Matthew 13

²⁴ Jesus presented another parable to them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. ²⁵ But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and left. ²⁶ And when the wheat sprouted and produced grain, then the weeds also became evident. ²⁷ And the slaves of the landowner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?’ ²⁸ And he said to them,’ An enemy has done this!’ The slaves said to him, ‘Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?’ ²⁹ But he said, ‘No; while you are gathering up the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. ³⁰ Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and at the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, First gather up the weeds and bind them in bundles to burn them; but gather the wheat into my barn.’”

³⁶ Then He left the crowds and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.” ³⁷ And He said, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, ³⁸ and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the weeds are the sons of the evil one; ³⁹ and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels. ⁴⁰ So just as the weeds are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age. ⁴¹ The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, ⁴² and they will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. ⁴³ Then the righteous will shine forth like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. The one who has ears, let him hear.  (Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43)

Matthew 24

³ And as He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” (Matthew 24:3)

^14 “This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.” (Matthew 24:14)

³⁶ “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. ³⁷ As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. ³⁸ For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; ³⁹ and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. ⁴⁰ Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. ⁴¹ Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left. ⁴² Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. ⁴³ But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. ⁴⁴ So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him. (Matthew 24:36-44)

Daniel 12:13

“But as for you, go your way to the end; then you will rest and rise for your allotted portion at the end of the age.”

            What is the “end of the age” Jesus and Daniel are referring to in the prophecies above?

            In both of these passages in Matthew (13 and 24) we have a “taking out” of some with others “left behind”. The first in Matthew 13 is in one of several parables about “the kingdom of heaven”. Taken all together this “kingdom of heaven” is a very broad term which includes but is not limited to the future Millennial kingdom of God on earth. It is an all-inclusive term which refers to the spiritual realm of existence (as opposed to but not exclusive of the material physical realm), that realm in which all that is “heavenly” exists – that realm in which God and the Angels exist. It is that realm of existence which is the ultimate reality, the unseen reality which actually gives rise to the material physical realm which can be seen by physical eyes. God is telling us in these parables about the characteristics and principles of this immaterial, spiritual realm of reality.

            This kingdom of heaven is eternal, but there are different phases as related to our physical realm of existence in which we as physical creatures exist, and the different parables in Matthew 13 address the different phases, or aspects of this eternal realm of existence. The parable of the Sower in Matthew 13:3-8 and 18-23 (and possibly the parables about the Mustard Seed, the Leaven, the Hidden Treasure and the Costly Pearl), is very much about this present age in which the gospel is being preached and the Kingdom of Heaven is growing as a result of such evangelism. But such will not apply in the future Millennial kingdom on this earth when those living in that age will all only be spiritually children of God. According to the related prophetic scripture they will all be indwelt by the Spirit of God (Ezekiel 36:24-27; 37:14). But, according to Revelation 20, that blissful perfect age will come to an end after 1000 years have passed, Satan will be released from his 1000 year imprisonment, and the unsaved dead will be resurrected to life again on the earth. At that time Satan will be sowing his seeds which will produce the tares in the field of wheat, as per the parable in Matthew 13:24-30 &  36-43 (cited above). It is there that we see the reference to “the end of the age”. To what “age” then is he referring?

            Letting scripture interpret scripture, we see Daniel also prophesied about this “end of the age”, as in the passage cited above. There Daniel wraps up all his prophecies about the end times with the one about the future time of resurrection (which he refers to explicitly in the preceding 2^nd verse of that 12^th chapter), when there will be the final promised “apportionment” to God’s people. That we see described in detail in Ezekiel 45 and 47-48, which happens either during or after the Millennium, to become what we know as “the eternal state” – the ultimate end of all the ages prophesied in scripture.

            The other reference in Matthew to this “end of the age” appears in the form of the question from the disciples, which Jesus answers in His Olivet discourse, as recorded in Matthew 24. However, their question is in response to His prophecy about the future destruction of the temple, asking when that prophecy will be fulfilled, but also asking about the signs associated with His coming, and the end of the age. In the following discourse He answers those questions. But His answer is an overview of the overall picture of the end times events, which we see revealed in much more detail in the book of Revelation. There, in light of all the other end times prophesies (especially Daniel and Ezekiel), we see it fleshed out as to the ultimate future destruction, not only of the temple in Jerusalem but of the whole earth. We see the signs of Christ’s coming, the day of the lord second coming, as well as the ultimate end of the final age described in detail. In Matthew 24 the first 14 verses are very general signs taking us up to that ultimate final end. But then beginning in verse 15 He begins to focus in on that period we know as the Tribulation Period, which goes back to Daniel’s end times prophecies, especially the 70 weeks of Daniel 9. This leads up to the really big question about Christ’s return, which we call “the second coming”, which He then addresses through the rest of that chapter, beginning with verse 29. There He answers the question about when these things will happen, especially His coming to establish His kingdom on earth – probably the question foremost in their minds.

            But we know from the rest of prophecy that this second coming return of Christ is not the ultimate end, but rather the beginning of that age of His kingdom of God on earth – the Millennium. Thus, it is not the end of the age prophesied by Daniel in Daniel 12 (cited above). It isn’t the end of the age referred to by Jesus in the preceding 3^rd, 13^th and 14^th verses of this 24^th chapter of Matthew. Those are references to the ultimate end of the final age, which happens after the Millennium is over, described in Revelation 20. This is that future final age when God’s last and final judgment on the earth is carried out (Revelation 20:9-10 and Ezekiel 39) ending in the Great White Throne judgment of 20:11-15. That is the “end of the age” which is followed by the eternal state, heaven (the heavenly New Jerusalem – Revelation 21:9-27) and hell (Revelation 21:8), and the eternal kingdom of God on the recreated earth – the earthly New Jerusalem of Ezekiel 40-49 and Revelation 22:1-5.

            We know that the parable in Matthew 13 about the wheat and the tares associated with the “end of the age” is not about the same climactic event as that of Matthew 24:29-44 associated with the “day of the Lord” second coming of Christ. We know that in part because in the Matthew 13 parable the righteous are the wheat, and the wicked are the tares, and it is the tares which are taken out, the righteous left behind, the opposite of Matthew 24:31. There in chapter 13 those taken out are the ones who are destined for judgment – being burned symbolizing eternal condemnation in hell, as per the final judgments in Revelation 20. Those who are left are the ones already in that kingdom of God on earth, that Millennial kingdom which becomes the eternal kingdom, once the final judgments are executed, and the tares, the wicked, are removed and sent to their final eternal condemned state.

            However, Matthew 24:29-51 is about the end of this church age, at the return of Christ, the “day of the Lord” (referred to as the second coming), which begins with the rapture and resurrection of the saved followers of Christ (of all preceding ages in the case of the resurrection of the dead). There we see that some will be taken out, and the others left behind (from which we thought we were getting LaHaye’s “Left Behind” series – though his interpretations are very flawed and self-contradictory). The taken are the ones who are “ready”, prepared like the 5 virgins with the oil in their lamps of Matthew 25:1-13, i.e. the saved who have endured to the end (as per 24:13). Those left behind are the unsaved unbelievers, like the 5 foolish virgins, who are left to endure the “day of the Lord” wrath of God which will be poured out on all those who are not raptured, as in not rescued from that wrath to come, which will destroy the whole heaven and earth and all those left in it (Revelation 19:21; 2 Peter 3:9-11; Zephaniah 1:18).

            However, some men, who have doctrinal presuppositions (themselves not actually coming from literal scripture), give very confused and conflicting interpretations of these passages. Because of their a priori adherence to a system of Theology known as Dispensationalism[1], they can’t allow Matthew to speak for itself. While it is an obvious description of the rapture of the church, they have to interpret it as a later coming of Christ 7-years after the rapture of the church, at a separate coming which they then refer to as “the second coming”. This means that they have to insist that the church is not even in Matthew 24, and the “elect” being raptured in 23:31 is not the church.

            Aside from the fact that they have no biblical basis for simply declaring that the church is not in Matthew 24, nor the claim that the word “elect” here has a different meaning that it has in any other New Testament context, they have another problem. Central to their whole PTR theory is the insistence on their contrived doctrine of “imminence” [2]. The primary biblical support for that doctrine (which is essential to their PTR theory) are the passages featuring the “thief in the night” metaphor. However, this passage is where we first see reference to that ominous metaphor (Matthew 24:43), which they then insist that this has nothing to do with the rapture of the church, but is about a later “second coming” of Christ, which they also recognize is posttribulational. Ironically, every other passage featuring that metaphor, are all also about that same posttribulational second coming of Christ (see 1 Thessalonians 5:2, 2 Peter 3:10 and Revelation 16:15), which might actually support their doctrine if they did not deny that they are all also about the rapture of the church which happens concurrent with that second coming. Again, at best this is an inconsistency all resulting from refusing to just let God’s word speak for itself – without the help of their dispensational presuppositions. In the famous words of Sir Walter Scott “Oh what a tangles web we weave, when at first we set out to deceive”.

            However, this denial that the Matthew 24 text has anything to do with the rapture of the church leads to a very forced explanation of the 40^th verse.  According to Dallas Seminary Professor, Dr. Louis Barbieri, writing the commentary on this passage in The Bible Knowledge Commentary:

“The individuals ‘left’ are believers who will be privileged to be on the earth to populate the kingdom of Jesus Christ in physical bodies. As the wicked were taken away in judgment and Noah was left on the earth, so the wicked will be judged and removed when Christ returns and the righteous will be left behind to become His subjects in the kingdom.” (Barbieri, The Bible Knowledge Commentary).

            Thus the “taken”, according to him, will not be the church which will be taken out before the judgment on the unsaved, but instead they will be like those who were judged in Noah’s flood (being the metaphor used there). Instead of seeing Noah and his family as metaphorically those rescued from the judgment by being raptured, we are told that it is the one’s who are left to drown in the flood which symbolize those taken out, and Noah as the one left behind. Their logic here is very telling (which characterizes their whole system of interpretations and explanations).

            One only really needs to think about what this man is saying to see a glaring discrepancy. First, the unsaved wicked in Noah’s day were not in any sense taken out to go to judgment, they were very clearly left where they were on the earth to undergo the judgment of the flood which destroyed the whole earth, and everyone and everything in it. They clearly represent the “left behind”, not the raptured out. Only Noah and his family were saved from that judgment, just as the church will be, by being in the Ark which is symbolic of being in Christ. The difference is, being saved in the ark is symbolic of the church being raptured before God pours out His judgment again on the whole earth, as per the numerous prophecies about that “day of the Lord” event (such as Revelation 19:21; 2 Peter 3:9-11; Zephaniah 1:18).

            Furthermore, even Dr. Barbieri and his Dispensationalists colleagues see this as occurring at the second coming of Christ at which time also they contend there will be a rapture of those saved believers living at that time at the end of the Tribulation Period. However, they make a distinction between the church (which they contend is not in Matthew 24 at all), and what they call “Tribulation Saints” (a distinction coming only from their doctrinal presuppositions since nowhere is there such a distinction made between saved believers now, and those who will still be alive in those last days). But now, despite the clear prophecies (such as cited above) that all those not taken out (raptured), who are left behind, will be destroyed, killed with the sword, burned up along with the whole earth, they want to tell us they will be kept alive in their physical bodies to go into the Millennium.[3]This explanation that this is what is represented by Noah in the Ark, as opposed to all those Tribulation Saints who will be raptured, seems somewhat forced if not just disingenuous.

            In reality this whole very clumsy explanation is an attempt the deny what is the rather clear and consistent message of everything revealed in scripture, if we do in fact take it literally without the imposition of those doctrinal Dispensational presuppositions. Barbieri actually makes reference to such an alternative explanation and interpretation, attempting to discredit it:

“Clearly the church, the body of Christ, cannot be in view in these statements. The Lord was not describing the Rapture, for the removal of the church will not be a judgment on the church. If this were the Rapture, as some commentators affirm, the Rapture would have to be posttribulational, for this event occurs immediately before the Lord’s return in glory. But that would conflict with a number of Scriptures and present other problems that cannot be elaborated on here (cf., e.g., comments on 1 Thes. 4:13-18 and Rev. 3:10).” (ibid)

            One reason some commentators and Bible scholars, affirm this “posttribulational” rapture is because, unless they have bought into all those Dispensational presuppositions, it is rather clear from literal explicit scripture that there is in fact one second coming of Christ (not two). That future return of Christ will begin with the one and only rapture of the “elect”, occurring at the “day of the Lord” just before the judgment on all those left behind – which is exactly what our most prominent prophecy in Matthew 24 clearly and explicitly teaches. However, it is not just “posttribulational” but also “Prewrath”. The claims that the church is not in this prophecy is pure nonsense with no scriptural support, only the forced presuppositions of the Pretribulation Rapture theory. Barbieri’s claim that such a view “would conflict with a number of Scriptures and present other problems that cannot be elaborated on here” is only true if one applies the same methods of interpretation (and logic), driven by those same presuppositions, to all the other passages related to the subject, and some that aren’t related – which is exactly what they do.

            Of course, it is always convenient to make such a claim and not back it up with actual scripture or rational arguments on the basis that such is too involved to be included in the current discussion. However, just the 2 proof texts he does cite are pretty good evidence that he doesn’t have any real literally interpreted scripture to support his arguments and interpretation of this passage. While the first passage cited, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 is good proof for the rapture and resurrection of the church when Christ returns, taken out of context of the rest of that passage it tells us nothing about the timing of that rapture (one probably has to go to his notes about it to get that). However, if we comply with the most basic elementary rule of interpretation, the Hermeneutic that a word, phrase or passage must always be kept in context, we would include the immediately following verses in which Paul specifically goes on to address that question: “Now as to the periods and times, brothers and sisters…” (1 Thessalonians 5:1). There we are explicitly told that this day, the day when that rapture/resurrection of the previous 3 verses will happen, is that “day of the Lord”, “thief in the night” event (v.2), when:

“While they are saying, ‘Peace and safety!’ then sudden destruction will come upon them like labor pains upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape” (v.3).

            Perhaps Dr. Barbieri and his Pretribulation Rapture colleagues should have kept reading the text, before determining what it has to be saying. As is always the case, when their proof texts actually do address this question of when this rapture is to happen, an intellectually honest and informed examination of the text, letting it speak for itself, proves to be posttribulational Prewrath, just like this one. A case in point is the follow passage in 2 Thessalonians:

“ ¹Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, ²that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. ³Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, _⁴who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. ⁵Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? ⁶And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed. ⁷For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. ⁸Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; ⁹that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, ¹⁰and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. ¹¹For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, ¹²in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.” (2Thessalonians 2:1-12)

            Incredibly some of them refer to a few of the verses in this passage as proof texts for their view, but only the 1^st and the 7^th and the 9^th verses, all of course taken completely out of context of the rest in that passage. That’s because kept in context it couldn’t be stated any clearer than is explicitly stated there – the rapture can’t happen before the Antichrist commits the blasphemous “abomination of desolation” act (v. 4), which they all know happens at the midpoint of the Tribulation Period. According to their explanation of that passage, the rapture of the church isn’t actually being addressed after the 1^st verse, and the whole Tribulation Period (their interpretation of “the day of the Lord”) can’t happen until after the midpoint of that same Tribulation Period (the “abomination of desolation” event) – Huh? Very similar kind of reasoning to that discussed above in their interpretation of Matthew 24.

            But then Barbieri does cite another proof text, which is supposed to refute the posttribulational interpretation, Revelation 3:10, which it does if one is deceived by their interpretation of that verse. The argument is that, based on their interpretation of one little preposition “ek“, this verse has to be saying that the church will be kept out of the Tribulation Period. However, reputable Greek scholars (A.T. Robertson, M.R. Vincent and Henry Alford) disagree with that exegesis, and if we let scripture interpret scripture the use of the same combination of words, terero ek, in John 17:15, exposes the error of such a forced interpretation (as those Greek scholars point out). In reality there is not one literally and accurately interpretated passage of scripture which supports that pretribulation rapture theory.

            However, Dr. Barbieri’s interpretative problems are not confined to his understanding of this text in Matthew 24. He is equally incoherent in his interpretation of the wheat and tares parable discussed above in Matthew 13. While he interprets Matthew 24 as not being about the end of this church age with the rapture (which 24:29 and following clearly are all about), he does have Matthew 13:24-30 and 36-43 as being about the end of this church age – which it is not even consistent with his own view. According to that PTR view this church age ends with the rapture of the church, meaning the saved are taken out, and the unsaved are left behind (exactly as portrayed in Matthew 24). But here he has to recognize that the saved are the ones being left behind, and the unsaved being the ones taken out – even though he sees it happening at that event when the church is supposedly being raptured.

            However, he avoids this glaring discrepancy by defining this period as going from the current church age up to “the time of His judgment at the return” – i.e. the posttribulational second coming – which it is not. But you can’t have it both ways. According to that PTR view, the Tribulation Period is not for the church and the church must be raptured before it begins, marking the end of this church age – God’s program for the church. Thus, if you hold to that interpretation you can’t also hold to the posttribulational interpretation that this present age goes up to the end of that Tribulation Period, with the second coming of Christ in judgment. Yet that is what Barbieri is asking us to believe here, that this church age goes up to the posttribulational second coming. At the same time, he maintains that the present age is God’s program for the church, but that ends with the rapture of the church to be followed by the Tribulation Period, which is resuming God’s program for Israel, which does not include the church until the end of that period at the second coming of Christ.

            It becomes difficult to explain because it is so convoluted and doesn’t really make any sense, but here it is again. The Dispensationalists’ maintain that this current dispensation, or age, we are in now is the church age (also known as “the age of Grace”), which is an interlude between the 69^th week of Daniel’s 70 weeks prophecy, and the beginning of that 70^th week, which is the 7-year Tribulation Period. That 70^th week is the resumption of God’s program for national, ethnic, Israel. It is also no longer part of His program for the church, and thus the church is raptured, and will not even be there during that Tribulation Period. This would obviously mean that this current church age ends when the church is gone, and the Tribulation period begins. But then, Barbieri tries to explain this parable in Matthew 13, as:

“’The end of the Age’ represents the conclusion of the present Age before Christ establishes the messianic kingdom. Thus, the parables in Matthew 13 cover the period of time from Christ’s work on earth to the time of the judgment at His return. …This Age is broader than but includes the Church Age. The church did not begin until the day of Pentecost, and it will conclude at the Rapture, at least seven years before the end of this Age. This “mystery period” is characterized by profession of faith but also by a counter-profession that cannot be separated until the final judgment. This mystery period does not involve a universal triumph of the gospel, as postmillennialists affirm, nor does it include Christ’s earthly reign. It simply is the time between His two Advents, before He returns to institute the kingdom promised to David through his greater Son.” (ibid.)

            So, which is it? Does this current church age end when the 70^th week of Daniel Tribulation Period age begins? Or does this church age continue up to the end of that 70^th week of Daniel, the end of the Tribulation Period, when after the rapture and resurrection and ensuing judgments of the “day of the Lord”, the Millennial age begins?

            It is the latter interpretation which he now uses to explain this wheat and tares parable in Matthew 13. Thus, he is now actually saying that this harvest of the tares is the posttribulational event at the second coming of Christ. But that is not consistent with their PTR theory, which is that this church age actually ends 7 years before that terminal second coming event.

            Obviously, both can’t be true.  It is however confusing because of the use of what is known as the “equivocation fallacy” – using an ambiguous word or phrase in more than one sense within the same argument. The key word here is “age”, which on the one hand is taken to mean the age, or dispensation, or period in which God is primarily dealing with the Church (His “program for the church”), then using the same word to mean both that church age (or “dispensation”) and the subsequent Tribulation Period, which the latter they insist is only for and about Israel (His “program for Israel”), and the church is gone. [4]

Furthermore, it does not allow for their explanation of the rapture of the Tribulation Saints in Matthew 24:31. It is however consistent with his interpretation of the meaning of the metaphor about the days of Noah, and his explanation of the “taken” versus the “left behind” of Matthew 24. But neither makes sense in light what we are clearly told happens when Christ returns – the one’s judged are the one’s left behind to be killed and destroyed when God pours out His wrath on the earth, the saved are raptured to save them from that wrath. Furthermore, this explanation involves several mistakes.

            First, it is correct that Matthew 24 is about the second coming of Christ, but wrong to say it is not about the rapture of the church – it is about both, because they both happen at the “day of the Lord”.  It is also correct to say that the ones “taken” or “gathered up” in Matthew 13 are the unsaved wicked, the “tares”, and the “wheat” that are left are the saved righteous ones – that much is inarguably clear from the text itself. However, it is a big mistake to say that this event in Matthew 13 is the same as the one in Matthew 24, that they are both about the posttribulational second coming of Christ. Unlike Matthew 24, the “end of the age” of Matthew 13 is not the end of this church age, or the church age plus the Tribulation Period – especially not the Tribulation Period, which is what they sometimes mean by the end of this age. That Tribulation Period or age, will not be characterized by a field of wheat, called the kingdom of heaven, wheat representing the saved righteous ones – in fact it will be just the opposite (even and especially according to their PTR view). Furthermore, scripture is unmistakably clear that at the end of that age, at the second coming of Christ, only the saved righteous ones, the equivalent of the wheat, will be taken out or “gathered”. The rest, the equivalent of the tares, will be left to undergo God’s judgement on the whole earth. The latter aren’t taken out or gathered up to be burned, they are left behind at the rapture to be killed and burned along with the present heaven and earth (according to 2 Peter 3:10-11). Thus, Barbieri’s interpretation of this parable of Matthew 13 being about that second coming of Christ, despite his equivocation error, is still almost the opposite of what we are clearly told in scripture, about that very pivotal event.

            The only time on God’s prophetic calendar when there will be a field of the wheat, in which the seed for the tares can be planted, is in that future Millennial kingdom age, the “kingdom of heaven”, the “kingdom of their Father” of Matthew 13 (which would be strange names for the world in the Tribulation Period). However, we are told in Revelation 20 that this 1000 year period will end, to be followed by a period in which Satan is released from his prison (20:3 & 7), the unsaved dead will be resurrected in their physical bodies (20:5), and Satan will use Gog to incite a final rebellion against God (20:8-9). This does sound like the enemy sowing the seed which becomes the tares in that previously perfect Kingdom of God on earth. At that time God does not judge the whole earth, as in at the second coming, but only those who are following Gog in rebellion against him – they then are the tares being gathered together or harvested for judgment. According to Ezekiel 39, Gog and his hordes will be gathered to be buried in the valley called Hamon-Gog (Ezekiel 39:11), after being devoured by fire from heaven (Revelation 20:9), the sword (each against one another), an earthquake, a torrential rain, hailstones, and fire and brimstone (Ezekiel 38:19-23). That is the end of the age being referred to in this parable in Matthew 13.

            It is actually quite amazing how uncomplicated prophetic scripture can be, without contradictions or logical inconsistences, when we just take it at face value, interpreting it naturally and as literally as the text and wording allows, and just letting scripture interpret scripture. On the other hand, when we are trying to make it fit some kind of biasing presuppositions, it becomes very complicated, confusing, and invariably full of inconsistencies and contradictions – the product of man’s human wisdom, versus God’s infallible wisdom.

            In summary, while Matthew 24 is about the coming “day of the Lord” at the end of this present church age, the Wheat and Tares parable in Matthew 13 is about the literal “end” of all the ages up to the beginning of the eternal state. That final age is following the Millennial Kingdom of God on earth, when God executes His final earthly physical judgments on Satan and Gog and all of their followers, as well as the spiritual Great White Throne judgment. In the former, Matthew 24, the saved saints, the church, will be taken, gathered, raptured, and the unsaved will be left behind to experience judgment. Conversely, in Matthew 13 it will be the tares, the unsaved unrighteous who will be gathered for judgment (as per Revelation 20 and Ezekiel 38-39), and the saved, righteous who will left in that perfect Kingdom of God on earth. 

---

[1] Much of the Dispensational Theology is biblically sound, a better interpretation overall of scripture than the alternative Covenant Theology associated with Reformed Theology. Their seven, maybe eight dispensations and distinctions between the Old Covenant of the Old Testament and the New Covenant of the New Testament, and the enduring distinctions between Israel and the Church, are based on literal scripture, as is their interpretation of the 70 weeks of Daniel. However, when it comes to some of the eschatological presuppositions, giving rise to the Pretribulation Rapture theory, they go beyond and even fail to accurately interpret scripture, no longer being consistent with the truly literal approach.

[2] The “Imminence” doctrine of the PTR adherents is the belief that since Jesus’ death, resurrection and ascension He could come back any time as there are no prophetic events which had to be fulfilled, or has yet to be fulfilled before He could come to rapture the church.

[3] While Barbieri does not disclose it here, he may have in mind those relative few who will be supernaturally protected by God through that day of judgment, such as the 144,000 and/or “the Woman” of Revelation 12 (which could be the same). However, that certainly isn’t all those, even according to his own PTR view, that will be raptured then, such as those “elect” of Matthew 24:31.

[4] There is one Dispensationalist, a Dr. J. Edwin Hartill, former professor of Bible at Northwestern College, who in his text book Principles of Biblical Hermeneutics, admits that there are 8 dispensations. He makes a distinction between the current dispensation of the Church age, and the following Dispensation of the Tribulation Period, which would be much less confusing, but does not allow for Barbieri’s explanation based on his equivocation fallacy with respect to that key word “age”. However, the failure too make such an obvious distinction raises the question as to how they then define an “age”, or for that matter a “dispensation” – hence the setup for the “equivocation”.