The Coming of the Lord

Will Messiah Return

Before or After the Great Tribulation?

Table of Contents

Intervening Events

The Apostasy

The Man of Lawlessness

Warnings to the Disciples and to the Church

Matthew: For National Israel Only?

The Olivet Discourse: The Apostolic "Parousia of Messiah" Tradition

Summary

Verbal Parallels Between the Olivet Discourse and 2 Thessalonians 2

The Olivet Discourse, found in the 24th chapter of the gospel of Matthew, is the single most comprehensive and complete of the recorded sayings of Messiah regarding his coming (parousia). In it we find Messiah's own answer to his disciples' question, "What will be the sign of your coming (parousia) and of the end of the age?" (Matthew 24:3).

Because the Olivet Discourse is the written record of the oral teaching of Yahusha' Messiah on the topic of his parousia, it stands as the defining work in the biblical literature regarding the coming of Messiah. As with any topic on which the Lord Yahusha' spoke and elaborated upon, we would expect to find that all of the other teachings in the New Testament about the parousia of Messiah are based upon and rooted in the teaching of the Master. So when we turn to the Pauline epistles or the letters of Peter or the writings of John, we would expect to find that their teaching regarding the coming of Messiah is in harmony with the sayings and teachings of Yahusha' regarding his parousia.

This is precisely what we have discovered thus far. In The Truth About the Rapture, we noted that Paul's famous rapture text, 1 Thessalonians 4:16-21, is in perfect harmony with the Olivet Discourse. We cited numerous verbal affinities and contextual similarities. Among them are the following: the term parousia appears in both texts; the concept of a gathering of God's people; a loud trumpet call accentuates both discourses; and even the exhortations those authors give to God's people use the same vocabulary and figures of speech.

When we turn to Peter and even the other writers of the New Testament, we find the same. In fact, all of the New Testament epistles contain evidence that the source of their teaching is from the lips of Yahusha'.  They all use the same vocabulary, the same figures of speech, and the same exhortations with regard to the rapture of the church as Yahusha' used in the Olivet Discourse when he spoke of his posttribulational coming.

In contrast to this, we found no Scriptural support for the secret pretribulation rapture theory. There simply are no biblical underpinnings to support the pretribulation rapture scenario. Our comprehensive studies of the parousia of Messiah, of the last days gathering of God's people, and of the day of the Lord point exclusively toward a single posttribulation coming of Messiah and gathering of his elect.

Since Paul asserted that his teaching about the rapture of the church is "according the the Lord's own word" (1 Thessalonians 4:15), our task at hand is to further examine and compare the Olivet Discourse (the Lord's own word) with 2 Thessalonians 2 to discern whether or not Paul's oral teaching to the Thessalonican believers really is an exact replica of the teaching of Messiah in Matthew 24.

Intervening Events

In 1 Thessalonians 4:13ff., the single most important passage on the rapture (according to pretribulation rapture advocates), we have discovered that Paul used the vocabulary of Matthew 24 to describe the rapture of the church. But in that portion of Paul's letter, there is no mention of any prophetic events which must be fulfilled before the rapture. Pretribulation rapture advocates take this as positive proof that the rapture must come before the time of great tribulation, because the events of the tribulation are signs of the second advent of Yahusha'. Since Paul apparently mentions no signs which will precede the rapture, they conclude that the rapture of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 is a pretribulation phenomenon.

However, that argument from silence is meaningless if we can show from other Scriptures that there will be certain key historical events before the rapture. The purpose of Paul's writing of 1 Thessalonians 4 was not to delineate end time events in chronological order, but to comfort the saints who were grieving over the loss of their loved ones. Therefore, there was no reason for explaining in detail all that would occur before the rapture. Paul only needed to state the fact of the coming of Messiah and the rapture of all dead and living saints. The fact of the rapture is the comfort Paul offers, and the purpose for his letter is served by merely reminding the Thessalonian believers of that blessed hope.

Nevertheless, some theologians still insist that Paul would have explained more precisely what would happen before the rapture, if he were teaching the posttribulation view. John Walvoord argues that

it would seem, if the posttribulational view were correct, that this would have been a good time for Paul to explain that, as a matter of fact, the Rapture could not occur soon and that at least a seven- year period would intervene, including the Great Tribulation, before they could expect the fulfillment of the hope of the Lord's return. (The Rapture Question, p.212)

It is rather ironic that Walvoord, and other pretribulation rapture advocates after him, would follow this line of argumentation, because that is exactly what Paul went on to do in his second letter to the Thessalonians. The apostle's first letter states the fact of the rapture which is a reassuring comfort to believers who had lost some of their loved ones. But the occasion of his second letter made it necessary for Paul to state emphatically that there were to be certain key events which must happen before the rapture.

The Thessalonians were confused and upset by some false information they had received which reported that the day of the Lord had come. Paul's unequivocal response to this disinformation was this:

Concerning the coming of our Lord Yahusha' Messiah and our being gathered to him... Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed.... Don't you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? (2 Thessalonians 2:1,3,5).

The clarity of Paul's instruction here should put to rest forever any leftover doubts about when the rapture will take place.

The pretribulation rapture theory is delivered a death blow by Paul himself in 2 Thessalonians 2:1,3,5. There is no longer any reason for saying that Paul teaches a "no intervening signs before the rapture" message as most pretribulationists claim, because he has done just the opposite in this passage. He plainly and emphatically states that these two great tribulation events - the apostasy and the revelation of the man of lawlessness - must happen before the rapture of the church.

The Apostasy

This "rebellion" which Paul says must occur first is a large scale apostasy which began in the days of the apostles and will reach its apex when the man of lawlessness is revealed. The word rebellion comes from the Greek word apostasia from which we derive the English word apostasy.

A novel interpretation of this apostasia is offered by a handful of pretribulationists who desperately want to find the pretribulation rapture in this text. They say that apostasia can be translated as "departure." Thus, they conclude that the "departure" or "rapture" must occur first before the revelation of the man of lawlessness. This is their "proof text" that the rapture is a pretribulation phenomenon.

J. Vernon McGee attempts to read the rapture into this word by suggesting that two types of falling away will take place in the end times. The organized church will fall away in apostasy and the true church will fall away or depart from the earth in the rapture. So, the departure of the true church, in his view, leads to the total apostatizing of the organized church. (I and II Thessalonians (Pasadena: Thru The Bible Books, 1978), p.120)

Leon J. Wood also argues that this falling away is the rapture because, according to Wood, Paul had not yet been concerned about the apostasy of faith, but was primarily concerned about the second coming. "This provides most convincing evidence for pretribulationism, because Paul would be stating directly that the rapture will precede the tribulation period. (The Bible and Future Events, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973, p.88)

The hard facts, however, dictate against such fairytale interpretations.  In classical literature, apostasia was used in the negative sense of "treason" or "rebellion" against the ruler.  In the Septuagint, this word conveyed the idea of unfaithfulness toward God.  Its primary meaning, then, is "to be unfaithful to," or "to abandon," or even "to deny something or someone." (Paul Ellingworth and Eugene A. Nida, A Translator's Handbook on Paul's Letters to the Thessalonians, Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1975, p.163)

Even most pretribulationists admit that Paul is talking about a departure from the faith. Charles C. Ryrie suggests that the departure can be from the Word of God, or from Christian doctrine or even from God himself. He defines apostasy as "a departure from truth previously accepted, involving the breaking of a professed relationship with God." (Dispensationalism Today, Chicago: Moody, 1965, p.151)

Paul speaks of this end time apostasy in several other places in his writings. He used the cognate verb to apostatize twice. In 1 Tim.4:1, Paul informs his understudy that "the Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith (Gr. aposteesontai) and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons." And in Hebrews 3:12, Paul exhorts his readers to "see to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away (Gr. aposteenai) from the living God."

The reader will probably not be surprised to find out that Paul's knowledge of this end time apostasy is based upon the teaching of Yahusha'. As our Lord Yahusha' was warning his disciples not to be fooled by false prophets and false Messiahs who would appear before his parousia, Messiah declared that

at that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold (Matthew 24:10-12).

This, the Lord Yahusha' said, must happen before his coming on the clouds with a loud trumpet call to gather (rapture) his chosen followers.

Milton S. Terry, an acknowledged expert on hermeneutics, perceived this relationship between Paul's apostasy and the Lord's discourse:

As for the apostasy, why should any one imagine it to be other than that going astray of many, of which the Lord spoke repeatedly in his eschatological sermon (Matt. xxiv, 5,11,12,24). He foretold how the love of many would wax cold; false Christs and false prophets would arise, and faith in the true Messiah would be painfully deficient at the coming of the Son of man (Luke xviii,8). There can be little serious doubt that the falling away spoken of by our Lord and Paul's apostasy are one and the same event.

We have thus far discovered four distinct verbal affinities between the Olivet Discourse and 2 Thessalonians 2. Both texts speak of the loud, public parousia of Messiah. Both texts describe the gathering of the saints in conjunction with that parousia. Both passages refer to that event as the day of the Lord and compare its arrival to the coming of a thief in the night. And both Yahusha' and Paul insist that there will be a great falling away from the faith before the coming of Messiah. Could it be that Paul's major informing text for his writing in 2 Thessalonians 2 is the Olivet Discourse? Kennedy says that "it is no exaggeration to say that Matthew XXIV is the most instructive commentary on the chapter before us (2 Thess. ii)." (Kennedy is quoted in a footnote in George Milligan, St.Pauls Epistles to the Thessalonians, Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, 1980, p.lxi)

The Man of Lawlessness

The second event which Paul taught must happen before the Lord's coming and our gathering unto him is the revelation of the man of lawlessness. Paul explains that

that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshipped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God (vss.3,4).

The major Old Testament contributor to our understanding of this lawless one is the prophet Daniel. The self-exaltation of this man was envisioned by Daniel who saw a king who will arise in the latter days who

will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will say unheard-of things against the God of gods.... He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all (Dan.11:36,37).

Daniel also described the fate of this "man doomed to destruction" (2 Thessalonians 2:3): "Yet he will come to his end, and no one will help him" (Dan.11:45). And "he will be destroyed, but not by human power" (Dan.8:25). Paul later reiterates this truth of the fate of that man "whom the Lord Yahusha' will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming" (2 Thessalonians 2:8).

In the Olivet Discourse and its parallels, Yahusha' also foretells of this person when he warned his disciples,

When you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel - let the reader understand - then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains (Matthew 24:15,16). 

And in order to help his listeners understand who he was speaking of, Yahusha' named the prophet Daniel as the writer who discussed this subject.

Most commentators recognize this relationship between Daniel and Matthew 24 and the relationship between Daniel and 2 Thessalonians 2. But biblical scholarship has not heretofore recognized the significance of the relationship between Matthew 24 and 2 Thessalonians 2. Whereas it is commonly known that each is dependent on Daniel's prophecies, few writers have explored the unmistakable harmony between Paul's message and the sayings of Yahusha'.

Few would dispute that Paul is describing in chapter 2 the same individual Messiah spoke of in his discourse on the Mount of Olives. Paul calls him the "man of lawlessness," and Yahusha' refers to him as "the abomination that causes desolation." Paul uses the term lawlessness (Gr. anomia) to summarize that man's character (2 Thessalonians 2:3). And Yahusha' attributes the lack of brotherly love during those times as owing to the "increase of wickedness" (Gr. anomia, "lawlessness," Matthew 24:12).

Furthermore, Yahusha' said that this man would be seen "standing in the holy place" (Matthew 24:12). Paul mimics Messiah's instruction when he tells the Thessalonians that this man "sets himself up in God's temple" (2 Thessalonians 2:4). Messiah also makes it clear that the false Messiahs and false prophets of those days "will appear and perform great signs (Gr. seemeia) and miracles (Gr. terata)" in order "to deceive" (Matthew 24:24). Paul similarly assesses the evils of the days of the lawless one whose coming is "in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles (Gr. teras), signs (Gr. seemeion) and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives" (2 Thessalonians 2:9,10).

Warnings to the Disciples and to the Church

The reason Yahusha' told his disciples about the coming apostasy, the increase of lawlessness and the appearing of the horrifying desolator was not merely to show he could predict the future. Nor was it only to satisfy the childlike curiosity of his disciples. Yahusha' taught all these things so that his followers would be warned of the very real dangers that lay ahead and so that they would be prepared to take their stand for truth. Since during those final hours there will be a great display of power and signs designed to deceive all people including God's elect, Yahusha' wanted his own disciples to be aware of what they would have to face in the future, before he could return. He said, "See, I have told you ahead of time" (Matthew 24:25).

It is highly significant that, when asked about the time of his parousia, Yahusha's response begins with a stern warning to his disciples.  It is the first thing that all believers need to know about his parousia.  Yahusha' would, in short order, describe to them the full glory of his return.  But first, he needed to warn them of the deception which would have caused many of them to stumble had they not been warned.  The deception was to be a precursor of his glorious parousia.  Likewise, in any investigation we may undertake to determine the timing of Messiah's return, we need also to carefully hear and consider the loving warnings that Yahusha' wants to convey to us.

In the face of the probability that unsuspecting believers would succumb to the deception, Yahusha' warned his followers not to be deceived by false prophets and false teachers who would proclaim a false message regarding the nature of his parousia.  Due to the widespread deception in the last days, Yahusha' emphasized the need for the disciples to know the truth about his parousia. He repeatedly stressed the grandeur and public display of his appearing as opposed to the false messages which would claim that he will come in secrecy. Yahusha' warned, "Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Messiah,' and will deceive many." (24:4,5,). And upon informing them of the coming of wars and rumors of wars, Yahusha' exhorted, "see to it that you are not alarmed" (v.6). Then, as he described the coming apostasy, he reiterated, "many false prophets will appear and deceive many people" (24:11).

Indeed, in our own day, there is a great deal of deceptive false doctrine circulating Christian churches regarding the timing of the return of Messiah at his parousia.  Yahusha' warned his first century disciples and he has warned us.  It is up to us to heed this warning.  Yahusha' said, "For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Messiah,' and will deceive many." (24:5).  And this is precisely what we see in our churches today.   There are many who come in the name of Yahusha' and say that "Yahusha' is the Messiah," and then loudly and vociferously proclaim lies about the coming of Messiah and deceive many believers with this message!  Some of the best teachers and preachers the Christian community has to offer are the ones who are boldly, passionately and sincerely proclaiming deceptive heresies regarding the coming of Messiah for his church.  To be sure, in what may be the greatest irony of contemporary biblical interpretation, the pretribulation rapture message is the deception which Yahusha' warned his disciples about.

Yahusha' emphatically illustrated the visibility of his coming and he stressed the need for his disciples to beware of the deceptions which would precede his posttribulational parousia:

At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Messiah!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. For false Messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect - it that were possible. See, I have told you ahead of time. So, if anyone tells you, 'There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, 'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it. For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming (parousia) of the Son of Man (Matthew 24:23-27).

The implication of Messiah's warnings is this: until Yahusha' returns there will be false reports about his coming which will deceive many people.  And the people being deceived are not the unbelievers in the world.  The ones deceived are those who believe that "(Yahusha' is) the Christ" and are members of His church.  That is to say, even God's own people will believe false reports about the coming (parousia) of Yahusha' unless they are grounded in the teaching of Messiah himself!

Yahusha' told us that these deceptions would come.  And yet, most of the Protestant Christian churches around the world have believed in the secret, pretribulation rapture theory.  Yahusha' warned his disciples not to believe the false reports and deceptive teaching of a secret coming of Messiah (rapture)!  He warned,

if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Messiah!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it....if anyone tells you, 'There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, 'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it (Matthew 24:23,26).

The Greek word, tameion, translated above as inner rooms, can mean, 

(1) as a place for storage storehouse (LU 12.24); (2) more gener. of the interior rooms of a house reserved for privacy private room, inner chamber (MT 6.6) (Friberg Lexicon).

n: a room in the interior of a house, normally without windows opening to the outside - 'inner room. 'whatever you whispered in (people's) ears in the inner room will be shouted in public' Lk 12.3. In Lk 12.3 the emphasis is upon the strictly private location of the inner room. In such a context one may translate 'a strictly private room' or 'a small room in the center of the house.' (Louw-Nida Lexicon).

The pretribulation rapture theory is a modern day example of a false report about Messiah's coming.  Yahusha' told his followers not to believe any reports about his coming that did not fit his own description of his public, posttribulation parousia. And Yahusha' taught only a posttribulation coming and gathering of God's people. The pretribulation rapture theory teaches a secret coming of Messiah before his glorious appearing to all the world. But Yahusha' warned his disciples repeatedly not to believe any report of a coming of Messiah which was different from that posttribulational appearing which he himself described.

The Christians at Thessalonica were guilty of the same kind of mistake that many contemporary believers are making. Some of them were deceived by the false reports which they thought were from Paul saying that the day of the Lord had come. Paul corrects their understanding of the posttribulation coming of Messiah first by reminding them of the warning which Messiah himself spoke. Paul warned, "Don't let anyone deceive you in any way!" (Gr. mee tis humas exapateesee, 2 Thessalonians 2:3). This is almost a word for word quote of Messiah who said to his disciples, "Watch out that no one deceives you" (Gr. blepetemee tis humas planeesee, Matthew 24:4).

Paul also wrote, "we ask you, brothers, not to become alarmed" (Gr. mee throeisthai, 2 Thessalonians 2:2), as if in imitation of Messiah's words, "but see to it that you are not alarmed" (Gr. mee throeisthe, Matthew 24:6). Then Paul, after the manner of Messiah, informed his audience that the apostasy and the revelation of the man of lawlessness must come first before Messiah would come for his church. 

Modern Christians are making a similar mistake because they are not grounded in the teaching of Yahusha'. They believe that a secret rapture is going to take place 7 years prior to the visible posttribulational revelation of Yahusha'. And they do so, like the Thessalonians, because they mistakenly think that Paul teaches a secret rapture other than that which Messiah plainly taught. 

The Thessalonians thought that Paul had sent them a letter teaching that the day of the Lord was already in progress. And pretribulationists today think that Paul's letters teach a coming of Messiah prior to that coming which Messiah himself spoke of.  But Paul never taught a secret rapture.  Only false prophets and false teachers teach a secret coming of Messiah.  Paul unambiguously states that the parousia of Messiah and the rapture must follow the great apostasy and the revelation of the man of lawlessness, because this is the authoritative teaching of Yahusha' as recorded in the Olivet Discourse. 

Matthew: For National Israel Only?

It is amazing shortsightedness on the part of dispensationalists and of biblical scholars as a whole that they do not recognize the obvious verbal parallels between the Olivet Discourse and 2 Thessalonians 2. Equally incredible is the rationale used by dispensationalists to nullify the clear implications of the teaching of Matthew for the church. On the one hand, they teach that the book of Matthew is God-inspired and without error. Yet, on the other hand, they circumvent the ramifications of the doctrine found in Matthew for the church by asserting that it was written for the nation Israel only and that it pertains to the "dispensation" of the kingdom!

By diverting the applicability of Matthew, dispensationalists protect themselves from what teachings they don't care to apply to their church. They take large chunks of this gospel, including the Olivet Discourse, and they reject the relevance of these Scriptures for the church on the basis that they apply to a different dispensation, rather than to our own. They ignore the overwhelming textual evidence we discovered - the verbal parallels between the Lord's own discourse in Matthew 24,25 and Paul's writings in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:10 and 2 Thessalonians 2 - and teach instead that Messiah and Paul are speaking about different "comings" of Yahusha' Messiah!!

To respond briefly to these dispensational objections, two pertinent observations need to be made. First, the fact of the "Jewishness" of Matthew is not to be denied. Commentator David Hill has compiled a list of characteristics of Matthew which indicate the Jewish style of that gospel. I quote him here at length:

Although the Gospel contains attacks on Jewish attitudes and practices (e.g. chapter 23), the validity of the Law is emphasized (5.18f.) and the instructions (if not the behaviour) of the scribes and Pharisees are to be followed (23.2f.) and the commandments are to be kept (19.17f.): the disciples are expected to keep the Sabbath, to fast, and to bring their offerings in accordance with Jewish tradition (6.16ff.; 24.20; 5.23f.) and also are obliged to pay Temple tax (17.24ff.). Jewish usages, ordinances and expressions are employed without explanation; e.g. 'tradition of the elders' (15.2), handwashing scruples, phylacteries (23.5), 'whitewashed tombs' 23.27); cf. also raca (5.22) and korbanas (27.6).... Matthew puts on Jesus' lips sayings which expressly limit his activity to Israel (10.5,6; 15.24). Jewish speech-formulae ('the Kingdom of heaven', 'your Father in heaven') are often found in Matthew, and the use of dikaiosune (righteousness) to describe the conduct required of disciples is found only in this Gospel. The form of the Lord's Prayer in Matthew also suggests Jewish liturgical usage.... (The New Century Bible Commentary: The Gospel of Matthew, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972, p.39,40)

But secondly, the fact of the "Jewishness" of Matthew does not imply that it is not written "to" or "for" the church. There are many other considerations which suggest that Matthew was not written for "Israel" (the nation) only, but for the believing community, the church at large. "Despite the 'Jewishness' of the book and sayings which limit Yahusha'' activity to Israel, there is a strain of universalism which must be taken into account." (The New Century Bible Commentary: The Gospel of Matthew, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972, p.42)

That the gospel of Matthew is an instruction manual relevant to the life of the church is indicated by many saying of Yahusha', including: the great commission, the goal of which is to make disciples of the whole world; 'the field is the world' (13:38); 'this gospel...will be preached throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations (24:14); 'the kingdom of God will be...given to a nation producing the fruits of it' (21:43). (The New Century Bible Commentary: The Gospel of Matthew, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972, pp.42, 43)

Another factor which argues in favor of viewing Matthew as a writing of instructions for the conduct of the church of Yahusha' is the rift between Judaism and the New Testament church:

That the Church Matthew knows was in a real sense separated from, if not actually opposed to, Judaism is indicated by the fact that the author again and again refers to 'their scribes', 'their synagogues' and 'your synagogues', when speaking to Jews: see 7.29; 9.35; 23.34;... Indeed Kilpatrick thinks that these phrases imply a radical separation of church and synagogue. (The New Century Bible Commentary: The Gospel of Matthew, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972, p.41)

The manner by which Yahusha' distinguishes between the unbelieving Jews and his own disciples surely indicates that the sayings of Yahusha' are meant to apply to his church which is made up of believing Jews and Gentiles rather than to Israel, the unbelieving nation.

Besides the strain of universalism and the rift between the church and Judaism, a third factor which suggests that Matthew is written "for" the church is the verbal affinities which we have discussed between the sayings of Yahusha' and the teaching of the apostles. In view of the numerous direct verbal parallels between the Olivet Discourse and the Thessalonian epistles alone, how can anyone seriously doubt the source of the apostles teaching on the rapture?

The evidence surely indicates that the gospel of Matthew was a summary of the doctrine of the early church, written by a Jewish Christian. Matthew's purpose for his written account of the life and sayings of Yahusha', according to Hill, "is to provide a church with a distinctly Jewish Christian ethos a work from which to teach and preach." (The New Century Bible Commentary: The Gospel of Matthew, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972, p.43)   Matthew is indeed, as we have demonstrated by pointing out the verbal affinities between the words of Yahusha' and the teaching of Paul, "a work from which" the early church did indeed "preach and teach."

The Olivet Discourse: The Apostolic "Parousia of Messiah" Tradition

As we have said before, pretribulation dispensationalists argue that the Olivet Discourse was not given to educate the church about the time of trouble through which it would have to pass, but rather, that it describes the trouble "Israel" will endure. Pretribulation rapture advocates reason that Yahusha' was speaking to his Jewish disciples who represented the nation of Israel. The great tribulation, the parousia of Messiah and the gathering of the elect spoken of by Yahusha', pertain, in their view, only to the nation of Israel. But, they say, the church has a different program and a different hope.

But shouldn't our theology be based on the textual evidence rather than on preconceived notions? The verbal affinities between Yahusha' and Paul point most emphatically toward a different conclusion than that which dispensationalists have reached. The disciples of Yahusha' do not represent the nation Israel. They represent who they are; namely, the believing remnant of Israel who form the body of Messiah. It is best, then, to take Matthew 24 at face value. The method of interpreting Scripture literally requires us to let the disciples be who they are. And they are the pillars of Messiah's church.

Now Yahusha' told his disciples the chain of events which would lead up to his parousia. This also is what they in turn taught to their constituencies. In fact, the doctrine of the apostles was the doctrine of the early church. But dispensationalists would have us believe that at some point in time after Messiah's ascension, Paul received new revelation regarding a change in time of the parousia of Messiah which pertains to the hope of the church.

If, however, the parousia of Messiah for his church is different than the parousia which Messiah himself taught the founding disciples of that same church, then Yahusha' must have been lying to his disciples, because he told them to expect his coming to be after the great tribulation. Yahusha' himself must have intentionally deceived his own disciples about his coming.  For the pretribulation rapture theory to be true, the integrity of Yahusha' must be compromised.

The pretribulation rapture theory is, of course, not true, because Yahusha' plainly told his followers exactly when his parousia would be in answer to their direct question. And Yahusha' told them not to believe anything but a posttribulation  parousia. Any other teaching or belief falls under the category of false reports intended to deceive. Yahusha' did not deceive his disciples. He was telling them the truth about his parousia.  And the apostles reiterated this truth in their writings of the posttribulation coming of Messiah to gather his people. The verbal affinities between the sayings of Yahusha' and the writings of the apostles offer irrefutable and compelling evidence that this is so.

We are left with only one logical explanation for the verbal parallels found in the writings of the New Testament. The Olivet Discourse was the church's handbook on the subject of the parousia of Messiah. All of the New Testament letters which address this subject reflect the teaching of Messiah in His Matthew 24 discourse. That sermon was well known to the churches planted by the apostles in the 1st century. And Matthew 24, 25 is a written account of that oral tradition which the apostles used to indoctrinate the church on the subject of the "end of the age" and the coming of Yahusha'.

Summary

When asked point blank when his parousia would be, Yahusha' explained that the great tribulation would occur first, in which there would be a large scale falling away from the faith and the revelation of Daniel's desolating king. Yahusha' warned his disciples not to be alarmed or deceived about false reports regarding his coming.

In 2 Thessalonians 2, Paul says effectively the same thing about Messiah's coming. He notes that the apostasy must take place first and the man of lawlessness must be revealed before Messiah would come in power and glory.  The coming of Messiah and our gathering to him will not occur until after these events happen.  And Paul cautions his readers not to be alarmed or deceived by any other messengers reporting that Messiah would come in some other fashion.. 

Paul and the other apostles would have quickly dismissed the theory of a pretribulation rapture because they were well grounded in the teaching of Yahusha'. Yahusha' warned his own not to believe any report saying that his coming is in secret. His coming will be glorious and visible to all, even as the lightning is seen by everyone.

For these reasons, we conclude that Paul taught only a posttribulation  parousia of Yahusha' and gathering or "rapture" of the church. It is a mistake for God's people to adhere to the pretribulation rapture theory, because it is contrary to the teaching of Yahusha', Paul, Peter, and John. And therefore, it should have no place in the teaching and in the life of those who love the Bible and look forward to the return of our Lord Yahusha' Messiah.

Verbal Parallels Between the Olivet Discourse and 2 Thessalonians 2

  (This chart is adapted from Milligan's list of verbal affinities, p.lxi)

These verbal parallels between Yahusha's teaching to his Jewish disciples about the timing of his coming and Paul's teaching to the "Gentile believers" regarding the return of Messiah for them surely indicates they are from the same source.  Indeed, the very words, phrases, figures of speech and themes Messiah used when teaching about his post-tribulation return are used by Paul when he writes of the "rapture."  It must be concluded that Paul's "rapture" is the same event as spoken of by Messiah in Matthew 24.

Published: 2002

Updated 2007