The nature of the Church matters for the rapture debate in more ways than just the argument given in Part 5. It is decisive for the interpretation of battleground passages like Matthew 24, the Thessalonian epistles, and parts of Revelation. The following examples will attempt to show that when these passages are read with the ecclesiology outlined in the previous parts of this series, they lead to a pretribulation rapture.

---

Is the Rapture Described in Matthew 24:31?

Pretribulationists argue that the Olivet Discourse does not describe the rapture, or any resurrection for that matter. They say the audience of this passage is the remnant of Israel, whom the disciples represented at the time.[1] One common argument is that the descriptions of the rapture are so different from this passage that they should be considered two separate events.[2] The posttribulationist replies that they describe different aspects of the same event, and the two are reconcilable. Posttribulationists, including Moo, Ladd, and Gundry; and pre-wrath proponents, including Kurschner and Van Kampen, say that Matthew 24:31 (“they will gather His elect from the four winds”) describes the rapture.[3] They point out that the disciples may have been Jewish, but they soon became the Church. The disciples’ identity is not the only contextual issue, however.

Israel was scattered to “all the winds,” for their failure to obey the Mosaic Covenant (Ezek. 5:10, 12, cf. 17:21). In Zechariah, Yahweh says, “I have spread you abroad like the four winds of heaven” (Zech. 2:6). Many passages foretell the day when this condition will be reversed. In the Day of the Lord, the remnant of Israel, called “chosen” or elect, will be gathered from all over the world (Isa. 43:1-7, 10, 20; Isa. 27:12-13; Joel 3:1; Deut. 30:4). Isaiah 27:12-13 associates this gathering with a great trumpet.

Isaiah 11:11-12 says, “It shall come to pass in that day that the Lord shall set His hand again the second time to recover the remnant of His people who are left. . . He will set up a banner for the nations, and will assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah, from the four corners of the earth.”

Since this is the background context of the Olivet Discourse, when Jesus says, “And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other,” His audience should have understood it as a reference to the gathering of Israel’s remnant.

He will… assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah, from the four corners of the earth. Isaiah 11:12

If the saints that are gathered in verse 31 are Israelite saints, then they cannot be the Church. Otherwise, the Church would be fulfilling prophecies about Israel, and the NT would be reinterpreting or giving new meaning (not just significance) to the OT.

The NT would be changing the OT, not simply adding to it. While Historic Premillennialists are willing to accept that, a dispensationalist like Gundry does not want to. However, if Gundry says this is the rapture of the Church, and in the OT context they are the elect of Israel, then Gundry’s position necessarily involves reinterpretation.

Historic Premillennialists may argue for this kind of reinterpretation, but if they do so because they believe the NT takes OT promises to Israel and applies them to the Church (as Ladd asserts), then they beg the question.[4]

They also open the door to the kind of spiritualizing hermeneutic that all premillennialists try to avoid. As argued in part 3, Paul’s understanding of mystery precludes the Church being the subject of OT prophecies, and therefore could not fulfill predictions about Israel. So, the saints gathered in Matthew 24:31 are the remnant of Israel, and the Olivet Discourse does not describe the rapture of the Church.

Check out Dr. Michael Svigel’s discussion of this passage.

Also Alf Cengia’s excellent article.

Next: 1 Thessalonians 4:16 — what kind of event is this?

---

[1] For example, see William MacDonald, Believer’s Bible Commentary, 2nd ed. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2016), 1216.

[2] Paul Feinberg, “The Case for the Pretribulation Rapture Position,” Three Views on the Rapture, ed. Stanley Gundry (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 80-86; Renald Showers, Maranatha Our Lord, Come! (Bellmawr: The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry Inc., 1995), 186.

[3] Gundry, Church and Tribulation, 135; George Ladd, The Blessed Hope (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1956), 73; Moo, Three Views, 195; Robert Van Kampen, The Sign 2nd ed. (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1999), 324; Alan Kurschner, Prewrath a Very Short Introduction (Pompton Lakes: Eschatos Publishing, 2014), 63-72.

[4] The question being, can a text have more than one meaning? This is a significant hermeneutical difference between dispensationalists and other theological systems. Dispensationalists argue that a text may have many implications but only one meaning. Significance may grow with new information, but meaning is objective and fixed. “There cannot be two meanings to the same set of words in the same context; meaning is discovered by context, and there is only one context for these same words.” Geisler, Systematic Theology Vol. 4, 450.