Church-Colored Glasses

In 1978, country music singer John Conlee released his hit song "Rose Colored Glasses," a sob-inducing lament in which the lovelorn male narrator persists in deluding himself about the woman he loves (who clearly no longer loves him). Of course, when we say someone is "looking through rose-colored glasses," we mean they are seeing only what they want to see—they convince themselves that everything is coming up roses. The world looks wonderful, and they are simply filtering out anything that contradicts that view. By refusing to face reality, they become victims of self-delusion.

Of course, my purpose in writing this article isn't to talk about tinted glasses—it is to discuss a phenomenon that profoundly affects people's understanding of much of what the Word has to say about both Israel and the Church:

People read the New Testament and assume it's all about the Church.

In other words, many Christians have a tendency to read the New Testament through Church-colored glasses. The Church is all they know (or care) about, and so everywhere they look, especially the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, all they see is the Church.

Every prophecy. Every parable. Every sermon. Every discourse.

They see it all as if it were addressed directly to the Church, and applied only to the Church. It's like "Old MacDonald Had a Church" (...here a Church, there a Church, everywhere a Church Church). They overlook the fact that it's not all about the Church—there is a certain amount of material in the New Testament that doesn't apply to the Church, but rather deals with Israel. I like to think of it in terms of a movie—Jesus stars in the lead role, while both Israel and the Church co-star in supporting roles. And neither completely steals the show.

I have become convinced over the years that a large percentage of the errant teaching about the Rapture, the Second Coming, the Tribulation, and other basic doctrines stem from this one phenomenon, and the problem is largely due to some basic misunderstandings about the nature of the Church, the nature of Israel, and nature of the relationship between the two.

One key section of the New Testament where this phenomenon rears its ugly hermeneutical head is the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24–25 (with parallel versions in Mark 13 and Luke 21). This is a critical passage of Scripture by any measure, because here the Lord Himself spends two entire chapters going on at length about the Tribulation and about the events that will precede, accompany, and follow His second coming to earth to establish His kingdom at its climax.

Unfortunately, multitudes of people have struggled in the effort to identify just exactly who the Olivet Discourse is directed at. In other words, is it addressed to Israel, or at least the believing remnant of Israel that will exist during the end times? Or is it directed at the Church, who, if that's the case, will apparently be present on earth during the events described?

In this article, I would like to do three things: (a) give you a quick summary of what I believe the Bible teaches about the nature of Israel, the Church, and the relationship between them, (b) briefly explain why I am fully convinced that the Olivet Discourse is directed at Israel and not the Church, and (c) touch on some of the implications of reading the Church into the Olivet Discourse.

Be aware that Matthew 24 is easily one of the most hotly debated chapters in the entire Bible. Diametrically opposed teachings gravitate to Matthew 24 for their proof texts, each giving many of the same verses different spins to support their divergent positions.

It is the Gettysburg of the Gospels, a battlefield upon which much interpretive blood has been spilled—a fork in the exegetical road that determines one's ultimate destination on several doctrinal issues.

Sorting things out

Many people in mainstream churches today have embraced some species of replacement theology, and think the Church has replaced Israel. Still others, such as many in the Hebrew Roots movement, have gone to the opposite extreme, believing that Israel has replaced the Church, or that the Church is part of Israel.

So just what is the nature of the relationship between Israel and the Church?

Obviously, this is a broad, foundational topic, and volumes have been written about it. All I want to do is give you a bare-bones outline of the key points.

Origin:

Israel was formed by God's sovereign choice of a man named Abram (later changed to Abraham), and God's unconditional covenant with him. The Abrahamic Covenant promised (a) land (which, by the way, includes way more land in the Middle East than Israel currently occupies), (b) many descendants (a "great nation," including kings who would rule Israel), and (c) blessings and redemption for the whole world through his descendants (which would include the Messiah). Later, this promise was continued through his son Isaac, and then through Isaac's son Jacob. Most of this is in the book of Genesis.

The Church was officially inaugurated on the day of Pentecost, 50 days after the resurrection of Christ, and 10 days after He ascended to heaven. Its members are those who have repented of sin and believed in faith that Jesus' death and resurrection paid the penalty for their sin, and as a result have been born again, or born of the Spirit. They have been sealed with the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, who will never leave them.

Purpose:

Israel has four basic purposes, all described by the prophet Isaiah:

(a) Israel was to be the vehicle through which God would give man His written Word. They were to write down the things God said and did as the Holy Spirit moved upon them and preserve them with absolute accuracy (Isa. 42:9).

(b) Israel was to be God's witnesses on earth that He existed and was the only God (Isa. 43:10–12). That is, the miracles He performed on their behalf and His manifest presence among them was to prove to all mankind that He and He alone was the one true God.

(c) Israel was to be the instrument through which God would be glorified on earth (Isa. 49:3).

(d) Israel was to be the channel through which the Messiah would come to bring salvation to the world (Isa. 49:6).

The purpose of the Church is to be a tangible display of the incomparable riches of God's grace—grace that is expressed to us through Christ (Eph. 2:7). The Church is also a way for God to make known His manifold wisdom to all the principalities and powers of heaven for all eternity (Eph. 3:10).

In other words, throughout eternity, whenever God wants the principalities and powers of heaven to see His grace and wisdom in action, all He has to do is point to the Church as Exhibit A.

The Church is also commissioned to preach the gospel and make disciples, and is to provoke Israel to jealousy through their personal relationship with their Jewish Messiah—the one they rejected and crucified—and ultimately be a part of what spurs them to return to their covenant relationship with God prior to the Second Coming (Deut. 32:21; Rom. 10:19).

Destiny:

God promised Israel a literal kingdom in the land given to Abraham, and a number of passages of Scripture throughout the Old Testament describe the Millennial Kingdom as being a virtual heaven on earth. It will be a thousand years of peace and prosperity that will eclipse anything the world has ever known (with the possible exception of the Garden of Eden), with Israel as the preeminent nation on earth. Christ will rule the nations from Jerusalem after His physical return to earth, and God will dwell among His Chosen People as He promised (Ezek. 43:7).

Unlike Israel, however, the future home of the Church is not on earth—it is in the New Jerusalem, which is where we will go after the Rapture. It is the place Jesus is talking about in John 14:1–3 when, while speaking to His disciples at the Last Supper, He made a cryptic remark about going to prepare a place for them. He didn't actually reveal the Rapture (the disciples' subsequent comments showed they had no idea what He was talking about), but many Bible teachers agree, with the advantage of hindsight, that that's what He was referring to.

The New Jerusalem is described in Revelation 21 as coming down from heaven (some say after the Millennial Kingdom, some say at the beginning of the kingdom—and I tend to lean toward the beginning), with a base that is roughly 2,200 kilometers square and a height of 2,200 kilometers. Since only length, width and height are mentioned, some people think it will be shaped like a cube while some think it will be a pyramid. (Personally, I lean toward pyramid.) Either way, it will be far too large to sit on the earth's surface, so many Bible scholars believe it will be something akin to a low-orbiting satellite. The Bible says we will rule and reign with Christ during the Millennial Kingdom, but we will live in the New Jerusalem.

Connection:

After Israel rejected Jesus as their prophesied Messiah two thousand years ago, God partially hardened the hearts of the Jews and set them aside temporarily so He could take for Himself a people from among the Gentiles (He didn't abandon the Jews, He just set them aside). This is the Church, and it is composed of both Jews and Gentiles (primarily Gentiles) who have believed and responded in faith to the gospel.

Jesus established the New Covenant with Israel by the shedding of His blood. After Israel rejected Him and that covenant, however, the Church began to be grafted into that covenant through their faith in Christ (Rom. 11). When we respond to the gospel in faith and thus become a member of the Church, God no longer sees us as a Jew or a Gentile, but as a new creature in Christ (Gal. 6:15; 2 Cor. 5:17).

When the last member of the Church gets saved and the Church is complete, the Rapture will take place and the Age of Grace will end. Although many more will come to faith in Christ before He returns at His second coming, they will not be part of the Church. That's finished at the Rapture.

After the Rapture, God will once again turn His attention to Israel, and will restore them to their covenant relationship with Him during the Tribulation. One-third of them will ultimately come to faith in their real Messiah, and at the climax of the Tribulation—as the nations of the world come against them and their backs are against the wall—they will call upon Him to save them (Matt. 23:39). That's what will trigger Jesus' return to earth to defeat Israel's enemies and establish the Millennial Kingdom. The believing remnant of Israel will finally receive their long-awaited kingdom on earth. Meanwhile, Gentile survivors who came to faith during the Tribulation will populate the other nations, and the Church will dwell in the New Jerusalem.

There has never been a nation like Israel before, and there never will be again—sovereignly chosen by God to be His people and promised an earthly kingdom. There has never been a group like the Church before, and there never will be again—those who have not seen, and yet have believed (John 20:9). Grafted into the New Covenant through faith in Christ as a result of Israel's rejection of Him, and promised to rule and reign with Christ and to dwell in the New Jerusalem.

So as you can see, the Church is not Israel, and Israel is not the Church. The two groups are distinct and always will be, with different origins, purposes, and destinies. Both are beloved of God, both have their special place in God's plan of redemption, and both should love, respect, and pray for the other. As Christians, we are commanded to pray for the peace of Jerusalem (which is essentially praying for the Lord to return, since there will be no peace until the Prince of Peace arrives). However, any attempt to make one out to be the other, to make one part of the other, or to replace one with the other can ultimately be shown to be contrary to God's Word.

Context is king

One of the most important things to consider in regard to the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24–25 is context. And not just the immediate context of the discourse itself, but that of the entire Gospel of Matthew.

Matthew was a Jew, and his intended audience was composed of Jewish believers. The first and foremost purpose of Matthew's Gospel was to prove to the Jews that Yeshua HaMashiach, Jesus the Messiah, truly fulfilled the messianic prophecies and possessed all the requisite messianic credentials. Matthew's genealogy traces Jesus' lineage back to King David, and then back to Abraham—necessary for Him to be qualified to sit on the Throne of David during the Millennial Kingdom.

Speaking of which, a lot of Jewish believers were thinking something along the lines of "OK, so Yeshua is our King, but, uh...where's the kingdom?" So Matthew's second purpose in writing his Gospel was to explain to Jewish believers why the kingdom had been delayed.

As we read Matthew's Gospel, we see how Jesus presented Himself to Israel as their Messiah and offered them God's promised kingdom; but everywhere He went the Jewish religious leaders rejected Him and, hardened in their unbelief, ultimately arranged to have Him crucified. We see that between Israel's initial rejection of the Messiah and their ultimate future acceptance of Him, God had initiated a new program aimed at the Gentiles.

This was Matthew's third purpose in writing his Gospel: to show that God was using Israel's rejection of the Messiah and the kingdom He offered them to allow for the creation of the Church, and to assure them that their God would keep His promise and restore the kingdom to them in the future.

This was something Jewish believers sorely needed to hear because by the time Matthew's Gospel was written, the makeup of the Church was beginning to become predominantly Gentile. Jewish believers needed to understand what was happening, why it was happening, and that it was all part of God's plan. Paul lays this out in much greater depth and detail in the book of Romans.

So, although Matthew's Gospel does contain some information pertaining to the Church, it isn't addressed to the Church in a major way. This actually makes sense, because it represents the transition from the Old to the New Testaments, and it manifests its Jewish nature in a variety of ways that extend beyond its basic purposes.

For example, the Jews recognized its five-part structure as being Jewish, since it is divided into five major discourses: the Sermon on the Mount (ch. 5–7), the discourse on missions (ch. 10), the kingdom parables (ch. 13), the discourse on humility (ch. 18), and the Olivet Discourse (ch. 24–25). Each of these sections ends with a concluding phrase such as "When He had finished saying these things," or something equivalent.

Matthew's Gospel also contains far more Old Testament allusions and references than those written by Mark, Luke, or John. Matthew doesn't bother to explain a number of Jewish customs that other Gospel writers clarify for their non-Jewish readers. Certain distinctly Hebrew topics are frequently mentioned: the Sabbath, ceremonial defilements, the kingdom, the temple, scribes, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Messiah, Abraham, Moses, etc.

In every way, Matthew's Gospel is Jewish to the bone. Of course, that certainly doesn't constitute proof that the Olivet Discourse is directed to Israel and not the Church. However, as we consider both the context and the content of the Olivet Discourse itself, you will see that it's the only logical conclusion you can come to.

What they knew and when they knew it

For centuries, Jews (who knew the Old Testament far better than most Christians today know the New Testament) believed that one day the Messiah would come and establish the earthly kingdom God had promised them. When He did, that would end what they called the "present age," and they regarded these two events as going hand in hand, with no substantial separation between them.

The Messiah will come, and He'll establish the kingdom. Simple.

And the disciples knew that Jesus was the Messiah.

That's the point. They had seen too much to believe otherwise. And in their Jewish minds, Messiah = kingdom. For the entire duration of Jesus' three-and-a-half year ministry, the disciples were eagerly anticipating what they thought was the soon-coming kingdom. They fully expected Jesus to initiate some sort of grassroots uprising against the Romans to throw off their yoke of oppression and ultimately usher in the kingdom and assume the Throne of David. And they expected to be an integral part of it—they would get in on the ground floor, so to speak.

For example:

The mother of James and John came to Jesus to ask that her sons be given places of honor in the kingdom—and she wasn't talking about heaven. She assumed, like all other Jews who came to believe He was the Messiah, that they were literally on the threshold of their earthly kingdom. Jesus' response could be translated as "You have no idea that the kingdom is going to be postponed for two thousand years for this Church thing."

Jesus knew exactly what was about to happen. He knew that although His offer of the kingdom was legitimate and still on the table until the day He ascended to heaven, He would be rejected by Israel and as a result the kingdom would be delayed for two thousand years while the predominantly Gentile Church was grafted in.

No one else—not even His closest disciples—knew anything about any delay of the kingdom.

Many Christians today seem to be blissfully unaware of the fact that the disciples had actually read the book of Daniel, and so knew all about the prophecy of Daniel's 70 Weeks (Dan. 9:24–27). They understood that they were nearing the completion of the 69th of the 70 weeks (490 years) that had been allotted to Israel, and so they were confident they were just a few short years from the establishment of the kingdom.

In spite of the fact that Jesus revealed to the disciples that He was going to die and be raised up on the third day (Matt. 16:21–23; Mark 8:31–33; Luke 9:21–22), they had difficulty grasping the full import of what He told them. They continued to believe they were nearing the advent of the kingdom up until the moment He ascended back to heaven 40 days after the Resurrection:

That tells us that moments before Jesus ascended back into heaven, all His disciples could think about was the kingdom. This shows that they knew essentially nothing about the Church (and even less about the Rapture, if that's possible). It would be a couple of decades before the mystery of the Rapture (in fact, the mystery of the Church itself) would be fully revealed through the apostle Paul:

Note that the Greek word musterion (mystery) doesn't mean exactly what the word "mystery" means in English today. In modern English, a "mystery" is something that is either unknown (like who shot Kennedy) or hard to understand (like why the Seattle Mariners traded Ichiro). A musterion is something that is now being revealed by God, and it's something that has never been revealed before.

Let's see 'em wiggle around this: The simple fact that Paul revealed the Rapture as a "mystery" two decades after Jesus' ministry proves two important points: (a) that the Rapture is an event that is distinct from the Second Coming, an event which is revealed in numerous places throughout the Old Testament, and (b) that nothing Jesus said in the Olivet Discourse can be interpreted as a clear or definitive description of the Rapture.

In other words, as far as proving the Olivet Discourse is not about the Rapture, I could stop right there. Done. Quod erat demonstrandum.

But there's more.

The meeting on the mount

When Jesus rode into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey on what would become known as Palm Sunday, it was the first time He allowed Himself to be openly hailed as Israel's prophesied Messiah. This was His moment—and Israel's moment of truth.

It was early April, and the population of Jerusalem had swelled to at least five times its normal size because it was coming up on Passover, when every adult Jewish male was required to present himself at the temple. The Romans would have stationed every available garrison in and around the city for security, and they wouldn't hesitate to squelch the slightest hint of an uprising or aggressively respond to any sort of messianic rumblings.

Over the course of the next several days, Jesus would preach openly in the temple, but the Jewish religious leadership thoroughly rejected Him as the Messiah. Throughout His ministry, the religious leaders had accused Jesus of blasphemy because He made Himself out to be God in the flesh. They had witnessed His miracles, and then claimed He performed them through the power of Satan. They had tauntingly challenged Him to perform miracles on demand to "prove" Himself to their satisfaction.

Matthew 23 is Jesus' final response. The Lord delivers a scathing condemnation of the religious leaders in what is sometimes referred to as the seven woes. Six of the seven denouncements begin with "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites," while one begins with "Woe to you, you blind guides." In one final, blistering rebuke, Jesus exposes them as the hard-hearted, legalistic hypocrites they were.

And as a result, they conspired to kill Him.

Matthew 23 ends with Jesus' lament over Jerusalem, and over the fact that He actually came to gather the Jews into His kingdom, but they refused. But He ends with the promise to return when Israel asks Him to return by quoting an Old Testament messianic greeting from Psalm 118:

With that, Jesus departed from what is known as Herod's Temple, actually Israel's second. The first (Solomon's Temple) was built in the tenth century BC, and destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BC. Herod's Temple was built around 516 BC, and stood until it was destroyed by the Romans in AD 70.

It became known as Herod's Temple because it was during the reign of King Herod the Great (37 BC to 4 BC) that it was expanded and remodeled, work that continued to some degree for a number of years after Jesus' ministry. It was easily one of the most stunning buildings in the world, and the disciples were anticipating that they would soon be ruling with Christ from Jerusalem in the newly established kingdom, with this magnificent structure as the focal point.

Yep, it was all coming together.

But as Jesus left the temple that day with His disciples in tow, walking through the Kidron Valley toward the Mount of Olives, He dropped a bombshell on them:

There is simply no way for me to effectively communicate to you the impact this statement must have had on the disciples. They were stunned speechless, to say the very least. No doubt their minds were racing:

"The temple? DESTROYED?! That's insane! The kingdom is right around the corner...how could it ever be rebuilt in time?! What on earth is He talking about?!"

Later, back at the Mount of Olives, four of Jesus' disciples—Peter, James, John, and Andrew—came to Jesus for an explanation.

The dumbfounded disciples asked Jesus three questions:

1. When will these things be?

Jesus had just rocked their world by informing them that the temple would be demolished, so clearly that's the point of their question—they wanted to know when this would occur. They couldn't have a kingdom with no temple, and they knew it would take years to rebuild it. And since they were convinced they were on the threshold of the kingdom, they were at a loss.

It is worth noting that although Matthew records all three questions, he only records Jesus' answers to the last two. Matthew doesn't record His answer to the first question about the destruction of temple. Only Luke does.

A Reminder: Never forget that there are three versions of the Olivet Discourse: Matthew 24–25; Mark 13; Luke 21. John, who typifies the Church in many ways, passed on it—and since it deals with the Tribulation, the Olivet Discourse is significant even in its absence. I am only dealing with Matthew here, but it is worthwhile to compare all three and note the differences. It is only then you get the full picture, and some highly significant prophetic morsels emerge that people miss when they assume all three rehash the same thing.

2. What is the sign of your coming?

Jesus had told them that He was going to die and be raised up on the third day, but they still had a difficult time grasping what He really meant. They still had no concept of any substantial delay in the establishment of the kingdom, and may have assumed that Jesus simply meant He would die, be resurrected, ascend to heaven, do whatever it was He had to do there, and then come right back to set up the kingdom. Just like Arnold Schwarzenegger in the movies: "I'll be back."

The problem is they had no idea there would be a two-thousand year gap between the end of the 69th of Daniel's 70 weeks and the beginning of the 70th to accommodate the grafting in of the Gentile Church. So they assumed it was more like "I'll be right back."

The disciples did grasp the concept of the Second Coming, which is revealed in many places in the Old Testament. They just didn't realize that the whole kingdom program was about to be put on hold for two thousand years. So, of course they wanted to know what would be the sign of Christ's return.

They fully expected to be here waiting for Him!

3. What is the sign of the end of the age?

First, notice how the second and third questions are combined into one, as if it were one single thought: "What is the sign of your coming, and of the end of the age?" This is significant because in the minds of the disciples, it basically was one single thought. Messiah comes—bada bing, bada boom—Messiah establishes the kingdom.

Incidentally, some translations read "end of the world," which can be slightly misleading. The word in Greek is aion, which means "age." This is where we get the English word "eon." For Jews, the "end of the age" referred to the end of the "present age," and in essence referred to the beginning of the kingdom.

Jesus had gotten it through to them that He was going to die first and then come back to establish the kingdom (which requires an operational temple), but now He's just told them the temple was going to be destroyed, so now they don't know what to think. They were confused and were no doubt deeply disturbed and distressed.

Jesus had just turned their little Jewish world upside down, and they needed some answers.

The point I want you to see is that all three of these questions pertain strictly to Israel's future—their future judgment, future restoration, and future kingdom. It is quite clear that their questions have absolutely nothing to do with the Church or the Rapture. The disciples knew essentially nothing about the Church or the Age of Grace. And they certainly didn't know anything about the Rapture. Jesus only vaguely hinted at the Rapture at the Last Supper (John 14:1–3), and even that was still future at the time He spoke to four of His disciples on the Mount of Olives.

Church? What Church?

Jesus really didn't teach openly about the Church all that much during His ministry, and the reason is simple: He had come to offer the kingdom to Israel, and the offer was not only legitimate, but still valid until the day He ascended to heaven. Everywhere Jesus went, it was "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand," and it's obvious from numerous parables and illustrations that the kingdom He was referring to was in fact the Millennial Kingdom here on earth.

Understand that when Jesus spoke to the Jews about the "kingdom of heaven," the "kingdom of God," or just the "kingdom," He was talking about the earthly kingdom that God promised Israel—not heaven. That's one of the primary reasons He had come—not just to launch the Church. The Church came about only as a result of their rejection of Him. Jesus gave Israel another 40 days after the Resurrection to accept Him as their prophesied Messiah—and if they had, He would have established the kingdom and there never would have been a Church!

But God knows the end from the beginning. He already knew Israel would reject His Son, and it was all part of His sovereign plan from before the foundation of the world to extend His mercy and grace to both Jews and Gentiles, because...

So, in response to His Jewish disciples' questions about the future of Israel, Jesus goes on at length to describe the future restoration of the kingdom to the nation, and the attendant circumstances of His future return. And just in case we don't catch the Jewish thrust and emphasis of the discourse, Jesus manages to drop a few big fat clues that this only concerns Israel:

• The destruction of the Jewish temple (24:1–2).

• A reference to Daniel's prophecy of the abomination of desolation, or the desecration of the holy place in the (future rebuilt) Jewish temple (24:15).

• Urging those in Judea to flee to the nearby mountains (probably to nearby Petra across the border in Jordan) (24:16).

• Pray not to have to flee on a Sabbath (24:20).

And these are just the ones that slap you in the face. There are others that are somewhat less obvious.

Also, note that Jesus refers to the "elect" several times in the Olivet Discourse, and some people—especially those who believe in a post-trib Rapture—insist it must refer to the Church. Actually, the word "elect" can and sometimes does refer to the Church. However, the word "elect" simply means "chosen," and it is used in many places in both the Old and New Testaments to refer to Israel, the Messiah, Old Testament saints, the Church, Tribulation saints, and in at least one case a combination of several of the above. It depends on the context, and so a careful reading of Scripture (and the removal of one's Church-colored glasses) is required in order to determine who is being referred to.

And in Matthew 24–25, the context has nothing at all to do with the Church.

And this matters because...

It is important to realize that this issue of reading the Church into the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24–25 is by no means an arcane theological argument where Christians can simply agree to disagree and head to Denny's. It's not quite that simple—it has consequences. In many ways, it whistles the doctrinal tune you dance to.

First of all, if you think the Olivet Discourse is directed at the Church, it can actually cause confusion in regard to your idea of the nature of the Church and of being born again. For example, in Matthew 24:13, Jesus says:

Well, if Jesus is talking to the Church, then oh my gosh! Suddenly we've got to work to keep our salvation! We've got to endure to the end to be saved! Oh no, maybe all those crystal-clear verses that teach that we are sealed with the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit the moment we believe the gospel and that He will never leave us are wrong! Maybe we really can be plucked from Jesus' hands! Maybe Jesus only did His part in our salvation, and it's up to us to finish the job and keep ourselves saved...

And so on and so forth. The eternal security of Church Age believers is taught so clearly in Scripture that the only way to miss it is to commit a gross error of interpretation...like, say, reading the Church into Matthew 24–25. Jesus is talking about the Jewish remnant (and apparently Tribulation saints as well, since the same principle applies), who will be required to maintain their faith until the end of the Tribulation to keep the Holy Spirit from departing from them because He is not sealed within them as He is with the Church.

Similarly, if you think Matthew 24 is talking about the Church, then you will likely carry that notion into Matthew 25, and believe that the Parable of the 10 Virgins (Matt. 25:1–13) is about Church Age believers as well. And if you do, you will probably come away with the idea that the five wise virgins are spiritually mature Christians (such as yourself) who will go in the Rapture, and that the five foolish virgins are immature, carnal Christians (like most others) who have lost their salvation, and we're back to saying adios to eternal security. If you think the virgins are the Church, the wheels begin to come off.

Goin' to the chapel: The virgins are Israel, both faithful (wise) and unfaithful (foolish). The Church is the Bride (singular), who is never mentioned. It's the subsequent wedding feast (the Millennial Kingdom) to which the virgins are either granted or denied entrance. The wedding ceremony is over. Now, let's put on our thinking caps: Where do you suppose the Bride is?

As far as the timing of the Rapture is concerned (pre-trib or post-trib), please don't make the mistake of thinking this a minor issue, either. The Bible can only be interpreted in a consistent, literal manner to teach a pre-trib Rapture, and when you insist on believing that Jesus is describing the Rapture in Matthew 24:29–31, you are almost forced to come away with the notion that the Rapture occurs at the end of the Tribulation.

One obvious problem (besides a few dozen others) is that if you honestly believe that the Rapture doesn't occur until after the Tribulation is over, then why waste time looking for Jesus Christ? You should be looking for the Antichrist! Forget that "blessed hope" business. Forget all those verses that so clearly teach that we are to live in a purifying expectancy of the Rapture (as did Paul). No no no. Get busy storing food and guns in the basement! Prepping—that's the ticket.

Finally, if you read the Church into the Olivet Discourse, you are effectively reading Israel out of it. "So what?" you ask. Well, why stop there? Why don't we just read Israel out of the New Testament completely? After all, the Church is spiritual Israel, right? All the promises to Israel (at least the good ones) have been transferred to the Church, haven't they? While we're at it, why don't we just kick those dirty, rotten Jews (if they really are Jews, that is) out of the land they are illegally occupying, land that rightfully belongs to those poor, oppressed Palestinians?

And before you know it, you're kissing replacement theology right on the lips.

The bottom line is that those are not merely Church-colored glasses.

• They are salvation-by-works glasses.
• They are conditional-salvation glasses.
• They are bye-bye-blessed-hope glasses.
• They are partial-Rapture glasses.
• They are prep-for-the-Tribulation glasses.
• They are run-for-your-lives-it's-the-Antichrist glasses.
• And, sadly, for many they are Jew-hating glasses.

The point I want to leave you with is that when we read God's Word, we need to make every effort to approach the Word with a humble heart and a teachable spirit so that we can be open to what the Holy Spirit wants to reveal to us. And more often than we'd like to admit, that requires us to be willing to see where we've got something wrong. And when we do, get it right and move on.

We should strive to avoid forming opinions motivated by our own emotions or intellect, or shaped by popular or persuasive ministers, YouTube preachers, etc., and then turning to the Word for the sole purpose of finding ways to justify our preconceived notions and then twisting some Scripture around them.

In order to approach God's Word the way He wants us to, one of the first things we have to do is take off those Church-colored glasses.

And let Him put on our Spirit-colored glasses.

Greg Lauer — MAY '14

Top of the page

If you like this article, share it with someone!

 MAY '14 

Site Search

Powered by:
JavaScript Kit