Is the Rapture in the Olivet Discourse?

Dr. Couch, Is the rapture in the Olivet Discourse? 

 

Oh, heavens no! The only reason such an argument came to be is because of Matthew 24:40-41. "One taken and one left!" Remember one of the key rules of interpretation: context, context, context! The context of the Olivet Discourse (chapters 24-25) has to do with the three questions the disciples asked Christ just prior to His arrest and death on the cross. They asked, "When will these things be (the destruction of the temple), and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?" (24:3).

With these questions the Lord did not then turn to the issue of the price of eggs in Poland! He answered their questions and filled in the curiosity they had about the end times and Jewish things. But you ask, "Did Christ not prophecy about the coming church?" Yes, in 16:13-20 He gave a quick tease about the coming church but He did not elaborate on the subject. This is what I call a cryptic prophecy in that it would not be fully explained and revealed until the book of Acts.

"One taken and one left." It is from this statement in Matthew 24:40-41 that the idea of the rapture comes in the minds of those who read too quickly. It is caused by what I call "a mental identification." That is, "it sounds" like the rapture, and, the brain just kind of stops there! Contact determines what this means.

If one goes on in the large passage, one finds that the "one taken" is brought before the King when He arrives to reign in His kingdom. That discussion begins in verse 44: "For the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will." This has to do with "the Son of Man." This is a messianic title about the King coming to rule in Jerusalem; it is not about His coming to receive up to Himself the church saints in the church resurrection (those IN Christ) and the rapture of the church when the living church saints are "jerked" out of here! The passage goes on and shows the evil slave (the one taken) is brought before the Master and "cut in pieces" and assigned a place where there is "gnashing of teeth" (vv. 50-51). The one left enters into the blessings of the kingdom!
That this is the right interpretation is confirmed in Luke 17:34-37 where Christ discusses the same issue. "One is taken and one left" (v. 35). "But where?" the disciples ask (v. 37a). Christ answers, "Where the body is, there also will the vultures be gathered" (v. 37b). In other words, as He said in Matthew 24:50-51, the evil and unfaithful Jewish servants are taken to judgment and killed!

In my just released Luke Commentary I wrote on chapter 17:34-37:

"This is obviously not the rapture of the church at which the saints on earth are caught up to heaven and given new bodies; and the dead in Christ are raised (1 Thess. 4:13-18). Here in Luke and in the parallel reading in Matthew 24-25, Jesus is talking about His coming as Israel's King. The one taken is the "evil slave" who did not have faith in Jesus' messianic reign (Matt. 24:48). He is taken before the Master for judgment because he did not stay alert (v. 43), "for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will (v. 44)."

And in the recently released Tim LaHaye Popular Bible Prophecy Commentary I wrote on Luke 17:

"When the Lord returns to earth to establish His Davidic rule, some will be ready and others won't. While some view this as a reference to the rapture, when one will be removed while the other is left, the context does not appear to have the rapture in mind. Some will be taken before the Lord and judged."

The expression "will be left" – aphieemi. The expression "left behind" is exactly the same in the Matthew 24:40-41 as in Luke 17:35-36. Some wrongly say the word means "left behind" in all cases and therefore is referring to the rapture. This is not true. The Greek word aphieemi can also be translated forsaken, to forgive, forsook, leaving. Context determines the meaning.

Summary. Some years ago I had Dr. Rusty Penney write an article for me on this subject. He summarized with some excellent points:

1. The context of Matthew, and of this passage itself, shows Christ was speaking about His coming to reign and not the rapture.
2. Matthew 23 Christ was giving a denunciation of the Jewish leaders and was proclaiming that their house was desolate. This leads to the judgment mentioned in chapter 24.
3. The destruction of the temple is also in view in the context, not some event for the church age.
4. The disciples had no understanding of the church or of the rapture at this time. They were asking Jewish questions.
5. The disciples understood the "end of the age" had to do with the tribulation and judgment period just before the Messiah returns.
6. When the disciples asked about a sign of His coming they would be asking for a sign of which He would fully reveal of Himself as the Messiah, not as the Head of the church.
7. If Christ is answering specific questions the rapture is excluded in His answers.
8. Christ in Matthew refers to the "birth pangs" and the fact that "few would be left" just before He returns. He is referring to the period when the Jews are back in the land just prior to the tribulation. He is paraphrasing Jeremiah 30.
9. The disciples would have understood "the gospel of the kingdom" as the good news about the messianic reign, not simply about the gospel of personal salvation alone.
10. In Matthew 24 Christ refers to Jewish issues: "the Sabbath," "those living in Judea," "the abomination of desolation (that takes place when the temple is rebuilt)," and uses the strong messianic term "the Son of Man."
11. Matthew 24:31 cannot be the rapture because the entire context is dealing with Christ's Second Coming.
12. The ones "taken" are removed for judgment not heavenly blessing.
13. For the rapture to be mentioned in Matthew 24, the context, or part of the context at the end, would have to be changed to dealing with the church age, not the tribulation.

It was mainly (but not exclusively) with older dispensational writers that it was taught the rapture was in Matthew 24. Upon closer examination of the context of the passage, most changed their minds! But unfortunately there are often holdouts who "won't give up the ship"! This is why, we all must work on our objectivity and avoid our subjectivity! After all, we are handling God's Word and we want to know what He says and not simply what we think.


Conclusion. "Certainly the church, the body of Christ, cannot be in view in these statements [about one taken and one left]. The Lord was not describing the Rapture, for the removal of the church will not be a judgment on the church. If this were the Rapture, as some commentators affirm, the Rapture would have to be posttribulational, for this event occurs immediately before the Lord's return in glory. But that would conflict with a number of Scriptures and present other problems …" (The Bible Knowledge Commentary)

    Thanks for asking.

    Dr. Mal Couch