Yes, all those topics are related! Let me explain.
I had a Greek professor once who would often cite Greek grammatical categories to rule out particular interpretations of a Biblical text (that is an essential practice for good exegesis). For example, he would say, “This doctrine cannot be true because of the perfect, passive, present, participle.” I enjoyed this because it demonstrated the Protestant spirit that you did not have to learn grammatical categories from a pope or some magisterial teaching authority. The priesthood of believers allows each individual to interpret the Scriptures accordingly. This does not mean that every believer is going to have the learned skills to discern all the subtleties of Greek for example. But it shows that it is available.
For those who know the original languages of Greek and Hebrew, they understand that grammatical categories, most of the time, cannot give you the precise meaning of an interpretation, but it often eliminates dubious meanings and narrows the options. Or said another way: Exegesis has never been about possibility, it is about probability.
That being said…
Pretribulationists assert that the events in Matthew 24 do not apply to the Church, but rather the teaching is for a future generation of “saved Jews” (apparently not part of the Church) who will experience the Second Coming. And often you will hear them qualify this by saying, “But there is some spiritual application in Matthew 24 for the Church.” I find this latter statement quite odd since the spiritual warnings in Matthew 24 depend on the doctrinal teaching. To detach the spiritual application of “watchfulness” found in vv. 36ff., from the doctrinal teaching found in vv. 1-35, is to violate all sorts of interpretative sound principles. This inconsistency is indicative of a tradition.
Pre-wrath literature abounds in argumentation demonstrating that the Church is the primary audience of Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 24. One particular argument I want to address is that Jesus says that the Church will be here until the end of the age; as well, he promises the Church that he will be with them, through the Holy Spirit, to the end of the age. In the Great Commission passage, it says,
“And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. (19) Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (20) teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always [πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας], to the end of the age.” –Matt 28:18-20
It is significant in this verse that the word “always” is found in the accusative case in Greek, not the genitive case. As a general rule, the accusative functions to limit the quantity (extent), and the genitive used to limit quality (kind). And when the accusative is used adverbially, as in this verse, this is particularly significant. Here we have what is called an “accusative for extent of time,” which answers “How long?”
If “always” was placed in the genitive, then Jesus would have been saying that he would be with them during this present Church age, but not necessarily the entire Church age and to the end of the age. But Jesus’ choice of the accusative assures that Jesus will be with believers to the extent of the entire Church age, up to the end of the age. (cf. Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics, Wallace, 201-203.)
The following two concepts are illustrated:
This brings me to my main point. In the Olivet Discourse, we have two references to the end of the age. First, the discourse begins with the disciples asking a question of what would be the sign of the end of the age (v. 3). The second reference is Matthew 24:14, which Jesus says,
“And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.”
These references to the end of the age are problematic for the pretribulationist who says that Matthew 24 is not a teaching for the Church. Since all pretribulationists would affirm that Matthew 28:18-20 is a teaching for the Church and that Jesus is with his Church to the end of the age, why all of a sudden in Matthew 24:3,14 is the Church no longer found to exist up to the end?
There is no Scriptural basis for this inconsistency. It’s indicative of Tradition. Further, pretribulationists are in direct disobedience to Jesus’ command in Matthew 28:20, “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you,” when they teach believers that Jesus’ commands in the Olivet Discourse do not apply to them.
To get around this plain teaching I have even heard some pretribulationists assert that there are two “end of the ages”! That is a desperate attempt at reconciling their pretrib tradition while denying Jesus’ teaching.
Let’s thank the Lord that his particular promise is found in the “Accusative for Extent of Time” and thereby he will not leave his Church during the greatest of all tribulations!
