Duc in Altum

A little over two months ago, I wrote a post entitled, "Was Noah left behind?" in which I commented on the passage from Matthew 24:36-44 in which Jesus speaks about being one person being taken and the other left. Although this passage is often cited by supporters of the Rapture as support for their theological point-of-view, I pointed out that a much more faithful and logical understanding of what Jesus is saying actually in this passage actually undermines the idea of the Rapture.

For those who are not familiar with the idea of the Rapture it is simply a theological idea that has been around for a few hundred years that holds that near the end of the world, Jesus will come again and "rapture" into heaven from the world all Christians. The ones who are not taken up with Jesus--the non-Christians--will be left. Hence, the term "left behind". Those who are left behind will experience a world-wide period of tribulation. In terms of the timing of this event, there are various permutations of this idea, but for each of the permutations the essential idea remains the same, namely Christians are taken out of the world and non-Christians are left behind.

Here is the actual passage:

For as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. In (those) days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day that Noah entered the ark. They did not know until the flood came and carried them all away. So will it be (also) at the coming of the Son of Man. Two men will be out in the field; one will be taken, and one will be left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken, and one will be left. Therefore, stay awake! For you do not know on which day your Lord will come. Be sure of this: if the master of the house had known the hour of night when the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and not let his house be broken into. So too, you also must be prepared, for at an hour you do not expect, the Son of Man will come. (Matthew 24:36-44)

The gist of what I said in the prior post is that the analogy that Jesus uses between the days of Noah and the days when one person is taken away and another is left behind actually point to the complete opposite interpretation. The people who drowned in the flood were taken away and Noah and his family were left behind. In other words, the righteous are left behind while the unrighteous are taken away.

Recently someone added a comment to my original post. The commenter, a David Weimer, wrote,

Take a closer look at the Greek in verse 39: "...the flood came and took them all away, so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be." In the Greek, the word for "taking away" used here is not the same word used in verses 40 and 41, so the same meaning should not be applied to both. In fact, a distinction is being made. In this verse it means put away. In the subsequent verses the term that's used, paralambano (Strong's #3880), means "to receive near, i.e. associated with oneself (in any familiar or intimate act or relation); receive, take (unto, with)". This ought to remind us of the Messiah's promise to His disciples in the upper room, "I will come again and receive you unto Myself" (John 14:3).

See http://www.raptureready.com/rap100.html

I then added a reply which, as I indicate, I would like to give in a more thorough fashion, but for now will have to suffice.

Thanks for your comment. I would like to give a more comprehensive response, but that will take some time in order to look into the use of the Greek words you noted. (Although I took three semesters of Biblical Greek, I am quite rusty to say the least.) Suffice to say, it might be some time before I am able to post on this.

However, for now, I would like to point out the following:

1. Simply because the same Greek word is not used in verses 40 and 41 as in verse 39 does not negate the parallel that our Lord is drawing.

2. A basic rule of interpretation is to see how the same word is used in the same book of the Bible before seeing how it is used in another book of the Bible, e.g., the wider context of the Testament (Old or New). Words often have multiple meanings, but some help in interpretation can be found by seeing how the same author (in this case Matthew) used the word. In other words, John might be using this word to bring out our Lord's words in a way that is different than Matthew's use of the word. This is acceptable because the word has multiple meanings. That is not to say that John and Matthew are not using the words in the same way, but the first principle would be to see how Matthew uses it before looking at how John uses it.

3. It is still very difficult to see how verses 40 and 41 could refer to the righteous being taken away or received by the Lord in some type of rapture while the unrighteous are left, given how our Lord sets up verses 40 and 41 with verse 39. The ones who are quickly taken away in verse 39 are those who perished in the Flood (the unrighteous). For verses 40 and 41 to refer now to the righteous being taken away or received quickly, there would have to be a disconnect between verse 39 and the following verses 40 and 41. Or Jesus would have to be indicating that when the Son of Man comes it will be different than when the Flood came. However, it is clear from verse 37 that He is drawing a parallel between the sudden cataclysmic destruction of the Flood and the coming of the Son of Man.

4. The parables about the Kingdom in Matthew 13 (24-30, 36-43, 47-50) give precedence for the idea that the wicked are gathered in at the end of the age. In other words, although it is not the same word as in 24:40,41, the idea of gathering the unrighteous is an idea that our Lord presents as part of His Kingdom. It is not simply the righteous who are collected.

There are, of course, numerous other problems with the idea of the Rapture which one can find in Scripture. But even just looking at this passage, one is hard pressed to find what rapture supporters see. In order to interpret the passage as they want to, you must reinterpret the account of Noah and the flood. Clearly, the flood wasmanifestationion of God's judgment. It was visited upon the unrighteous while the righteous were spared. However, in Jesus' words, for the ones who drowned, the flood, "carried them away". Consequently, the rest must not have been taken away, but left. It sure sounds like the ones who were left behind got the better end of the deal.