“Left Behind”: Blessing Or Curse?

Jesus provided the answers requested of him without admixing elements of some distant event. The signs (Matthew 24:4–31) and timeframe (Matthew 24:32–36) he provided dealt with his original prophecy—the destruction of the Temple (Matthew 24:1–3). Nothing in the Olivet Discourse forces an unbiased reader to postulate a complicated series of events that remain unfulfilled. The things of which Jesus spoke occurred in his generation (Matthew 24:34).

A series of warnings completes the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24:37 – 25:46). This exhibits what we might call “the eschatology of human beings.”¹ The “great tribulation” (Matthew 24:21), capped by the destruction of the Temple, would impact the people of Israel living at that time. Each of the warnings Jesus gives shows the profound extent to which this would be true.

These events would show a deep division among the people. This divide had always existed. As Paul would later argue, two “Israels” were present from the beginning, one within the other. He said, “They are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed” (Romans 9:6–8). Paul elsewhere referred these “children of the flesh” as “Israel after the flesh” (1 Corinthians 10:18) and to “the seed” as “the Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16). The events that fulfilled Jesus’ signs would separate the two groups forever.

The unknown “day and hour” (Matthew 24:36) of the coming destruction would sever the relationship between these two groups. Both groups identified themselves with the Temple-centered worship of God throughout the Mosaic age. The Temple’s fall would devastate those whose only identity was “Israel after the flesh.” Those who were “the Israel of God”—“the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:26)—would continue their new life in Christ in his parousia (presence) in the Messianic age.

Jesus used a previous judgment event, three parables, and a future judgment event to describe the separation about to occur in Israel. The parables include “the goodman of the house” (Matthew 24:43:51), the “ten virgins” (Matthew 25:1–13), and the “man travelling into a far country” (Matthew 25:14–30). All three emphasize how the God-given graces of faith, wisdom, and obedience would preserve the Israel of God through the judgment that was befalling Israel. The absence of these graces in “Israel after the flesh” would produce the carnage Jesus had described earlier.

This post will examine Jesus’ use of the flood of Noah’s day in this context. This passage, Matthew 24:37–42, provides an opportunity to show how inmillennialism can improve our understanding of Scripture.  Our prophetic model turns the popular understanding of Jesus’ words on its head. The Lord meant the opposite of what many often teach.

“Left Behind” in the Popular Mind

In the opening scenes of the Left Behind² series, pilot Rayford Steele learns many of the passengers have disappeared from his 747 airliner. His call to the control tower reveals this phenomenon has occurred elsewhere: people all over the world have gone missing. No one knows what has happened, or why. The book’s plot develops around the resolution to this mystery.

The authors of these novels—Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins—based their story on passages like Matthew 24:37–42. In their view, the two “taken” in Jesus’ parable—one from the field, the other from the mill—represent Christians who will go to heaven in the rapture.

They believe(d) those who are “left (behind)” will watch the Antichrist ascend to power over the next three and one-half years. Israel will accept him as their Messiah.

Then things change. The Antichrist turns against Israel and inflicts “great tribulation” (Matthew 24:21) for three and one-half years. At the end of that time, Christ returns in his visible Second Coming to defeat the Antichrist and those aligned with him. Those “taken” seven years earlier return to earth with him.

Jesus will then establish his thousand-year reign (i.e., the millennium) during which he will rule from Jerusalem. The Jews, with their true Messiah now present, get their long-delayed inheritance. They now possess what God promised Abraham. A revived priesthood offers blood sacrifices in the rebuilt Temple. Israel’s blessings flow out to the entire earth. Christ’s present kingdom on earth resolves the tension introduced by the “left behind” crisis.

LaHaye and Jenkins wrote from a decided dispensational perspective. They held to the pretribulational form of dispensationalism—God will rapture the church from the earth before the “great tribulation” begins.

Not all dispensationalists believe Matthew 24:37–42 refers to the rapture. J. Dwight Pentecost, for example, says “The one taken is taken to judgment and the one left is left for the millennial blessing.”³ He believes this separation occurs after the “great tribulation,” just before the thousand-year reign of Christ begins (Revelation 20:1–10).

Many dispensational writers agree with LaHaye and Jenkins, however. John F. Hart says “most if not all [posttribulational dispensationalists] argue that the Rapture of the church is described in Matt 24:36–44 and that this Rapture coincides perfectly with the return of Christ after the Tribulation period mentioned in 24:29–31.”⁴ Hart holds a  pretribulational rapture position and encourages all dispensationalists, both pre– and posttribulationists—to join LaHaye and Jenkins in their belief that this passage teaches the rapture.

The arguments used by dispensationalists to determine whether this is a “rapture passage” or not are complex. The determining factor seems to be the set of assumptions one brings to the discussion.

“Left Behind” in Inmillennialism

Inmillennialism approaches this passage in a simple and intuitive manner. In response to the disciples’ sign question (Matthew 24:3), Jesus described the great carnage associated with the destruction of the Temple (Matthew 24:28). Jesus gave no clue that the signs of which he had just spoken were no longer the subject under consideration. Our framework, therefore, assumes Jesus was issuing a warning about the same destruction. The pending destruction related not only to the Temple but also to the people of Israel who did not believe in Christ (Matthew 23:29-36; cp. Deuteronomy 18:18-19).

The time element also appears unchanged. Jesus had answered the disciples’ when question (Matthew 24:3) with “general predictability (vv 29–31) and specific unpredictability (v 36)”⁵—the Temple would fall in that generation (Matthew 24:34), but in an unknown day and hour (Matthew 24:36). Here, in the flood comparison, Jesus uses the same unpredictability formula: “Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come” (Matthew 24:42). He applied the same timestamp to this passage as he had to the destruction of the Temple.

There appears to be no change in either the sign or time perspective as Jesus begins his warnings. Therefore, inmillennialism teaches this passage concerns events in Jesus’ generation (Matthew 24:34).

If this is true, what did Jesus mean when he said “one will be taken” (Matthew 24:40)? We will do well to note what Jesus had just said: the men of Noah’s day had ignored warnings of coming judgment “until the flood came, and took them all away” (Matthew 24:39; emphasis added). The flood “took” the ungodly away by destroying them. Who was “left behind?” Noah and his family remained to repopulate the earth (Genesis 7:23). God cursed those “taken” and blessed those “left behind” (Genesis 9:1).

An important parallel passage reinforces this point. Shortly before giving the Olivet Discourse,⁶ Jesus explained the coming of the kingdom of God to the Pharisees and his disciples:

I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together. (Luke 17:34–37)

The hearers wanted to know the destination of those who would be “taken.” Jesus did not say the rapture would take them to heaven. He said God’s judgment would take them to a place where “vultures” (ESV) would gather to feast on dead bodies.

Inmillennialism teaches that those “taken” were the Jews who rejected Christ: the Roman legions destroyed them. Those “left behind” were Jewish Christians who obeyed Jesus’ escape command (Luke 21:21). These survived God’s judgment-events surrounding the fall of the Temple in AD 70. Just as Noah and his family were “left behind” on earth to start a new civilization, so these—joined by a multitude of faithful Gentiles—would advance the kingdom of God in the Messianic age.

Conclusion

Jesus did not make specific reference in this passage to the role faith played in Noah’s deliverance. (He will emphasize faith in the parables that follow.) We learn from other sources, however, that it was vital to his “left behind” status:

By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. (Hebrews 11:7; emphasis added)

Noah walked by faith, not sight. He obeyed God’s commands even though he saw no physical evidence for the coming destructive flood.  In like fashion, those that believed Christ’s prophecy obeyed his commands and were spared.  Many Jews did not believe Christ. The “flood” of God’s judgment destroyed both them and the Temple. Christ’s disciples warned their generation (e.g., Acts 3:22-24; 1 Thessalonians 2:16) of the coming disaster like Noah warned his.

Inmillennialism emphasizes that the elect receive all the promises of God through faith in Christ. “For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us” (2 Corinthians 1:20; cp. 2 Peter 1:1–4). No covenant promises remain for Jews after the flesh who reject Christ Jesus as Lord.

Dispensationalism places Israel after the flesh among those “left behind” after a future rapture of the church. God then judges them in the “great tribulation.” In this system, God “takes” the blessed to heaven. This negates Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 24:37–42 by reversing the curse and the blessing.

This is unnecessary in inmillennialism. The Olivet Discourse is a continuous narrative. God’s judgment on Israel and the Temple would come in that generation (Matthew 24:34) but in an unknown day and hour (Matthew 24:36). It would “take” many away to destruction. God would protect the Jews who had faith in Christ—these would be “left behind” to live in the Messianic age.

The passage about Noah and the flood is a warning—not about events in the distant future, but about the events of which Jesus had been speaking all along. His sign and when orientation remained unchanged. He was saying to the men of that generation: “Do what I tell you as Noah did or perish in the coming judgment.”

God will judge all men at the end of the Messianic age after the bodily resurrection (Revelation 20:11–15). The ultimate separation between the elect and the non-elect will occur at that judgment. In this part of the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24:37–42), Jesus spoke not about the final judgment, but about God’s judgment of apostate Israel as the Messianic age began. The “flood of destruction” overwhelmed that generation.

1. A term recently used by a faithful brother in Christ who has requested anonymity.
2. LaHaye, Tim and Jerry B. Jenkins. Left Behind: A Novel of the Earth’s Last Days. Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1995.
3. J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1964), 162.
4. John F. Hart, “Should Pretribulationists Reconsider the Rapture in Matthew 24:36–44? Part 1 of 3,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 20:39 (Autumn 2007), 48. See the Spring and Autumn, 2008 numbers of JOTGES for the other two parts.
5. Hart, “Should Pretribulationists Reconsider the Rapture in Matthew 24:36–44? Part 1 of 3,” 62.
6. A. T. Robertson, A Harmony of the Gospels for Students of the Life of Christ (New York: Harper, 1922), 139-40.