Matthew 24:1-51 ― so-called rapture, where some people will disappear or are taken up into the air to meet a descending Christ.  The story does talk about one being taken & one being left; but that word for “taken” (paralambanomai) doesn’t mean “to go up” or “to meet”, but “to go along with”.  It is used in the Transfiguration story: “Jesus took with him Peter and James and John his brother.”  It is used in the section on church discipline.  If someone has sinned against you, you are to go to him & tell him his fault.  If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you.
It isn’t a special word about floating up in the air.  It is much more like the fishermen or tax collector answering Jesus’ call to follow me – come along with me – let’s walk down the road together.

Van Eck, Ernest   “When Patrons are not Patrons: A Social-Scientific Reading of the Rich Man & Lazarus (Lk 16:19–26)”
In terms of a social-scientific reading, the parable is read against the backdrop of an advanced agrarian (aristocratic) society in which patronage & clientism played an important role.  Patrons who do not act like patrons create a society wherein a chasm so great between rich & poor is brought into existence that it cannot be crossed.

Colins, John J. & Adela Yarbro Collins, King & Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, & Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical & Related Literature (Eerdmans, 2008).
     Was Jesus “worshipped” as God?  Not really, according to the authors. Proskynesis had variable meanings (worship, bowing down, self-prostration). On the “higher end” of the scale is worship in its fullest sense. On the “lower end” is submission to a higher authority, like bowing down before a king. For the authors, Jesus was recognised as preexistent & divine, but not on binitarian terms.  As the messiah, Son of Man, son of God, etc. he was recognised as “a god” (Gospel of John) or the principal angel (Revelation), or God’s “first creature”. So “worship” of Jesus refers to submission to his power & authority, & his divinity, they appear to suggest, was more “functional” than “ontological”.

Duling, Dennis C.  “Memory, Collective Memory, Orality & the Gospels,” 67  Hervormde Teologiese Studies  (2010) 1
Duling, Dennis C.   “Social Memory & Biblical Studies: Theory, Method, & Application,”  Biblical Theology Bulletin  36 (Spring, 2006)

Cromhout, Markus  “A Clash of Symbolic Universes: Judeanism vs Hellenism”  Hervormde Teologiese Studies  63 (2007) 3
Hengel, Martin  The Hellenization of Judaea in the 1st Century after Christ  London: SCM, 1989

Malan, Gert J.   “Does John 17:11b, 21−23 Refer to Church Unity?”  Festschrift for Prof Andries Van Aarde
Sim, David C.   “The Pacifist Jesus & the Violent Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew,”  Festschrift for Prof Andries Van Aarde

Aarde, Andries G. van & Yolanda Dreyer   “Matthew Studies Today ‒ A Willingness to Suspect & a Willingness to Listen,”  Hervormde Teologiese Studies  66 (2010) 1
Rosell, Sergio   “Loving God… Unto Death: The Witness of the Early Christians,”  Hervormde Teologiese Studies  66 (2010) 1
Keener, Craig S.   “Cultural Comparisons for Healing & Exorcism Narratives in Matthew’s Gospel,”  Hervormde Teologiese Studies  66 (2010) 1