sign in sign up
<<
Home , Mark 13, Matthew 24, Olivet Discourse, Preterism, Rejection of Jesus, Second Coming

THE : A RESOLUTION OF TIME1

by Ron J. Bigalke Jr.

Introduction

Matthew 24–25 is crucial for every prophetic system. The key to understanding the Olivet Discourse is to interpret it consistently, noting the context and the Jewish understanding of the phrase the end of the age. Importing the into this distinctly Jewish discourse confuses the interpretation. Asserting a past or present fulfillment of these future events also distorts the passage.

Interpretative Issues

Four possible views concerning the timing of prophetic events in the Olivet Discourse exist: (past), historicism (present),2 idealism (timeless),3 and (future). This article will consider the preterist and futurist views.

Preterism. The preterist view of the Olivet Discourse is that most, if not all, of prophetic fulfillment has already taken place.4 J. Marcellus Kik, a preterist postmillennialist, believes verse 34 is the key to :

We might term this key verse the “time text” of the Chapter. If the literal and well-defined meaning of this verse be accepted, then we shall quite readily perceive that the verse divides the

1 The author read an earlier draft of this article at the eleventh annual meeting of the Pre-Trib Study Group on 11 December 2002 in Dallas, Texas. 2 The historicist view sees prophetic fulfillment throughout the age of the church. Historicists interpret literal numbers like 2,300 days ( 8:14) and 1,290 days (Daniel 12:11) as years (a day-age theory). 3 The idealist (spiritual or timeless) view teaches that the prophetic events of Matthew 24–25 apply to believers in any age. It almost completely divorces history from fulfillment. 4 Preterism must date during ’s reign (A.D. 54–68).

The Olivet Discourse 107

entire Chapter into two main sections. Section One speaks of events which were to befall the contemporary generation of . Section Two relates to events that are to occur at the of . Verse 34 thus is the division point of the two sections.5

Futurism. Futurists believe that prophetic fulfillment is in an eschatological period. Consistent futurists view the tribulation, Second Coming, and millennium as entirely future events for national .

The only future prophetic event for the church is the , which is imminent and without any signs. The fact that tribulational events will not occur during the present church age does not make world events insignificant. Present events may set the stage for fulfilling prophesies relating to the tribulation. Thomas Ice remarks:

A good interpreter keeps the future in the future. If an event in a passage is to occur during the tribulation, then it cannot happen during the current church age. It is wrong to say that something is being fulfilled in our day when in fact, the biblical context sets it within the future time of tribulation.

Having emphasized the point that we are not to commingle the future with the present, it does not mean that current events have no future meaning in the present. The issue is how they relate and have meaning. After all as a futurist, I do expect that will one day fulfill His plan for the last days.6

Tribulational events have no fulfillment in the current church age. Consistent pretribulationism will not adopt a historicist interpretation of world events by quoting passages that clearly refer to future events as fulfilled. Chafer reminds his readers:

5 J. Marcellus Kik, An of Victory (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1971), 60. 6 Thomas Ice, “Stage-Setting of the Last Days,” in Revelation Hoofbeats, ed. Ron J. Bigalke Jr. (Longwood, FL: Xulon Press, 2003), 284-285.

108 CTS Journal 9 (Spring 2003)

[D]istinction must be made between the “last days” for Israel—the days of her kingdom in the earth (cf. Isa. 2:1–5)—and the “last days” for the Church, which are days of and (cf. 2 Tim. 3:1–5). Likewise, discrimination is called for between the “last days” for Israel and for the Church and “the last day,” which, as related to the Church, is the day of the of those who have died in (cf. John 6:39–40, 44, 54).7

Each biblical passage relates to its appropriate era (either the church or Israel). Commingling eschatological events for the church and Israel confuses issues.

The following chart shows how the various terms relate to the Church and to Israel.

Last Things for the Church8 Last Things for Israel9 Singular Plural Singular Plural Last Time Last Days Last Day Last Days Latter Days Latter Days Last Times Latter Years

The Rapture and Olivet Discourse

The Olivet Discourse does not refer to the church age so it does not discuss the timing of the Rapture. Even so, the fact that so many insert the Rapture into the passage necessitates a brief discussion of this issue.

7 Lewis Sperry Chafer, , 8 vols. (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947; reprint in 4 vols., Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1993), 4:374–75. 8 The italicized phrases refer to the church in the following passages: (1) last days in :1; Hebrews 1:2; James 5:3; :3; (2) latter days in 1 Timothy 4:1; (3) last time in 1 Peter 1:5; 1 :18; Jude 18; and (4) last times in 1 Peter 1:20. 9 The italicized phrases refer to Israel in the following passages: (1) last day in John 6:39–40, 44, 54; 11:24; 12:48; (2) last days in 2:2; Micah 4:1; Acts 2:17; (3) latter days in Deuteronomy 4:30; 31:29; 23:20; 30:24; 48:47; 49:39; Ezekiel 38:16; Daniel 2:28; 10:14; Hosea 3:5; and (4) latter years in Ezekiel 38:8.

The Olivet Discourse 109

The Nature of the Tribulation. The word tribulation is not a technical term. It can refer to general suffering,10 to the seven years of Daniel’s Seventieth Week,11 or to the second half of that week, the .12

The Seventieth Week does not relate to God’s purpose for the church. The tribulation will come upon a world that is in rebellion against God (Revelation 15:1; 16:1–21; 19:15) and will reveal ’s nature (12:7–12). During the tribulation, national Israel will come to and faith in the in preparation for the millennium (Jeremiah 30:7–9; Zechariah 12:9–14:5; Revelation 19:1–6). It will also be a time of evangelism (Matthew 24:14; Revelation 6:9–11; 7:1–17; 11:2–14; 12:13–17; 13:7; 14:1– 5, 12–13).

The Prophetic Time clock. The next prophetic event, from our standpoint, is the Rapture (cf. :13–18; :51–54). Living Christians will be caught up in the air to meet Jesus Christ. The Rapture will reunite living with those who previously died in Christ. Both will receive their glorified bodies and go to the Father’s house (John 14:1–3).

Second Chances. Some suggest that pretribulationism offers a second chance of , claiming that it “undermines the ” and may “cause indifference to .”13 The

10 John 16:33; Acts 14:22; Romans 5:3; 12:12. 11 Jeremiah 30:7–9; Daniel 9:24–27; 12:1. 12 Matthew 24:21 refers to the last half of Daniel’s Seventieth Week as the great tribulation, while Matthew 24:8 uses beginning of sorrows for the first half. Unless otherwise stated, all Scripture quotations are from the New American Standard , 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977 by The Lockman Foundation. 13 Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), “Between Millennia: What Presbyterians Believe About the Second Coming of Christ” (1989): 8; Ronald L. Siegenthaler, “What’s Behind : Part Three,” Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church Communicator 11 (April 2001): 16; W. Fred Rice, “The Not So Secret Rapture,” rev. ed. [article on line] (Center For Reformed Theology and

110 CTS Journal 9 (Spring 2003) sentiment that an unbeliever can reject the gospel, be left behind14 at the Rapture, and then later believe in the gospel does not presume upon God’s grace, but magnifies His grace.

Scripture testifies, Now is the day of salvation (2 Corinthians 6:2). For an unbeliever to presume that he may be reconciled with the Creator tomorrow (or in the years to come) is presumption since no man knows his last day on earth. Pretribulationism could only be accused of offering a second chance if it taught that an unbeliever could trust in Christ after death (it does not) since that would be the only true sense of a second chance. After death will be the judgment (Hebrews 9:27). Is it not grace that God allows unbelievers, at any time, opportunity to believe the gospel even after initially rejecting it? Furthermore, it is grace that those following the Rapture may still believe.

Rapture Terminology. The word Rapture does not appear in English . It derives from the Latin rapere and the uses it in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 to translate @arpazw (“to snatch, take away”). Jesus will come in the clouds to snatch away His saints from the earth, while at the Second Coming, Jesus will come to the earth with His saints to establish the millennial kingdom.

Logically, then, the does not reveal the Rapture, because this is a concept for the church. The church (which began at ) was an unrevealed mystery in the Old Testament. Christ first gave the promise of the Rapture in the . However, the Old Testament promised the coming of Messiah to earth as the sovereign King.

Apologetics, accessed 31 August 2002) available from Internet address http://www.reformed.org/eschaton/Not_So_Secret.html 14 Left behind alludes to the prophetic fiction series by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins.

The Olivet Discourse 111

Distinct Prophetic Emphases

Old Testament Epistles Revelation Millennial Reign Second Coming Rapture Tribulation

The epistles primarily emphasize the Rapture. The Gospels emphasize the Second Coming. His disciples expected fulfillment of the Old Testament of Messiah who will reign on ’s throne in . Thus, the Gospels would logically emphasize Christ’s coming to national Israel to fulfill the covenantal promises and establish His earthly kingdom. It is logical that Matthew 24:37–44, :32–37, and :26– 37 refer to Christ’s Second Coming, not the Rapture.

The Hermeneutical Context

We must interpret according to original context; otherwise, it becomes a pretext. Context includes the following: the verses immediately surrounding the passage, the paragraph within which it occurs, the whole book, its audience (Israel or the church), the whole Bible, and the historical-cultural environment at the time of the writing. The expositor must consider the author’s context, first near then far.

Context includes the theme of the whole book, that is, audience and purpose. The far context involves the book’s plot. The near context involves the immediately surrounding verses. Moreover, the student of the Word must consider the and the historical-cultural environment at the time of writing.

The Author’s Context

Matthew gives the fullest account of the Olivet Discourse (cf. Mark 13 // Luke 17:20–37 // :20–37). Even a cursory reading of Matthew’s Gospel shows that he emphasizes that Jesus is the prophesied Messiah.

112 CTS Journal 9 (Spring 2003)

Matthew also depicts Christ as the King, linking Jesus with both Abraham (1:2) and David (1:6). The shows His royal lineage, proving His right to the Davidic throne. Jesus is King of the and an authoritative Teacher (2:2; 7:28– 29; 21:5), so He commissioned the disciples to reach the lost sheep of the house of Israel (10:6). He authorized His disciples to go to all the nations sharing the good news that the kingdom of is at hand. He offered the earthly kingdom to Israel, but :24 reveals the national rejection of His Messiahship. This unpardonable sin (blasphemy against the Spirit) resulted in revoking the kingdom offer to that generation. Instead, that generation experienced the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

Thus, Matthew explains why Jesus did not bring in the prophesied kingdom of God at His first coming. Israel’s rejection of their Messiah postponed the kingdom, though it did not cancel God’s promises to the nation.

Matthew establishes that Jesus is the Messiah, even if He did not institute the prophesied kingdom at His first coming. Matthew records more information about the kingdom than any other Gospel. Jesus’ and fulfillments of Old Testament prophecies authenticated His Messianic claims. Having set forth Christ’s credentials, Matthew establishes that Israel’s rejection of her King was what postponed the kingdom.

The Far Context

Matthew 10:7 commissions Jesus’ twelve disciples to perform signs authenticating that the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Their work in requires the nation of Israel to accept or reject the King. Sadly, the nation chose to reject Him.

The rejection first evidenced itself in refusing the message of the forerunner, , which in itself is a rejection of the King’s message (11:2–24). The King commanded those who received His message to separate themselves from the religious

The Olivet Discourse 113 leaders (11:25–30). Israel’s wrong concept of the kingdom did not lead to God rejecting that generation; rather, national rejection resulted from their refusal to repent. Therefore, the King postponed the kingdom and appealed to individual Jews.

Matthew 12:24 gives the official basis upon which the nation of Israel rejected the King. The charge that Christ works by the power of Beelzebub marks a final and irreversible breach between the King and the religious leaders. The nation’s caused Him to begin teaching in (13:3, 34) and to withdraw Himself and forsake the nation temporarily (13:54– 16:12).

Having left the nation of Israel (16:4), Jesus instructed His disciples in preparation for His crucifixion. The transfiguration in :1–13 authenticates the Messiahship of Jesus, as well as anticipates the future earthly kingdom (cf. 2 Peter 1:16–18; cf. 1:19–21)). Jesus’ rejection of Israel did not permanently revoke their eternal standing before the Lord. God’s unconditional covenants with Israel guarantee that a future generation will receive the King and enter into Messianic kingdom blessings (cf. Romans 11:25–27).

In :17–22, Jesus illustrates God’s transient rejection of Israel with a . He found a fig tree without fruit15 and cursed it. The cursing of the tree for lack of fruit symbolized God’s judgment on the nation for its unfruitfulness. Despite her pretense of godliness, Jerusalem was utterly fruitless. Thus, Jesus said, no longer shall there ever by any fruit from you (Matthew 21:19). Noting the disciples’ amazement at the withered fig tree, Jesus impressed upon them the primacy of faith. The unbelief of that faithless generation would cause it to wither. In contrast, Christ urged His disciples to be faithful in order that all things you ask in prayer, believing, you shall receive (21:22).

15 H. A. Ironside, Matthew, rev. ed. (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux, 1948, 1994), 158.

114 CTS Journal 9 (Spring 2003)

The parable of the marriage feast in :1–14 prepares for the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24–25.16 The king () invites guests to his son’s (Christ’s) marriage dinner; however those who had been invited (Jews) do not come. The king sends forth his servants again, but the invitees’ preoccupation with daily business makes them unwilling to come. Some of the invited guests treat the king’s servants roughly and even kill them. When the king hears this, he sends armies to destroy the murderers and to burn their city (22:3–7), hinting at the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70). The king declares the previous invitees as unworthy and now tells his servants to invite anyone (Gentiles) to come (22:8–10). These verses speak of postponing the kingdom until the wedding hall [is] filled with dinner guests.

The King then announces judgment on the nation. The scribes and receive seven woes (:13, 15, 16, 23, 25, 27, 29). These woes are a stinging condemnation of the religious leaders. Jesus refers to the scribes and the Pharisees as hypocrites seven times (23:13–15, 23, 25, 27, 29). He calls them blind guides (23:16–17, 19, 24, 26), fools (23:17, 19), whitewashed tombs (23:27), serpents and a brood of vipers (23:33), and in danger of the sentence of (23:33). The Pharisees and scribes had an outward form of godliness, but were corrupt inside. The religious leaders exemplified the opposite of true righteousness, but the Jewish people followed these blind guides. The nation, therefore, as well as the religious leaders, is under God’s condemnation.

16 Some prophecy teachers place the feast in the seventy-five days between Christ’s Second Coming and the start of the millennium (Daniel 12:11–12). However, Jesus’ own words in :18 (For I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes) indicate that the marriage supper of the Lamb will occur during the millennium.

The Olivet Discourse 115

The Near Context

Christ’s lament over Jerusalem was prompted by her rejection of God’s . Thus, He declares His rejection of that generation (23:36). The unrelenting attempt to find the fulfillment of in the alleged rejection of Israel drives preterism. For the preterist, proof of the view lies in the destruction of Jerusalem. The church, according to preterism, is now the means through which millennial blessings will flow. One of the advocates of preterism says the following.

It seems totally clear that He [Jesus] is speaking to the religious rule of that day, to the religious center of Israel, to the culture of His time, and He is pointing out sin in them. And He says, “Woe unto you.” Why? Because these great tribulational things will be coming upon them: those who betrayed Him, those who had Him crucified, and those who persecute Jesus’ followers from city to city—the first century Jews here being confronted in their leadership. It is important to recognize that “that generation” was objectively the most wicked generation of history for “that generation” committed the worst crime and the worst sin of universal history. It crucified the Son of the living God by rejecting Him though He did many wonderful deeds in their presence.17

The quotation misses the mark. Certainly, Matthew 23:36 indicates the imminence of judgment upon the nations and the religious leaders for all their violence against the prophets. As a result, Christ rejects the generation of His day; therefore, He will not establish His kingdom among them (23:37–39). However, this rejection is not permanent, as the conjunction until in Matthew 23:39 validates. Christ will establish the prophesied kingdom when the nation repents. A purpose of the tribulation is to bring Israel to repentance whereby they recognize that Jesus is Messiah. At the end of the tribulational period, all living Jews will

17 Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., “ and Preterism: Great Tribulation is Past,” audiotape (Nacogdoches, TX: Media Foundation, n.d.).

116 CTS Journal 9 (Spring 2003) acknowledge Jesus as Messiah, fulfilling Romans 11:25–27, indeed, all Israel shall be saved.

Kenneth Gentry, however, attempts to connect the national indictment in Matthew 23 with this generation in Matthew 24:34.18 J. Marcellus Kik does similarly:

Since, then, the obvious sense of the word generation must be taken, and then the obvious sense of the sentence in which it appears must also be taken, which is, that all the things which Christ mentioned previously occurred before the passing away of the generation living at the time when Jesus spoke. And this would mean that it has found fulfillment in the destruction of Jerusalem in the year A.D. 70.19

There is a better way to manage context. The generation of Jesus’ day is left desolate, as the Messiah indicates His judgment upon the Temple (23:38; 24:2; cf. 5:35; 17:25, 26; 21:12–16). As they leave the temple, the disciples point out to Jesus the buildings of the temple (Matthew 24:1) and Jesus promptly says they will utterly be destroyed (24:2). The disciples naturally respond when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age (24:3)? Jesus begins to answer their questions in Matthew 24:4, warning against false christs who would say that the end has come. Jesus states, however, that though many predict the end, there will be wars and rumors of wars, but the end is not yet (24:6). Matthew 24:7–14 explains why the false and wars do not indicate the . It is only when the cataclysmic events and preaching of the gospel of the kingdom occur together that the end shall come (24:14).

Preterists connect their interpretation of the of desolation (Matthew 24:15) to the Roman banners with eagles (representing their ) and Roman sacrifices in A.D. 70. This

18 Ibid. 19 J. Marcellus Kik, An Eschatology of Victory (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1971), 31.

The Olivet Discourse 117 they base on their interpretation of the vultures in Matthew 24:28 as eagles. Preterists make the return of Christ symbolic, that is, a reference to the Roman armies coming in judgment.

Before His crucifixion, Jesus told the religious leaders that they would see the sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven (26:64). Preterism takes this to mean that, when judgment took place in Jerusalem, the religious leaders intuitively saw Jesus coming in judgment.

The preterist interpretation abandons a normal management of context since no literal fulfillment of 24:15 or 24:21 occurred in A.D. 70.20 Furthermore, the connection of Matthew 24:29–31 to 24:15 creates a difficulty, as Kik recognizes:

These words, they say, can only find fulfillment at the Second Coming of the Lord and have nothing whatsoever to do with the destruction of the Jewish dispensation and the city of Jerusalem…. The honest conclusion then is: Our Lord was mistaken when He said, “This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.”21

Despite what critics may say, the Lord was not in error. This generation refers to the generation living when all the signs of Matthew 24 will occur, not to the first-century generation. The generation that will witness all the signs will also witness the Lord’s literal return and the regathering of faithful Israel from around the planet to enter the millennial kingdom (24:31; :11–16; 27:13; :14–15).

Thus, the disciples’ questions in Matthew 24:3 involve two intertwined thoughts: (1) destruction of Jerusalem; and (2) a new welcoming of Christ. Between these two events would be a period of indefinite length when they would not see the Messiah. The

20 The parallels between Acts 1:11 and Matthew 24:29–31 clearly reveal the Second Coming of Christ to the . 21 Kik, Eschatology of Victory, 31–32.

118 CTS Journal 9 (Spring 2003) chronology of events in the disciples minds would be as follows: (1) Messiah would leave the nation of Israel and they would not see Him; (2) after a period of indefinite length, the destruction of Jerusalem would occur; and (3) after Jerusalem’s destruction, Messiah would appear.22

Apparently, the disciples were thinking of Zechariah 14, where verses 1–2 describe Jerusalem’s deliverance, verses 3–8 show Messiah destroying enemies marching against Jerusalem, and verses 9–11 record establishing the millennium. In other words, the disciples understood the destruction of Jerusalem to indicate Messiah coming to reign in the millennium.

Christ, however, in the Olivet Discourse warns against thinking that the destruction of Jerusalem and cataclysmic events will signify the end (Matthew 24:6). Jesus warns the disciples about being deceived concerning false messiahs, wars, and other events.

A common question is whether the apostles represent Israel, the church, or both. At times the apostles do represent the church, but the Jewishness of the questions in Matthew 24:3, in addition to the context, argues for the apostles asking questions in regards to Israel prior to the coming of Messiah. Bruce Ware states this well:

But to show what the apostles became is not to prove what they were in Matthew 24. He [Gundry] argues that since numerous examples of the disciples representing the church can be found elsewhere in the New Testament, they must therefore represent the church in Matthew 24. This is like arguing that Abraham Lincoln represented the of America while he was a young, rail-splitting youth because there is much evidence from later in his life that he in fact did represent the nation as its president.23

22 Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (McLean, VA: MacDonald, 1883; reprint, Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993), 773. 23 Bruce A. Ware, “Is the Church in View in Matthew 24–25?” in Vital Prophetic Issues, ed. Roy B. Zuck (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1995), 197.

The Olivet Discourse 119

Another argument in this regard is that the apostles understood the church (based on passages like :18 and 18:17). However, the mention of the church does not establish the fact that either Jesus explained or that the apostles understood the mystery teaching of the church. The term church in a Jewish mindset meant an assembly. The following quote demonstrates the national Jewish understanding of the word.

The word ekklesia occur about 100 times in the LXX. . . . When there is a Heb. Equivalent, it is almost always q*h`l. . . . In the LXX ekklesia is a wholly secular term; it means “assembly,” whether in the sense of assembling or of those assembled . . . . The real point is who assembles, or who constitutes the assembly.24

The Jewish understanding of the word church is as important to know as is the Jewish understanding of the end of the age. Daniel 12:1–3 and :28–40 show that “the end of the age” included the Messiah’s (second) coming and the resurrection of Old Testament saints.

Mysteries of the Kingdom

Moreover, presents the mysteries of the kingdom, outlining the course of this age between the mountain peaks of Messiah’s two comings. The mystery kingdom will have both believers and unbelievers in it and will fill all parts of the world and society that profess devotion to Christ. The mystery kingdom, which includes the tribulation, denotes the time from the national rejection of Jesus till Israel’s acceptance of Him as Messiah (Matthew 12:24; 23:39).

The characteristic of the mystery kingdom will be the true sowing of the gospel seed and a false counter-sowing. Two results of the false counter-sowing will be that the kingdom will assume

24 Karl Ludwig Schmidt, “ejkklhsiva,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, trans. ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 3:527.

120 CTS Journal 9 (Spring 2003) huge outer proportions, yet its doctrine will be inwardly corrupt. The true sowing will have two results: God will gain a believing remnant from Israel and He will gain believers from among the Gentiles. Judgment will characterize the end of the mystery kingdom, resulting in the separation of the righteous into the kingdom and the unrighteous outside the kingdom (cf. ).

In the among the wheat, the tares are set apart to burn, but the wheat is gathered into the barn.25 Both wheat and tares will grow side by side because of the two sowings. Later, the righteous will enter the blessings of the millennium, but the wicked will suffer destruction.

Regarding the questions that the disciples asked the Lord, John Walvoord makes the following observation about the final judgment and resurrection of Old Testament saints:

In Matthew 24–25 the expositor should, therefore, understand that the program of God for the end of the age has in view the period ending with the Second Coming of Christ to the earth and the establishment of His earthly Kingdom, not the church age specifically ending with the Rapture. Both the questions of the disciples and the answers of Christ are, therefore, keyed to the Jewish expectation based on Old Testament prophecy, and the program of God for the earth in general rather than the church as the .26

The First Half of the Tribulation (Matthew 24:4–20)

The signs of Christ’s coming and the end of the age are frequently misinterpreted. It is difficult to argue that the birth pangs (false messiahs, wars, , and ) have been

25 This parable does not mention the Rapture, even though a preliminary separation of the wheat and tares results from it. 26 John F. Walvoord, “Christ’s Olivet Discourse on the End of the Age: Part I,” BSac 128 (April–June 1971): 116.

The Olivet Discourse 121 lacking in the present age. However, the relation of the ’s questions in the Olivet Discourse to parallels in Revelation 6 indicates that these signs cannot refer to the church age. Furthermore, these signs are unique to a period of which the world has never known. No current frame of reference exists for the judgments and signs of the tribulation.

After warning of many false messiahs,27 Jesus uses a future tense (mellw) to indicate that at the time of the false messiahs you will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars (Matthew 24:4–6). A false peace and security, along with religious apostasy, characterize the beginning of the tribulation that will develop into multiple wars near and far from the . Clearly, preterism is wrong in dating the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse in A.D. 70. At that time, Rome was at war only with Israel, but Matthew 24 describes widespread war.

Furthermore, the beginning of birth pangs (24:8) indicates that the signs of the Olivet Discourse occur immediately before Christ returns to earth, i.e., during Daniel’s 70th Week. This preserves the analogy of birth pangs, since they occur only at the end of pregnancy. The Olivet Discourse will instruct Israel and Gentile saints during the tribulation that the events of verses 5–6 are not yet the end. It is just the beginning of birth pangs before being able to straighten up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near (24:8; Luke 21:28).

27 In early Christianity, the ruled most of the world. It tolerated only those faiths, such as , that it made legal. They regarded Christianity as a sect within Judaism so it was legal. A growing dissension developed between non-Christian Jews and Christian Jews. It climaxed in A.D. 132 when Shimon bar Kosiba (or Bar Kokhba) revolted and established an independent government. He proclaimed himself messiah, attempted to rebuild the Temple, and reinstitute Temple rituals. His revolt ended in A.D. 135 when Hadrian recaptured Jerusalem and destroyed the Bar Kokhba temple. See Michael Avi-Yonah, The Jews of Palestine (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1976), 13.

122 CTS Journal 9 (Spring 2003)

The signs of Matthew 24:4–8 closely parallel the first four seals of Revelation 6. Compared with Revelation 6, the false messiahs (Matthew 24:4–5) are the first seal, or the white horse. The wars (24:6) are the second seal, or the red horse. The famines and earthquakes (24:7) are the third seal, or the black horse. The death resulting from the wars (24:6–7) is the fourth seal, or the pale horse. Martyrdom (24:9) is the fifth seal. The sixth seal parallels the abomination of desolation as the midpoint of the tribulation.28 The great tribulation (24:21)—the final 3½ years of Daniel’s Seventieth Week—begins with the abomination of desolation.

Parallels in Matthew 24 and Revelation 6

False Christ Matthew 24:5 Revelation 6:2 First Seal War Matthew 24:6 Revelation 6:3–4 Second Seal Matthew 24:7 Revelation 6:5–6 Third Seal Death Matthew 24:6–7 Revelation 6:7–8 Fourth Seal Matthew 24:9–10 Revelation 6:9–11 Fifth Seal Matthew 24:15–20 Revelation 6:12–17 Sixth Seal

For (Matthew 24:7) indicates that, because nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, people will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. Matthew 24:6–7 parallels the second, third, and fourth seals, so the is the one who will lead the wars.29

28 Note the corollaries in Daniel 9:26–27; Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14–19; Luke 21:23 (Luke speaks in positive terms what Matthew speaks in negative terms; one speaks in terms of woe and the other speaks in terms of blessing). Revelation 6:12–16, as well, correlates the above verses and shows that the abomination of desolation takes place around the breaking of the sixth seal. This interpretation also regards the judgments as sequential (e.g., the seventh seal is the and the seventh trumpet is the ). 29 Daniel 7:8, 23–24; 9:36–45; 11:40–45; Zechariah 12:2–11; Revelation 6:3–4; 12:9–17; 16:12–15; 17:14; 19:1; 20:8.

The Olivet Discourse 123

Matthew 24:9 (then) marks a transition in the tribulation period. Relative peace in various parts of the world will characterize the first half, but in the second half, judgment will intensify in Israel and throughout the world, especially when the Antichrist breaks his covenant with Israel (24:15; cf. Daniel 9:24– 27). The abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the pertains to an event among the Jewish people in the city of Jerusalem (9:24). A Jewish focus consistently characterizes the Olivet Discourse.

During this time, the gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a witness to all the nations (Matthew 24:14). The natural (plain) understanding of these words of Jesus to the Jewish disciples would have concerned the establishment of the messianic kingdom. No unbeliever will enter the kingdom promised in the covenants to the nation of Israel.30

In other words, the gospel (“good news”) of the kingdom has no reference to the church age. The good news to those in the tribulation is that Yeshua HaMaschioch31 will return soon to reign. Even at Christ’s ascension the disciples asked, Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6)? They yet had no concept of the church age but eagerly anticipated the kingdom.

Indeed, the gospel of the kingdom will be good news to the tribulation saints because of the intensity of persecution. Many will die as martyrs, but the one who endures to the end, he shall be saved (Matthew 24:13). “Saved” is not in the sense granted eternal life, but delivered into the kingdom in his natural body.

30 Cf. Mike Stallard, “Stories Given From the King,” in Revelation Hoofbeats, 272. 31 That is, “Jesus the Messiah.”

124 CTS Journal 9 (Spring 2003)

The Second Half of the Tribulation (Matthew 24:21–31)

Daniel 11:31 records Antiochus Epiphanes’ desecration of the Jewish Temple, but does not mention the attendant time factor of seven years, which is the length of the tribulational period (9:26). However, in Matthew 24:15 the desecration of the rebuilt Jewish Temple will indicate the middle of the seven years. It will be a clear sign during the tribulation of the nearness of Christ’s return. This further demonstrates that the context of the Olivet Discourse is the nation of Israel. Preterists believe that fulfilled the prediction of desecration by destroying the Temple in A.D. 70. The problem with such a view is that the return of Christ relates to the desecration of the Temple, not its destruction.

Preterism sees the pronoun you in Matthew 24:15 as referring to the Jewish audience at the time of the discourse.32 DeMar has written repeatedly: “‘This generation’ always means, without exception, the generation of people alive at that time.”33 Not so! Sometimes you addresses a future generation, as in Deuteronomy 30:1–9,34 which it does in Matthew 24.

Deuteronomy 30:1–3 prophesies Israel’s expulsion from the land for disobedience.35 Following a future repentance of Israel, the Messiah will return (30:3–6). God will restore Israel to the land that He has given her (30:5) and will bring salvation to Israel as a nation (30:4–8). The enemies of Israel will undergo judgment (30:7). The nation of Israel will then receive her covenantal blessings. Ezekiel reaffirms the covenant in his prophecy, which

32 Gary DeMar, “How Many Temples are Too Many,” Biblical Worldview 18 (December 2002): 5. 33 Gary DeMar, “: Being ‘Left Behind,’” [article online] (Modern Society, accessed 6 August 2002) available from http://www.preteristarchive.com/PartialPreterism/demar-gary_dd_ 05.html 34 Deuteronomy 30:1–9 uses the generic second person plural, you, twenty-five times (see also 4:30). 35 Scripture and history bear out two dispersions of national Israel (586 B.C. and A.D. 70). Even though Israel became a nation-state in 1948 and controls part of the Promised Land, the dispersion since A.D. 70 is still in effect.

The Olivet Discourse 125 was yet future (Ezekiel 16). Clearly, the pronoun you refers to more than a current generation of readers.

One preterist writes:

Scripture does not say that Jesus “could come at any moment.” He promised that He would come before that first-century generation passed away (Matt. 24:34). . . . is so clear on this point that liberals have been sticking the point in the eye of futurists for more than a hundred years.36

Preterists insist that they are defending the Bible against attacks from liberals such as Bertrand Russell37 by claiming a first century fulfillment of Matthew 24. Because, in their view, the Olivet Discourse and Revelation refer to the same time period, preterists use the words shortly and near in :1, 3 to date the events of Matthew 24 and Revelation prior to A.D. 70.38

Preterists simply are not exegeting the texts as they claim to be doing. BAGD defines the adverb tacos as follows: “speed, quickness, swiftness, haste.”39 The Apostle John uses the adverb tacus with ercomai (“to come”) in Revelation 2:16; 3:11; 11:14; 22:7, 12, 20 meaning “quick, swift, speedy.”40 All six uses of tacus in Revelation mean “without delay, quickly, at once.”41 Blass-Debrunner concurs by classifying tacus as “an adverb of manner,” not “an adverb of time.”42 Therefore, the text in

36 DeMar, “Dispensationalism,” [online]. 37 R. C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 13, 56. 38 DeMar, “Temples Too Many,” 6. 39 William F. Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich [BAGD], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early , 2nd ed., rev. F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 807. 40 Ibid. 41 Ibid. 42 Friedrich Blass and Albert Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. and rev. Robert W. Funk (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), 55–57.

126 CTS Journal 9 (Spring 2003)

Matthew 24:34 (and Revelation 1:1, 3) describes the manner in which tribulational events will occur, and not their timing.43

Furthermore, whereas preterists claim to interpret passages such as Matthew 24:34 literally, they deny a visible and bodily return of Jesus (as do liberals).44 The falsity of the preterist contention that they hold to a literal interpretation of Matthew 24:34 is patently false.

In a strained effort to support his position, DeMar quotes 1 John 2:18, insisting that the passage refers to the first century only. The more natural interpretation is that the last hour refers to the current dispensation, not to Jerusalem’s destruction. The passage teaches of a climax in earth’s history just before the Second Coming of Christ. John affirms the presence of many in his own day and anticipates the coming of the Antichrist in a future day (Revelation 13:1–10). Since antichrists were present in John’s day and have been present throughout church history, the last hour must be the entire period between the first and Second Coming of Christ. In the first century, John says even now many antichrists have arisen, but the appearing of these persons did not indicate that the current dispensation would end soon. Rather, it indicated that these were indeed the last times.

When the Jewish nation witnesses the signs of Matthew 24 (especially the abomination of desolation), they will know that the end of the age and the coming of Christ are near. From the time of the abomination of desolation until the coming of Christ there will be great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning

43 DeMar, “Temples Too Many,” 6, incorrectly writes, “The words ‘shortly’ and ‘near’ (Rev. 1:1, 3) are used to describe the time when the events outlined in Revelation were to take place. These words are meaningless if the events have not take place.” 44 Full preterism holds that all these things of Matthew 24:3–31 has attained fulfillment literally and completely among the generation living in Christ’s time. Both mild and partial preterists argue for a return in the future, along with gathering the elect in Matthew 24:30–31.

The Olivet Discourse 127 of the world, until now, nor ever shall (Matthew 24:21). It is now that the Antichrist will break his covenant with the nation of Israel and begin persecuting it (Daniel 9:27; Matthew 24:15–21).

At this point, an understanding of the Second Coming of Christ would particularly encourage Israel. In keeping with the context, it becomes obvious that this is the only coming that Matthew mentions (Matthew 24:30–31, 36–44; cf. parallel passages in Mark 13:32–37 and Luke 17:26–37). For instance, Matthew 24:29–30 reads:

[I]mmediately after the tribulation of those days the will be darkened and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the will be shaken, and then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory.

Clearly, this does not refer to the Rapture of the church, since the Rapture neither relates to the disciples’ questions nor to the context as a whole. Additionally, it would be confusing to introduce a new doctrine here. Rather, the revelation of the Rapture was a new doctrine given two days later as recorded in John 14.

Some terms in these verses overlap with those in certain Rapture passages.45 However, the dissimilarities far outweigh similarities. The Rapture passages speak of the church being gathered to meet the Lord in the air to be taken to heaven, whereas here the will gather together His elect (Matthew 24:31). The term elect may refer to either Israel or the church. Context determines which group is meant. Context and terms such as the gospel of the kingdom (24:14), the holy place (24:15), Sabbath (24:20), the Christ as opposed to false christs (24:23–24) show that the elect in Matthew 24 refer to the Jewish remnant in the tribulation.

45 First Corinthians 15:52; 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17; :1.

128 CTS Journal 9 (Spring 2003)

Since Matthew 24:22, 24 use elect twice in reference to Israel, 24:31 must also refer to Israel (cf. Mark 13:20, 22, 27). Furthermore, the mention of angels who will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other is in keeping with an Old Testament reference such as Deuteronomy 30:4 (If your outcasts are at the ends of the earth, from there the LORD your God will gather you, and from there He will bring you back). God will then regather Israel in unbelief for judgment during the tribulation before her time of blessing in the millennial age (Isaiah 11:11–12:6 with Ezekiel 20:33–38; 22:17–22; Zephaniah 2:1–2).46

The Parable of the Fig Tree (Matthew 24:32–36)

Contrary to some dispensationalists who view the fig tree as Israel’s rebirth, the parable refers to all these things, that should lead Israel to recognize that He is near, right at the door (24:33). George Meisinger explains that these things depict “eleven signs that Jesus reveals in 24:4–24. Nine begin to occur in the first half of the Tribulation and two more appear in the second half.”47

46 Isaiah 11:11 states, The Lord will again recover the second time with His hand the remnant of His people. In fulfillment of Ezekiel 37, the first regathering would be in the modern age when God regathers Israel in unbelief (her present state). The second time (Isaiah 11:11) refers to the regathering in belief (her future state) at the end of the tribulation in Matthew 24:31. Many ask whether the Jewish people may be driven from Israel now, dispersed throughout the nations for centuries, and brought back again in the eschatological manner of which the prophets spoke. Isaiah (and the other verses cited) argues against such a position. Therefore, Christians should recognize the state of Israel not as a work of man, but as a work of God. This does not mean that Christians will agree with every decision and action that the Jewish people make, but the fact that Israel acts contrary to the Word of God proves the state of unbelief that will lead to the purging of the remnant during the tribulation. An unbelieving nation simply will not act as believers ought! However, those who will not bless Israel (Genesis 12:1–3) will find themselves working against God’s sovereign plan (Zechariah 2:8). 47 George E. Meisinger, “Parable of the Fig Tree,” in Dictionary of Premillennial Theology, ed. Mal Couch (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1996), 117.

The Olivet Discourse 129

The idea is that, when a fig tree puts forth its leaves, one would know that summer is near. In the same manner, when all the signs of Matthew 24:4–24 take place, it will be apparent that the return of Christ is near. When Christ says, Even so you too, when you see all these things, He is referring to the Gentiles, since He has already dealt with Israel’s judgment (you too are the Gentiles). The parable is referring to those signs that will take place during the tribulation, and inform this generation that witnesses the signs of the Olivet Discourse, along with the Jews, that the return of Christ is right at the door.

The Judgment of Gentiles (Matthew 24:37–25:46)

Who is Taken and Who is Left?

In keeping with the context of tribulational events, the one taken and the other left in Matthew 24:37–41 refers to the separation that will occur when Christ returns to earth. Israel is not included here since her judgment is the tribulation. The one taken is removed through judgment in death at the Second Coming and the other left enters into the millennial kingdom. The response of Jesus to the disciples’ questioning (Luke 17:37; cf. Revelation 19:17–18) accurately fits this interpretation alone. In other words, the Lord addresses the disciples’ question about when the restoration of Israel will take place and God will judge her enemies. Jesus has already answered questions in regards to Israel and is now dealing with the judgment of Gentiles.

Alexander Reese, a posttribulationalist, argues against the idea of “taking away” to judgment by contrasting the Greek word airw in Matthew 24:39 with paralambanw in Matthew 24:40–41. However, the following statement by Reese shows that he does not deal sufficiently with contextual continuity: “The use of this word in the N.T. is absolutely opposed to this; it is a good word; a word

130 CTS Journal 9 (Spring 2003) used exclusively in the sense of ‘take away with’ or ‘receive,’ or ‘take home.’”48

Reese is wrong in asserting that paralambanw is always “a good word.” Although the word can refer to a blessed event (John 14:3), it can also refer to a “taking away” to judgment. For example, John 19:17 uses it of the religious leaders who took Jesus to be crucified. Likewise, :27 records that the soldiers of the governor took Jesus before the Roman cohort who proceeded to mock and beat Him. Such usages can hardly justify the notion that paralambanw is always “a good word.” Contextually, airw and paralambanw are equivalent within the Olivet Discourse.

The Olivet Discourse deals with Christ returning to the earth in judgment before establishing the messianic kingdom. The emphasis is not on the unexpected time of the Rapture, but rather on the unexpected judgment just like the days of (Matthew 24:37).49 Immediately after the Rapture removes the church, the world will say peace and safety (:1-4)! Such a perspective reveals complete spiritual blindness.

The day of the Lord will come like a thief upon unbelievers (cf. 2 Peter 3:3-10). In contrast, does not overtake the church for God has not destined us [Christians] for wrath [the day of the Lord], but for obtaining salvation [deliverance] through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, that whether we are awake [the watchful Christians] or asleep [the

48 Alexander Reese, The Approaching of Christ (London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1932), 215. 49 Edersheim, Jesus the Messiah, 786, writes, “To the world this would indeed become the occasion for utter carelessness and practical disbelief of the coming judgment (vv. 37–40). As in the days of Noah the long delay of threatened judgment had led to absorption in the ordinary engagements of life, to the entire disbelief of what Noah had preached, so would it be in the future. But that day would come certainly and unexpectedly, to the sudden separation of those who were engaged in the same daily business of life. . . .”

The Olivet Discourse 131 unwatchful Christians], we may live together with Him (1 Thessalonians 5:2, 9; cf. 1:10).

The day of the Lord is compared to the flood in the Olivet Discourse indicating God’s judgment upon the unbelieving world. God removed all unbelievers, who perished in the flood waters, in the days of Noah. By contrast, Noah and his family survived. The parallelism requires that those “taken” in the days of Noah and at the time of Christ’s return to earth denote the unbelieving world (cf. Revelation 16:15). It will be good for the sheep (faithful) to be “left behind” since they will enter the millennium in their natural bodies. By contrast, the goats (unfaithful) will stand before the Messiah to receive their eternal retribution and will experience exclusion from entering the kingdom (25:31–46).

The coming of the Son of man in Matthew 24:3, 27, 30, 37, 39, 42, and 44 refers to Christ’s return to execute judgment and establish His kingdom on earth. The messianic title Son of Man is never Christ’s title in relation to the church; rather, it is a title for the Davidic King who will reign on earth from Jerusalem (Daniel 7:13–14). Emphasis then lies upon the signs heralding the coming of the Son of Man. When a future generation witnesses all the signs of Matthew 24, then the coming of the Son of Man is approaching, right at the door (24:33).

If any doubt remains that this coming is for judgment (one will be taken and the other will be left), Luke 17:34-37 helps clarify the issue. Jesus says, Where the body is, there also will the vultures be gathered. God takes the unbelievers in death and feeds their carcasses to the vultures. Matthew 24:28 indicates that this event will follow the coming of the Son of Man (cf. Revelation 19:17–19). At the Second Coming, some unbelievers are taken in judgment and put to death thereby beginning the process that Matthew 25 reveals will be the destiny of all goats before the establishment of the millennial kingdom.

132 CTS Journal 9 (Spring 2003)

The passage does not specify that God removes all unbelievers at the same time. Some unbelievers (not destroyed at the Battle of ) will remain after Christ’s Second Coming. During the 75-day interval, Christ will judge the living sheep and goats to determine who will enter into the millennial kingdom and who will go to eternal punishment.

Parable of the Householder

The parable of the householder also deals with the subject of the judgment of Gentiles. Since God saves all Israel before the Second Coming and these judgments take place at the Second Coming, they cannot refer to Israel. In fact, Jesus will not return until the nation of Israel repents and acknowledges Him as Messiah (Leviticus 26:40–42; Jeremiah 3:16–17; Hosea 5:15–6:3; Zechariah 12–14; Matthew 23:39). They will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him (Zechariah 12:10). Since the church was raptured before this period and the Olivet Discourse deals with tribulational events, the judgment must refer to the response of Gentiles in the tribulation to the Messiah before His return.

Parable of the Virgins

Matthew 25 gives three parables. Following each parable the Lord emphasizes application in terms of watchfulness, readiness, and laboring in light of His return. The admonition in the parable of the ten virgins is that those who are not watchful will be precluded from entering into the millennium (25:1–13). Matthew 24:42–49 conveys the same point. The ten virgins represent Gentiles in the Tribulation. Some believe that the virgins represent true Christians and professing Christians in the current age.50 It is true that the Apostle Paul calls the church a pure virgin

50 Arno C. Gaebelein, The : An Exposition (New York City: Our Hope, 1910), 1:228–32.

The Olivet Discourse 133

(2 Corinthians 11:2), but the usage of a similar term does not prove that the church is in view here. Both the content and context argue that the entire discourse regards the tribulational period solely (cf. Matthew 24:3, 8, 14–15, 27, 30–31, 33, 42, 44, 47, 51).

The adverb then (tote) connecting Matthew 24:51 and 25:1 refers back to 24:40. All the virgins have been anticipating Christ’s coming, but only the five wise virgins are ready for His coming. They are like the faithful and sensible slave of Matthew 24:45, for they are prudent [fronimoi], which is a fruit of the faithful [pistoi]. In contrast, the five foolish virgins did not prepare for the coming of the Messiah.

Parable of the Talents

The parable of the talents illustrates the certainty of Christ’s judgment upon unredeemed Gentiles during the tribulation (Matthew 25:14–30) since the conjunction for in Matthew 25:14 connects the parable to the prior context. Whereas the parable of the virgins emphasizes spiritual alertness (25:13), this parable emphasizes faithful service (25:14, 19, 21, 23, 26, 30).

Christ will say to the faithful servant, You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things, enter into the joy of your master (25:21). In the millennial kingdom, God rewards the faithful servant with privileged responsibility. Matthew 13:12 reiterates the same teaching, for there it reads, For whosoever has, to him shall more be given, and he shall have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him. God entrusts the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom particularly to the Jewish nation, but the saved Gentiles will also bear responsibility. Those Gentiles who are spiritually prepared for the Messiah’s return will faithfully carry out their responsibility. They will be among those to whom it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven (13:11). Those who are unfaithful will keep on hearing, but will

134 CTS Journal 9 (Spring 2003) not understand and will keep on seeing, but will not perceive (13:14).

Judgment of the Sheep and Goats

The judgment of Matthew 25:31–46 also concerns Gentiles individually. As Fruchtenbaum states, “the righteous [are] brought into the Messianic Kingdom while excluding the unrighteous” (cf. Matthew 13:47-50).51 At this judgment, some will inherit the kingdom while others will be eternally condemned. The basis of the judgment is whether Gentiles extended help to the godly remnant of Israel (one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them), because to extend such help will be a true evidence of redeeming grace. Fruchtenbaum writes:

Eternal salvation is always by grace through faith, totally apart from works. The sheep have justification through faith alone in Christ alone. However, during the Great Tribulation, unbelievers will not violate the Antichrist’s laws to aid Jews. The sheep’s pro- Semitic acts will result from their saved state. Goats will demonstrate their unbelief by their anti-Semitic acts.52

The judgment of the Gentiles will coincide with the final restoration of the nation of Israel (Joel 3:1–3). At this time, Christ will gather all living Gentiles for judgment. The judgment will result in “a destiny of eternal life or eternal hell,” which Matthew 25:31-46 amplifies.53 The basis of the judgment of the Gentiles will be anti-Semitism or pro-Semitism. The pro-Semitic Gentiles are the sheep whom Jesus Christ justifies by grace through faith in Him alone. Christ gives the sheep (the righteous) entrance into the millennial kingdom (Matthew 24:34) and inheritance of eternal

51 Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, “Israelology: Part 2,” CTS Journal 5 (July– September 1999): 38. 52 Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, “Israelology: Part 4,” CTS Journal 6 (January– March 2000): 61. 53 Ibid., 59.

The Olivet Discourse 135 life, while the anti-Semitic Gentiles will go away into eternal punishment (Matthew 25:46).54

Unfortunately, some call this section “the judgment of nations,” which often leads to misinterpretation that there will be sheep or goat nations. Benware notes this problem: “Some have assumed that national groups will be judged at this time. But that view would not be accurate.” 55 J. Dwight Pentecost says:

If this were a judgment of national entities, it is obvious that some unsaved would be included in an accepted nation; on the other hand, some saved would be excluded because they were in a rejected nation. Therefore, it must be concluded that this will be a judgment of individuals, not of nations.56

The sheep represent tribulation saints, whereas the goats represent unbelievers. The sheep Gentiles were ready, watching and laboring in light of the Lord’s return to earth. This judgment is distinct from the Great White Throne judgment of Revelation 20:13–15, since at that judgment only the wicked will appear before the Judge.

Conclusion

Consistent pretribulationists will not interpret any of the signs of Matthew 24 as taking place today (a historicist view) since all of the events belong to the eschatological period of the tribulation (Daniel’s 70th Week). The context of Matthew 24 is distinctly Jewish, and Jesus responds to questions about events that will affect the nation of Israel culminating in the return of the Messiah and establishment of His kingdom on earth.

54 Ibid., 60-61. 55 Paul Benware, “God’s Judgment upon Individuals,” in Revelation Hoofbeats, 140. 56 J. Dwight Pentecost, The Words and Works of Jesus Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 409, as cited by Paul Benware (Ibid.).

136 CTS Journal 9 (Spring 2003)

Given that the tribulation is judgment upon Israel in preparation for the return of Messiah, the judgments, especially those of Matthew 25, are upon the faithfulness (or lack thereof) of Gentiles during the tribulation. Although the church is not in the context of the Olivet Discourse, this does not preclude us from drawing lessons for today. The danger for pretribulationists is in making Rapture truths equivalent to future fulfillment in the Tribulational events of Matthew 24–25.

Appendix A

Are Earthquakes Increasing in Fulfillment of Matthew 24:7?

Some prophetic teachers make claims about earth’s increasing number of earthquakes as a sign of the end times because of Matthew 24:7. Such claims do not accord with scientific data or proper interpretation of Christ’s words in the Olivet Discourse. According to the National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC), the number of earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or higher remains invariable. The increase in scientific instrumentation (seismographs with increased sensitivity) and global communication has allowed seismologists to identify large and small earthquakes at a much more rapid rate than in the past twenty years. The following chart shows the number of earthquakes of any given magnitude that occur yearly.

Annual Frequency of Earthquakes57 Description Magnitude Annual Average Great 8 and higher 1 Major 7 - 7.9 18 Strong 6 - 6.9 120 Moderate 5 - 5.9 800

57 NEIC, “Earthquake Frequently Asked Questions and Answers,” [article online] (accessed 21 September 2002) available from http://wwwneic.cr.usgs. gov/neis/general/handouts/faq.html

The Olivet Discourse 137

Light 4 - 4.9 about 6,200 Minor 3 - 3.9 about 49,000 2 – 2.9 about 365,000 Very Minor 1 – 1.9 about 2,920,000

Seismographs have demonstrated no increase in the number of earthquakes in more recent years. Using records since the 1900s, the NEIC anticipates eighteen major earthquakes of a magnitude between 7.0–7.9 and one great earthquake of a magnitude 8.0 or higher on a yearly basis. The chart tabulates the most significant quakes in recent years. Bold represents any above-average figures. Observe that above-average figures are rare.

Number of Earthquakes Per Year58 Year Major Great Year Major Great Year Major Great 1969 15 1 1980 13 1 1991 11 0 1970 20 0 1981 13 0 1992 23 0 1971 19 1 1982 10 1 1993 15 1 1972 15 0 1983 14 0 1994 13 2 1973 13 0 1984 08 0 1995 22 3 1974 14 0 1985 13 1 1996 21 1 1975 14 1 1986 05 1 1997 20 0 1976 15 2 1987 11 0 1998 14 2 1977 11 2 1988 08 0 1999 23 0 1978 16 1 1989 06 1 2000 16 4 1979 13 0 1990 12 0 2001 14 1

The number of great earthquakes between 1969 and 2001 is consistent with the long-term average.

The claims of some that earthquakes are increasing in fulfillment of Matthew 24:7 misinterpret Scripture. The context of Matthew 24:7 demands that this sign is for believers in the

58 NEIC, “Are Earthquakes Really on the Increase?” [article online] (accessed 21 September 2002) available from http://wwwneic.cr.usgs.gov/neis/general/ handouts/increase_in_ earthquakes.html

138 CTS Journal 9 (Spring 2003) tribulation, who anticipate the return of the Lord. It is incorrect to refer this passage to events during the church age.

Clearly, several worldwide earthquakes will occur in the tribulation, such as the great earthquake accompanying the sixth seal in Revelation 6:12–17. Following this earthquake,

[T]he sun became black as sackcloth made of hair, and the whole moon became like blood; and the stars of the sky fell to the earth…and the sky was split apart like a scroll…and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.

The sixth seal judgment will affect the heavens and the earth. Isaiah (2:10–22) prophesied its devastation as occurring in the day of reckoning, when God will arise to make the earth tremble.

The campaign of Armageddon will witness numerous earthquakes (Revelation 8:5, 11:19; 16:18). Revelation 16:18–20 describe a great earthquake, i.e., the greatest earthquake since man came to be upon the earth. This great earthquake occurs when Messiah returns to earth and sets His feet upon the Mount of Olives and splits it in two (Acts 1:9–12; Zechariah 14:1–11). In Acts 1, Jesus ascends into heaven from the Mount of Olives before witnesses, and it is there that He will return to deliver His people.

Appendix B

Literal Fulfillment and Ancient Weapons

There needs to be clarification concerning literal interpretation and the mention of ancient weapons in eschatological battles. The golden rule of interpretation has always been that “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense. . . .”59 There is much

59 David L. Cooper, The World’s Greatest Library: Graphically Illustrated (: Biblical Research Society, 1942), 11.

The Olivet Discourse 139 criticism of prophecies regarding battles, such as those with Gog and his armies (Ezekiel 38–39), and questioning of the pretribulationists’ commitment to literal interpretation.

First, it needs mention that the majority of preterists, historicists, and idealists are not as consistent in their interpretation of Bible prophecy as they want us to believe! For instance, some demand that Ezekiel 38–39 describe an ancient battle with ancient weapons, while explaining away astrophysical and geophysical judgments in Matthew 24. Theological presuppositions cause anti- futurists to interpret the Olivet Discourse and Revelation inconsistently. On what basis can we demand, then, a literal fulfillment and interpretation of ancient weapons in what is clearly an eschatological battle?

Ezekiel 38–39 is a case in point. God will fight against Gog and his allied armies as they come against the mountains of Israel. Prophesying to Gog, the Lord declares, I shall strike your bow from your left hand, and dash down your arrows from your right hand (Ezekiel 39:3). There are two possibilities here in terms of literal interpretation: (1) the Hebrew language allows for modern weapons in this battle and (2) future armies will revert to ancient weapons in this battle.

Allegorists think that this is an interpretative quandary for the literalists. This is not the case, though. It is possible to interpret the Hebrew language literally as referring to modern weaponry. Ezekiel uses language understandable not only to his contemporaries but also to future generations. Shields and bucklers, bows and arrows, war clubs and spears (Ezekiel 39:9) are understood by all to be instruments of war, just as it is normal to understand plowshares and pruning hooks to be tools for agriculture (Isaiah 2:1–4).

Horses literally mean “leaping” or “leapers.” The Hebrew is adequately flexible to include contemporary hardware, such as self-propelled aircraft or tanks. The author merely affirms that it is

140 CTS Journal 9 (Spring 2003) not accurate to assert that this is an ancient battle because they use ancient weapons. Horsemen could refer to drivers in a chariot or in a modern vehicle; it could also be a reference to cavalry, which some armies still use today. Bow could refer to a device for shooting and launching weapons; whereas arrows could even refer to “thunder” missiles, such as the Thor and Titan, which use energy converted into simulated lightning bolts. The burning of the weapons (fuel, propellants, etc.) in Ezekiel 39:9–10 is in accordance with military manual TM 3–9905–001–10 (Operator’s Manual for Marking Set, Contamination: NBC).

To clarify, the author does not make speculations about such renderings. This section merely seeks to demonstrate that the Hebrew language does not rule out sophisticated modern weaponry. Ultimately, only time will reveal whether the armies use ancient or modern weapons.

These examples demonstrate a literal interpretation of ancient weapons in eschatological passages. It could also be that future armies will revert to ancient weapons. The military today is working on technology that will completely disable mechanical weapons, and weaponry dependant upon electrical systems, so ancient weapons may be the only alternative in Armageddon’s great campaign. Furthermore, all the cataclysmic judgments taking place in the heavens and the earth may also render modern weapon systems useless. There is no good exegetical reason for not seeing the literal fulfillment in these passages. The more a student of the Word uses a consistent, literal interpretation, the clearer he will see the meaning of the prophetic texts.

—End—

Ron J. Bigalke Jr. earned a BS degree from Moody Bible Institute and an M.Apol. degree from Columbia Evangelical Seminary. He is a Ph.D. candidate in Prophetic Studies at Tyndale Theological Seminary and a professor at the Florida extension of the Moody Bible Institute. Ron founded Eternal Ministries, a discipleship and evangelistic ministry. His email address is [email protected].