doctrine can be. Every attack on it I have ever seen (and I'd like to think I've seen 'em all) invariably relies on errant exegesis at best, and manipulative manhandling of God's Word at worst.

I believe Satan has influenced a legion of good people in the Church to be viciously opposed to the pre-trib Rapture, and the reason is simple: The more people in the Church who don't believe the Rapture is imminent and so don't allow that belief to purify their walk with the Lord, the more it hinders the growth of the Church and the more it buys him time. At least in his mind.

Satan knows Scripture—he knows that the Rapture is a number-specific event, not a date-specific event. When the Church reaches its full number, the Rapture will occur and God will turn His attention back to Israel (Rom. 11:25).

That means anything Satan can do to slow the growth of the Church buys him precious time in his indefatigable efforts to destroy the Jews and thus put the Second Coming on ice (he can't, but he thinks he can), since it is their calling upon the Lord that triggers Christ's return to earth (Hos. 5:15).

Robbing the Church of the blessed hope of the pre-trib Rapture (and I for one fail to see how any other kind of Rapture is anything remotely resembling a "blessed hope") has been a goal of Satan ever since it returned to the scene as a major doctrine in the early nineteenth century.

It grieves me to see people attack the pre-trib Rapture; but what grieves me even more is seeing well-intentioned pre-tribbers foolishly give them ammunition to do it—and that's exactly what they are doing when they read the pre-trib Rapture into places in the Word where it isn't. I know they don't intend it to be this way, but it can easily become an argument that goes a bit like this:

A. (pre-tribber): I believe I have evidence that magnolias grow in Antarctica! Of course, if I'm right, it would certainly prove magnolias exist!

B. (anti-pre-tribber): You're right...it would prove magnolias exist. But here's clear, scientific proof that magnolias do not grow in Antarctica. That means your premise is wrong, and hence magnolias do not exist.

Believe me, I've seen it happen on more occasions than one. I've seen post-tribbers, no-tribbers, pre-wrathers, etc. do a solid, effective job of scripturally debunking the idea that Jesus is talking about the Rapture in the Olivet Discourse, particularly in verses 40–41. And guess what they do then? Go ahead...guess.

They sit back and slap themselves on the back for refuting that pre-trib Rapture nonsense (emphasis on "pre-trib"—that's the one they loathe).

Satan 1, Church 0. The moral of the story? First, the short version:

DON'T. DO. THAT.

The slightly longer version is that we don't need to do that. The pre-trib Rapture has plenty of support in Scripture—more than enough to establish it as sound doctrine. How much support? Well, the Bible says a matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses (Deut. 19:15), so...

a. There will be a Rapture.
Two witnesses: 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17 and 1 Corinthians 15:51–53.

b. It must be prior to the Tribulation.
Two witnesses: Revelation 3:10 and 1 Thessalonians 1:10.

And that pretty much settles it...but are there others? Oh, you bet your sweet bippy there are. So how many more do you need? Five? Ten?

I think one problem is that many people are so focused on the Rapture that they want to read it into every nook and cranny in Scripture they possibly can. But the problem is that when people read the Rapture—especially the pre-trib Rapture—into places where it isn't, it creates an opportunity for people who can rightly divide Scripture to prove that it isn't there, and all that does is give anti-pre-tribbers another bullet for their guns.

So don't do that.

As for people who become apoplectic at the mere mention of the pre-trib Rapture, you will never convince them. Love them, pray for them, but don't bother arguing with them. It's a bit like arguing with Biden supporters who honestly believe he won the election fair and square and think he's doing a swell job: You are wasting your precious time.

You'd might as well try growing magnolias in Antarctica.

Greg Lauer — MAR '21

Top of the page

If you like this article, share it with someone!

 MAR '21 

Site Search

Powered by:
JavaScript Kit