IS THE CHURCH INCLUDED IN MATTHEW 24?

If pretribulationism is correct -- if the church is to be raptured before Daniel's seventieth week begins -- the Church cannot possibly be included in the Lord's teaching about the seventieth week in His Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24.

I want to present a careful expounding of this chapter so that you can determine for yourself, if indeed the Church is absent in this important Discourse of Jesus.

Since the Olivet Discourse is a discussion of the seventieth week of Daniel, Pretribulation rapturism, by its very definition, requires that the Church be excluded from the Discourse. If it is present, a Pretribulational Rapture is impossible. For that reason Walvoord wrote in his commentary, Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come: "If the details of the discourse [the Olivet Discourse] are observed and interpreted literally, it fits best with the view that the rapture is not revealed in this discourse at all..." With all due respect to Walvoord, it will be demonstrated that when the details of the Olivet Discourse are interpreted literally and without manipulation to conform to a system superimposed on the text, the Church is conspicuously present and its Rapture clearly presented. Matthew 24 teaches that the Rapture will occur following the cutting short of the Great Tribulation for the elect's sake and before the start of God's wrath during the Day of the Lord. The Church is exempted from her Lord's wrath during the Day of the Lord, but she is not exempted from the difficulties associated with the Antichrist and the Great Tribulation.

Where in the Olivet Discourse does a description of Daniel's seventieth week begin?

In no stretch of the imagination is there uniformity among pretribulationists as to where in the Olivet Discourse the discussion turns to the seventieth week of Daniel (commonly, but without warrant, called the "Tribulation Period"). Stalwart defenders of the Pretribulation rapturism like Dwight Pentecost, author of Things to Come, and Charles Ryrie, The Ryrie Study Bible, commence the seventieth week of Daniel with Matt. 24:4. Others, like Harry Ironside whose memory is cherished by many, start the seventieth week at Matt. 24:9. Ironside wrote in his commentary on Matthew: "The conditions depicted in vv. 9-14 fit perfectly with the first half of the unfulfilled seventieth week of Daniel." Still others, like Walvoord whom many view as the "dean of pretribulationism," start the seventieth week of Daniel at v. 15. He wrote: "Taken as a whole, the opening section, ending with Matt. 24:14, itemizes general signs, events, and situations which mark the progress of the age, and with growing intensity, indicate that the end of the age is approaching."

Walvoord's position creates a number of important inconsistencies. First, he is a champion of imminence, seeing it as the crucial issue or "central pillar" in the Rapture debate. As such, he represents the pretribulational view, that no prophesied events must precede it, and that it is signless. Nonetheless, he writes of the specific prophecies of Matt. 24:4-14 which according to him, "...with growing intensity, indicate that the end of the age is approaching. On one hand he teaches imminence -- a signless, any-moment rapture -- requiring no fulfilled prophecies in advance. On the other hand, he speaks of specific prophecies whose fulfillment, in his words, "...indicate that the end of the age is approaching." One cannot have it both ways. Logic dictates that if there specific signs that indicate the approach of the end of the age, the concept of imminence is in error. Routinely, pretribulationists cite specific prophetic events which, according to them, indicate the soon return of Christ. At the same time they speak of an any-moment, signless Rapture. Few voices have arisen to challenge this flagrant ongoing inconsistency. Some may take exception and not like it to be said, but it is true.

Second, if vv. 4-14 are describing events during the course of this age, and v. 15, which speaks of "the abomination of desolation" occurs at the middle of the seventieth week, as almost all pretribulational commentators concur, then one must conclude that the Lord says nothing of the first three and one-half years of the seventieth week. This is indeed strange in light of the disciples' question concerning the sign of the Lord's coming and the end of the age. Walvoord would have us believe that the Lord describes the current age, already almost 2000 years old, in vv. 4-14; and the middle of the week and following in vv. 15-31. But with this interpretation, Walvoord completely omits any mention of the first three and one-half years of Daniel's seventieth week by the Lord. Certainly this view creates a strange and inexplicable omission.

Third, more than a few commentators have noted the clear and compelling parallel between Matt. 24:4-8 and the first four seals of Rev. 6:1-8. (Actually, the parallel between Matt. 24 and Rev. 6-8 encompasses all seven seals.) Pretribulation rapturists universally place Rev. 6 inside the seventieth week. Therefore this passage should not be viewed as a description of this age as Walvoord asserts.

If the seventieth week of Daniel commences with Matt. 24:4, as Pentecost and Ryrie rightly suggest, and if pretribulation rapturism is correct, the rapture should be seen between verses 3 & 4 -- but the Scriptures make no mention of the Rapture at that point.

If the seventieth week of Daniel commences with Matt. 24:9, as suggested by Harry Ironside, the Rapture should be between vv. 8 & 9 -- but again there is no mention of the Rapture at that point. Ironside himself wrote: "The conditions depicted in vv. 9-14 fit perfectly with the first half of the seventieth week of Daniel; and therefore it is quite possible that the rapture should be between vv. 8 & 9. " Yes, if pretribulationism is right it should be there, but it is not there.

If the seventieth week of Daniel (mistakenly called "the tribulation period") commences with Matt. 24:15, as suggested by John Walvoord, the rapture should occur between vv. 14 & 15 -- but once again, the Scriptures make no mention of the Rapture at that point.

How does one explain the awkward and conspicuous absence of the Rapture where it should be found, if pretribulationism is correct?

Within pretribulational circles there is hardly a verse in the Olivet Discourse of Matt. 24 & 25 that is not strongly contested. One needs only to examine a half dozen pretribulational commentaries to confirm it. Views are frequently in direct conflict with one another. The only point of total agreement among them is that the Church cannot be in the Olivet Discourse because it is raptured pretribulationally. That perception does not come from the text itself, but from a predetermined view of the Rapture. The circular argument follows this path: Since the Olivet Discourse is a discussion of the "seven year tribulation period," and since the Rapture must occur before this seven-year period begins, then the Church cannot be in the Olivet Discourse. It is this predetermined view to which the Olivet Discourse is to somehow be made to conform, which causes the great contradictions among pretribulational teachers.

How does the pretribulationism attempt to justify omitting the Church from the Olivet Discourse?

The most common approach by pretribulationists to resolve the glaring problem which the Olivet Discourse poses to their view is to "dispensationalize" them away. Matthew, it is argued, is the Jewish gospel. It does not contain Church truth. It is for the sons of Jacob. It is the gospel of the Kingdom and not to be confused with the message of the gospel of the grace of God. It was for the Jewish people during Christ's first coming, and its theme, "repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand," will be introduced after the Rapture of the church during the seventieth week in anticipation of Christ's second coming.

Pretribulationist argue that the Church was not in existence during the first sixty-nine weeks, therefore, she will not be present during Daniel's seventieth week ("the tribulation period.") This argument made from silence, ignores a number of important facts.

First, the Church was not in existence during Daniel's first sixty-nine weeks, so she could not have been present. However, the Church is in existence now and therefore can be present during the seventieth week.

Second, when the Church was empowered at Pentecost under the NEW COVENANT, God did not abruptly cancel all relationships with the sons of Jacob under the OLD COVENANT. A pious first-century Jewish man who resided in a remote area of the Roman Empire and maybe never heard of Jesus, but who was accepted by God under the old economy, did not lose that standing before God the day after Jesus died. It has been longed recognized by dispensationalists that the Book of Acts is a book of transition from the old economy to the new economy. There was an overlapping of economies. While the Church age had begun, God was still dealing with Israel. This period of transition probably lasted for one generation -- from the Lord's death until the temple was destroyed in 70 AD. There is no biblical reason to suppose this process is not to be reversed during the last days. God can begin dealing once again with national Israel during Daniel's seventieth week and still have the Church present. God will have no trouble keeping separate two distinct entities.

As a Christian I believe as strongly as any man in the distinction between the literal nation of Israel and the true Church. All of the promises that were given to the nation of Israel will be literally fulfilled if they already are not. Some of the promises given to Israel relate solely to the Jewish nation. A great destiny awaits them. Other promises given to Israel relate to the Church that Jesus is building. Every blessing which the Church presently possesses and prophetically anticipates comes out of the greater covenant which God gave us through Jesus. (Jer. 31:31-36; Matt. 26:27-28).

While Israel and the Church are distinct entities with distinct promises, THERE IS ALSO A VITAL AND CONTIGUOUS RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO. It is that relationship which is often blurred by forced and excessive dispensalationalism.

When John MacArthur wrote his book, Kingdom Living Here and Now, he understood that the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5-7) was Church truth, not simply by application but by interpretation; thus, the title, "Kingdom Living Here and Now."

When he wrote his controversial book The Gospel According to Jesus, he went repeatedly to Matthew's gospel to amass evidence to support the thesis concerning the message of the gospel during this Church Age. If Matthew is for the Jew, it would be inappropriate to appeal to it for support of Church truth. But such is not the case. There is no theological basis for excluding the Church from the Lord's teaching in the Sermon on the Mount, The Mysteries of the Kingdom (Mt. 13), Church discipline (Mt. 18), the Upper Room Discourse (Mt. 26), the Great Commission (Mt. 28), or the Olivet Discourse (Mt. 24). All present Church truth.

Some pretribulationsts argue that the Church did not commence until Pentecost (Acts 2) and, therefore, neither the Church nor its Rapture could be taught in Matthew's Jewish gospel. In response, note the following.

FIRST, the Olivet Discourse is also found in Mark 13 and Luke 21. Therefore one cannot negate any Church truth from Matthew on the grounds that it is the Jewish gospel. Mark and Luke contain the same truth.

SECOND, as early as Matthew 16 the Lord spoke of the Church. He said: " I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Mt. 16:18). So the Church was not an unknown entity by the time Mt. 24 is reached.

THIRD, In Mt. 28 the Lord gave the Great Commission. In it He commanded: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (v. 19). He gave this command to His eleven disciples before the Church began on Pentecost. He was not committing to unsaved Israel the task of world evangelism. The Lord had earlier condemned the Jewish leadership for their hypocrisy (Mt. 23:13-36). He warned the nation that their house would be a desolation and that they would not see Him until they were ready to say, "Blessed is He that comes in the name of the Lord" (Mt. 23:37-39). It is the Church which is to evangelize the world. Paul, though himself a Jew, wrote to the Church at Ephesus: Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone, (Eph 2:19-20). It is the Church not Israel, which is built upon the apostles. Instruction given to them -- whether in the Olivet Discourse or the Great Commission -- is intended for the Church.

FOURTH, the Lord gave His Upper Room Discourse to His disciples the night before His crucifixion. This was only two days after the Olivet Discourse. The occasion of their gathering in the upper room was the observance of the Passover dinner (Seder). The entire context was Jewish. Yet on that Occasion the Lord instituted the Lord's Supper (Mt. 26:17-30), which is uniquely a Church ordinance. more than that, during the Jewish Passover, while speaking to His Jewish disciples, the Lord taught Church truth concerning the Rapture. He said to His disciples: "Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me. "In My Father's house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. "And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also"(John 14:1-3). The "you" in the expression "I go to prepare a place for you," is referring to the Church which will experience the Rapture at the Lord's coming. To suggest that in the upper room the Lord could teach His Jewish disciples Church truth (the Communion and the Rapture, but two days earlier in the Olivet Discourse could not speak of the Church because the "church had not yet begun" or because Matthew was the Jewish gospel is simply inconsistent with the Scriptures. The setting of the upper room was appropriately in a Jewish context since "salvation is of the Jews." The disciples, however, represented the Church, which is His body.

Attempts to dispensationalize or Judaize the Church out of the Olivet Discourse are doomed to failure. They simply contradict Scripture and are only made in a vain attempt to sustain a Pretribulation Rapture.

---

THE CHURCH AND THE RAPTURE ARE INSIDE THE OLIVET DISCOURSE!

Permit me to give some reasons for that truth.

First, in a context which the overwhelming majority of pretribulationists acknowledge is inside the seventieth week, the Lord taught: "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come" (Matt 24:14). The end in view is clearly the "end of the age" concerning which the disciples had inquired (Mt. 24:3). In the great Commission the Lord commanded His disciples to evangelize and disciple men from all nations. With that commission He gave them the promise that He would be with them until the end of the age (Mt. 28:20). If the end of the age in the Olivet Discourse is inside the seventieth week, and the Lord promises the Church in the Great Commission that He would be with them "unto the end of the age" --then the Church, of necessity, must enter the seventieth week of Daniel.

Second, after describing the grave difficulties associated with the Great Tribulation, the Lord taught: "And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect's sake those days will be shortened" (Matt 24:22). The question arises: Who are the "elect" who will encounter the Antichrist and suffer the persecution associated with his emergence -- are the "elect" to be identified with Israel, or is the term "elect" referring to Church believers?

The Greek word "elect" (ekletos) means "chosen out, selected, to be chosen as a recipient of special privilege." The word "elect" is found sixteen times in the New Testament. Add to "elect" the words "elects" and "election and there is a total of twenty-three usages in the New Testament. It is used once of "elect [chosen] angels" (1 Tim. 5:21). It is used once of the Lord Jesus Christ who is referred to as "a chief cornerstone, elect [chosen], precious" (1 Pet. 2:6). It is used of all believers -- and that in the context of the Second Coming -- as in the Olivet Discourse: "And shall God not avenge His own elect who cry out day and night to Him, though He bears long with them? "I tell you that He will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the earth" (Luke 18:7-8). Excluding, for now, the six usages in the Olivet Discourse (Mt. 24:22, 24:31; Mk. 13:20, 22, 27) and the use of "elect" for angels and the Lord, as cited above, in every other instance the word "elect" in the New Testament refers to those who are members of the Church.

Who shall bring a charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. (Rom 8:33).

Put on therefore, as the elect of God," (Col 3:12).

Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect," (2 Tim 2:10).

Paul, a bondservant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect" (Titus 1:1).

Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father," (1 Pet 1:2).

"THE ELDER, To the elect lady and her children, whom I love in truth," (2 Jn 1:1).

The children of your elect sister greet you" (2 Jn 1:13).

That Israel is called God's elect in the Old Testament is without question (Isa. 45:4). However, not once in the New Testament is Israel so identified. Clearly, if we are to believe that the six usages in the Olivet Discourse that the word elect is to be understood as referring to Israel rather than its normal usage for the Church, clear and compelling evidence must be cited. The reality is that no such clear and compelling evidence has been brought forth. If the elect in the Olivet Discourse refers to the Church, as the weight if evidence clearly indicates. Pretribulation rapturism is fatally flawed. It is that fact which lies behind the attempt to make the "elect" in the Olivet discourse refer to the chosen among Israel.

Third, in the Olivet Discourse the Lord clearly speaks of the Rapture of the Church. He taught: "Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. "Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. "And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other" (Matt 24:29-31).

Cosmic disturbances -- the darkening of the sun, the moon refraining from giving its light, and the stars falling from heaven -- all indicate the Day of the Lord's wrath is about to commence (Joel 2: 10-11, 30:32; Rev. 6:12:13). This cosmic indicator of the approaching Day of the Lord occurs, according to Matthew, "immediately after the tribulation of those days" (Mt. 24:29); that is, immediately after the Great Tribulation. Matthew has already indicated that the Great Tribulation, which commences at the mid-point of the seventieth week in connection with the abomination of desolation, will be shortened. He wrote: "For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. "And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect's sake those days will be shortened" (Matt 24:21-22). The word "shortened" (koloboo in the Greek) literally means "to cut off or amputate"; and thus to curtail or shorten. According to Matthew, it is the Great Tribulation which is "cut off," "amputated," or "shortened" for the elect's sake.

It is beyond refutation that the seventieth week of Daniel is not shortened. Daniel was told, "Seventy weeks [of years] are determined upon your people" (Dan. 9:24). The seventieth week is the last seven-year period of Daniel's prophecy. It is clear that the last three and one-half years are not shortened. This period of time is defined in days: "Then the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there one thousand two hundred and sixty days" (Rev 12:6). A prophetic year is 360 days. Three and one-half years is 1,260 days.

This time period is also directly defined in months: "And he was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and he was given authority to continue for forty-two months" (Rev 13:5); that is three and one-half years.

The same period is also referred to in years: "But the woman was given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness to her place, where she is nourished for a time [one year] and times [two years] and half a time [one-half year], from the presence of the serpent" (Rev 12:14). Once again this period of three and one-half years. This, then, is clear.

The entire seventieth week is not shortened. The last three and one-half years of the seventieth week are not shortened. What is shortened, according to the Lord's teaching, is the Great Tribulation. It lasts less than three and one-half years in duration. It begins in the middle of the seventieth week, but it does not run to the end of the seventieth week. It is "amputated."

The Great Tribulation will be cut short for "the elect's sake" (Mt. 24:22). Nowhere in the Bible is it ever taught that the Great Tribulation is Three and one-half years in duration. The great Tribulation of Mt. 24 corresponds to the fourth seal in Rev. 6, and its specific duration is not given in Scripture.

It is immediately after the shortening of the Great Tribulation that the cosmic disturbances occurs, indicating that the Day of the Lord wrath is about to commence. It is precisely at this point that the Rapture occurs (exactly where it should be if the Church is exempted from God's wrath). The Lord taught: "Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. "And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other" (Matt 24:30-31).

Pretribulationists want to make this gathering of the elect refer to the regathering of Israel back to the land of Israel at the end of the seventieth week. Such a position faces insurmountable problems.

First, The gathering of the elect occurs immediately after the shortening of the Great Tribulation, not at the end of the seventieth week when Jews who survive the seventieth week will return to their land.

Second, the gathering of the elect is not to Israel or Jerusalem, but to heaven.

Third, the expression "the four winds" occurs in only three places in the New Testament: (1) In the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24:31, "And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other." (2) In the Olivet Discourse in Mark 13:27, "And then He will send His angels, and gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest part of earth to the farthest part of heaven.(3) In the discussion of the last days in the Book of Revelation: "After these things I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, on the sea, or on any tree" (Rev 7:1).

Clearly these are all parallel texts. Each occurs immediately after cosmic disturbance indicating the Day of the Lord is about to commence (cp. Mt. 24:29; Mark 13:24-25; Rev. 6:12-17). In Matthew and Mark we are told that this elect group is gathered from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven. In revelation John writes: "After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands" (Rev 7:9). Concerning this great host, so large that it cannot be numbered, we are told: "These are they who came out of the Great Tribulation [immediately after the Great Tribulation is what Matthew said], and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the lamb. (Rev. 7:14). The elect in the Olivet Discourse does not refer to Israel being regathered to Jerusalem, but the Church being gathered (a Prewrath Rapture) to heaven immediately prior to the out pouring of God's wrath on a godless and unregenerate earth.

The planet earth is headed for calamitous days. Man's rebellion against God will soon reach its apex under the Antichrist. The true Church, unwilling to submit to this satanically empowered individual, will experience the brunt of His fury. To understand what is coming, to appropriate the Lord's warning about this period of time, is of paramount importance.

To thwart the Lord's warning to His children, in 1830, Satan, the "father of lies," gave to a fifteen year old girl named Margaret McDonald a lengthy vision.

Edward Irving, father of the Pentecostal movement, systematized key elements of MacDonald's vision into pretribulationism, in direct contradiction to the early Church fathers who believed the Church would encounter Antichrist before the Rapture. Pretribulationism was adopted and expanded by John Darby, father of the Plymouth Brethren. In the 1880s it made its way from England to the shores of America. In the year 1917, the concept of a pretribulational Rapture became one of the "pillars" of the second edition of the Scofield Reference Bible. (Many of the Scofield notes are helpful, but one must remember that they are not inspired.) It then spread rapidly. It was embraced by many Christian leaders and institutions in America. During the last eighty years or so, it became a vital part of the doctrinal position of the majority of Bible believing Christians in America. Although I have a hatred for Satan who perpetrated the Pretribulation error and his partner Antichrist, who will utilize the lie for his purposes, I am not angry at the many good and godly men who have been misled by Satan's deception. Throughout church history the best of the saints had blind spots in their theology.

If men believe that they will be "out of here" (a Pretribulation Rapture) before the Antichrist arises and the Great Tribulation commences, they will be set up for a spiritual "Pearl Harbor." If we are the final generation of this age, as we may well be, such people will be caught off guard, unprepared, confused, and prime targets for the Antichrist. There are those who advocate simply to be ready regardless of when the rapture occurs. That will not work. It is not that easy. There are specific warnings given to the Church concerning the emergence of the Antichrist and the Great Tribulation which must be believed to be applied.

You are held responsible for what you believe. The Church is in Matthew 24, this is, I believe, clear from the scriptures we have looked at. If your belief does not line up with the Word of God, change your belief so as to be prepared for the days that are ahead.