Is it better to be taken or left behind? I asked this question to a large group of people, and only the pastor and I went for the latter option. Below is why.
Just as in the case of I Thessalonians 4:17, there are two basic schools of understanding here. If it is a
description of the Rapture of the church right before a time of Tribulation on earth, then being left
behind is obviously undesirable. But in this case, there is almost unanimous agreement among scholars
that it refers to the judgment at the Second Coming instead. And that includes most dispensational
scholars including Stanley Toussaint, Mal Couch, John Walvoord, and W. A. Criswell. Remember that
Dispensationalists believe in a pre-tribulational rapture. But even they reject this passage as talking
about the Rapture. Here are two quotes from the Bible Knowledge Commentary, put out by Dallas
Theological Seminary.
Louis Barbieri Jr.: “The Lord was not describing the Rapture...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.”
John A. Martin: “Jesus was not speaking about the Rapture but about the judgment before
entering the kingdom.”
Then who still thinks these verses are a description of the Rapture? Mainly those appealing to a more
popular audience like Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye with his “Left Behind” series of novels and movies,
books by prphecy "experts," many TV preachers, and most of the sources you will find on the internet.
Unfortunately, those are the only places that most Christians ever go to for their information.
However, there is still total disagreement among serious students of the Bible on which group is being
saved and which one is damned. Honestly, it really doesn't matter as long as you are clear that at the
Last Judgment there will be a radical separation of these two groups. However, I chose this as a good
example of how even the seemingly most simple question of interpretation sometimes turns out to be
far more complicated than first believed.
Context – Outside the Bible: Let's look at the most distant context first, beyond the Bible itself to see
how this passage was interpreted early on. The Gospel of Thomas (40-140 AD) is an early collection of
Jesus' sayings, changed somewhat to support Gnostic ideas. Saying #61 reads, “Two will be resting
there on a bed; one will die and the other will live.” Compare this to the parallel account in Luke 17:
“There will be two in one bed; one will be taken and the other left.” Their understanding was obviously
that being taken is bad and staying behind is good.
Context – Old Testament: Clear-cut examples in the OT relating to the Final Judgment are few and far
between. But I did find two possible parallels in some rather unusual places.
“Every firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sits on his throne
to the firstborn of the female slave who is behind the hand mill...” (Exodus 11:5)
Compare that passage with “Two women will be grinding meal together; one will be taken and one
will be left.” (Matthew 24:41)
In the 10th plague God brought about a life and death separation of firstborn women grinding flour
from others who were not firstborn. Those not taken by the angel of death are the fortunate ones who
remain behind.
“Remember your creator in the days of your youth, before the days of trouble come...before the sun
and the light and the moon and the stars are darkened...and the women who grind cease working
because they are few...” Ecclesiastes 12:1-3
The poem that begins Ecclesiastes 12 describes the coming of old age and approaching death in terms
used elsewhere to describe the end of the world. Approaching blindness is compared to the heavenly
bodies losing their light, and the women who grind flour cease working because there are few of them
remaining; the others have left this world (i.e, they are dead): a metaphor for the loss of teeth in old age
with only a few remaining. Just like the Exodus passage, if this indicates anything at all (and it may
not), it hints that being taken away is bad news. The other possible parallel in the OT points in the
same direction: the phrase “the remnant,” those left behind, always refers to those of the Israelites who
will be saved. If anyone is keeping track, so far it is four votes in favor of being left behind as the
preferred option.
Context – Within the Same Testament but outside the Gospels: A little closer to home is the passage
mentioned a minute ago, I Thessalonians 4, since both it and Matthew 24:40-41 appear to describe the
judgment at Christ's Second Coming. As additional evidence to support that idea, here are some
thematic similarities between the two passages.
“For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have died… Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them (the dead in Christ) to meet the Lord in the air.” (I Thessalonians 4:15,17)
At first glance, there doesn't seem to be a very close parallel with the Matthew passage in which there
is a clear separation between taken and those left behind. In this case, the believers alive at the time are
first left behind when the dead in Christ rise, but then they themselves are taken soon afterward. There
is no separation of the saved and the damned since only the saved are mentioned at all. Where are the
damned; what happened to them? Here I am admittedly on a little shaky ground and haven't found any
commentators who propose what I am about to mention.
Look at the wording in these two verses more closely. Paul could have said that the believers he is
talking about are those still alive at the time of Christ's coming, in contrast to those dead in Christ who
have already died; or he could have distinguished them from the dead in Christ by saying they were
those left behind after the dead arose. But he uses both phrases, “those who are alive, who are left” and
he does it not just once but twice (vv. 15, 17). Now maybe this is just an example of verbal overkill,
but what if both phrases are necessary to pin down who he is talking about. What if the phrase “those
of us who are alive” distinguishes the live believers from the dead in Christ? Then “those left behind at
the time” would differentiate between the live believers from all the unbelievers who have already been
taken off the earth for eternal punishment. It remains an intriguing possibility, and if so, it would again
indicate that those taken away in Matthew 24 are those damned while those left are the saved.
Context – within the Gospels: If the Matthew 24 passage is describing the Last Judgment, then there is
an even closer parallel in Matthew 25, which is part of the same speech of Jesus. In that chapter we
have several examples of what is almost certainly the Last Judgment including the parable of the Wise
and Foolish Virgins, the Parable of the Servants entrusted with talents, and the separation of the sheep
and goats. In the first case, the favored ones are let into the banquet while the others are left outside. In
the second one, the blessed servants enter into the joy of the master while the other one is thrown into
utter darkness. In the third example, the saved are told to “come” while the damned are told to depart.
In each case, the movement is either toward Christ (being saved) or departing from Him (the damned).
So how do these examples relate to the question of being taken and being left in Matthew 24? Does
being taken mean taken to Christ or taken away from him. And are those left to remain with Christ or
left behind to suffer? Again, it is really ambiguous and I have read scholars who argue either way.
The only other Gospel writer to include this portion of Jesus' speech practically word for word is Luke
in Chapter 17. He repeats the example of Noah and the flood but adds the additional example of Lot
being saved from the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah.
“Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot: they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting
and building, but on the day that Lot left Sodom, it rained fire and sulfur from heaven and destroyed all
of them.” (Luke 17:28-30) There are two ways of looking at this passage as well:
A. Lot was taken out of Sodom and inhabitants were left behind? Taken is good.
B. Lot was left on earth and inhabitants were taken away in death? Taken is bad.
This doesn't really give us any more information concerning which is better, to be taken or left. And
there is exactly the same ambiguity concerning the two ways of looking at Noah and the flood.
Maybe we can just go with a scholarly consensus on the issue. Here are some prominent scholars (with
their affiliations) who fall into the two camps. Several of them additionally admit that the evidence is
not that clear in either direction.
A. Taken is good and left is bad.
William Hendricksen (Reformed)
I. H. Marshall (Reformed)
E. E. Ellis (Baptist)
J. A. Fitzmyer (Catholic)
B. Taken is bad and left is good.
C. L. Blomberg (evangelical)
L A. Barbieri, Jr. (dispensational)
J. A. Martin (dispensational)
So we can't even look to the academic quarter for unambiguous help there.
Well, perhaps we will have better luck with a word study, looking at the precise Greek words used in
the passage, starting with “taken.”
A. Taken is good and left is bad.
There are many Greek words for “take.” The word in this particular case (paralambano) sometimes
has the specific meaning of “take to oneself, receive.” There are seven examples in Matthew where this
is used in a positive sense.
B. Taken is bad and left is good.
Paralambano is negative in Matthew 4:5,8 (Satan takes Jesus for temptation) and 27:27 (Soldiers
take Jesus for torture and mocking).
C. Undecided Finally, it may just be a stylistic choice of words (France, Matthew). So there is no real
help here either.
However, the verbs in all of these usages are in the active voice (A takes B) rather than in the passive
voice (B is taken by A). This contrasts with Matthew 24 where it is in the passive. And in both the OT
and NT, using other synonyms for “taken,” the passive usually indicates something unpleasant
happening. So that is one more vote for being left behind as positive.
Next, look at the word for “left” (aphiemi). This time, if we only consider the cases where the verb
appears in the passive (something being left behind) rather than the active (something leaving), we
come up with only three other examples in the gospels. The traveler in the parable of the Good
Samaritan is left half dead in the road by the robbers. But although it isn't particularly good to be
almost beaten to death, maybe just being left alive is good. It could be taken both ways. The other two
appearances are in very similar sayings of Jesus but given in completely different settings. In each case,
He talks about a building being destroyed with not even one stone being left on the other. One of these
passages is in Luke19:44, but the other is even more pertinent. It appears at Matthew 24:2, the start of
our chapter under consideration. In both these usages, being left is obviously considered to be good,
not bad. That's a total of seven votes for that position.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments