MATHEW 24

Dispensational Perversion of Scripture

Dispensational Perversion of Scripture

I recently subscribed to Tribulation Watch Newsletter, out of Arlington, Tx. The paper was started to support and spread the Dispensational theology, and to share with its readers the signs of the times. This journal in the two issues that I have received it, is some of the most fear mongering twisting of scripture that I have read. It is, simply stated, horrible. I do not want to be unkind, but, the "theological journalism" on display in this paper is about as bad as it gets.

The paper addresses some of the legitimate moral issues of the day, but then, invariably claims that what we are seeing is the fulfillment of Bible prophecy, proving that the end is near! As is usually the case with many in the Dispensational camp however, their use of scripture is awful. I am not trying to be unkind here, but, let me illustrate from the latest issue of the paper.

Under a bold heading Conspiracy Alert!!! the author notes how the radical Islamic group ISIS has been spray painting the word Nasara (meaning Nazarene, i.e. a follower of Jesus) on the houses of Christians. The report states, as the world has indeed witnessed, that Christians in the ISIS controlled areas are persecuted unmercilessly. Often beheaded, shot, and the women raped, even children beheaded. Make no mistake, ISIS is horrible reality, and one that must be dealt with. There can be no negotiation or compromise with those who want to kill anyone that does not agree with them.

Anyway, the author of the article says, According to the Bible prophecy, the Christian cleansing that is currently taking place today in Iraq, Syria and Nigeria will eventually spread to every nation in the world. Jesus Christ prophesied this would happen two thousand years ago. Lets read it: They shall deliver you up to be afflicted and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my names sake (Matthew 24:9).

Wow! Sounds real, right? Sounds like Bible fulfillment right before our eyes, right? Surely we are living in the last days! Right? NO, NO, and a thousand times, NO! The author of Tribulation Watch Newsletter is guilty of the worst sort of fear mongering, and he has done soby absolutely ignoring the actual context that he cites as his proof!

Note that the context of Matthew 24:9 is Jesus response to the disciples question about when Jerusalem and the Temple that was standing there, 2000 years ago, would be destroyed (Matthew 24:3)! To rip Jesus answer from that context is just wrong.

Second, note that Jesus, speaking to living, breathing humans, said they will deliveryouup. What right does someone today, living 2000 years removed from those contemporary you apostles, to say it had nothing to do with them, but has to apply to us?

Third, and this is so critical, note that in the parallel text, Mark 13:9, Jesus is recorded as saying: They shall deliver you up tocouncils, and in thesynagoguesyou will be beaten... Do you catch the power of that?

The word translated ascouncilis from the Greek word sunedra and meansSanhedrins! Jesus was speaking to his first century disciples and telling them that they would be brought before the Jewish Sanhedrin councils! (There were minor Sanhedrins in any city large enough to qualify).Jesus was not predicting Islamic persecution of modern Christians!He was predicting Jewish persecution of Christians!!

Now, notice that in Acts 4-5, Peter and John were brought before the Sanhedrin, and persecuted!

The indisputable fact here is that Jesus was predicting that it was to be the Jews that would carry out the persecution!It was not ISIS!(No matter how horrible that is!) It was not the USA! It was not some far distant persecutor, unknown to the first century disciples.

For modern day Bible commentators to ignore this direct, specific and undeniable Biblical evidence is inexcusable. It demonstrates how strong presuppositional theology is. Dispensationalists (and all futurists to some degree) have a concept of the last days and the nature of the Day of the Lord, and that concept is such that they are willing to blatantly, flagrantly ignore the emphatic words of the text to maintain their presuppositional theology.

The indisputable fact is that just as Jesus foretold, it was the Jews of the first century who were the movers and shakers of the persecution against the church. His words in Matthew 24 were fulfilled, and the record is there on the pages for instance of the book of Acts, and the rest of the NT epistles. For documentation of this, see my bookWho Is This Babylon?in which I document this beyond doubt.

I am sure that the author of the article in Tribulation Watch is sincere in believing we are in the last days. But, his sincerity does not justify ignoring the actual context and the actual words of the text that he appeals to. This is not Bible interpretation. It is the manipulation and perversion of the Biblical text. It is fear mongering, and needs to be revealed for what it is.

Dont forget that the 2005 Preterist Pilgrim Weekend will be July 16-18 here in Ardmore, Ok. I can tell you that interest in this years seminar is already building. We are already receiving registrations! The theme is:Dispensationalism: Dangerous or Divine?We will be examining the hermeneutics of Dispensationalism that leads to such egregious articles as the one examined here. We will be taking a look at John Hagees claims about the Four Blood Moons (And since the seminar is in July, and Hagee says the last of the Four Blood Moons is in September, this means that our seminar is near the end of the last days!! Wow!) We will be examining the doctrine of the Rapture, the Postponement Theory of Daniel 9, and much, much more! You do NOT want to miss this yearsPreterist Pilgrim Weekend! Register Now!!Guest Article| Gary DeMar on Noah's Flood and Prophetic Speculation #2

APRIL 09THWritten byDon K. PrestonThis is part two of an article by Gary DeMar, of American Vision responding to the current speculation about the NT use of the Noachic flood, and it supposed meaning for a yet future coming of the Lord. Be sure to read part one. In this installment, DeMar addresses the claims that the Olivet Discourse, and Jesus mention of the Days of Noah, refer to a yet future rapture of the church.

No Rapture Here!

Many futurists claim that the phrase took them all away (24:39) refers to a rapture that is still in our future. On the contrary, In the context of 24:3739, taken presumably means taken to judgment (cf. Jer. 6:11 NASB, NRSV),(13) or taken away to their doom.(14) Its not about the rescue of the church from tribulation.

The phrase ties the judgment of the world in Noahs day with the judgment on Israels world that took place with the destruction of the temple in AD 70. Who was taken away in the judgment of the flood? Not Noah and his family. They were left behind to carry on Gods work. John Gill writes in his commentary on this passage: the whole world of the ungodly, every man, woman, and child were taken away in judgment. Note who was left behind: except eight persons only; Noah and his wife, and his three sons and their wives.

And what does Gill say about those in the field? They shall be taken away by the eagles, the Roman army, and either killed or carried captive by them. The Bible gives its own commentary on the meaning of took them all away. Destroyed them all (Luke 17:27, 29) is equivalent to took them all away. This can hardly be referring to a rescue via rapture. Consider dispensationalist John F. Walvoords comments on took them away.

An argument advanced by Alexander Reese and adopted by [Robert] Gundry is that the references in Matthew 24:40, 41 should be interpreted as referring to the rapture. These verses state, Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; one shall be taken and the other left.

Here both Gundry and Reese violate the rule that the context should determine the interpretation of a passage. Both Gundry and Reese concede that the context deals with judgment such as characterized the time of Noah. According to Matthew 24:39 those living at that time knew not until the flood came, and took them all away, so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be. Those taken away were taken away in judgment.

Claiming that those taken in verses 40 and 41 are taken away in the rapture, Gundry in discussing the parallel passage in Luke 17:3437, ignores verse 37. There two are pictured in the same bed, with one taken and the other left. Two are grinding together, and one is taken and the other left. Two are in the field, one is taken and the other left. Then, in verse 37, the question is asked, Where, Lord? The answer is very dramatic: And He said unto them, Wherever the body is, there will the eagles be gathered together. It should be very clear that the ones taken are put to death and their bodies are consumed by the vultures. If the ones taken are killed, then verses 40, 41 of Matthew 24 speak of precisely the same kind of judgment as occurred in the flood where the ones taken were taken in judgment.(15)

Walvoord writes in another place:

Because at the rapture believers will be taken out of the world, some have confused this with the rapture of the church. Here, however, the situation is the reverse. The one who is left, is left to enter the kingdom; the one who is taken, is taken in judgment.(16)

But like Reese and Gundry, Walvoord ignores the time texts that run throughout Matthew 2425, claiming that they refer to a distant coming of Christ. Since there was a judgment where Jews were in fact taken away in judgment by the Roman armies, it makes much more sense to place the timing of the event to the temples destruction and Jerusalems judgment in AD 70 since Jesus tells His disciples that not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down (Matt. 24:2). Jesus was not describing a supposed future rebuilt temple; He was describing what was going to happen to the temple that they could see with their own eyes: not one stone here.

Note by Don K. Preston: Be sure to read my bookLeaving the Rapture Behind,for a more in-depth study of the Rapture doctrine.

Mix and Match

A number of commentators argue that Matthew 24:35 is a transition text. Its at this point, they say, that Jesus is referring to a time period that is still in our future, the Second Coming. While Matthew 24:35 seems to be transitional if we only look at Matthews version of the Olivet Discourse, it ceases to be so when we compare it with Luke 17:2237.

This section of Lukes gospel describes five Olivet-Discourse prophetic events that are identical to those found in Matthew 24. The difference between Matthew 24 and Luke 17 is in the order of the events. Ray Summers writes:

This is a most difficult passage. The overall reference appears to be to the coming of the Son of ManChristin judgment at the end of the age. Some small parts of it, however, are repeated in Luke 21 in reference to the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70), and larger parts of it are in Matthew 24, also in reference to the destruction of Jerusalem. The entire complex cautions one against dogmatism in interpreting.(17)

Taking Matthew 24 as the standard, Luke places the Noahs ark analogy (Matt. 24:3739) before the events of Matthew 24:1718 (let him who is on the housetop not go down or the person in the field must not turn back to get his cloak) which makes perfect sense because he or she might be caught and taken away, verse 27 (for just as the lightning comes from the east), and verse 28 (wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather). If the five prophetic events of Matthew 24 that are found in Luke 17:2237 are numbered 12345, Lukes numbering of the same events would be 24153. While this is not positive proof of an AD 70 fulfillment for chapters 24 and 25, it certainly adds credibility to the position.(18)

After A Long Time(Note by Don K. Preston-- I urge all readers to pay particular attention here, for DeMar's point is very powerful, and in fact, refutes those in the Dominionist camp such as Kenneth Gentry who claims that these "after a long time" references, must indicate a delay of so far 2000 years! DeMar's comments are spot on, however, and refute that idea).

Another line of evidence offered by those who believe that events following Matthew 24:34 refer to a yet future personal and physical return of Jesus is the meaning given to after a long time (24:48; 25:19) and the delay by the bridegroom (25:5). On the surface these examples seem to indicate that two different events are in view, one near (the destruction of Jerusalem) and one distant (the second coming of Christ). This is the view of Stephen F. Hayhow.

Both parables, the parables of the virgins (vv. 113), and the parable of the talents (vv. 1430), speak of the absence of the bridegroom/master, who is said to be a long time in coming (v. 5) and After a long time the master of the servants returned (v. 19). This suggests, not the events of A.D. 70 which were to occur in the near future, in fact within the space of a generation, but a distant event, the return of Christ.(19)

Notice that the evil slave says, My master is not coming for a long time (Matt. 24:48). The evil slave then proceeds to beat his fellow-slaves and eat and drink with drunkards (24:49). But to the surprise of the evil slave the master returned when he least expected him (24:50, compare with verse 42). The master did not return to cut the evil slaves distant relatives in pieces (24:51); he cuts him in pieces. The evil slave was alive when the master left, and he was alive when the master returned.

In this context, a long time must be measured against a persons lifetime. In context, two years could be a long time if the master usually returned within six months. The same idea is expressed in the parable of the talents. A man entrusts his slaves with his possessions (25:14). The master then goes on a journey (25:15). While the master is gone, the slaves make investment decisions (25:1618). We are then told that after a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them (25:19). In this context a long time is no longer than an average lifetime.

The settlement is made with the same slaves who received the talents. In every other New Testament context, a long time means nothing more than an extended period of time (Luke 8:27; 23:8; John 5:6; Acts 8:11; 14:3, 28; 26:5, 29; 27:21; 28:6). Nowhere does it mean centuries or millennia. The delay of the bridegroom is no different from the long time of the two previous parables. The bridegroom returns to the same two groups of virgins (25:113). The duration of the delay must be measured by the audience context.

This brief analysis helps us understand the mockers who ask, Where is the promise of His coming? (2 Peter 3:34). Peter was aware that Jesus coming was an event that would take place before the last apostle died (Matt. 16:2728; John 21:2223). The doctrine of the soon return of Jesus was common knowledge (Matt. 24:34; 26:64; Phil. 4:5; Heb. 10:25; 1 John 2:18; Rev. 1:1, 3). It is not hard to imagine that the passage of several decades would lead some to doubt the reliability of the prophecy, especially as the promised generation was coming to a close. The horrendous events of AD 70 silenced the mockers.

Conclusion

When prophecy pundits turn to the story of Noah and the Flood as a way to teach on the end times, they do serious damage to the text of Scripture by ripping it from its first-century context. Jesus used the story to describe what was going to happen to Jerusalem, the temple, and the nation within a generation.

Guest Article| Gary DeMar on Noah's Flood and Prophetic Speculation

Gary DeMar recently wrote a very good article on the current conversation taking place in regard to Noah, the Flood and Bible Prophecy. The recent release of the movie Noah, has fanned the flames of prophetic speculation and DeMar does a good job in countering much of what is being said. We are glad to share this article with our visitors. This is part one.

Prophecy Speculation and the Days of Noah

Ray Comforts film Noah and the Last Days isnt so much about Noah and the flood. Instead, its a way to introduce the topic of end times speculation with the claim that there are 10 signs that are indisputable evidence that we are living in the last days. This is an old overused story.

Comfort isnt the only person referencing Jesus use of the Noah story as a jumping off point for prophetic speculation. I just ordered two new books that attempt to make the same case: Jeff KinleysAs It Was in the Days of Noah: Warnings from Bible Prophecy About the Coming Global Storm(Harvest House) and Minister Dante FortsonsAs The Days of Noah Were: The Sons of God and The Coming Apocalypse(which seems a little kooky).

In 1919, Lewis Sperry Chafer wroteSeven Biblical Signs of the Times.(1) He assured his readers of nearly a hundred years ago that the rapture is imminent, and has been since the first promise regarding it was given.(2) If an event is always imminent, what need do you really have for signs?

In 1979 Colin Hoyle Deal wroteChrist Returns by 1988: 101 Reasons Why.Then there was the tractStrange Events Forecast for 1982.(3) In 1988 the World Bible Society sent out a fund raising letter with the following appeal:

I beg you, as brothers and sisters in the Lord, to take time to read the first ten reasons the Rapture is in 1988 and the first ten pages of The Bible Dates of the 7th Week in Daniel, Armageddon and the Millennium. If you are not totally convinced of the Bible dates, Ive sounded the trumpet, and I rest my case. We, as Christian booksellers, are responsible to make known to the Body of Christ these upcoming events. The watchman is held responsible, and the blood is on his hands if he doesnt sound the alarm.

There was Edgar Whisenant who wrote88 Reasons Why the Rapture is in 1988.(4) In our radio debate, he told the audience, If Im wrong about this, then the Bibles wrong.

Following these attempts to compile a list of prophetic signs concerning the end times, Mark Hitchcock released a book in 2003 with the titleSeven Signs of the End Times.(5) In his 2012 updated edition, Noah W. Hutchings published40 Irrefutable Signs of the Last Generation.

I have a library full of similar books that have made the same type of claims over the centuries.(6) The internet is filled with sites that list supposed end-time signs pointing to the rapture or some cataclysmic end-point of history. One site posits 26 signs. Another site lists 12 signs.

Day and the hourMany prophecy enthusiasts believe the story of the flood is analogous to our period in history. In fact, Jesus recounts the flood story to indicate a pending judgment upon Jerusalem, the temple complex, and the nation of Israel, a catastrophe that would engulf the capital city within the confines of that first-century generation.

To help His listeners better understand the timing and circumstances of the events leading up to and including the destruction of the temple before their generation passed away, Jesus draws on a familiar Old Testament judgment event the flood. Jesus, teaching by analogy, shows how the coming of the flood waters during Noahs generation and His own coming in judgment against Jerusalem are similar in certain respects (Luke 17:22-37).

Noahs Flood is not an end of the world analogy. How do we know? Because Jesus said, speaking of Himself, but first He must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation (17:25). Every time Jesus uses the phrase this generation, it always means the generation to whom He was speaking (Matt. 12:39, 41, 42, 45; 23:36), never a future generation. Jesus isnt jumping over nearly 2000 years of history to make a prophetic point about a people and time far removed from what was an impending judgment. There is a link between His suffering, the rejection by His own generation (Acts 2:22-23, 40), and the flood analogy of judgment. Joel McDurmon writes:

To those who may be tempted to argue . . . that this generation refers to something other than the generation to whom Jesus was speaking something more general or more future the context here in Luke 17:25 makes it clear that Jesus this generation would be the same generation which rejected Him and caused Him to suffer. Note, McDurmon's book is excellent in many ways, andcan be purchased from this website here).

In Matthews gospel we read about those days which were before the flood and the day that Noah entered the ark (Matt. 24:38). Similarly, there were days before the coming of the Son of Man who prophesied judgment on the temple and city of Jerusalem and the day of the coming of the Son of Man. The same people were involved in both the days before and the day of the Son of Man. Those who were eating and drinking and marrying and giving in marriage were the same people who were shut out on the day that Noah entered the ark. They were all a part of Noahs generation.

Noah entered the ark on a single day similar to the way Jesus as the Son of Man came on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory (Matt. 24:30), a day and hour known only to the Father (24:36). Some shall be rescued from the destruction of Jerusalem, like Lot out of the burning of Sodom: while others, no ways perhaps different in outward circumstances, shall be left to perish in it.(8)

Jesus says that His coming will be just like the days of Noah (24:37). The people were doing normal thingseating and drinking and marrying and giving in marriage. Jesus is telling his audience that life will go on as usual when Jesus returns in judgment against the temple and city of Jerusalem. People had no thought of a coming judgment in Noahs day since there were no signs except the preaching of Noah (2 Peter 2:5). Noah was told to prepare for things not yet seen (Heb. 11:7).

Jesus is not describing evil behavior like drunkenness and sexual sins that included exchanging mates or wife swapping, contrary to what M. R. DeHaan and Jack Van Impe claim.(9) Marrying and given in marriage is a phrase to describe, well, marrying and giving in marriage (see Matt. 22:30; Luke 17:27-28). People do it every day. Men and women marry and parents give their daughters away in marriage. D. A. Carsons comments are helpful:

That the coming of the Son of Man takes place at an unknown time can only be true if in fact life seems to be going on pretty much as usualjust as in the days before the flood (v. 37). People follow their ordinary pursuits (v. 38). Despite the distress, persecutions, and upheavals (vv. 428), life goes on: people eat, drink, and marry. There is no overt typological usage of the Flood as judgment here, nor any mention of the sin of that generation.(10)

Support for Carsons interpretation can be found in Lukes account of the time just before Sodoms destruction: It was the same as happened in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building; but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all (Luke 17:28). Buying, selling, planting, and building describe life going on as usual without any regard to an impending judgment.

The picture here is on normal life, eating and drinking at meals and parties, getting married and giving their children in marriage. . . . In itself is not a negative picture, but these were people obsessed with their daily lives, giving no thought whatsoever to their obligations to God. All this was to change when Noah entered the ark, but then it was too late.(11)

Are prophecy speculators willing to say that these activities connote moral corruption? Darrell L. Bock attempts this interpretation even though he admits that the idea of moral corruption . . . is not emphasized in Lukes description.(12) Of course it isnt. Buying, selling, planting, and building are common everyday actions that can describe any period of history and any type of people. Its the time indicator of this generation that identifies who is in view.

No one disputes that Noah and Lot lived in a time of moral corruption that brought judgment. Jesus point, however, is that the people in Noah and Lots day went on with their lives as if the promise of imminent judgment was an idle threat similar to the way the skeptics in the time before Jerusalems destruction thought of Jesus prediction (see 2 Peter 3:34). Notice the audience reference: Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things (v. 14). Peter is not describing a distant event for a future audience (he would have then used the word they) but one that was soon to take place and would impact them. The same is true of those who were told that Jesus would return in judgment within a generation (Matt. 24:34). The use of the second person plural (you) throughout Matthew 24 is evident of this fact (vv. 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 26, 32, 33, 34).

But of that Day and Hour....

Perhaps no passage is used more often in attempts to negate the imminence of Christ's coming, as stated in the epistles, as Matthew 24.36, where Jesus said "But of that day and hour knows no man, but the Father only." We are told that if Jesus did not know the time of his coming, then the disciples could not know-- even in the epistles.

In the article below, William Bell completely refutes this claim. This is an excellent article, so take a look!

But of That Day and Hour!(c) Copyright 2005 by William H. Bell Jr.

Whenever the time of the Lords return is discussed, the question always arises concerning Matthew 24:36. But of that day and hour knows no man, neither angels nor the Son.

Why then as some reason, do we presume to know the time of the Lords return? While this is not what we do or teach, we are often falsely accused of teaching a precise date for the Lords return.

There are some who believe that this date can be pinpointed with accuracy by virtue of the study of the feast days. Whether one agrees with such studies or not, it does not affect the outcome of our present study.

We want to make it clear that we are not proposing a specific time --that is a pinpointed time for Christs return. However, that by no means indicates that we do not believe that we can know with accuracy, the generation in which Jesus returned. The scriptures are clear on the fact that Christ would return within one generation of his going away. Jesus taught:

Assuredly, I say unto you, this generation will by no means pass away until all these things take place. (Matt. 24:34).

The heart of this question centers around the study of Matthew 24. Believers want to know, how could Christ speak of coming within the first century generation when he said but of that day and hour no one knows? This is a great question. What makes it a great question beyond the magnitude of the subject itself, is the word, how.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRECISE AND GENERAL TIMEFirst, we must acknowledge and understand the difference between specific or precise time and general or non-specific time. Confusion on this matter can cause us to miss the meaning and interpretation of the passage.

Secondly, lets consider some events which have a general time. Ladies, have you ever had a parent who told you that they would take you shopping? You got all excited, told your friends and when Saturday came around, you put on your clothes and prepared yourself to shop. Then you looked at your mother and said, mom, Im ready to go. Your mom said, go where honey? You said, shopping. Your mother smiled and said, You are correct. I told you that were going shopping, but I never said we were going today. I mean later this month after I get my bonus check.

You are temporarily disappointed. However, you know that eventually you will go shopping later that month. So you ask your mother when she will get her check. She says, I dont know. All I know is, theyre giving them out sometime before the end of this month. We have been assured of that.

Now your mother knows shes getting the check. She knows shes getting the check this month. She does not know what day and what hour they will distribute those checks to the employees. Therefore, she does not know the precise time she will take you shopping. However, she does know the general time, doesnt she?

She could easily say, we are going shopping this month, but of the day and hour, I do not know. She knew the general time. She did not know the precise time. She could not be time specific.

Now compare this to what Jesus said. He promised that all those things would occur within the first century generation, (Mt. 24:34) He knew the general time. Yet he did not know the precise day and hour in which those events would occur. (Verse 36).

Consider another example. A young boy has turned 6 years old. His father tells him that he will take him camping in the woods that year. Filled with excitement, the young boy races out of the house and tells all of his friends that Saturday, hes going camping.

Saturday comes around and his Dad is no where to be found. The young boys heart is broken. He is saddened and disappointed with his father. Finally, his father returns home and finds the young boy hurt and sulking. He asks, son, whats the matter? The little boy pouted, you said you would take me camping today.

The father smiled, put his arm around his son and spoke reassuringly to him. He said, son, you must have misunderstood. I never said, we would go this Saturday. I said I would take you camping and I will. Im waiting until I get my new 4-wheel drive truck so we can have some fun rolling over the hills. If I take this two wheel drive, well get stuck in the mud shortly after we start out toward the lake.

Ive ordered the truck and it should arrive within two weeks. Once it gets here, then we can set the date after we check the weather. I dont want it to rain on us. The boy smiles. He now understands that his dad never gave him a specific day and hour for the trip. He knows that he is going. He knows that the time is soon, but he does not have a specific day and hour.

This again is how Jesus responded. All these things will happen before this generation passes. The generation is the general time. We can know it will happen within a certain generation. That was the first century generation. Jesus assures us his coming would take place before those who lived within the first century generation died.

That means that his coming could not be in the second, third, fourth, twentieth or twenty first century generation. It had to occur in the first century generation. But of that day and hour within that generation, no man knew. As in both cases above, the mother did not know precisely when her bonus check would arrive. The father did not know precisely when his 4-wheel drive truck would arrive, but they did have a general time.

It is not a contradiction to know the general time and not know the specific time. This is the proper way to understand Matthew 24:36. Yes, all things were fulfilled within that generation. Jesus did not reveal the precise day and hour for the events. He only revealed the precise generation.

PRESENT TENSE VERSUS PAST TENSEIt is important also that one observes that the words knows is present tense. In other words, at the time Jesus made the statement, no man at that time knew the day and the hour. However, things which are not know at one time, may be known at a later time.

Lets go back to the mother. She is on her job on the 17th day of the month. Her boss comes in with a handful of checks and tells all the employees that she will pass them out just prior to lunch time which is at 12:00 noon. Now what the mother did not know before, she now knows.

Jesus did not say he could never know the time of his coming. He only said that at the time he spoke the prophecy in Matthew 24, he did not know. Later, God could reveal to him a more precise time.

In like manner, the auto dealer could call the father and say, your truck arrived today. Well have it ready by 2 p.m. What time would you like to come in and pick it up. The father says Ill be there at 2:30 p.m. Its Wednesday. The father now knows that he will pick up his truck at 2:30 p.m. on Wednesday. What he did not know before, he learned at a later time. Just because something is unknown today, does not mean that we cannot know it at some time in the future.

Jesus coming occurred within the first century generation. That was a long time ago. He now knows the day of and hour of his return. Now it is after the fact. It is no longer a mystery to him.

MATTHEW 24:36 and LUKE 17:30, 31Further proof that Jesus second coming occurred in the first century generation with Jerusalems fall in A.D. 70 is seen when comparing Matthew 24:36 with Luke 17:30, 31. The events are the same not two different events as some suppose.

Almost all informed scholars and bible students concede or agree that Matthew 24:1-34, speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. They concede because verse 34 squarely places that coming within the first century generation. This means that before all people died in the first century, Jesus would return and destroy Jerusalem.

In connection with this event, the disciples are told to flee the city and to not return to take their clothes. Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (whoever reads, let him understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house. And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes. (Matt. 24:15-18).

In Lukes gospel, this fleeing event is shown to be the time of Jerusalems fall. But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. Luke 21:20-22.

However, there is a third example of this event also in Luke. It however, corresponds with Matthew 24:36, showing that this fleeing event correlates with the second coming of Christ! Even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed. In that day, he who is on the housetop, and his goods are in the house, let him not come down to take them away. And likewise the one who is in the field, let him not turn back. (Luke 17:30, 31)

Therefore, the same fleeing event which precedes verse 34 in Matthew 24 (15-18) also follows verse 36 (Luke 17:30, 31) being in the day when the Son of Man is revealed. That is the second coming. Luke also ties this event to Jerusalems fall, Luke 21:20-22.

THAT THE DAYSome object to our use of Luke 17:30, 31 as a parallel to Matthew 24:36 on the grounds that Luke 17:30, 31 is a unique rendering only found here and in Matthew 24:36. However, we find that the phrase, that the day is also mentioned in Second Thessalonians 1:10. When He comes, in that [the] Day, to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe, because our testimony among you was believed.2 Thessalonians 1:10refers to Jesus final return and it is also parallel with Matthew 24:36 being the same construction (that the day) as that of Luke 17:30, 31. However, as shown from the context, Jewish persecutions were the sign predicted by the Lord in Matthew 24:9 which preceded this coming.

Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My names sake. (Matt. 24:9). Later he says, For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor every shall be. (24:21).

Paul identifies the persecutors as the Jews who opposed them and murdered Christ. For you brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen, just as they did from the Judeans, who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they do not please God and are contrary to all men forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to fill up the measure of their sins; but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost. (1 Thess. 2:14-16).

It is these Jews who would fill up the measure of their sins. Jesus spoke the same of these Jews in Jerusalem and Judea during the closing days of his ministry.

Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers guilt. Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her winds, but you were not willing! See your house is left to you desolate. (Matt. 23:32-38)

It is the Jews who killed the Lord, who persecuted the saints from city to city and who beat them in the synagogues. See Acts 7, 12, and 16. God would come and judge these Jewish persecutors and bring wrath upon them to the uttermost. This he would do in that the day when he came to be glorified in His saints. It is a coming to destroy the Jewish persecutors. Everything points back to the destruction of Jerusalem and the events which led up to it. This is why Jesus placed his coming within that generation.

In summary, we have addressed the issue of precise and general time. It is possible to know the general time, --this generation without knowing the precise time, --that day and hour.

We have also shown that precise time can be known after the fact. Knowing was in present tense. However, now that the event has occurred, Jesus most certainly knows the day and hour.

Thirdly, we demonstrated that no division can be made of the events which take place in this generation, meaning Jerusalems fall in A.D. 70 and the events said to occur in that day and hour. We cited Luke 17:30, 31; 21:20-22 showing their parallel to Matt. 24:36. This text is identified as the coming of the Lord in Jerusalems fall.

Finally we showed the persecution of the saints to be a sign prophesied by the Lord concerning the Jewish persecutors who would receive wrath in that the day. All evidence points to Jesus return in A.D. 70.

Misconceptions About Misconceptions

Patently, Matthew 24 is a pivotal text in the eschatological debate. Amillennialists and premillennialists find little in common here. One shared belief, however, is that the disciples' questions reveal they mistakenly believed Jerusalem's fall and the end of time to be synchronous. One writer insists that while their questions indicate two events to us, "the disciples were indeed thinking of one stupendous event," i.e., the fall of Jerusalem. He then says, "However, it does not follow...that they were correct in their assumption." Such sentiments are common. In fact, seemingly taken for granted by the commentators is the gross misunderstanding of Jesus' disciples and the clarity of modern comprehension!

Did the disciples misperceive Jesus' discussion? Can we assume we are right and they wrong? This paper seeks to challenge the current consensus which suggests the disciples were wrong in their understanding that Messiah would come and the world would end at the fall of Jerusalem.

What Coming? What World?The interpretation of Matthew 24 hinges upon a proper understanding of the questions in verse 3. Did the disciples ask about the destruction of Jerusalem plus the end of time; or did the disciples ask about the destruction of Jerusalem? Were the disciples confused? Could it be that the disciples (knowledgeable in Jewish apocalyptic) had a more perfect understanding of what was to happen in the "end of the age" and "day of the Lord" than we give them credit for having? In fact, upon what basis do WE assume that the disciples even conceived of the end of time? Have we read back into the text our modern concepts? Could it be that the end of the world they had in mind was the full end of the Jewish Theocracy at the coming of Messiah in his kingdom, Daniel 9:24-27? Space forbids us to pursue this here but we urge the reader to study this on his own.

An Admission--A FactWe would acknowledge that the disciples very often misunderstood Jesus' teaching. In fact, the resurrection is the one subject most misunderstood. See Mark 9:32,45. They did not fathom some of his references to the Father, John 8:27; his teaching about the sheepfold, 10:6; his entry into Jerusalem, 12:14-16; Jesus washing their feet, 13; his relationship with the Father, 14:7ff; and the doctrine of the Pharisees, Matthew 16:5ff. This question: How do we know of the disciples' comprehension problems? Quite simply, we know because the Bible tells us! In each case cited above inspiration specifically tells us the disciples did not understand! The writers, writing "post facto" very candidly reflect on their own ignorance as they write about their time with Jesus.

Another question; Where in Matthew 24 are we told the disciples did not understand? Where does it say, "They did not understand what they were asking" as happened in Matthew 20:20ff? Where does it tell us that after Jesus was glorified they understood his words as is the case in John 2:22 and 12:14-16? Patently, there is no verse in Matthew 24 which tells us the disciples did not properly understand the nature of their questions or Jesus' response!

Now, on other occasions, when the disciples did not understand Jesus' teachings, or the significance of their own questions, the Holy Spirit specifically tells us of their failure to fathom. Thus, nor can we maintain they did not understand in Matthew 24 when not one word to that effect is stated by the writer? It is nothing less than arbitrary assumption to state something for which there is not one word of contextual evidence! But there is more to consider.

Knowing Their ThoughtsNot only do the writers tell us if the disciples failed to understand Jesus' words, they also tell us that because Jesus knew their thoughts he corrected their error. In Mark 8:13ff he had warned them to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees. Not comprehending, they reasoned among themselves. But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, called them around and promptly corrected their lack of understanding.

We ask again: Where in Matthew 24 is any indication that Jesus knew the disciples were mistaken about their ideas of the end of the age and his coming? Further, where is a text in which we can confidently assert the disciples were mistaken; in which Jesus did not rebuke or correct their error; or the writers do not tell us of their failure to understand? If the writers do not tell us the disciples were in error how can we know? But since they often do tell us, should not their silence about any supposed lack of comprehension in Matthew 24 cause us to be cautious in assigning error to the disciples?

Another TextThis widespread assumption about disciple error is present in regard to another important text. In Acts 1:6 Jesus was asked, "Will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" Most amillennial writers aver the disciples were (mistakenly) asking Jesus to restore the old nationalistic kingdom; and they further insist Jesus rebuked them for their error. Closer examination will reveal disturbing discrepancies in this theory however.

The disciples had spent three years at Jesus' feet. When he was crucified their hopes were dashed, Luke 24:18-21. Yet, as he appeared to two disciples we are informed Jesus opened their eyes so they might understand the scriptures in regard to his suffering and glorification, Luke 24:25-27. Later, with the disciples, he "opened their understanding that they might comprehend the scriptures," vs. 45.

For forty days after his resurrection Jesus appeared to his disciples "speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God," Acts 1:3. Can we assume that after 3 1/2 years at Jesus' feet; after having their eyes opened to understand the scriptures; after 40 days of intense final instructions; the disciples did not understand about the kingdom? How far shall we stretch our credulity?

Look close at Acts 1:6. What do the disciples ask about? They ask about TIME! "Will you at this time restore the kingdom?" Did Jesus rebuke their understanding about the nature of the kingdom? Read: "It is not for you to know the times of seasons the Father has put in His own authority," vs. 7, (emphasis mine). They asked about time--Jesus responded about time! Not one word of rebuke for failing to see the truth about the nature of the kingdom! They understood! We need to understand!

Restoration of the KingdomAs one writer correctly notes: "...the kingdom of the gospels is a restored kingdom" (his emphasis). The prophetess Anna, Luke 2:36-38, said Jesus was for the "redemption of Jerusalem." Mary was told Jesus would sit on the throne of David, Luke 1:32-34. Yes, the kingdom was to be restored.

The millennialist fails to grasp the New Covenant teaching about the kingdom. He fails to see that Jesus is now on David's throne--in heaven, Acts 2:29ff. He fails to see WHAT THE DISCIPLES HAD BEEN TAUGHT AND WHAT THEY IN TURN TAUGHT, THAT THE CHURCH IS THE RESTORED KINGDOM OF ISRAEL!

Peter, Acts 3, said Jesus would return after the "restoration of all things foretold by the Old Prophets, v.21. His emphatic words limiting that fulfillment to those days are ignored or overlooked by the millennialist. See verse 24. The events of those days were fulfilling the prophecies of the restoration of all things. But the events of those days were events surrounding the establishment of the church!

In Acts 15:13ff James rehearsed the conversion of the Gentiles. He said this was in fulfillment of Amos 9:11ff which had predicted the restoration of the "tabernacle of David" so that Gentiles could be saved. Gentiles had been saved, therefore the tabernacle of David has been restored. This proves that the establishment of the church was the "restoration of the kingdom." We believe this was in the apostles' minds when they, after having their eyes opened to understand the scriptures and 40 days of final instruction asked, "Will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?"

Final PointIt might be argued that, granted in Acts 1 the disciples did indeed properly understand, but this does not prove they did in Matthew 24. This would be true except we have unequivocal proof that the disciples had a better grasp of the concept of the end of the age and coming of the Lord than is normally granted.

In the parable of the tares, Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43 and the correlative parables following it, 45-46, 47-52, we have reference to the end of the age. There can be no doubt, if we accept inspiration, that the reference to the end of the age/world is referent to the end of the Jewish Age/world. The key is verse 43.

Jesus said at the end of the age the Lord would send the angels who would gather the tares and burn them, and "then the righteous will shine forth as the stars in the kingdom of their Father." This is a quote from Daniel 12:3. But Daniel's vision would be "for the time of the end," vs. 9, and would be fulfilled "when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered," vs. 7. When was the power of the holy people completely shattered? Without question it was at the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. at the full end of the Jewish polity.

Now the final point in regard to the disciples' comprehension of these matters. After telling the parables of the tares, pearl, and fish net, Jesus asked his disciples, "Have you understood all these things?" (Remember now we are dealing with matters relating to the time of the end of the age). Did the disciples understand? Hear them: "Yes, Lord," Matthew 13:51. The disciples did understand when Jesus spoke of the end of the age! If they did not they lied. If they did not and the writers by inspiration knew it, they failed to inform us!

Summary--In Matthew 13 Jesus told parables concerning the end of the age (sunteleia aionos) and his coming. Inspiration says this was to be the time when the power of the holy people was completely shattered, Daniel 12:7. Asked if they understood, the disciples insisted they did. In Matthew 24, Jesus consigned the city to destruction. His disciples, in response to his prediction, asked about the end of the age (sunteleias tou aionos).

Now since we know the disciples understood about the end of the age in Matthew 13, and that it referred to Judaism's demise, how can we insist they did not understand in Matthew 24 where the subject is that very demise? Had they forgotten?

It is easy, 2000 years removed from the scene, to insist the disciples were guilty of an "appalling lack of understanding." As we have seen, when they were guilty of such the Bible tells us. In Matthew 24 we are not told they misunderstood. On the contrary, we are told (Matthew 13) they did understand in matters directly related to the subject of Matthew 24.

Since the disciples did not lack understanding as has been generally assumed, it is easy to correlate the parallel passages of Mark 13 and Luke 21 with Matthew 24. In those texts it is patent they asked only about the fall of Jerusalem. An insistence that in Matthew 24 the disciples did not understand the issues at hand forces one to manipulate the Markan and Lukan texts to fit modern assumptions. Acceptance of the disciples' comprehension allows us to avoid artificial and untenable interpretations of Matthew 24. It then becomes a singular discourse about the Parousia of Jesus at the full end of the Jewish Age.

Based on the Biblical evidence it seems to this scribe that it is not the disciples who have been guilty of an "appalling lack of understanding."

With the Sound of the Trumpet

"When the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall arise..." goes the old hymn. It is a classic song conjuring up images, reinforced by eloquent preachers, of physical graves opening as the great trumpet of God awakens the dead. Unfortunately, the song does not accurately depict the scriptural truth of the resurrection.

This article seeks to examine the doctrine of the resurrection by means of a study of the Great Trumpet of God. It is a fact the resurrection of the dead is inextricably related to the sounding of the trumpet of God; and as we shall see, the Bible is emphatic in placing the sounding of the trumpet in a definite chronological time-frame.

The Old Covenant PredictionIt seems to have escaped the notice of many Bible students that the Old Covenant contains the background prophecy of the sounding of the trumpet of God. In Isaiah 27:12-13 Jehovah promised: "And it shall come to pass in that day that the Lord will thresh, from the channel of the River to the Brook of Egypt; and you will be gathered one by one, O you children of Israel. So it shall be in that day that the great trumpet will be blown. They will come, who are about to perish in the land of Assyria, and they who are outcasts in the land of Egypt, and shall worship the Lord in the holy mount of Jerusalem."

Please note, Isaiah says the trumpet of God would sound and the outcasts of Israel would be gathered. There are some very important facts to be noted here.

First, Isaiah is simply reiterating his earlier promise of the regathering of the scattered people of God, i. e. the remnant. This is a very prominent concept of the Messianic predictions.

In Isaiah 11 the priestly prophet spoke of the day when the ensign would be raised, Gentiles would be saved and "It shall come to pass in that day that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people who are left from Assyria, and Egypt, from Pathros... He will set up a banner for the nations and will assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth" vs. 12. The dispersed would come for "There will be a highway for the remnant of his people who will be left from Assyria, As it was for Israel in the day that he came up from the land of Egypt" vs. 16.

Second, it is vital to understand that in the imagery of the prophets, those who were scattered abroad were dead ; not physically to be sure, but dead because of separation from God's presence in the Holy Land. Israel's sin had separated between her and God, Isaiah 59:1-2. When he drove them into the foreign countries they were dead because "life" for Israel only existed in fellowship with God in their land, city and temple. Death is separation.

This is found in a brief study of the wider context of Isaiah 27. In chapter 24 God views creation as destroyed because Israel had "transgressed the laws..., broken the everlasting covenant" vs. 8. In spite of the punishment, there is promise of deliverance; a great banquet will be prepared for the faithful and he will destroy the veil of destruction; "he will swallow up death forever, And the Lord God will wipe away tears from all faces; the rebuke of His people he will take away from all the earth" 25:6-8.

Chapter 26 offered peace to the repentant. It is said His enemies are dead and will not arise, yet of God's "dead" it is said "Your dead shall live; together with my dead body they shall arise. Awake and sing, you who dwell in the dust..." vs. 19. These "dead" are those taken into captivity by the invaders. This is confirmed in chapter 27:7 when he asks "Has he struck Israel as he struck those who struck him? Or has he (Israel, DKP) been slain according to the slaughter of those who were slain by him?" Israel, carried into captivity, was seen as dead.

This same motif is depicted in Ezekiel's famous vision of the valley of dry bones in chapter 37. The vision is set in the context of Israel's Babylonian captivity. God interprets the vision: "these bones are the whole house of Israel.. They indeed say, 'Our bones are dry, our hope is lost, and we ourselves are cut off'" But God promised "Behold, O my people, I will open your graves and cause you to come up from your graves, and bring you to the land of Israel." Once again Israel's return from captivity is depicted as the resurrection from the dead because they are being returned to God's fellowship in His land.

This then is the concept of Isaiah 27:13 the Great Trumpet of God was to sound and gather God's elect, in the "grave" of captivity because of the sin of the nation, back to life and fellowship with Jehovah. In the New Testament the sounding of the trumpet of God is also for the raising of the dead from captivity to be gathered to life with God.

Matthew 24:29-31Jesus predicted the destruction of Jerusalem in classic Jewish apocalyptic language. In vss 30-31 he said "they will see the Son of Man coming in 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." Jesus is speaking of judgment, the trump of God and the gathering of God's elect from the four corners of the world. Would any Jew even half way conversant with the Old Covenant fail to think of Isaiah's prediction of the sounding of the great trumpet when he heard Jesus' words? We think not.

When did Jesus say that great trumpet was to blow and gather the elect? Read verse 34 "Truly I say to your this generation will not pass away until all things take place."

(As a correlative study, consult a concordance on the "shout" of God.)

I Corinthians 15:51-52Paul spoke of the resurrection "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet: for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible..." vs. 52.

Paul says "the trumpet." He was obviously alluding to some known teaching about "the trumpet." Were he introducing a new concept about the sounding of a trumpet would he not have to delineate between the teaching already known and the new teaching he was introducing? Reader, what was the previous teaching about the sounding of "the trumpet" for the gathering of the dead? It is Matthew 24 and Isaiah 27:13! Now if it be admitted the trumpet of Matthew 24 cannot refer to the end of time and creation, and yet it is insisted I Corinthians 15:52 does refer to such, it must be clearly shown why the trumpet of Corinthians is not the same as that in Matthew when Paul simply refers to "the trumpet" and the only sounding of the trumpet mentioned in the New Testament before Corinthians is Matthew 24. One must explain why Matthew is apocalyptic and spiritual yet Corinthians is literal/audible; even though I Corinthians is patently drawing upon earlier teaching about "the trumpet."

The apostle also said it was "the last trumpet." There would be no more trumpets sounded. One is almost forced to think of Revelation and the sounding of the 7 trumpets. More on that momentarily.

Observe that Paul emphatically tells us the resurrection at the sounding of the last trumpet would be the fulfillment of the prediction found in Isaiah 25:8; the very context of the sounding of the great trumpet of God for the gathering of the elect from their "graves" separated from God. Paul says the resurrection of which he speaks was when the strength of sin, i.e. "the law;" the law he called the ministration of death and a covering over the people, [cf Is. 25:7], II Cor. 3; the law that condemned and cursed, Gal. 3:10-13; the law of bondage, Gal. 4:22ff, was destroyed.

When did Paul say the last trumpet was to sound? In verse 51 he says "we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed." This is nothing less than a positive assertion that "This generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled."

In I Corinthians 15 we find then the idea of Christ's coming, judgment, the sounding of the trumpet and the gathering of the elect, i.e. the resurrection; and his assertion it would be in that generation.

I Thessalonians 4:15-17In this text Paul teaches of Christ's coming, the resurrection and the sounding of the trumpet: "For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet; and the dead in Christ shall rise first" vs. 16.

Once again Paul is speaking of "the trumpet." It was well known to the church because it had been taught before. We ask again, where would the Thessalonicans have heard or known of "the trumpet?" From Isaiah 27 and Matthew 24:31.

And when did Paul affirm the trumpet would sound? Hear him "we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord:" vs. 15; "we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with him in the clouds..." vs. 17. Twice Paul avers the sounding of the trumpet at the resurrection and parousia before that generation passed!

Once again we see a pattern of consistency: the subject is the coming of the Lord, judgment, the sounding of the trumpet, the gathering of the elect, and a time statement of imminence.

Revelation 8-11John saw seven angels having seven trumpets. Beginning with chapter 8 those angels sounded their trumpets. In chapter 10 John was told "in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished as he hath declared to his servants the prophets." The seventh trumpet, the last trumpet, was the time for the final fulfilling of the Old Covenant prophetic word.

What was to happen when the last trumpet sounded? In chapter 11:15ff we are told "And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints..." vs. 18. The sounding of the last trumpet was the time for the resurrection of the dead, for judgment.

When was all this to happen? Repeatedly John was told his vision "must shortly come to pass" 1:1-3; and "the time is at hand," cf. chapter 22:6,10,12,20. In chapter 6 the martyrs who had suffered for their faith were assured they would only have to wait "for a little while" before being vindicated, 6:9ff.

An ObjectionMany insist the passages above simply cannot speak of the same time and event. One argument offered is that in I Corinthians and I Thessalonians 4 the time statements are simply "accommodative language" or Paul was using the "editorial we" when he said "we shall not all sleep." This is an attempt to obviate the chronological significance of these statements. But it will not work.

First, ask yourself: had Paul wanted to indicate some of the Corinthians would live until the resurrection would not the present wording of I Corinthians 15:51 sufficiently indicate it? Indeed.

Second, it is the burden of those who insist the language is editorial and not temporal to prove their point. You cannot glibly wave a hand and dismiss language without strong reason.

Third, consider the traditional interpretation. It says "we shall not all sleep" means "not all Christians will die" before the resurrection; or "there will be Christians still living" when the resurrection occurs. Now, really, does this make sense? Was it Paul's purpose to assert the endurance of the church? When one compares this language with Jesus' promise that some living then would not die until they had seen him coming with the angels to judge every man it is apparent I Corinthians 15: 52 is not editorial or accommodative language; it is very personal and temporally significant.

The same may be said of Thessalonians 4:15,17. Paul says "we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord." He did not say "those who are alive" as if to posit the coming in the distant future removed from himself. He did not positively assert the survival of specific individuals to the parousia; but he definitely asserts his generation as doing so! Again, he did not say "those who are alive when Christ comes" he said "we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord." Who is Paul's "we?"

It is interesting to wonder where the normal argument made by amillennialists about pronouns and words of proximity goes when this passage is considered. In Matthew 24 it is vehemently argued one must observe Jesus' use of the personal pronouns; when he uses "you" he is referring to the disciples and their generation. When he uses "they" or "them" he is referring to the far distant future. In John 14-16 it is argued by non-charismatics that you absolutely must observe the usage of "you" as applying to the apostles receiving the Holy Spirit; and not just everyone. When in I Corinthians 2 Paul says "we have received... the Spirit which is from God" it is insisted this is speaking of a select group, certainly contemporary. But strangely, when Paul says "We who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord" it is insisted he suddenly abandoned his contemporary usage and went abstract. We are convinced "a priori" convictions about the nature of the resurrection and eschatology as a whole have forced a denial of otherwise plain language.

Paul says "we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord." Question: from what point do we consider the "remaining?" Paul said "we who remain until the coming." The word "remain" must be given its proper consideration from Paul's perspective.

A word here about the usage of the "royal we," or "editorial we." Those who appeal to this do not properly understand the term. The "royal we" was used by monarchs "to refer tothemselvesin the plural, at least in public" The "editorial we" is "used indefinitely in general statements in which the speaker or writer includesthose whom he addresses, his contemporaries, his fellow fellow-countrymen, or the like." (All emphasis mine.) The point is, the usage of an "editorial we" does not exclude, rather it INCLUDES the contemporaries of the speaker. To avoid the chronological significance of the passages above by an appeal to Paul's supposed use of the "editorial we" or "accommodative language" is therefore a futile attempt.

Incredibly, some are now denying an imminence factor in Revelation. Instead, they insist what Jesus meant by his promise "Behold, I come quickly!" was "When he comes he will not come in slow motion." Such arguments are ludicrous.

Was Jesus promising to come in relief of the oppressed, suffering so terribly at the hands of the persecutors, and saying "Now, I may not come to help you for several thousand years. But boy, when I finally come I will not come in slow motion?" Were the saints to be comforted by how soon Jesus was coming in judgment, or how fast he was going to travel? We think the answer is obvious to any thinking person.

SummaryWhat we have seen is the Old Covenant background for the promise of the sounding of the Great Trumpet of God. That trumpet was to be blown for the gathering of God's elect from the "death" of separation from God's presence and fellowship. We have seen in the New Testament there are only four passages which speak of the sounding of the Trump of God. Each of these passages speak of the same thing, the gathering of the elect at the resurrection; and each has a very clear time statement with it.

Jesus said the trumpet would blow and the elect would be gathered in his generation, Matthew 24:30-31. It is admitted by almost all amillennialists that this was fulfilled in that generation and the language was apocalyptic and spiritual.

Paul, I Corinthians 15:51-52, said the resurrection would be at the sounding of "The last trumpet;" and not all of them would die before it occurred. In Thessalonians he affirmed the coming of the Lord, and gathering of the saints at the sounding of the trumpet; and he said "we who are alive and remain until the coming." I have posed the question of where the Corinthians and Thessalonicans had heard of "thetrumpet" and concluded their knowledge was based on Jesus' teachings and the Old Covenant. If this is true, and we are convinced it is, since it is admitted Jesus' prediction in Matthew 24 was fulfilled how can it be denied that I Corinthians and Thessalonians was fulfilled at the same time?

In Revelation John saw the sounding of seven trumpets, the last being when the dead would be raised and receive their reward. In chapter 22:12 Jesus said he was coming quickly to render to every man according to what he has done." Now if it be the case that the sounding of "the last trumpet" was at hand when John wrote how can one postulate it has not yet sounded? Or, how can one admit, as some do, that Revelation is indeed fulfilled, yet there is to be a still future sounding of "the last trumpet," per their view of I Corinthians 15? Were there to be two "last trumpets?"

I have examined the arguments offered to offset the time statements of the resurrection and trumpet and found them to be inadequate.

I find it impossible to escape the conclusion that either the Great Trumpet of the Lord sounded in that first century generation or Jesus' promise failed and man still has no escape from sin, from separation from God. The Good News is, the Trumpet sounded and those in Hades were taken from their separated position and ushered before the presence of God in heaven. In addition, the final barriers between God and man were removed as God took away the last vestiges of "the law" which held the "power of sin." Man can now be fully justified and live in full assurance that "he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life" John 5:24.

Thank God for the sounding of the Great Trumpet!

Those days vs. That day

Those who reject Matthew 24-25 as a united discourse about the end of the Jewish Age offer a series of arguments to demonstrate a division in subject matter. One of the key arguments is that four times in three different verses, Matthew 24:19,22,29, Jesus refers to "those days." However, we are told, in verse 36 we have a direct contrast when Jesus says "But of that day and hour knoweth no man."

North says "verse 36 starts with the word 'but' suggesting a contrast with what has gone before. Before verse 34, moreover, Jesus uses the plural 'days' to refer to his major subject, while after verse 34 he speaks in the singular of 'that day.'" Jackson also notes this so-called distinction. Roy Deaver, says "Whereas the Lord has been discussing "those days," he now makes the reference to 'that day.' The Greek says, 'that day.' Obviously, this is a transition text." Robert Taylor also believes "that day" is positive proof of a change in subject. The post-millennialist Kik also emphasized this distinction: "The expression 'that day and hour' gives immediate evidence of a change of subject matter. Among non-millennialists then, it is obvious the "those days-vs-that day" argument is vitally important in establishing a division in the Olivet Discourse.

This article will examine this argument to see if it is valid. The material presented here is part of a book on Matthew 24 currently being written by this scribe.

Basic PresuppositionOne of the reasons a distinction between those days and that day is seen by many commentators is because of a pre-conceived idea that the disciples had asked three questions about two subjects, the destruction of Jerusalem and end of time. With this foundational presupposition unquestioned the interpreter then sees Jesus changing the subject in verse 36.

A basic fallacy in this approach is the failure to observe context. In chapter 23 Jesus had predicted disaster for the city, vs. 35-39. He said that judgment was coming in that generation; he also called that event his coming, vs. 39.

The disciples had just heard their Lord predict his coming in that generation to judge the Temple and city. They immediately called his attention to the huge and beautiful stones of the Temple. His response was to repeat his words of doom for that incredible edifice. The disciples then asked him when those events would transpire and the sign of his coming to bring those events to reality.

Where is the contextual evidence the disciples had any other coming in mind than the coming just mentioned by Jesus his coming to destroy Jerusalem in that generation? It is pure eisegesis to import another coming into this context.

Some claim the disciples could not imagine Jerusalem's fall without thinking about the end of time. But how so? Did they not know Jerusalem was completely destroyed in 586 B.C.? Surely. The disciples well knew that Jerusalem had fallen before yet time had continued. Why could they not believe the same about the destruction at the coming of Jesus?

Were it not for a misguided preconceived idea that the disciples asked about a coming of Jesus to end time there would not be such strained efforts to divide the chapter into two subjects. The disciples did not ask about any such thing unless therefore Jesus injected another subject into the discussion without warning we are fully justified in seeing the "that day" reference as directly related to "those days."

Various ConsiderationsCarefully consider some evidence that demonstrates the "those days" vs "that day" argument is invalid.

Does not logic indicate that "those days" would have a climactic "that day"? Are those who maintain this distinction arguing that the stressful "those days" of the Abomination of Desolation, vs. 15-19 and Great Tribulation, vs. 22 did not have a final "that day"? Can they not see that "those days" led directly to "the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven" vs. 30?

Notice the contextual flow: in the days before the coming of the Son of Man there would be persecution, the Abomination of Desolation and the Great Tribulation. But "immediately after" the tribulation of "those days" they would see the "coming of the Son of Man" vs. 30.

Jesus did not say they would see the "comings" of the Son of Man; nor did he say the coming would happen over a period of "those days." He said "those days" would be just before that singular event.

Jesus said his coming, singular, would happen after "those days" plural. The coming of the Son of man was the climactic "that day" to which "those days" had led.

We are confirmed in this understanding by looking earlier in the chapter. In verse 14 Jesus said "This gospel of the kingdom must be preached in all the world for a witness to the nations, then cometh the end."

It should be noted that the amillennialists generally agree that the "end" spoken of here is the fall of Jerusalem. These same students also believe that verse 30, the coming of the Son of Man, refers to the fall of Jerusalem. Yet these same students insist "that day" of vs. 36 does not have reference to "the end" or "the coming of the Son of Man".

By implication the amillennialist is saying "those days" Never had a final "that day." This logically implies "those days" have not yet been climaxed by "that day." To divorce "that day" from "those days" is to say "those days" never had an end.

Reader, why admit that "the end" is the coming of the Son of Man; why admit "those days" refer to the events leading up to the coming of the Son of Man; why admit the coming of the Son of Man is the destruction of Jerusalem? Why then deny "the end" is what the disciples asked about, that the coming of the Son of man in vss. 29-31 is the coming they asked about; and deny that "that day" is "the end" of "those days"? It simply is not consistent to admit to the identity of "the end" and the coming of the Son of Man; to admit that "those days" definitely led up to that end, and then deny the association of "that day" and "those days"!

If the amillennialist ever admits "those days" prior to Jerusalem's demise had a final and climactic "that day" their entire house of cards built on the "those days" vs "that day" distinction comes crumbling down!

Those days and SignsAnother inconsistency in the traditional view is seen when it is maintained that if verse 36 speaks of the coming of Christ at the end of the Jewish Age it would contradict Christ's teaching "that none but the Father knew the time of His coming (Matthew 24:36)." North says "He had told the disciples...precisely when the destruction of Jerusalem would be: during their lifetime and they could read the sign of the approaching army so closely that they could escape it. But of His coming, no one knows when it will be neither man, his angels, nor Jesus himself." Those who use this argument fail to consider some very basic contextual facts.

Jesus gave signs, vss. 6-15, whereby the disciples could know his coming was at hand, vs. 32-33; and he assured them it would be in that generation, vs. 34. He then cautioned them that although they could know the event wasnear, they could not know the "day or the hour".

Reader, did Jesus say "precisely" when the fall of Jerusalem would be? Precisely means exactly, minutely. Where does Jesus tell the disciples "precisely" when the fall would be? He said they could know it was near; that it was going to be in that generation. But he did not tell them the day or hour. Had Jesus told them his coming in judgment on Israel was going to be let's say September 7, AD 70 this would have been "precise". To say they could tell by signs when it was so near as to demand their flight was not to tell them "precisely" when it would be, and definitely would not contradict "that none but the Father knew the time of His coming". On the contrary, this is but a continuation of his warnings not to be deceived and sets the stage for his further exhortations to "Watch", vs. 42ff.

Jesus could not tell them the day or the hour; but they must be ever vigilant and watch for the signs. Incidentally, the very fact Jesus warned them repeatedly to "Watch" destroys forever the argument there would be no signs of the coming of the Lord. If it is the case there would be no signs of the coming of the Son of Man it must be true that there would be no need to watch, for there would be nothing for which to watch! But Jesus repeatedly warned them to watch, therefore there must have been something to watch for. Compare I Thessalonians 5; Hebrews 10:25.

Since Jesus' warnings to watch are to be seen in the context of the signs it cannot be true that there is a contrast between "those days" and "that day". "Those days" were the days when the signs would appear; "that day" was the day the signs signaled was at hand!

"But"Does the fact that verse 36 starts with "but" signal a contrast in subject matter? Those who divide the chapter believe it does. Brother Charles Geiser has written an excellent tract on the unity of Matthew 24 demonstrating that "but" is a conjunction and not a preposition. As a conjunction "but" is not a word of contrast but joins what has just been said with what is about to be said. The New Englishman's Greek Concordance of the New Testament, Appendix, Part II, page 11 says the conjunctival usage of "de", "is by far the most frequent use of the particle 'de' in the New Testament".

If the use of "but" at the beginning of a verse introduces a break in subject or a contrast there are 24 subject changes in chapters 24 and 25. That is the number of times "de" is used in these two chapters. See Matthew 24:6,8,13,20,32,36,43,48. Look up the instances in chapter 25 on your own to confirm what I am saying.

Will those who insist that "but" introduces a contrast be consistent? Will they say Jesus introduces a new subject or is contrasting subject matter in all these verses? Can you imagine what a confusing mixture these chapters would become if we followed the traditional teaching about "but" consistently?

An examination of the verses before 24:36 and after reveals that the most common usage of "but" in Matthew 24-25 has nothing to do with changing subjects! More on Matthew 24:36 later.

"Days" and Luke 17Those who place so much emphasis on the "those days" versus "that day" would do well to take a look at the problems their own argument presents them.

In Luke 17, a passage generally applied to the future by amillennialists, we find two significant texts. In verse 22 Jesus said "the days will come when you will desire to seeone of the days of the Son of Man". (my emphasis) Jackson says this verse means "He was indicating that severe times were coming to test them, and they might wish that the end of the world had come". Obviously, Jackson applies this passage to the end of time.

Notice now verse 26 "As it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also inthe daysof the Son of Man". (emphasis mine)

Consider: first, our critics insist that when Jesus spoke of "those days" he was speaking of the days before the fall of Jerusalem; actually they implicitly include the actual fall within "those days". They insist that "that day" is an almost technical reference to the coming of Jesus to end time. These writers do not believe Jesus ever referred to his coming in a reference to "those days"; or at the very least do not believe "that day" can be a referent to the fall of Jerusalem climaxing "those days". Luke 17 disproves this thesis.

If it is the case Jesus never refers to his "second coming" (the end of time per our critics) in association with the plural term "days", then any passage that speaks of "days" cannot be referent to Jesus' "second coming". But Luke 17:22,26 speaks of "days" in association with the coming of Jesus; therefore Luke 17:22ff cannot be a referent to the "second coming" of Jesus. This leaves our critics with two choices.

First, they can abandon the "those days" versus "that day" argument; but to do so leaves them without their "continental divide" for Matthew 24, and they are thus forced to acknowledge it is a unified discourse about the fall of the Jewish World. If there is no division of Matthew 24 at verse 36, there is simply no division. Second, they can give up Luke 17 as a referent to the "end of time".

To abandon Luke 17 as a referent to the end of time has serious implications for the futurist. If Luke 17 is not speaking of our future then it applies to the fall of Jerusalem; but if Luke 17 speaks of the fall of the Theocracy, then all of Matthew 24 speaks of the fall of Jerusalem. Why is this so?

The amillennialist divides Matthew 24 into two segments; verses 4-35 are seen as speaking exclusively about Jerusalem's demise. Verses 36-51 are seen as a discussion of the end of time. But the reader needs to know that in Luke 17:21-37 Jesus describes his coming with language drawn from both sections of Matthew 24.

In verses 23-24 he uses the language of 24:26-27, (first section). In verses 26-27 Luke records Jesus using the words of Matthew 24:37-39, (second section). In verse 31 he says the same as in Matthew 24:17-18, (first section). In verses 35-36 he uses the identical language of 24:40-41, (second section). In verse 37 he uses the language of 24:28, (first section).

If Jesus in Luke 17 was discussingonlya final coming to end time, and if he was going to draw language from Matthew 24; if it is true that in Matthew 24 he discusses two subjects, the fall of Jerusalem and His "final coming," would it not behoove him, in order to avoid confusion, to utilize language from Matthew 24 that spoke ONLY of the same subject as in Luke 17? Would it not be terribly confusing, to say the least, for Jesus to utilize in Luke 17 language from his Olivet Discourse in which he was speaking exclusively about Jerusalem's fall, and yet in Luke his discussion had nothing to do with the destruction of Jerusalem?

For instance, how could Jesus speak in Luke 17 of his disciples not coming down off their houses to get their possessions if he was speaking of an inescapable, catastrophic, "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye" event? How indeed when he had used this very image in Matthew 24:17f to urge them to escape the impending disaster?

Since what Jesus had to say in Luke 17 is speaking about the "days" associated with the coming of the Son of Man, if it is the case that no reference to "days" can be used in association with the final coming of Christ, then since Luke 17 does refer to the "days" of the Son of Man, Luke 17 cannot be speaking of a final, end of time coming of the Son of Man.

Now since Jesus, in Luke 17, uses the identical language of Matthew 24 (from both "sections") and makes no distinction in subject matter, we conclude that Luke 17 and the entirety of Matthew 24 speak of the same subject. Since Luke 17 cannot be speaking of a final, time ending coming of Jesus, and yet Luke 17 discusses the same subject as Matthew 24, (both "sections") it must be true that Matthew 24 cannot be referring to a final, time ending coming of Jesus. The so called contrast between "those days" and "that day" is therefore proven false.

The fallacy of this distinction is further demonstrated in Luke 17. Note verse 26 "as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be in the days of the Son of Man". Now notice verse 27: "until the day that Noe entered the ark". the days of Noah had a final climactic day. And Luke said the coming of the Son of Man would be like the days of Noah.

Now look at verse 28 "as it was in the days of Lot". In verse 29 it says "the same day that Lot went out it rained fire." In verse 30 he says "thus it shall be when the Son of Man is revealed." What you have is days leading up to a day; and the writer says the coming of the Son of Man would be like that!

Now watch, in verse 26 Luke says "as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of Man". In verse 30 he speaks of "the day when the Son of Man is revealed," and in verse 31 calls it "in that day".

At this juncture we observe that not only in Luke do we find "those days" leading to "that day" of the coming of the Son of Man being compared to the days of Noah, we find the identical comparison in Matthew 24. Notice that in Matthew 24:37 Jesus said "as in the days of Noe, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be." He proceeds to describe the activity of the unbelievers in Noah's day who went about their normal activities oblivious to impending disaster. He then says "they knew not until the flood came and took them all away". Remember that Luke says this was "the day" Noah entered the ark. Jesus then says "so shall the coming of the Son of Man be" vs. 39.

Jesus was speaking of the days leading up to the day of the Son of Man. This is after the so-called "continental divide" of the chapter and is in direct contradiction to the claim that in Matthew 24 Jesus never referred to his final coming in association with "those days"! In the very section of Matthew 24 where there is supposed to be no mention of "those day", or days plural, we find "days" leading to "the day" of the coming of Christ. Just as in verses 4-28 Jesus spoke of the events of "those days" leading to "the day" of the coming of the Son of Man, vs. 30, he continues his "days" leading to the "day" discussion in verses 37ff! There simply is no contrast in subject matter.

In Luke 17 then you have three references to days and a final day. Noah's days led to a final day; Lot's days led to a final day; and the days of the Son of Man led to a final day. Yet it is more than obvious that the final day of the coming of the Son of Man cannot be an end of time coming; it was his coming in judgment on Jerusalem in 70 AD. The application to this study should be obvious.

In Matthew 24 Jesus spoke of those days vss 19,22,29; but "those days" would be consummated by the "coming of the Son of Man" verse 30. Reader, how can we escape the conclusion that the coming of the Son of Man is "that day" of verse 36, and was the consummation of "those days"; especially when Luke 17, (as well as Matthew 24:37ff), says the coming of the Son of Man would have "those days" leading up to the "day" of his revealing?

Once again, the only way to avoid this dilemma is to acknowledge that Luke 17 is not a discussion of the end of time; yet to admit this demands that Matthew 24 also be relinquished as containing any such discussion. In debate terms this is called a "two-horned dilemma."

Heaven and Earth Shall PassOne reason verse 36 is seen as a dividing point is because in verse 35 Jesus said "Heaven and earth shall pass, but my word shall never pass". Verse 36 is then taken to mean "of the day for the passing of literal heaven and earth at my coming no man knows."

If one takes this position he has implicitly abandoned verse 36 as the transitional verse and placed it at verse 35! But verse 35 does not contain that cherished word "but" so emphasized by our critics; where then is the contrast? If verse 35 becomes the break then "but" in verse 36 becomes conjunctive. Since verse 35 has no word of contrast then it must be associated with the passing of the heavens and earth in verses 29-31. To insist that "but" changes the subject has serious implications.

It implies that Jesus is changing the subject from the passing of heaven and earth because that is the subject of verse 35. Remember, verse 36 has the "but" that introduces, not continues, a contrast, we are told. If verse 36 changes subject, the passing of heaven and earth in verse 35 cannot be the subject of verse 36!

To say verse 36 says you cannot know the day or hour of verse 35 is to abandon the contrast idea of verse 36. This says that verse 35 actually introduces the idea of heaven and earth passing while verse 36 says you cannot know the day or hour. But by doing so this means that "but" has become a conjunction and not a word of contrast; in this view "but" loses its contrast significance.

If one takes verse 36 as the "continental divide" then verse 35 of necessity becomes associated with verses 29-34, i.e. the passing of the Old World of Israel. Not a few realize that verses 29-31 speak of the passing of the "heaven and earth" of Israel. But if verse 35 is not the transitional verse, it is, along with verses 29-31, also a sta