The Rev. Tullian Tchividjian effectively skewers the popular “left behind” theology in this article in The Worldview Church: Unfashionable: Making a Difference in the World by Being Different.
Matthew 24:37-41 is a key passage some Christians use to justify an escapist theology, approaching this world with a “Why shine the brass on a sinking ship?” attitude. In this passage Jesus likens “the coming of the Son of Man” to the time of Noah, when people “were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away.” Then Jesus gives two brief pictures of the effect of his coming: “Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one left.”
These verses have been employed to support the idea that God will one day evacuate, or “rapture,” all the righteous people, leaving behind an evil world destined for annihilation. Therefore, the thinking goes, Christians should focus exclusively on seeking to rescue lost souls rather than waste time trying to fix things that are broken in this doomed world. This perspective is evidenced in a comment I read not long ago from a well-known Bible teacher: “Evangelism is the only reason God’s people are still on earth.”
But a closer look at the context reveals that in those pictures Jesus gave of men in the field and women at the mill, those “left behind” are the righteous rather than the unrighteous. Like the people in Noah’s day who were “swept away,” leaving behind Noah and his family to rebuild the world, so the unrighteous are “taken,” while the righteous are left behind. Why? Because this world belongs to God, and he’s in the process of gaining it all back, not giving it all up.
This is taken from Tchividjian’s new book, Unfashionable: Making a Difference in the World by Being Different. If this brief excerpt is any indication, the book as a whole should be worth reading.
February 2nd, 2011 | 2:38 pm | #1
It’s funny for me to think that Pre-Tribulation Rapture Theology actually has a return to earth. This is evident when talk to them about both the Second Coming and the New Jerusalem. So its not escapism strictly, it is escape from the wrath of God. That’s the thing. This is were the silly labels show now in-depth study or comprehension of the position of others in Evangelicalism. This book is shallow if it makes such an obvious mistake.
Then again, its always easier to attack than to understand, isn’t it?
February 2nd, 2011 | 3:30 pm | #2
I’m an escapee of premil left-behind evangelicalism, so I was gleeful to read this, and immediately turned to the passage in question to buttress his argument.
His argument is _useless_ when applied to the text. In the two latter passages the ones taken are said to be “paralambanetai” (received unto a person), while in the former passage the ones taken are said to be “Eren” (lifted), and this lifting is said to apply to “all”, so it’s not clear that it’s talking about leaving anyone behind (we could say that a rising flood lifts all, boats or no boats). So the three passages cannot be said to imply that the good are left while the evil are taken; nor do they even use the same verb to discuss the taking. The first one might even imply that ALL are taken.
I’m still post-premillenial, of course. My study here has confirmed my decision in that. But this argument doesn’t hold up to the text.
February 3rd, 2011 | 10:27 am | #3
His argument isn’t linguistic, it’s contextual. If you’re comparing something to Noah’s flood, it would be strange to say that the people “left” are the ones on the losing end of the proposition. The only ones “left” after Noah’s flood were those favored by grace, not those rejected by God.
February 3rd, 2011 | 11:57 am | #4
Unfortunately, the “Left Behind” lunacy probably isn’t the only strand of Christian thought that leads earnest believers into an “escapist” or otherwise irresponsible, value-distorting theology.
February 3rd, 2011 | 11:59 am | #5
Exactly right, Pentamom! The comparison between the two events would not work otherwise. Furthermore, the Greek lexikons I’ve looked at indicate that παραλαμβάνω can mean either “to take to oneself” as an associate or companion or “to be led off as a prisoner,” as in John 19:16, where it is used of Jesus’ being taken to crucifixion. Given the context of Matthew 24:37-41, the latter would be a better fit.
February 3rd, 2011 | 2:57 pm | #6
What is always difficult for me to understand is how people can evaluate theology in such an ahistorical manner.
If you look at the history of this doctrine as it entered the U.S. in the late 1800s, it is anything but escapist. Maybe in the world of ideal forms in which the “logical” conclusion of a doctrine always indicates how individuals act, this is how it functions, but most individuals don’t live in that world.
If TT really wants to engage the doctrine as it relates to engaging the world, he will ask how many pentecostals can still hold the doctrine and also remain one of the fastest growing segments of Christianity with over 500 million in the world and counting. Does this seem escapist?
I have to confess that I am wearied by these text-based approaches that fail to look at actual Christian practices, and this from one who does not hold theologically to the “Left Behind” position.
February 3rd, 2011 | 7:19 pm | #7
“And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. ”
Matt 24:31
Did he not read the chapter? The context of that verse is the return of the Son of Man. In either case, there is no possible justification: if the unbelievers are taken in that passage, its to judgement, and it’s not good:
“And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn…”
Matt 24:30
Nothing about that passage has anything to do with regaining the earth, and even so, it would be criminal not to focus saving on souls, because the Earth can’t be damned to hell.
I’ll check out the book, but that’s not a good start at least in my opinion.
February 3rd, 2011 | 7:26 pm | #8
I think my problem was disappointment with the quoted argument — I was expecting a “skewering” (I was actually preparing to present the argument to a friend), but on looking at the text found a simple ambiguity; this specific text really could go either way.
If by “skewering” you meant “effective calling-out of shameful practices”, then I agree that the article did very well. But a premil evangelical could read this article, repent, and still be a premil. This article didn’t strike at the root of the problem: faulty exegesis.
-Wm
February 4th, 2011 | 12:13 pm | #9
pentamom/David – The context for the comparison is Jesus’ declaration in verse 36 that the day and hour are unknown. The comparison is to the unexpected nature of the flood, not to who is “taken” and who is “left behind”. Hence Jesus concludes, “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come.”
February 4th, 2011 | 2:36 pm | #10
“The comparison is to the unexpected nature of the flood, not to who is “taken” and who is “left behind.””
I follow you up to the word “not.” Why not both? What’s the exegetical/contextual reason for denying that it’s talking about the difference between who is taken and who is left in the sudden “deluge”?
I’m not deeply committed on this one either way — that just seems like a blithe assertion for which I don’t readily see the basis.
February 4th, 2011 | 5:00 pm | #11
You’re right, pentamom – I should have written “not necessarily”. However, I think there is perhaps a basis to drop “necessarily” given verse 31 (cf. 1 Thes. 4:17), if we’re generous in assuming that Jesus does not contradict himself in the span of 10 verses.
February 4th, 2011 | 8:59 pm | #12
It’s not a contradiction to say that vv. 36-41 are not about the same aspect of the same thing as v. 31. I don’t think even Tchividjian could argue that his interpretation proves that the common understanding of the rapture is wrong — his point is it’s “not about that.”
February 4th, 2011 | 11:36 pm | #13
He seems to be very explicitly arguing against the idea of a rapture:
I realize his greater point is not about the rapture, but that Christians ought not live as escapists. But to get there he argues against a rapture because it supposedly fosters an escapist attitude. Whereas for the apostle Peter, it’s the opposite: the coming destruction of the world is the incentive to live holy and godly lives (2 Peter 3:11), which in the context of his letter can mean nothing short of brotherly kindness and love.
February 5th, 2011 | 10:03 am | #14
He’s arguing against the point that *these verses* support the idea of a rapture. I assume, Tchividjian not being a fool, that he makes other arguments about other verses to demonstrate why the other verses you cite don’t absolutely teach in favor of one, and in other ways makes his case about “escapism.”
But to say these verses don’t support the rapture is not to make them “contradict” the verses that you say do — it just makes them about something else.
February 5th, 2011 | 6:51 pm | #15
My point is that there is no contextual basis for his exegesis of these verses. It is very transparent in the surrounding verses that Jesus is explaining that the coming of the Son of Man will be unexpected. He then uses the Noah narrative as a basis for comparison to that. Since there is no other context, to say that he uses the Noah narrative for any other point of comparison would need at least some sort of lexical support; but there is none.
Moreover in the parallel passage in Luke 17, it is clear that being taken is a good thing, and that the disciples shouldn’t look back like Lot’s wife when Lot left behind Sodom. There is simply no lexical, contextual, or parallel support for the idea that those taken are the unrighteous.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact