Page 171 - The Rapture Question by John F. Walvoord

The Rapture Question: Revised and Enlarged Edition
Elect seem undone, when all seem weak and liable to be de­
ceived by the terrible delusions of the End-time, He can stand
it no longer; He shortens the days of her affliction: He arises in
His pity, His majesty, His power and rescues His Elect by
gathering them to Himself (Matt. xxiv. 21-31, 40-1). , . . The
assertion of Kelly in his Second Coming (p. 211) that there is no
rapture at Matt. xxiv. 31. is as bold as it is unfounded. Our
Lord in that passage gave a perfect picture of the assembling
of the saved of this Dispensation by means of a rapture; St.
Mark even used for ‘gather’ the verbal form of the same word
used for ‘gathering’ in 2 Thess. ii. 1. where Paul refers to the
Rapture.’’45
The answer to Reese is simply that the fulfillment of Mat­
thew 24:31 does not prevent the fulfillment of the pretribula-
tional Rapture. While even pretribulationists have differed on
the reference to the “elect,” any of several explanations would
suffice to harmonize it with the pretribulational position. The
“elect” could be all the elect—the elect of all ages, living,
resurrected, or translated. Obviously, there is going to be a
great confluence of all the elect at the beginning of the
Millennium—all views agree on this. Some have taken it to
refer to the elect of Israel—they also will be gathered whether
in heaven or in earth. The point is that such a gathering does
not preclude a previous translation of the church any more
than the translation of Enoch and Elijah would thereby make
this gathering impossible.
The great weakness in Reese’s argument is that it does
not prove his point. There is no translation mentioned at all;
nor is there any resurrection in this passage. All that is stated
is that the elect are gathered. As proof for a posttribulational
translation, the passage is worthless. The view' of Kelly that
there is no Rapture here, said by Reese to be “as bold as it is
unfounded,”46 is true to the text of Scripture. It is Reese who
is reading into the passage more than it says.
Another passage cited by Reese in support of a posttribu-
178