Six years ago, I did a six-part series responding to John F. Hart’s (and other pretrib teachers’) unfounded and strained interpretation that the parousia in Matt 24:36–44 is a completely different parousia than the one depicted in Matt 24:27, 30–31. I am re-posting my series below. Incidentally, during these six years I have never received a response to this series by any pretrib teachers.
Pretribs cannot agree with themselves whether Matt 24:36–44 refers to the rapture of the church or the wicked taken to judgment before the inauguration of the kingdom. Roughly half would say that all of the Olivet Discourse is not involved with the church, and the other half would cherry-pick and say that Matt 24:36–44 refers to “church teaching on the rapture” and the other parts apply to so-called “the tribulation saints.”
I find this pretrib interpretation that the parousia (Coming) in Matt 24:36–44 is not the same parousia (Coming) in Matt 24:27, 30–31 one of the most convoluted, Scripture-twisting interpretations from pretribulationism. They should not contend that amillennialism twists Rev 20, while at the same time doing the exact same thing in Matthew 24: Just as amills retroject Satan’s binding back to the first coming of Christ without textual support, pretribs retroject the parousia in Matt 24:36–44 before Matt 24:4, completely disconnecting it from the parousia in Matt 24:30–31!
Read this series to learn more.