Comparative Analysis: Matthew 24 & 25 and 1 Thessalonians 4

[Herald]

I posted the following question on another message board:

Eschatologically speaking, are these chapters dealing with the same event (the 2nd coming)or separate events (the second coming and the rapture)? I am interested in the reasearch you used to come with you opinion. I will certainly share mine as well. I am a historic premillenialist (in the same mold as the late James Boice). I do not hold to a premillennial rapture.

One of the responses I received was:

The Olivet Discourse was written to Jews, not the church. It is The Gospel of the Kingdom postponed until the endtimes. It describes what happens during and after the Tribulation for Jews. The church is absent, having been raptured prior to the tribulation. It envisions the 2nd Coming, the destruction of the antichrist and his evil forces, the advent of the Kingdom promised to the Jews, with the beginning of the 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth. Daniel 2, 7, 9, 12, and Revelation 13 deserve careful study. For the proper context, read all of Matthew 24 and 25, Luke 21:20-24, and 2 Th 2:1-12, merged with:

I am being honest here. My knowledge of covenant theology is dismal. I was a died-in-the-wool dispensationalist up until two years ago. I know what dispensationalism teaches about these passages, but that is all I know. I am asking for some well researched views.

Thanks in advance.

 

[RamistThomist]

The Olivet Discourse was written to Jews, not the church

False distinction between Israel and the Church. The standard line is that the Old Testament didn't know of a "church." However, Peter specifically states this in Acts 3:24 "all the prophets...announced these days."

The church is absent, having been raptured prior to the tribulation.

How does one define the church?

Premise 1: The church is the body of Christ.
Premise 2: It is impossible to be saved apart from union with Christ.
Premise 3: Old Testament believers are in Christ.
Conclusion: If the body of Christ includes old testament believers, then the Church did not begin at Pentecost.
-----------------------------------------------
The conclusion to the last argument doesn't deal with the rapture, per se, but makes any talk of the church being "raptured" out (a highly problematic concpet on other grounds) very troublesome.

 

[ReformedWretch]

Debating with Dispensationalists is so tough because they have been taught that other views are anti-christian. At least most of them have been taught that.

Read up here:

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/dispensationalism.html

That's what I had to do before I debated any of them!

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Draught Horse

The Olivet Discourse was written to Jews, not the church

False distinction between Israel and the Church. The standard line is that the Old Testament didn't know of a "church." However, Peter specifically states this in Acts 3:24 "all the prophets...announced these days."

The church is absent, having been raptured prior to the tribulation.

How does one define the church?

Premise 1: The church is the body of Christ.
Premise 2: It is impossible to be saved apart from union with Christ.
Premise 3: Old Testament believers are in Christ.
Conclusion: If the body of Christ includes old testament believers, then the Church did not begin at Pentecost.
-----------------------------------------------
The conclusion to the last argument doesn't deal with the rapture, per se, but makes any talk of the church being "raptured" out (a highly problematic concpet on other grounds) very troublesome.

Here are two other implications of the above argument from a reductio standpoint:

Grant Premise 1 & 2
Assume their view (which they will deny at this point--no church until Pentecost)
~3 Old Testament believers are not saved.
5. Tribulation people cannot be saved (no church et al)

 

[BobVigneault]

This is God speaking to his chosen, the people of God through Moses.

Exodus 19:5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; 6 and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel."

This is God speaking to his chosen people, the people of God through Peter.

1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

The center of the story is not a land or ethnicity it is a PEOPLE. A priestly, mediating people through whom God works to redeem the nations. A people bound to God by the covenant of creation, "for all the earth is mine".

All Israel is not Israel. The people of God are the people of God.

[Edited on 4-6-2006 by BobVigneault]

 

[Herald]

Originally posted by Draught Horse

The Olivet Discourse was written to Jews, not the church

False distinction between Israel and the Church. The standard line is that the Old Testament didn't know of a "church." However, Peter specifically states this in Acts 3:24 "all the prophets...announced these days."

The church is absent, having been raptured prior to the tribulation.

How does one define the church?

Premise 1: The church is the body of Christ.
Premise 2: It is impossible to be saved apart from union with Christ.
Premise 3: Old Testament believers are in Christ.
Conclusion: If the body of Christ includes old testament believers, then the Church did not begin at Pentecost.
-----------------------------------------------
The conclusion to the last argument doesn't deal with the rapture, per se, but makes any talk of the church being "raptured" out (a highly problematic concpet on other grounds) very troublesome.

I follow the logic of each premise. Question: does covenant theology use logical deduction (like your premises) alone to state that the church existed in the O.T.? Do you recommend and good reads on covenant theology for someone in my situation (a recent dispensational convert)?

Thanks.

 

[Herald]

Originally posted by houseparent
Debating with Dispensationalists is so tough because they have been taught that other views are anti-christian. At least most of them have been taught that.

Read up here:

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/dispensationalism.html

That's what I had to do before I debated any of them!

Adam - excellent resource on dispensationalism! Kick me in the head for not utilizing Monergism as a resource earlier.

Thanks.

 

[Herald]

Originally posted by BobVigneault
This is God speaking to his chosen, the people of God through Moses.

5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; 6 and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel."

This is God speaking to his chosen people, the people of God through Peter.

9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

The center of the story is not a land or ethnicity it is a PEOPLE. A priestly, mediating people through whom God works to redeem the nations. A people bound to God by the covenant of creation, "for all the earth is mine".

All Israel is not Israel. The people of God are the people of God.

Bob - excellent point. What is the O.T. reference you quoted?

 

[BobVigneault]

Oops, sorry, I got interrupted. Exodus 19:5-6 and 1 Peter 2:9-10.