Page 176 - The Rapture Question by John F. Walvoord
P. 176

The Rapture Question: Revised and Enlarged Edition
                 able of the weeds. If the order is   a problem to pretrihu-
                 lationists, it is equally a problem to   posttribulationists. Fur­
                 ther, Reese failed to note that the opposite order is given in
                 connection with the good and bad fish that arc separated in
                 Matthew 13:48. with the good fish selected first. Accordingly.
                 Robert H. Gundry in his discussion of this problem, while in
                 general holding that it is a problem to pretribulationists,
                 avoided making it a solid argument for posttribulationism in
                 his discussion of this problem.-’ I he fact is the Rapture is not
                 in view. While Gundry's complicated explanation of the
                 problem is unacceptable to pretribulationists. at least he con­
                 ceded that there is no solid evidence for a posttribulational
                 Rapture in Matthew 13.
                          ls the Rapture in Matthew 24?
                    A number of contemporary posttribulationists have
                 found Matthew 24 an explicit statement of a posttribulational
                 Rapture. Gundry went farther than any others in advancing
                 this argument, coupled with his peculiar view of Matthew 25.
                 which records the judgment of the nations.
                    The exegesis of Matthew 24—25 has often been handled
                 inadequately by both pretribulationists and posttribu­
                 lationists, with much of the problem related to attempts to
                 read into the passage references to the church as the body of
                 Christ. A careful study of Matthew 24—25 will reveal that the
                 subject matter is the end of the age, and the age in view is the
                 same as that of Matthew 13, namely, the whole period be­
                 tween the first and second advents of Christ. This is brought
                 out in the exegesis of the passage itself, describing as it does
                 the general course of the present age, culminating in the Great
                 Tribulation and the second coming of Christ.
                    An illustration of the confused approach often taken to
                 Matthew 24 is found in Gundry’s consideration of the ques­
                 tion as to whether the Olivet Discourse is addressed to the
                 church or to Israel. He stated: “To what group of redeemed
                                     184
   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181