Christ’s teaching in the Olivet Discourse concerning the signs of His coming and the end of the age (the Day of the Lord) is straightforward. The Olivet Discourse is precise as to when the signs will be given in the heavens. The persecution associated with Antichrist will be cut short by the events that occur in association with the sign given in the sun, moon, and stars, when the Son of Man will be seen coming with power and great glory, sending His angels forth to gather together the elect of God from one end of the sky to the other. The sequence of these end time events has never been the question or the issue. But those holding to the pretribulation view have made the context in which these events occur another matter altogether and, for that reason, a matter of serious debate. The implications of which context you choose have overwhelming significance and possible consequences for the church in general. Therefore, we will look at the context of this controversial discourse to Christ’s disciples as recorded in the book of Matthew.
Those holding to the pretribulation view, although willing to admit that certain of “the elect of God” will go through the great tribulation (see Matt. 24:21-22, 24, 31), try to keep the church out of this time of persecution by refusing to recognize that the Olivet Discourse has anything to do with the Rapture or that “the elect of God” has anything whatsoever to do with the church. Instead they maintain that this passage is primarily instruction for Jews who are converted to Christ after the Rapture takes place. Thus, the elect of God who undergo the persecution of Antichrist will not be the church per se, but those Jewish men and women who come to Christ after the Rapture of God’s churchage saints. The Olivet Discourse, they say, was given to Christ’s disciples in view of their Jewish lineage, not in view of the fact that they were soon to become the founding fathers of the church. The Olivet Discourse, therefore, is in reference to Christ’s coming to fight the battle of Armageddon, and event that they see happening at least seven years after the Rapture has taken place (in part, using the Flood account to help make their point).
The Parousia Problem
But taking the position described just above has serious logical and biblical problems associated with it, to say nothing of the problems they have when referring to the Flood account to make their argument. If the coming (the Greek word parousia) of Christ referred to in the Olivet Discourse is indeed a reference to the battle of Armageddon, and event that occurs at the end of the tribulation period, then, by definition, it must be different than the coming (parousia) of Christ associated with the Rapture (1 Thess. 4:15), which they teach will occur before the tribulation period begins. In other words, the church should then be looking for the second coming (parousia) of Christ but Israel should be waiting for His third coming (parousia).
At this point, allow us to give a brief description of the Greek word parousia. This is a noun, which carries the sense of arrival or active presence, and should not be interpreted as if it were a verb. Parousia, as an active presence, has a powerful meaning that can be lost in its translation into English. In Christ’s time the word was often used to refer to the arrival of a king or a general, and the picture painted by the citizens of God’s Kingdom, the Kingdom of Heaven, embattled by Satan through the hand of Antichrist, anxiously await the coming (parousia) or arrival of their King, when He will rescue His subjects and destroy the enemy.
Therefore, the Greek noun parousia refers to Christ’s coming as an event, not as an activity. It is not a verb, referring to His movement from one place to another. If a verbal meaning were intended, a Greek verb like érchomai would have been used instead. When the disciples asked about the sign of His “coming”, they used the noun, parousia, not the verb érchomai.
The classic, uncontested Rapture passage is found in 1 Thess. 4:13-17. Although we will delve into this passage in greater detail later, we want to point out the language Paul uses in connection with the coming of Christ for the Rapture of His saints.
(15) “For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, and remain until the coming (parousia) of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. (16) For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, and with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. (17) The we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord” (1 Thess. 4:15-17).
Notice that the Rapture—“caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air” (v. 17)—is associated directly with the coming of Christ (v. 15) which, using the English translation alone, could be understood as either a noun or a verb. But the Greek word Paul uses here is parousia, the noun, the same Greek word the disciples used when they asked Christ what the sign of His coming (parousia) would be. In Paul’s second letter to the believers at Thessalonica, the Rapture is again referred to, directly and indisputably.
“Now we request, brethren, with regard to the coming [parousia] of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together to Him, that” (2 Thess. 2:1).
As in his first letter to the Thessalonians, Paul once again uses the Greek noun parousia when referring to the coming of Christ, that is, for the purposes of gathering together His saints to Him at the Rapture.
Comparing Scripture with Scripture, it becomes apparent that John likewise admonishes the church, not Israel, to look for the parousia—the event, not the activity—of Christ, and it becomes clear from the context that he, too, is referring to the Rapture, not to the battle of Armageddon. In his first epistle, addressed to Christians all over Asia Minor, the apostle says:
“And now, little children, abide in Him [Christ], so that when He appears, we may have confidence and not shrink away from Him in shame at His coming [parousia]” (1 John 2:28).
Now this is where the problems begin if one tries to make the (parousia) of Christ in the Olivet Discourse a reference to the battle of Armageddon. Unlike the passages we have just looked at, which clearly connect parousia of Christ with the Rapture, there is not one passage in the entire Bible that directly connects the parousia of Christ with the battle of Armageddon. Having looked at the classic Rapture passage recorded in 1 Thessalonians 4, we must in fairness also look at the Armageddon passage recorded in the book of Revelation—the only passage in the New Testament that deals specifically and unequivocally with the battle of Armageddon:
(11) “And I saw heaven opened; and behold, a white horse, and He who sat upon it is called Faithful and True; and in righteousness He judges and wages war... (14) And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses. (15) And from His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may smite the nations... (19) And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies, assembled to make war against Him who sat upon the horse, and against His army. (20) And the beast was seized, and... thrown alive into the lake of fire...” (Rev. 19:11, 14-15, 19-20).
Unlike the Rapture passage, not once in this entire account of the battle of Armageddon is the parousia of Christ ever referred to. In fact, the language doesn’t even hint at it.
In spite of that fact, however, if the parousia of Christ referred to in the Olivet Discourse were indeed in reference to the battle of Armageddon, then, as I said earlier, there must be two separate returns of Christ, a second and a third parousia of Christ as it were, the second occurring sometime before the tribulation period (where those holding to the tribulation Rapture view place it) and the third occurring at the very end of it (where the battle of Armageddon is fought).
However, those who accept the Olivet Discourse in its most natural, normal, customary sense, see only a single parousia of Christ that would include different activities occurring after the rapture of His saints (i.e., the wrath of God upon the wicked world remaining, the salvation of Israel, the final battle of Armageddon, etc.), as was the case with His first coming (i.e., His birth, His baptism, His crucifixion, and His resurrection).
The Day of the Lord Problem
Subscribing to this view causes an even greater problem than the mere fact that this position necessitates a second and third parousia of Christ. This position would also necessitate having two separate and distinct Days of the Lord, each of which, by definition, would have God destroying all the wicked living upon earth at that time (Zeph. 1:18; cf. 2 Pet. 3:7).
The Olivet Discourse clearly teaches that the wrath of God (i.e., the end of the age that will be announced with signs in the sun, moon, and stars) will immediately follow this specific parousia of Christ ("and then the end shall come... as in the days of Noah"). The pretribulationists teach that this is in reference to the battle of Armageddon. Paul, in the classic Rapture passage, likewise instructs the Thessalonian church that the Rapture will occur when the Day of the Lord begins (see 1 Thess. 4:15-5:2). Thus, the context of this Day of the Lord is the parousia of Christ at the Rapture. If indeed the parousia of Christ is referring to two completely different comings of Christ—as those holding to the pretribulation position insist—one before the tribulation period and one at the end of it, separated by at least seven years (according to them), then both events must be accompanied by separate days of the Lord. Just look with us, for a moment, at the total destruction associated with that Day of the Lord that occurs at the second coming of Christ, when the true church is raptured, supposedly seven years prior to the final and last day of God’s wrath associated with His third coming at the battle of Armageddon! In this classic Day of the Lord passage, Peter instructs the scattered Gentile believers that:
(3) “...in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, (4) and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming (parousia)?... (7) But the present heavens and earth by His word are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. (10)... in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be burned up. (11) Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, (12) looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, on account of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat!” (2 Pet. 3:3-4, 7, 10-12).
If there are two separate Days of the Lord that will occur in the last days, one that occurs at the Rapture as described by Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4-5 (before the tribulation period) and the second when Christ comes at the battle of Armageddon as described in the Olivet Discourse (at the end of the tribulation period), then clearly the passage in Peter has to be referring to the Day of the Lord that occurs at the Rapture, before the tribulation period begins! Why? Because this is instruction writen to Gentiles—remember, those holding to the pretribulation Rapture position make the instruction contained in the Olivet Discourse primarily applicable to the Jews because the church has been raptured at least seven years earlier (according to pretribulationists). Second, the Day of the Lord described in Peter speaks of the “present heavens and earth [being] reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men”, the idea being that this passage is referring to the nest cataclysm the earth will undergo after the Flood of Noah. By their own definition, then, this passage in 2 Peter must refer to the parousia of Christ associated with the rapture of the church, which comes seven years before the parousia associated with the battle of Armageddon! And lastly, the Gentile believers to whom Peter wrote are told to look for and hasten the coming of this specific Day of God (v. 12). If they have been raptured seven years earlier, however, that will be a hard instruction to follow! Equally important, we hope you have noticed the totality of God’s wrath: “the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up” (v. 10).
Now, think about that for a moment and use a little common sense. If God wipes out the entire wicked human race that remains after His saints have been removed at the Rapture (as our passage here clearly indicates), and thihs event occurs approximately seven years before the battle of Armageddon is fought, who, then, would be left for God to fight seven years later? And how will Antichrist build a worldwide empire at the midpoint of the tribulation period, if the people who are the children of Satan (1 John 3:10) have all been killed just three-and-a-half years earlier? And even if the destruction described in 2 Peter 3 could possibly leave a few survivors, what’s left on earth to rule over, anyway? Do you begin to see the problems associated with a position that has no biblical support?
But the truth of the matter is this: there is absolutely no evidence of two separate and distinct Days of the Lord even hinted at in Scripture, any more that there is any biblical evidence of more than one parousia of Christ in the last days. In both Old and New Testaments, only one Day of the Lord is ever referred to in connection with the last days, when the citizens of the kingdom of Satan will be destroyed by God’s wrath and the kingdom of Christ will be established upon earth. The very definition of what God will accomplish in His day makes more than one time of wrath unnecessary, if not impossible.
We hold what we call a revised prewrath view. It sees only one parousia of Christ and one Day of the Lord, both occurring when Christ comes to rapture the faithful and then begins His systematic destrcution of the wicked who remain (the Day of the Lord)!
Surely if there were to be more than one parousia in the last days, or more than one time of total destruction of God’s enemies, such a distinction would be clear in Scripture in order to avoid confusion on this extremely important matter. But just the opposite is true.
Throughout both the Old and New Testament—and even in intertestamental Jewish literature (the Pseudepigrapha and the Apocrypha)—only two advents of Christ are ever mentioned: the first to die and be raised, and the second to rescue and judge. As would be expected. therefore, the Greek word parousia is always in the singular, never the plural, as is the concept of a single, final time of God’s fiery wrath (likened to the single time God destroyed the earth by water in the days of Noah).
Other Related Problems
But there are additional problems that must be resolved if one attempts to make the Olivet Discourse recorded in Matthew applicable only to Israel. If indeed this is true, then how do we interpret this same Olivet Discourse as recorded in the gospel of Mark, or the parallel instruction Christ gives His disciples in the temple (the Luke’s Jerusalem Discourse) as recorded in Luke 21? No one can seriously or effectively argue that Mark’s primary audience was Jewish, and it is generally accepted that Luke’s gospel, specifically dedicated to Theophilus, was directed to all Gentiles.
It is also more than a little interesting that Matthew—writen primarily to Jews—is the only gospel that even refers specifically to the church! In chapter 16, Christ says to Peter: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it” (v. 18). In this passage, Christ obviously was referring to Himself as the foundation of the church, instruction He felt was important for His disciples to know in that they were soon to become the founding fathers of the church. Later, in chapter 18, referring to church discipline, the Lord says: “And if he [an unrepentant believer] refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church;and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer” (v. 17).
Still later, in Matthew 26:17-30, Christ gives His disciples instructions concerning observance of the Lord’s Supper—which could not possibly have relevance to anyone other than true believers within the church in general. This specific instruction pertaining to the crucifixion of Christ has untold significance for the church, but none at all for the unsaved nation of Israel. How is it then that one decides to throw out the Olivet Discourse, making it applicable only to Israel, when everything taught in the larger context of this discourse pertains directly to the church?
The Great Commission Problem
But the greatest hurdle one must cross is found in the last two verses of the final chapter of that gospel, often referred to as the Great Commission.
(19) “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, (20) teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matt. 28:19-20).
Few evangelical Christians would deny the importance of that instruction to the church. Since first uttered by our Lord, it has been the church’s marching orders, commissioning us to send missionaries around the world, to make disciples of all nations, and to instruct them in the things of the Lord.
But look carefully at the text of the Great Commission itself. There we see that Christ’s disciples were told to teach the new converts from all the nations “to observe all that I [Christ] commanded you” (v. 20). What does “all that I commanded you” mean if it does not include everything Christ taught His disciples in that particular gospel, the gospel of Matthew? The commands of Christ to His disciples must, in fact, include all of His teachings given to His disciples in all four gospels. They are the only firsthand record we have of His teaching. We certainly dare not limit “all that I commanded you” to Christ’s teachings found only in the other gospels or in selected parts of Matthew. And even if we try to limit that command to the three other gospels, how do we exclude the Olivet Discourse recorded in Mark, and the Luke’s Jerusalem Discourse? Which commands of Christ, in which of the gospels, are we to teach the new disciples? Who decides which commands should be taught and which ones should not? The only limitation Christ gives His disciples is that they teach these new converts all that He had instructed them. Using the limitation given us by Christ (rather than the limitation imposed on us by pretribulationists), then, our decision on what is applicable to the church and what isn’t becomes easy to discern! In Matthew 23, Christ has warned: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from men; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. Woe... woe... woe... woe...” (see 23:13-39). Whom was Christ instructing in this passage? His disciples? No, this instruction was explicity to the scribes and the Pharisees. Therefore, this was not instruction that had to be passed on to new generations of believers.
On the other hand, the Olivet Discourse was instruction to His disciples. It begins with “See to it that no one misleads you”, and goes on to use the personal pronoun you at least ten times in the heart of His instruction concerning the timing of His parousia (Matt. 24:4-31). And so, by the very words of Christ at the end of the book of Matthew, this instruction was to be taught to new believers in fulfillment of the Great Commission.
Comparing Scripture with Scripture, we find that Paul warned Timothy:
(3) “If anyone advocates a different doctrine, and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, (4) he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, (5) and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth...” (1 Tim. 6:3-5).
Paul is unambiguosly clear: the “sound words” that are to be taught to the churches are “those of our Lord Jesus Christ”! He did not say “some” of the words of Christ or “only” the words of Christ found in certain places or certain gospels. Nor did he distinguish which specific words were to be considered the “sound words... of our Lord Jesus Christ” and which words of Christ didn’t qualify! Paul knew of no exception, so no exception was given.
The apostle then excoriates those who do not take seriously the inspired words of Christ for His church (vv. 4-5). Thus, Scripture itself condemns those who do not take the words of our Lord Jesus Christ—all of them that were given to His disciples—seriously.
Suffice it to say that, when comparing Scripture with Scripture, we come up with the same truths as those found in the Great Commission. The words that Christ gave to His disciples on the Mount of Olives were to be taught to the entire church. All of them! Paul demamded it of Timothy. Christ demanded it of His disciples—and He demands it of us today!
One last comment before we leave the Great Commission. At first glance it is easy to miss a certain connection, but when you pick up the line of reasoning in this passage, you will find it in other passages of Scripture as well. Notice that in the Great Commission we are told to “make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them... teaching them... even to the end of the age”. We saw in the previously that “those who endure to the end [of the age] will be saved [delivered]... then the end shall come” (Matt. 24:13-14). We are, therefore, as one would expect if the Olivet Discourse is referring to the Rapture, to continue making disciples of all nations, baptizing them and teaching them, right up until the end of the age. That is when the true saints of God will be rescued from the wrath of Satan, and when the wrath of God will be poured out upon the wicked who remain. Plain and simple!
In the gospel of John, Christ said:
(39) “And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that all that He has given Me I lose nothing but raise it up on the last day. (40) For this is the will of My Father, that every one who beholds the Son, and believes in Him, may have eternal life; and I myself will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:39-40).
The “last day” of what, or before what? The “last day” before the wrath of God begins at the end of the age. That is when we will see the sign of the end of the age. That is when we will see the sign of Christ’s coming. And that is when we will see the Son of Man coming with power and great glory to gather together His elect from one end of the sky to the other! Then the wrath of God will begin.
Until then, the Lord commands that we make disciples and teach them to obey everything He has commanded us, and that He will be with us “always, even to the end of the age”!
A Little Test Worth Trying
We would like to give you this proposition. Before you come to any conclusion about which event the Olivet Discourse is referring to, we challenge you to determine for yourselves if Christ was referring to the rapture of the saints or to the battle of Armageddon. This assignment is an effective method of getting you involved with the text, making you compare Scripture with Scripture in order to have you come up with answers on your own.
Here is the crucial text taken from the Olivet Discourse. Read it carefully for yourself. (27) “For just as the lightning comes from the east, and flashes even to the west, so shall the coming [parousia] of the Son of Man be... (30) 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. (31) And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other... (37) For the coming [parousia] of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. (38) For as in those days which were before the flood they were eating and drinking, they were marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, (39) and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so shall the coming [parousia] of the Son of Man be. (40) Then there shall be two men in the field; one will be taken, and one will be left” (Matt. 24:27, 30-31, 37-40).
Now, decide which event Christ had in mind when He gave this specific instruction to His disciples. Does this passage refer to the battle of Armageddon as recorded in Revelation 19:11-21, or does if refer to the rapture of the saints as recorded in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17? Your very life may one day depend upon your decision, should you be alive when those momentous events begin to unfold. Those prepared in advance have a chance to escape and survive. Those unprepared will have to face, head on, the brunt of Antichrist’s ferocious persecution.
It is more than a little significant that, to date, with no exceptions and no fence-sitters, every member of every class has concluded that this passage describes the rapture of the saints, not the battle of Armageddon. In fact, to date there has yet to be a single vote for the battle of Armageddon! Not a one!
You Can’t Have It Both Ways
Before we leave our defense of the applicability of the Olivet Discourse to the church, let us make one final point. The argument is rather oblique, but we strongly encourage you to use it sometime when you are discussing the timing of the Rapture with your pretrib friends. In nothing else, it will make for interesting discussion.
When the right opportunity presents itself (and we can assure you, it always does), ask your friend if the pretribulation Rapture position permits settinf dates as to when the Rapture will occur. He will be adamant that we cannot know “the day or the hour”. Perfect! Then ask him how he came to this conclusion. He will invariably quote the verse: “But if that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone” (Matt. 24:36), Try it sometime. That’s the answer pretribulationists almost always give! But that answer, although true, presents those holding to the pretribulation view with a serious problem. Why? Because that quotation is taken directly from the Olivet Discourse in Matthew, a passage that those holding to this position make applicable to the battle of Armageddon, not the rapture of God’s saints—which they claim happened at least seven years earlier! You can’t have it both ways!
Summing It Up
In summary, we hope have demostrated that making the Olivet Discourse inapplicable to the church is a very dangerous position to take. It causes too many contradictions for a serious student of the Bible to overcome without compromising a face-value hermeneutic.
We also hope we prodded you to compare Scripture with Scripture so that you can decide for yourself whether the Olivet Discourse refers to the battle of Armageddon or to the rapture of God’s elect. In my opinion, if you do this carefully, without preconceived assumptions or biases, you can come to only one conclusion: the Olivet Discourse is Christ’s teaching about His parousia, when He will rapture His elect and destroy the wicked who remain at the end of the age. This was specific instruction given to His disciples—soon to become the founding fathers of the church—to be taught to the new converts whou would soon become the body of the church, after His ascension. Just one parousia of Christ! Just one Day of the Lord! Just that plain, just that simple!
---------------------
Read also:
The Hope of Christ´s Coming
I. Obedience To Revealed Truth
II. The Question Stated. Matthew 24
III. The Visible Coming In Clouds. Acts 1:9
IV. Knowledge Of Prophetic Details Not Necessary
V. An Interval Taught By The Lord
VI. Apostolic Testimony
VII. The Book Of The Revelation And The First Resurrection
VIII. The “Secret Rapture” Explained
IX. The “Secret Rapture”: Its Origin
X. The Jewish “Wastepaper Basket”
XI. Analogy Is Not Necessarily Proof
XII. 1 Corinthians 15:51-54 & Isaiah 25:7,8 Compared
XIII. Tribulation Aarguments Considered—Part 2
XIV. The Double: “Two Jewish Remnants”
XV. Corroborative Passages: “Wheat And Tares”
XVI. Parousia & Epiphaneia
XVII. Watch!
XVIII. Are Signs Jewish?
XIX. Secret Rapture—Scriptures Contradictory
XX. The Day Of The Lord—Canticles And Apocalypse...
XXI. Times And Seasons
XXII. Sentiment And Emotion Versus The Truth Of God
XXIII. The Resurrection Of The Just
XXIV. The Hope (Final Chapter)
