"A Defense of the Pretribulational Rapture in Matthew 24:36–44" by John F. Hart is one of ten chapters by various contributors in Evidence for the Rapture edited by John F. Hart. He concludes that verse 36 transitions from Christ’s coming after the tribulation to His coming before the tribulation. And, therefore, the "one shall be taken" in rapture, and "the other left" will enter the tribulation.
Matthew 24:36 reads, "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." Other Bible passages imply that the day of Christ’s coming cannot be known, or hint at it, but this passage comes right out and says so. In fact, the Olivet Discourse contains the strongest statement of imminency in the entire Bible.
But how does this passage fit into the context Matthew 24 which outlines events leading up to Christ’s return? If we know the signs ahead of time, and if the tribulation lasts for a set amount of time, then how can the day not be known? Does verse 36 continue in the same context, or does it transition to a different day?
I am thankful that Hart brings this dilemma to the forefront, because that makes us think about solutions. Three possible solutions come to mind.
First, Hart’s solution sees verse 36 as a transition to a different day, a day before the tribulation. This review will evaluate some reasons behind that interpretation.
Second, another solution sees verse 36 as referring only to Christ’s coming after the tribulation. Rather than transitioning to a different day, it keeps the connection to the context. Different people find different reasons why that day will be unknown in spite of the signs preceding. To evaluate this solution is beyond the scope of this review. (See my discussion of the known day vs. the unknown day here.)
Third, the solution I offer is similar to the solution we agree on for Old Testament prophecies that view Christ’s two-fold coming as one. Verse 36 refers to both days, the day after the tribulation primarily, and to the day before the tribulation by application. This solution keeps the connection to the context. To explain this solution is beyond the scope of this review. (See that explanation here.)
Now back to the first solution and the evaluation of it. This solution correctly sees that the day is not known. In order for that day to be unknown, the reasoning goes, it has to transition away from the preceding context. And it finds clues in the context to break away from the context. These clues we will evaluate.
Think of a delicious apple high in the tree. You want to grab it, but the apple is too high to reach. So what do you do? Do you chop down the tree to get the apple? Or do you find some other way to get the apple? The apple represents the goal we want to achieve. If we could find a way to achieve the imminency of Matthew 24:36 and preserve its connection to the context too, that would be the ideal solution.
I'm not denying access to the apple. All I'm saying is that we can get to it a different way. In other words, for Matthew 24:36, let's keep its continuity with the context and recognize that it refers primarily to Christ's coming after the tribulation. Unbelievers will be taken by surprise when that day comes. And then, by secondary application, it also refers to the rapture before the tribulation. Believers will not know when that day is, and should be alertly awake in anticipation.
Let me start with two obvious observations about the Olivet Discourse in Matthew.
First, the most obvious parallel passage is Luke 17:2037. Actually, it is the only other passage containing the phrase "the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left." If the meaning were clear in Luke 17, then that would make the meaning clear in Matthew 24 also.
To illustrate, suppose your friends had a deep discussion about what kind of birthday cake to make for you. Hear their vigorous conversation about vanilla or chocolate, two-layer or three-layer, fifty candles or one candle. Well, in due time they learn that you had already decided you wanted apple pie instead of cake. That makes all of their reasonings irrelevant. Likewise, Luke 17 decides the issue for us. The context makes it clear that those taken are taken in destruction. From the first verse to the last verse and the context in between, it all points to Christ’s coming after the tribulation and the destruction that happens at that time. (See a discusson of Luke 17 here.) Our interpretation of Matthew 24, therefore, should account for this parallel passage.
Second, the most obvious Old Testament parallel is Isaiah. Six times in the six verses preceding verse 36 Jesus refers to Isaiah. So if Jesus had Isaiah in mind when He spoke these words, we also should have Isaiah in mind when we interpret His words. These words point to His coming after the tribulation. If we go by Isaiah, then we conclude that "that day" comes after the tribulation. (See the Isaiah parallel explained here.)
These two obvious observations should settle the matter. I could put down my pen now and walk away. But I sense that you may want to hang around a little longer, and so I will too. Let’s talk more about Matthew 24:36.
But first, let me admit that I too once thought that Matthew 24:36 transitioned from Christ’s coming after the tribulation to His coming before the tribulation. It had to be so because it says, "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." This could not be the day after the tribulation, because that day is known. The only way I could harmonize my pre-trib view was to say that this verse transitioned to a different day.
But I could not get off that easy. My brother showed me that in Luke 17, the illustration of Noah applies to the tribulation period, not to the church age. We might think that the normalcy of eating, drinking, and marrying, as in the days of Noah, prove church age. But not so in Luke 17. We might think that the "one taken" must mean rapture. But not so in Luke 17.
So in light of Luke 17 I was forced to read Matthew 24 again. I read it again and again and again. Did verse 36 jump to a different day? Or did it continue talking about the same day? Finally, the force of the context hit me like a ton of bricks on my forehead. Verse 36 continues from the context leading up to it.
What about the opening words of verse 36, peri de, translated "but of" in the King James Version or "and concerning" in Young’s Literal Translation? What kind of transition do these words imply? The Greek New Testament has two words translated "but." One is a strong adversative showing sharp contrast. The one used here is mild at most, and it often shows continuation and can be translated "and." To illustrate, see Matthew 22:30-31 which uses both. Verse 31 is referenced in a footnote of Hart’s, because it uses the same phrase, peri de. This passage reads, "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying …" The first "but" contrasts the angels of heaven who do not marry as we now do. That is the sharp contrast. With the second "but" Jesus continues talking about the same resurrection, not a different resurrection. He merely adds new insight to it. This passage comes from the same book, the same author, and reflects the same usage of peri de as does Matthew 24:36. Just as Matthew 22:31 talks about the same resurrection, so also Matthew 24:36 talks about the same day.
The phrase peri de may hint at a new element. But the phrase itself does not prove a different day. Whatever may be different in the context must come from the context. What is the new and different element in this context? The day and hour is not known. Not knowing, surprise, that is the new element introduced here. But it’s still the same day that Jesus has been talking about. Surprise, surprise, surprise. That is the new element. And that explains the use of peri de.
Another usage of peri de occurs in 1 Thessalonians 5:1, "But of the times and the seasons, brethren . . . ." By Hart’s view, the day of 1 Thessalonians 5 is the same day as 1 Thessalonians 4. So by his own view, peri de by itself does not prove a different day. (I happen to be convinced that 1 Thessalonians 5 talks about a different day. But that is another subject discussed here.) The point is, peri de does not prove a different day.
The parallel passage in Luke 17 has no peri de. As noted above, Luke 17 has no transition to another day. Down to the last verse it is still talking about the final day.
The next phrase in verse 36 of Matthew 24 is "that day and hour." Hart points out the difference between "that day" (singular) used in this verse and "those days" (plural) used in the verses before. Is the singular a clear inference that a new and distinct "day" is being described? A day prior? Well, think about it. The days of the tribulation naturally end in one climactic day. Verse 27 says, "For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." An event that quick surely happens on one climactic day. The days of a football season (plural) culminate in one Super Bowl day (singular). Likewise, the days of the tribulation in this context lead up to the day of the second coming, the day (singular) that the disciples originally asked about. That would be a natural inference if we stick to the context.
Let’s consider the phrase further. When it says "that day", what is the antecedent of "that"? Naturally, that day refers to the day of His coming just mentioned. The antecedent is in the previous context.
But Hart does not point to an antecedent in the previous context. Instead, following many commentators, he points to the Old Testament day of the Lord. "That day" refers to the Old Testament day. For the sake of argument, let’s follow that line of thought to its conclusion. Remember, we opened this article with two obvious parallels. Luke 17 is the first obvious parallel to Matthew 24. The second obvious parallel is Isaiah, because in six verses Jesus refers to Isaiah six times. Therefore, if we are to look for an Old Testament day, then logically it would be the day that Isaiah and Jesus refer to. What day is that? It is the day that the Son of man gathers together elect Israel from the four corners of the earth back to Jerusalem (Matthew 24:31, compare Isaiah 11:12 and 27:1213). When does that happen? After the tribulation. So "that day" has a perfectly valid antecedent in the Olivet Discourse and in the Old Testament both.
Remember, two obvious parallels are Luke 17 and Isaiah. A less obvious parallel is 1 Thessalonians, and Paul describes the rapture in 1 Thessalonians 4. Does Paul base his rapture revelation on what Jesus says in the Olivet Discourse? Many commentators say "yes." But think it through.
First, the most striking similarity between both passages is that both use the word "trumpet." In spite of that similarity, pretribulationists agree that these are two different trumpets that blow on two different days. So Paul did not get his "trumpet" revelation from the Olivet Discourse.
Second, the article claims a similarity of thought between the "one taken" in the Olivet Discourse with "caught up" in 1 Thessalonians 4. If Paul did not pick up the same word from the Olivet Discourse, did he at least derive the thought from it? If we know that unbelievers are also taken away after the tribulation (Luke 17:2037, Revelation 14:1420), then the possibility remains that Jesus and Paul referred to different events.
Third, did Paul get the idea of "the dead in Christ shall arise first" from the Olivet Discourse? No, that is not mentioned there. Paul provides a whole handful of ideas not mentioned before.
Fourth, Paul writes in Galatians 1:12: "For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." God normally gave revelation directly to Paul instead of through the mediation of men. Now the Olivet Discourse was spoken by Jesus and was later passed on by men, both orally and in written form. Paul was not there to hear Jesus speak on the Mount of Olives; so if Paul learned of the rapture from the Olivet Discourse, he would have learned of it through men. If it really happened this way, then it would be an exception to Galatians 1:12.
By the way, not only was Paul’s rapture revelation new since Jesus spoke, it was also new to the Thessalonians since he visited them. He did not teach it previously in person. He only revealed it later by letter. (See that evidence here.)
What is the true interplay between Jesus and Paul? After doing an inductive study, letting the evidence fall where it may, I observe this progress of revelation. The progress of revelation means that God reveals truths one step at a time, not all at once, starting in Genesis 1, unfolding, unfolding, and ending in Revelation 22. Like other truths related to our salvation, the rapture revelation unfolds gradually. First, Jesus reveals the surprise of His coming, not revealing a description of the rapture Second, Paul reveals the description of the rapture, not revealing the chronology. Third, John in Revelation reveals the chronology of the rapture, not repeating the full description.
Accepting the progress of revelation means that we feel no pressure to prove points prematurely. We merely follow the flow.
So far we have evaluated three clues, namely peri de as a transitional phrase, "that day" and its antecedent, and the singular day vs. plural days. Finally, let me offer another clue. This clue comes in the form of a puzzle. Once we piece the puzzle together we can view the whole picture.
Have you noticed a most obvious puzzle piece that does not seem to fit? In the illustration of Noah, would you expect Jesus to liken the disciples to Noah or to the flood victims? Well, Noah was saved from the flood, and so naturally you would expect the disciples to be like Noah. But, unexpectedly, Jesus likens the disciples to the flood victims because they knew not.
In the illustration of the goodman of the house, would you expect Jesus to compare the disciples to the goodman who watches? Well, if he is watching, then we would expect the disciples to be like him. But that goodman knows when the thief is coming. So unexpectedly Jesus exhorts the disciples to watch for the opposite reason that the goodman watches: "Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh" (Matthew 24:44). In contrast, the goodman watches because he knows. "If the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched" (Matthew 24:43).
The disciples do not fit neatly into the goodman illustration. And they do not fit as expected into the Noah illustration. Back to back puzzle pieces these are. Coincidence? Maybe it’s meant for us to look more closely in order to put the whole picture together. When I finally noticed these puzzle pieces and took a closer look, it opened up the passage for me. I hope it does for you too. (See more about the puzzle here.)
A one-legged table will fall over. A two-legged table will fall over. A four-legged table will not fall over, but it may wobble when sitting on an uneven floor. But a three-legged table will stand securely. This review has three legs. Let’s see how they stand.
One view sees verse 36 as transitioning away from the preceding context and pointing to a totally different day. This view relies on the leg of imminency in verse 36. It does not claim to stand on the leg of the context, because it purposely transitions away from it. And it offers no explanation for the leg of the back-to-back puzzle pieces of Noah and the goodman.
Another view sees verse 36 as referring only to the day after the tribulation. This view relies on the leg of the context which explains the signs and events leading up to Christ’s return. But because believers watch through those signs, the leg of imminency becomes quite a challenge to explain. Also this view offers no explanation for the leg of the back-to-back puzzle pieces of Noah and the goodman.
Each of the first two views relies on one leg out of three. The view I offer (see full discussion here) stands on strong Biblical support for all three legs. It allows the context its full force, even recognizing that verse 36 refers primarily to the day after the tribulation. Also, it allows verse 36 its full implication of imminency, recognizing that unbelievers during the tribulation will not know the day and that believers before the tribulation will not know the day. And finally, what makes standing on the first two legs possible, this view rests firmly on the third leg, because it takes the back-to-back puzzle pieces and places them into the picture.