ex pre-tribulation rapture Christians?

[pretrib]

THE RIDDLE OF THE VIRGINS

The parable of the virgins (Matthew 25:1–13), amazingly enough, follows the identical pattern of the Noah illustration and the goodman illustration. The double-reference interpretation fits snugly and comfortably, not only one way, or two ways, but in three ways.

Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. And five of them were wise, and five were foolish. They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them: but the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps. While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept. And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him. Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps. And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out. But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves. And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut. Afterwards came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not. Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.
​

Let me ask you a couple easy questions first. The five wise virgins and the five foolish virgins are waiting to attend the wedding. Who do the five wise virgins represent? They represent tribulation saints. Remember, we are saying within the framework of the context which places these illustrations in a tribulational time setting.
Second question, who do the foolish virgins represent? The bridegroom says to them, "I know you not." So the foolish virgins must be unbelievers.
Now, into which category do the disciples fit? Not the foolish virgins. How about the wise virgins? Are the disciples like the wise virgins waiting to attend the wedding? Well, yes and no. The disciples will be at the wedding all right, but not as attendants. They are the bride! You and I are not virgins who attend the wedding, we are the bride at the wedding. If this parable were talking about the rapture of the bride, we might entitle it, "The Case of the Missing Bride."
Therefore, neither category fits the disciples perfectly, but the double-reference fits perfectly because it recognizes two groups of redeemed people.

The illustration of the virgins carries a different twist to it, because it dwells not so much on knowing or not knowing, but it emphasizes readiness or preparedness. Perhaps this is why it stands separate from Noah and the goodman instead of following immediately after them.


wise virgins
ready
attend wedding
foolish virgins
not ready
miss wedding
disciples
ready
bride at wedding


Some have said that the virgins represent the church because the church is called a "virgin" in 2 Corinthians 11:2. Others have said the virgins represent Israel because Israel is called a "virgin" in Jeremiah 18:13. But "virgin" in these verses is singular, not plural. Is the church ten virgins? Or are there ten Israels? No, rather than representing Israel or the church, the parable of the virgins depicts people in general living during the tribulation, saved and unsaved, Jew or Gentile. This interpretation avoids the oddity of the church being made up of multiple virgins, it allows the foolish virgins to be unsaved ("I know you not"), and it matches the illustrations of Noah and the goodman which depict the saved and the unsaved of the tribulation.
Viewing the bride and her attendants as two different groups harmonizes with common sense and with other Scripture. Just as we saw that a period of time following the rapture is to call out a righteous people to populate the millennium, so God has a period of time following the receiving of the bride in order to call out the bride's attendants. These are "the virgins her companions that follow her" (Psalms 45:14). The "friends of the bridegroom" are Old Testament saints (John 3:29). In this way the wedding is completely furnished—friends, bride, and attendants; none are missing, but all have their counterparts in real life as prophecy is fulfilled.

REMAINING QUESTIONS

We have surveyed the double-reference interpretation of the Olivet Discourse. More remains to be said, however, and several questions need to be answered. Let's handle the rest of the material in question and answer form.

Question: How Do I Separate the Double References? Does it all seem too fuzzy? Too blurred? Is the distinction between church saints and tribulation saints too hard to separate as you read through the passage? Then let me give you a practical hint that will help you to see it at a glance.
Take a pen and bracket Matthew 24:37–39 in your Bible. Beside the bracket write "tribulation illustration." Now bracket verse 42. (Verses 40–41 we will discuss later on.) Beside it write "church application." Also bracket verse 43 as "tribulation illustration and bracket verse 44 as "church application." Finally bracket 25:1–12 as "tribulation illustration" and bracket verse 13 as "church application."
Now you can see that it is not mixed up. It follows a pattern. Actually it is easier for you to distinguish the double references than it was for Old Testament saints to distinguish their double references. The reason for this we discussed in our chapter on 2 Thessalonians.
When Jesus gave a "tribulation illustration" and a "church application" He was simply doing what preacher do every Sunday when they preach. You've heard the preacher as he tells a story from the Bible and then he concludes with, "Now this is what it means for you." He's taking the ancient story and applying it to modern life. You in the pew have no trouble separating the story from the application.
Jesus did identically. He first told the story about Noah. From that story He made application to the disciples. He first told the parable of the goodman. From that He drew an application to the disciples. He first told the parable of the virgins. From that, application.
All the way through the two parts are clearly distinguished. You can separate the double references of the Olivet Discourse just as easily as you can separate the application from the preacher's story.

Question: How Does it Fit the Context? I share the concern of many to remain strictly within the context and to do nothing whatsoever to injure the time-setting of the Olivet Discourse. Matthew 24:29 says "after the tribulation." That time-setting governs the illustrations which follow. The illustrations of Noah, the goodman, and the virgins all fall into the context of "after the tribulation."
This being so, how can I get a church reference out of a post-tribulational context? Am I not reading something into the text that is not there?
The answer is simple. I see no church reference whatsoever in the illustrations of Noah, the goodman, and the virgins. These three illustrations remain strictly within the post-tribulational context. The references to the church come in the applications following the illustrations, and nothing is more natural than a preacher drawing such applications to his hearers.


Illustration of Noah
This primary reference preserves the tribulational context.
Application to church
This secondary reference preserves the unknown day.


In this way we fully satisfy the demands of the context. Nothing is wrenched out of place, twisted, or distorted, but it all fits naturally.
Let me go even further. The double-reference interpretation has a stronger view of the context than post-tribulationism does. Surprising? I'll show you why. Jesus says, "The flood came and took them all away." We allow this statement its full force. Just as all the flood victims were taken away, so all the wicked of the end times will be taken away. We allow the illustration full correspondence with the end times just as Jesus intended it.
In contrast, post-tribulationists have a lack of correspondence to the end times. They cannot allow all the wicked to be destroyed as all the flood victims were destroyed. According to their scheme some wicked would have to survive to populate the millennium. In this way post-tribs muffle the comparison. The flood victims do not provide a true or a full comparison.
Rather than squelching the context, we are happy to allow the post-tribulational context its full force.

Question: Why Did Jesus Give Three Illustrations? He gave three so that we would be sure to get the point, to be ready for His return. They reinforce each other. I am glad He gave three so that I would be three times as sure of the double-reference interpretation. The strength of the double-reference interpretation is that it can handle all three illustrations in one swoop because they all follow the same pattern. The weakness of other interpretations is that they cannot come up with a unified explanation for the riddles each illustration presents. If they even try to answer the riddles at all, they might be able to juggle around an assortment of explanations hodgepodge style. But why try to juggle three balls with one hand, unless you're a juggling artist instead of an exegete?
The three illustrations reinforce each other, but also one builds upon the other in a progression of thought. The illustration of Noah and the flood teaches surprise. The illustration of the goodman teaches readiness in light of that surprise. And the parable of the virgins teaches advance readiness.

 

[pretrib]

Question: Do Other Gospels Contain Double Reference? If Matthew's Gospel contains double reference, then what about other Gospels? Do they contain similar double references? Yes. What I learned from Matthew 24 helped me to understand Luke 12. For a long time I was puzzled by an incongruity in Luke 12:36, a riddle if you please. As you recall, this passage places Christ's return after the wedding processional, and it tells us to be like men who wait for His return after the wedding.

And ye yourselves [be] like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return from the wedding; that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately.
​

My puzzlement was this: I thought I was waiting for the wedding, the rapture. How could I be around to wait for His return after the wedding?
Double reference solves the riddle.
I am not one of those men who wait for His return after the wedding. I am merely like those men in that I, like them, am ready and waiting. Again the application does not fit the illustration unless we recognize that two distinct groups are in view. Church saints wait for the wedding, tribulation saints wait for His return after the wedding. This interpretation accepts the precise wording of the text as well as dissolving the riddle.
To help you remember this, bracket Luke 12:35–39 in your Bible (this includes the illustration of the goodman also), and label this "tribulation illustration." Then bracket verse 40 as "church application."

"the coming of the Son of man"​

for tribulation saints
upon tribulation wicked
for church saints

primary reference​

secondary application
Noah and the flood victims
knew and safe
knew not and destroyed
know not but safe
goodman of the house
knew and watched
knew not and watched not
know not but watch
wise and foolish virgins
ready
not ready
ready but bride
men waiting
ready after wedding

ready before wedding


The remarkable feature is that the third group in each case is distinct from either of the first two groups. Either Jesus was poor in making His conclusions fit the illustration or else He had something different in mind that what we had noticed before.
Another case of double reference is Mark 13 because it addresses the church after talking about the tribulation.

For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch. Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning. Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping. And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch (Mark 13:34–37).
​

This illustration follows a different pattern; so for a post-trib this is no proof. But for those of us who are already pre-trib, we must see this as applying to the church because the time commences from when the Son of man leaves. This plants the illustration squarely in the church age.

 

[pretrib]

Question: Can Christ Return at "Any Moment"? To disprove the idea that Christ can return at "any moment" post-tribulationists have argued that He could not have returned during the first few years of the church's existence. Time was needed for Peter to grow old and die (John 21:18–19), time was needed to fulfill the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18–20), and similar arguments.
How do I answer these arguments? I don't really need to answer them because I do not depend on the "any-moment" doctrine. The Bible does not say that Christ will return at "any moment." All it says is that He will return "at an hour when ye think not." Suppose it is true that He could not have come during the first generation of the church. What difference does it make now? Whenever He does come, He still will come "at an hour when ye think not." Maybe He could not have come at "any moment" during the first generation, but that does not prevent Him from surprising us in this generation.

Question: Can Noah Apply to Church Saints? We have explained that Noah represents tribulation saints. Can Noah also represent church saints who are raptured before the tribulation?
Maybe.
It is true that we are like Noah in safety, but Matthew 24 does not draw the comparison. As we have seen, Matthew 24 keeps Noah in a strict tribulational context. So he represents tribulation saints primarily, but if Noah represents church saints by secondary application we have to go to other Scripture, outside of Matthew 24, to find it.
In our chapter on Luke 17 we saw that "the day that Noah entered into the ark" refers not only to the end of the tribulation, but it also covers the entire period (Luke 17:26–31). It is all one day of entering the ark as far as God is concerned. If the seven years are one day from the rapture to the revealing, and if the "day that Noah entered into the ark" includes the rapture, then Noah himself can apply to the saints raptured. This is an inference based upon the use of "day" in Luke 17:31. (If this inference is correct, it is evidence that the tribulation begins the same day as the rapture.)
Genesis 7 tells the story of Noah. In Genesis 7:1 God says to Noah, "Come." This reminds us of the "come" of Revelation 4:1 which appears to be a veiled representation of the rapture, and the "come" of Revelation 11:12 which is a rapture-type event. Then God says His purpose is "to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth" (Genesis 7:3). We have seen in chapter three that the pre-trib rapture followed by the calling out of saints during the tribulation is for the purpose of keeping a righteous seed alive upon the earth to populate the millennium.
Then God says, "For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain ... and Noah went ... into the ark ... and it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth" (excerpts from Genesis 7:4–10). Likewise, church saints respond to the "come" seven years before the destruction. The Genesis account thus far sounds like Noah entered the ark seven days before the flood, and we would never think otherwise if the passage stopped here.
But a second account follows (Genesis 7:11–16) which shows that Noah actually entered the ark on the very day the flood began (implying that he was loading the ark for the seven days). Thus God inspired Moses to write a double account which fits a two-fold application of Noah. The first account envisions raptured saints and the second tribulation saints. Either the double Genesis account is a coincidence, or else God planned it that way.

Question: Do Some Know When the Thief Comes? As we mentioned in our chapter on First Thessalonians, Christ's coming as a thief is a post-trib figure rather than a pre-trib figure. Accordingly, the illustration of the goodman and the thief here in Matthew 24 occurs in a post-tribulational context. The question comes, "Does not the figure of the thief imply surprise? Doesn't this prove that tribulation saints will not know the day of Christ's return?"
The thief does come in surprise, but not all are surprised by the thief. Some know when the thief will come. "If the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched" (Matthew 24:43). Do tribulation saints know only the "watch" (general time), but not the "hour" (specific time)? No, for Luke 12:39 says, "If the goodman of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched."
Therefore, those watching do know when the thief comes.

Question: Who Is the Servant? In the Olivet Discourse we have two parables about servants. How do they fit into our interpretation?
In Matthew 24:45–51 we have a faithful servant and an evil servant. The evil servant meets the post-trib coming. This is clear because he is cast into hell, and no one is cast into hell at the pre-trib coming. "There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." The word "there" is an adverb pointing to the place of punishment, namely hell. "There" looks like part of the verb as it is written in English, but in Greek it is clear that it means "there—in that place of punishment."
When I consciously sin, often I am guilty of the same attitude as that evil servant who said, "My lord delayeth his coming." I am tempted to reason this way: "The Lord has waited these many years; the chances are He will delay a little longer while I commit this sin."
This is the very attitude that Jesus teaches against. We should not use His delay as an excuse to sin. Of course, the evil servant was unsaved and went to hell, and if I am saved that is all the more reason I should have no part of that wicked attitude. Saved people should not act like unsaved people.
The evil servant meets the post-trib coming, but who is the faithful servant? Does he meet the pre-trib or the post-trib coming? This is not clear. The servant's duty and reward fits either church saints or tribulation saints. Jesus talks as though anyone can be that faithful servant. But if it is double reference I cannot prove it as I can the other three illustrations.
In the parable of the servants and the talents (Matthew 25:14–30) we have more to go on. The time span is from when the Lord leaves to when He returns to cast the wicked into hell, from the time the Lord's feet leave the Mount of Olives until the time His feet touch the Mount of Olives. This offers no proof to post-tribulationists, but to pre-tribulationists it shows that this parable covers the church age and the tribulation period. This makes the parable have double reference simply because it spans both time periods.
The first parable of the servant stresses continual readiness while the parable of the servants and the talents teaches how to be ready for the Lord's coming. Readiness means doing the job God gives us to do, thoroughly, faithfully, no matter how small a job it is. Being faithful each moment will not save us, but it is a way of readiness for those already saved (Ephesians 2:8–10).

 

[pretrib]

Question: Who Is the One Taken and the One Left? After Jesus gives the illustration of Noah and the flood, He says,

Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left (Matthew 24:40–41).
​

Who is the one taken? Who is the one left? I've seen it argued both ways. We can say that Noah was taken into the ark and the rest were left to drown. Or we can say that the flood victims were taken away and Noah was left to live on the earth. The context can go either way. Which is right? Are the righteous or the wicked taken?
The definition of "taken" can go either way also. In the Greek it is a compound word which means "take along" or "take with." This fits the taking of the saints along with Christ at the rapture. It also fits the taking of the wicked along with the "angel-reapers" to cast them into the winepress of the wrath of God. Elsewhere in the New Testament the word is used in both the good sense and the bad sense. So the definition of the word can go either way. Which is right?
One might argue that the word "took" in verse 39 (the flood "took" them all away) is a different Greek word than "taken" in verse 40 ("one shall be taken"). "Took" in verse 39 means "take up" or "take away." If you wanted to argue from this word you could say that the wicked are "taken away" after the tribulation or you could say that the saints are "taken up" at the rapture. In the latter case our likeness to the flood victims becomes two-fold, our not knowing and our being taken away. This fully satisfies the comparison Jesus makes between them and the disciples. All this would be by application only since the flood victims primarily represent the unbelievers who are destroyed after the tribulation.
Who is taken? The righteous or the wicked? You might argue that since these verses follow the illustration of Noah they fall into the same tribulational context. On the other hand they precede the application Jesus makes to His disciples, a church context. They are sandwiched between a tribulation illustration and a church application. Either single-reference interpretation accounts for some of the facts, but what interpretation accounts for all the facts?
Because these verses are sandwiched between the tribulation illustration and the church application, and because the meaning can go either way, I believe it is double reference. Who is taken? Both are taken. When are they taken? At both times. Church saints are taken at the rapture and unbelievers are taken after the tribulation.
Jesus left it ambiguous in order to include both times. If He intended one time only He certainly could have made it clear as He did in Luke 17 (see chapter nine). But here He didn't. He stated it in such a way that it could apply to both times.
Since we mentioned Luke 17, let's learn something else by way of comparison. As you remember, in Luke 17 the emphasis was destruction. In Matthew 24 the emphasis is, not destruction, but surprise. Surprise fits both comings; destruction does not. Matthew 24 fits both comings, Luke 17 does not.
I always thought it strange that "one shall be taken and one left" in both passages where it occurred (Matthew 24 and Luke 17) should not refer to the rapture since it made such a perfect description of the rapture. I wondered why the Bible would omit describing the rapture in this way. But now I see that Matthew 24 includes the rapture, and I find it satisfying, not only to the brain, but also to the heart.

 

[pretrib]

Question: If "No Man" Knows the Day, How Can Tribulation Saints Know the Day? We spent an entire chapter, chapter two, to prove that tribulation saints will know the day of Christ's return. If this is true, how do we explain Matthew 24:36?

But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
​

If only the Father in heaven knows the day and hour, then how can tribulation saints know it? If the angels don't know it, how can man know it?
An easy way to get around it would be to deny that this refers to the post-trib coming and to say that it refers only to the pre-trib rapture. But this would be to forget the context which places the verse squarely in a post-trib setting.
Post-tribs may use this verse as any easy out, as an excuse to ignore all the evidence in chapter two that tribulation saints will know the day. But that is not exegesis; that is merely throwing Scripture against Scripture, like trying to demolish a wall of bricks by hurling another brick at it.
How can we find out what this verse is really saying? Let's begin with the tense of the word "know." It is present tense. No one knows now, in the present, but some may know later. This interpretation solves the problem, but is this a twisted interpretation forced upon the verse, or is this a natural interpretation arising out from the verse itself?
Let us let the angels answer that for us, shall we? Certainly the angels do not know the time now as the verse says. But the question arises, will the angels know later after the tribulation begins? Evidence indicates that they will. When Daniel asked the angel how long it was, he answered in a manner showing that he understood how long it was from the abomination of desolation (Daniel 12:6–13). The reason the angel did not make it plain to Daniel is not that he didn't know but because the book was sealed. He gave the impression that he himself would know when the time came.
If the angel in Daniel understood the chronology it is likely that the angels in Revelation also understand the chronology. It is an angel which transmitted the message to John (Revelation 1:1). Angels played key roles throughout the process of revealing the book to John. In transmitting the message the impression is given also that the angels understood the message. Not that they understand as much as God, but at least, being of great intelligence and with their understanding undimmed by sin, they would be able to know what is knowable, namely the revealed chronology from the abomination of desolation to the return of Christ.
Now Jesus' use of the angels is key to understanding the argument of the verse. The argument is that if angels, who are on a higher scale than man, whose intelligence is greater and undimmed by sin, if they do not know, then man who is on a lower scale and of lower intelligence, cannot possibly know. Jesus intends to impress upon us that knowledge of that day is so far out of reach that even the angels do not know. Angels are used as proof, then, proof that man cannot know the day of Christ's return.
Now, the crux of the matter is that if there comes a time when angels will know, then that proof vanishes. As the proof vanishes this leaves the door open for man to know the day also.
If Jesus intended to make an airtight case that man could never know the day of His return, then He would have used stronger proof than the angels. But His very choice of the angels as proof is a clue that when the ignorance of angels ceases, then the ignorance of man ceases also.
Is this argument from the angels not enough for you? That is all right. We do not lack for arguments. We have also the argument from the Son. This verse in Matthew does not mention the Son, but the parallel verse in Mark 13:32 includes the Son as being ignorant of that day. In His state of humiliation upon the earth the Son of God voluntarily gave up knowing some things. He no longer fully exercised His omniscience as God. But after the resurrection and ascension He returned to His former glory (John 17:5). The Son's ignorance was temporary while upon this earth. Maybe some will deny angels future knowledge of that day, even though Scripture indicates otherwise, but who would dare deny the glorified Son knowledge of that day?
Verse 36, then, speaks of ignorance in the present, thrice over, whether it be the present tense of "know" or the reference to angels or to the Son. Such a threefold clue is significant. The verse says nothing about ignorance in the future. Therefore, we are left with no verse in the whole Bible which proves that tribulation saints will not know the day of Christ's return. If there is such a verse, where is it?
Let's analyze this further. Some may reply that although this verse by itself does not prove permanent ignorance, with the context it does prove it. Does not the context show that Jesus is talking about ignorance of the post-trib return? Does not he context indicate that ignorance will persist until the return of Christ?
We can answer this in two ways. First, it is true that no one knows the time of the post-trib return now. No one can know that until after the tribulation begins or at the latest by the abomination of desolation which is the 1260-day landmark. We, as the disciples, view His coming from this side of the tribulation. From this time perspective, the verse is correct when it says that no one knows the day of the post-trib return.
But this is only part of the explanation because the context implies that ignorance of the day will persist until Christ's coming. The context which implies that ignorance will persist until Christ's coming is the same context which gives us double reference. When viewed in light of this double reference, the problems of the verse disappear like the fog vanishes before the morning sun.
It is true. Ignorance does persist for everyone until Christ returns. The unsaved will not know until He comes upon them in judgment and the saved will not know until He comes for them in rapture. For both groups existing presently, ignorance persists until one coming or the other. The double reference views both groups which exist in the present and which will continue until one coming or the other, but omits that group of the future, namely tribulation saints. In this way the verse conforms to the context, because it allows ignorance to persist until Christ returns, and it retains the reference to the post-trib return.
One might object that the expression "that day" does not admit a double reference because of the preceding context which speaks exclusively of the post-trib return. If the preceding context were the only consideration the force of that argument could be admitted, but there is not only a preceding context but there is also a context following. In fact, if one rope pulls it back, a stronger rope pulls it forward also, and that rope is the word "but" in the next verse. "But" introduces the explanation of "that day." As Jesus explains "that day," He gives the illustrations of Noah, the goodman, and the virgins, and He brings in the application to the church following each illustration. In other words, "that day" is explained in terms of double reference.
So this verse has ropes pulling in both directions—it is the turning point in the argument of the Olivet Discourse. It is the point of transition from the exclusively post-trib coming to the dual aspect of His coming.
If Matthew 24:36 refers to both comings, why is it in the singular, "that day"? Christ's coming in the Old Testament was viewed as one, even though the suffering and ruling aspects of it have been separated by 2000 years. So it is perfectly natural for the two aspects of Christ's second coming to be viewed as one. Why swallow 2000 years and strain at a mere seven years, especially when the Bible views the seven years as one day (Luke 17:30–31)? Technically the New Testament does refer to the second coming as one coming even though there are two aspects to it. Sometimes we loosely call it two comings, and so post-tribulationists accuse us of believing in two comings when the Bible speaks of only one coming. But just as the Old Testament viewed the two aspects as one coming, so I believe the two aspects of Christ's second coming are properly viewed as one coming.
To help you remember all this, you can mark your Bible as suggested:


refers to
both times
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
tribulation
illustration
37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
refers to
both times
40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
church
application
42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
tribulation
illustration
43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.
church
application
44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.

 

[pretrib]

As we discussed in our chapter on Second Thessalonians, Isaiah 9:2–7 seesaws back and forth between the two comings. But you can understand Matthew 24 better than Old Testament saints could understand Isaiah 9. The reason for that is also in the chapter on Second Thessalonians.

Question: Why Did Jesus Not Come Right Out and Say So? Why did Jesus conceal the two aspects of His coming in double reference? If He was coming twice, why did He not com right out and say so? I could ask the same question about the Old Testament, but somehow that question doesn't seem to bother us.
Part of the answer is that God reveals truths progressively or in stages. He lays the basic foundation of surprise here in Matthew, describes the rapture in First Thessalonians, and nails down the time of the rapture in Revelation. Keeping this progress of revelation in mind will prevent us from being disappointed at the non-mention of the rapture in Matthew. Matthew in the New Testament is like Genesis of the Old Testament.
Genesis through Malachi gradually unfolds a progress of revelation concerning Christ's first coming. As the progression unfolds, there are hints that He will come twice, once to die and once to rule. But even then we find no clear statement that He will come twice. Likewise with the second coming, revelation indicates two aspects, and revelation on His second coming is even clearer chronologically than revelation on His first coming. Maybe the Jews misunderstood the first coming, but there is no excuse for the church to fall into the same trap and misunderstand His second coming.
In addition to progressive revelation, another reason that Matthew conceals the pre-trib rapture in double reference is that this truth is not a "pearl to be cast before swine." In addition to being written for Christians, the book of Matthew served as an "evangelistic tract" intended to convince Jewish unbelievers. Now there is a potential danger in teaching an unbeliever either the pre-trib doctrine or the post-trib doctrine. The danger of the pre-trib doctrine is that someone may say, "I'll have a second chance. If I miss the first return, all I have to do is get ready for the second return." The danger of the post-trib doctrine is that someone may say, "I don't have to get ready yet; it is safe to wait at least until the tribulation starts, because I know Christ won't return before then." Both of these dangers undermine the main point Jesus is making, "Be ready now!"
A proper teaching of either doctrine should not result in such perversion, but the danger is on the part of the listener who may use either doctrine as an excuse to delay readiness. But the Master Teacher left no room for excuse. By viewing the two comings as one, He offered only one chance to get ready. If someone (in this age) does not watch, he will miss the rapture and enter into the tribulation as an unbeliever, and as such he will not be aware of Christ's second return when He breaks into his "house" as a thief.
If an unbeliever is reading this and thinking, "No, I've got it outsmarted—all I have to do is count 1260 days," then I reply: Antichrist will get you to disbelieve and forget about the 1260 days (2 Thessalonians 2:11–12; Daniel 12:10). The deception is so great even the believers are almost deceived (Mark 13:22); so there is no chance at all for unbelievers who refuse the truth in this age. Believe now before the deception comes.
Taking a tip from the Master Teacher, when I talk with unbelievers now, I am slow to tell them about the two phases of Christ's second coming. Usually I just tell them that Christ is coming and that they need to be ready.

RIDDLES OR SOLUTIONS?

To summarize the evidence for the double-reference interpretation of the Olivet Discourse, let me give you a list of questions. Maybe someone someday will offer better answers to these questions than I have. But as far as I know, the double-reference interpretation offers the only satisfactory solution to these riddles.
(1) How else can we reconcile the unknown day in Matthew and the known day in Daniel and Revelation?
(2) Why are we compared to the wicked flood victims?
(3) Why are we to watch for the opposite reason the goodman of the house watches?
(4) Why is the parable about "virgins" if we are the bride?
(5) Why are we to be like men who wait for their Lord after the wedding processional?
(6) If you have an explanation for each illustration, does each explanation follow the same pattern or are they merely an assortment of explanations? Is the Olivet Discourse harmony or hash?
(7) Why a two-fold account of Noah's entering the ark (Genesis 7:1–10 and 7:11–13) if it is not to picture two groups of redeemed people?
(8) Why does Jesus not explain who is the "one taken and the other left" if it does not refer to both times?
These questions remain riddles without the double-reference interpretation. But the double-reference interpretation exchanges riddles for solutions. Which will you have, riddles or solutions?
These questions represent more than one or two coincidences; they reveal hard facts which demonstrate a consistent pattern. Seeing such harmony and consistency, I think God is trying to tell us something. Which will you have, riddles or solutions?
The remarkable pattern of Matthew 24 provides evidence that God inspired every detail of the Bible. Since Matthew did not understand at the time (to him the parable of the goodman would be illogical), he would more naturally remember it in a way that made sense to him. But the Holy Spirit caused him to remember and record it the way Jesus spoke it.

THE CHURCH AND ISRAEL

The double-reference interpretation not only solves the apparent contradiction between the known day and unknown day, it not only solves the riddles within the Olivet Discourse, but it also solves another problem disputed over for many years. Is the Olivet Discourse for Israel or for the church? Post-tribulationists have said it is for the church, since the church will go through the tribulation. Pre-tribulationists have said it is for Israel only, because the church will not go through the tribulation. Each side has brought forth convincing arguments from the context to support their view. Who is right?
The fact is, both are right. Valid arguments rest on both sides. We have been disagreeing over nothing. Either side you choose is "right," but the other side has valid arguments too. Only the double-reference interpretation does full justice to all the arguments and all the evidence.
Let me show you what I mean. When the disciples asked Jesus their questions (Matthew 24:3), they had in mind Israel only. They considered themselves Israelites and they were concerned with Christ's coming to set up the kingdom promised to Israel. So Jesus answered their questions honestly, according to how they asked them. That is why He gave the signs leading up to His post-trib return.
However, Jesus knew in the back of His mind that the disciples would form the nucleus of a new group, the church. He knew that the church would meet the pre-trib coming rather than the post-trib coming. He knew the pre-trib return would come as a surprise instead of coming at the end of a prescribed period. Knowing this, He could not mislead the disciples and leave them with the impression that they would be able to calculate the day of His return. He could not leave them without the proper application they needed, and so He concluded each illustration with a special application for them, saying, "In such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh."
Of course, He did not reveal everything all at once here, but He did give His disciples the minimum amount of information they needed, the fact that they could not calculate the day. That is all they needed to know for the time being. In this way Jesus was honest to their questions and honest to the facts. The disciples represent both Israel and the church because they were in fact part of Israel and the church.

 

[Lehigh3]

Truth?

Dispensationalism is a lie- that's why most are learning the error of it today!

And it is irrelevant to the O.P. in this thread.

Learn to read the O.P. question before you hijack their thread with a personal agenda!

 

[pretrib]

Truth?

Dispensationalism is a lie- that's why most are learning the error of it today!

And it is irrelevant to the O.P. in this thread.

Learn to read the O.P. question before you hijack their thread with a personal agenda!

Stormcrow wanted to write a book about the Olivet Discourse
I just provide a great deal of insight of the same thing,..this way others can get a good grasp of it and not be deceived by others....know what I mean Vern

 

[Vic C.]

This is NOT the place to post essays. Please refrain from the multiple postings. It makes it hard for anyone to respond and get a word in edgewise.

However, you are welcome to start a thread where you may outline your beliefs. But honestly, many of us here have been through the pretrib wringer and have moved on to a deeper understand of God's plan.

I do not believe that you understand the concept of what really happened and the consequences it carried...allow me to help you understand.

Thanks, but I'll pass. I do understand, which is why I do not believe the text book teachings of most pretrib teachings. Greater men than us have dissected all the pertinent passages and have come to different conclusions. The one that changed my mind was Issac Newton and his observations of Daniel and Revelations.

He did the right thing and followed the course of Messianic prophecy, which led him the the truth, which is;

Daniel 9:24-27 is all about Messiah, which puts the 70th. week in it's proper place, consecutively right after the 69th. week. To shift focus and place the passage to some future 70th. week and an antichrist, does Messiah and Messianic prophecy a great injustice. :help

If you are ever led to believe this truth, you will see how confusing our position is and how quick you will be to reevaluate your current beliefs. Don't think it can't happen because there has been many a testimony in this section from people who experienced much the same thing... one of them posted in this very thread.

It's not for me to convince you of any of this. Only the Spirit can lead and direct you. It's also not worth getting too dogmatic over any one position because this isn't really a salvific issue. But I will say that some of the variant doctrines that go with your position could cause others to come to conclusions that are unorthodox, like the Grace issue Jason was attempting to explain to you.

You mentioned the ekklesia (bride was your word) and God's wrath, pointing out they will not be subjected to the Wrath of God, which is Biblical truth. There is one error that many make and that is, Wrath and Tribulation are not the same.

... and that leads me to Ezekiel 38. I'm not expert on that chapter and it's history or target audience. So, I will refer to the research and commentaries of Adam Clarke.

Ezekiel - Chapter 38 - Adam Clarke Commentary on StudyLight.org

Read it if you want or nor if you don't.

One more thing: I won't go as far as saying Dispensationalism is a lie, but so many out there take to a very illogical extreme that does more harm than good to otherwise solid Biblical theology.

 

[Stormcrow]

Wow! Spam much?

There's no way anyone's going to respond to - or even read - all that junk you posted, much of which has already been addressed in other threads.

I will address only one issue you raised: you believe the two witnesses are Enoch and Elijah. If true, why did Christ say this about John the Baptist?

{13}"For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John. {14} "And if you are willing to accept it, John himself is Elijah who was to come. {15} "He who has ears to hear, let him hear. Matthew 11:13-15 (NASB)

John the Baptist was the fulfillment of Elijah. Kind of eliminates Elijah as one of Revelation's witnesses right out of the gate.

But again, I'd like to congratulate you for burying this thread under the weight of so much misinformation and deceit.

 

[pretrib]

This is NOT the place to post essays. Please refrain from the multiple postings. It makes it hard for anyone to respond and get a word in edgewise.

However, you are welcome to start a thread where you may outline your beliefs. But honestly, many of us here have been through the pretrib wringer and have moved on to a deeper understand of God's plan.


Thanks, but I'll pass. I do understand, which is why I do not believe the text book teachings of most pretrib teachings. Greater men than us have dissected all the pertinent passages and have come to different conclusions. The one that changed my mind was Issac Newton and his observations of Daniel and Revelations.

He did the right thing and followed the course of Messianic prophecy, which led him the the truth, which is;

Daniel 9:24-27 is all about Messiah, which puts the 70th. week in it's proper place, consecutively right after the 69th. week. To shift focus and place the passage to some future 70th. week and an antichrist, does Messiah and Messianic prophecy a great injustice. :help

If you are ever led to believe this truth, you will see how confusing our position is and how quick you will be to reevaluate your current beliefs. Don't think it can't happen because there has been many a testimony in this section from people who experienced much the same thing... one of them posted in this very thread.

It's not for me to convince you of any of this. Only the Spirit can lead and direct you. It's also not worth getting too dogmatic over any one position because this isn't really a salvific issue. But I will say that some of the variant doctrines that go with your position could cause others to come to conclusions that are unorthodox, like the Grace issue Jason was attempting to explain to you.

You mentioned the ekklesia (bride was your word) and God's wrath, pointing out they will not be subjected to the Wrath of God, which is Biblical truth. There is one error that many make and that is, Wrath and Tribulation are not the same.

... and that leads me to Ezekiel 38. I'm not expert on that chapter and it's history or target audience. So, I will refer to the research and commentaries of Adam Clarke.

Ezekiel - Chapter 38 - Adam Clarke Commentary on StudyLight.org

Read it if you want or nor if you don't.

One more thing: I won't go as far as saying Dispensationalism is a lie, but so many out there take to a very illogical extreme that does more harm than good to otherwise solid Biblical theology.

You Quote:
Daniel 9:24-27 is all about Messiah, which puts the 70th. week in it's proper place, consecutively right after the 69th. week. To shift focus and place the passage to some future 70th. week and an antichrist, does Messiah and Messianic prophecy a great injustice. :help


My Reply:
I am disappointed that you are not an expert on Ezekiel 38,...because it is Ezekiel 38-39 that easily debunks post trib-pre-wrath,and preterist views.

You should attempt a deep study,..and then we could debate the topic.

And as concerning Daniel 9;24-27....anytime you want to debate it,..You have my blessings

 

[Sam21]

Hi Pre-trib,some of these folks have preterists leanings so they will reject much of what is considered yet to occur by christian fundamentalists. I am christian fundamentalist but I believe the bible contains a post-trib rapture of the church,the clincher is 2Thess 2:2.

 

[jasoncran]

sheesh. i dont need to read all that pretrib. i can ask my pastor on all that you say. my pastor a man of God. is most pretrib. i attend a pretrib arminist church. i could for the sake bothering with dake. post his crap. mr 5 raptures.

but i wont. i cant buy into the idea of God saying that its unconditional salvation as in perseverance of the saints for the saints in the age of grace and after this its conditional salvation.

sorry the cross is sufficient and i do believe that God wont fail us in getting us to where we need to be but we can return the gift to God and reject him. its that simple. its a hard thing to do.

just so you know.

1) i am not in any shape of form a preterist
2) i do believe in the antichrist
3) i believe that isreal of today has significance but not in the manner you say she does.
4) while i dont pretend to be all knowledgable on this stuff. and my views will change on things as its not salvinic. i have nothing to loose on this but all to gain.
5) if you want to see what i lean more like in views warhorse or sam21 are closer to what i state.

 

[freeway]

Pretrib.. I have been reading this thread for the last couple nights, It is good to see someone else here once in awhile that believes in a pre trib rapture.. I have studied the bible for thirty years or more, looked at all of the "rapture" ideas and still find without a doubt pre trib is the right one.. nicely covered..
One last thing.. I like how you back up everything with scripture.. I admit I get a little lazy at times and just post my feeling..or what I believe..

 

[savedbygrace57]

This man made doctrine of the pre trib rapture also teaches a Last Trumpet before the Last Trumpet ?? No matter how you square it, the Last Trumpet of 1 Cor 15:52

52In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

The word last is the greek word eschatos and primarily means:

extreme

a) last in time or in place

b) last in a series of places

last, referring to time

In their scheme, this is not the Last Trumpet, if its followed by seven more associated with the end of the great tribulation. See Rev 8-9 and rev 11:15-18. I will quote this latter reference

15And the seventh angel sounded[Trumpet]; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.


16And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God,

17Saying, We give thee thanks, O LORD God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.

18And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

Also it should be observed that when the last seven trumpets blow, that it synchronizes with the beginning of Christ reign, the coming of His wrath, the time of the resurrection, and the bestowing of rewards, and for the record, the pretribulation coming and Trumpet entails the exact same things see 1 Cor 15:51-57; 1 Thess 4:16; 5:2,9; 1 Tim 6:14-15 and 2 Tim 4:1,8.

 

[Lehigh3]

Jesus' coming was Post trib & PostMillennial. Only the dead were "literally" caught up to heaven. When we physically die, then God receives us too.

Notice how Jesus doesn't tell the saints "you" will see the Son of man coming on... but says "they" will see- the unbelieving Jews would see the Son come in the glory of the Father- over the skies of Judea- just like the historians tell us of the angelic armies in the skies & the cosmic convulsions during the Great tribulation.
Matt.24 NKJV,
The Coming of the Son of Man


29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

 

[warhorse]

The rapture of the Church is not the second coming. Post-tribbers and pre-tribbers believe the same thing about the event of Jesus' return, but the pre-tribbers are ahead of the game by seven years.

It's not a heresy, and in the end we will all meet Jesus in the same way.

Pre-trib and post trib are far more than 7 years apart. For the pre-trib position there must be two more returns for the lord, one rapture for the church and then another for christ to establish his pre-millinial kingdom and gather those saved during the trib. For the post tribber there is only one more return on the day of the lord as described in Math 24, mark 13. and luke 21. All such rapture verses point to the same event.

 

[jasoncran]

i was unaware that pretrib version two style of salavation is still part of the plan of salvation.

i rarely hear that now. given that i may leave my church over that.

 

[Vic C.]

i was unaware that pretrib version two style of salavation is still part of the plan of salvation.

i rarely hear that now. given that i may leave my church over that.

It's dispensationalism taken to the extreme. It's sometimes called hyper-dispensationalism.

Basically, I see two dispensations in scripture; law and grace. (OT-NT) A good study on Hebrews "should" clear things up.

Man does have a way of over-dividing scripture, doesn't he? ;)

 

[jasoncran]

It's dispensationalism taken to the extreme. It's sometimes called hyper-dispensationalism.

Basically, I see two dispensations in scripture; law and grace. (OT-NT) A good study on Hebrews "should" clear things up.

Man does have a way of over-dividing scripture, doesn't he? ;)

i'll say. most tribber are NO were near that anymore. i was raised in a church that tough that but that pastor has passed on. and i stopped going there long before his death.