DISPENSATIONALIST
VIEWS OF
MATTHEW
24:23-31
1.
THE JEWISH NATURE OF THE PASSAGE
Dispensationalists
tend to focus on Israel in their interpretations of prophecy. For example, Pentecost quotes Chafer as
follows:
[Christ]…spoke of a hitherto
unannounced period between His two advents and indicated its distinctive
features (Matt. 13:1-51), and predicted a yet future time of “great
tribulation” and defined its character (Matt. 24:9-31). (Pentecost, 129)
In this
quotation, the “parables of the kingdom” in Matthew 13 are understood to
characterize the period between the two advents from the Jewish perspective
as the “mystery” phase of the Kingdom of God.
The fact that the church is present during this period is almost considered
to be extraneous. Then, just before the
Second Advent, the Tribulation will take place as a part of the prophetic
program for Israel. The church,
Dispensationalists believe, will be raptured out of the world before the
Tribulation period starts. Thus,
Pentecost considers the entire Olivet Discourse to be about and for Israel
(Pentecost, 278). The meat of the
Discourse, which gives the specific chronology—Matthew 24:4-26—is understood to
be “signs [to Israel] that will herald
His second advent” (Pentecost, 464).
Walvoord also understands
Matthew’s gospel and especially the Olivet Discourse to be about Israel:
An important note
should be made at this point that the rapture of the church is nowhere
mentioned in this prophecy…Matthew’s gospel does not discuss the church age as
such but rather the whole inter-advent Age from the first [to the second
coming]…and therefore deals with the great tribulation at the close of the
present age. (Walvoord, pagination not available on Kindle version)
Pentecost believes that Matthew
24:4-26 is a description of the Tribulation period (Pentecost, 278), which he
believes is the “first event in Israel’s program for the end of the age”
(Pentecost, 277). I shall review briefly
some terminology. The term “Tribulation”
can refer to the entire seven-year period before the Second Coming of
Christ. This period is also understood
to be Daniel’s 70th Week that was forecast for Israel. The actual period of most intense suffering
is understood to take place in the second half of that period. This is that period of “great tribulation”
predicted by Jesus in Matthew 24:21-22.
That 3 ½ year period may also be referred to as the “tribulation.” (See Pentecost on page 170.) Pentecost believes that Matthew 24:4-8
describes the first half of the 70th Week, and 24:9-26 describes the
second half (Pentecost, 278-279).
Walvoord gives a description of the
deception that will take place during the Tribulation period:
There will also be
deceitful signs and reports that Christ has already appeared. [Quotes
24:23-24]… According to Matthew 24:26, there will be reports that Jesus has
appeared in the desert or has been revealed in the inner room, but believers
are urged not to believe this.
(Walvoord, page not available)
2.
SECOND COMING AND ASSOCIATED EVENTS
Pentecost,
for the most part, follows the chronological narrative that Jesus lays out in
His predictions:
Following the
description of the tribulation period the Lord carries the chronology of events
a step forward by describing the second advent (Matt. 24:30-37). Concerning this second coming several things
are mentioned. (1) It will take place
“immediately after the tribulation of those days” (v. 29). The events of the tribulation age continue
until the second advent of Messiah, whose coming terminates it. (2) It
will be preceded by signs (v. 30). What
these signs are is not revealed. Many
signs have preceded this one, as described in verses 4-26, but this is a unique
sign which will herald Messiah’s advent.
(3) This coming will be sudden
(v. 27 ) and (4) it will be evident (v. 30), at which time His power and glory
will be manifested throughout the earth.
(Pentecost, 280)
Notice
that Pentecost creates some confusion in this paragraph when he discusses
“signs.” Why he uses the plural in two
sentences and the singular in the following sentence is not clear to me. It is possible he was thinking about (what I
call) the celestial events of verse 29 when he uses the plural and the unique
“sign of the Son of man” in verse 30 when he uses the singular. It does appear that he separates the “sign of
the Son of man” from the actual Second Coming.
The following is part of a complex discussion of the “campaign of
Armageddon”:
With the King of the
South defeated by the armies of the Beast and the northern confederacy defeated
by the Lord upon the mountains of Israel, we find two opposing forces drawn up
in battle array—the armies of the Beast and the armies of the Kings of the
East. Before this battle can be joined
there appears a sign in the heavens, the sign of the Son of man (Matt. 24:30). What this sign is is not revealed, but its
effect is. It causes the armies to turn
from their hostility toward each other to unite to fight against the Lord
Himself. [Quotation from Revelation
19:19]…It is at this point that the armies of the Beast and the east are
destroyed by the Lord (Rev. 19:21).
(Pentecost, 357)
Notice
that Pentecost understands the sign will occur before the Lord actually comes
to earth. Walvoord, on the other hand,
does not separate the two events:
The final sign will be
the appearance of Christ Himself in the sky in His return to earth [quotes
Matthew 24:30]…Revelation 19:11-16 describes the scene in greater detail. It
should be noted that Matthew was not talking about the rapture of the church,
which is described in totally different language (cf. 1 Thess. 4:16). The final sign is the glory of Christ Himself
in the skies…The nations will grieve because it is the time of judgment for
rejection of Jesus as Savior and Lord.
The Second Coming is referred by
Jesus in 24:27 as the “Parousia.” This
word is usually translated as “coming.”
Pentecost has an extensive quote from Walvoord on the use of this term
(Pentecost, 157). Walvoord mentions
various Scriptures that use the term “Parousia.” He labels these uses in three
categories—“general” use, reference to the Second Coming, and reference to the
Rapture of the church. The following are
the Scriptures with his categorization:
1. General use:
I Corinthians 16:17, II Corinthians 7:6-7, Philippians 1:26
2. Rapture: I Corinthians 15:23, I Thessalonians 2:19,
4:15, 5:23, II Thessalonians 2:1, James 5:7-8, II Peter 3:4, I John 2:28
3. Second
Coming: Matthew 24:3, 27, 37, 39; I
Thessalonians 3:13; II Thessalonians 2:8; II Peter 1:16
(Incidentally,
there are a few other uses of the term in the New Testament. These would all fit in the “general”
category.) Walvoord’s point is that
“Parousia” is a non-technical term, since he can establish that it has uses in
the “general” category. He believes
that, because it is a non-technical term, it can refer to either the Rapture or
the Second Coming. So, the use of “Parousia”
in a sentence does not prove that only one particular event is in view.
As Pentecost analyzes the Olivet
Discourse, he is convinced that the Second Coming of Christ will be a literal
event of Christ’s returning to the earth in a manner that all can see. Note this is a pronounced difference from the
view of Russell, who identifies the Second Coming (or Parousia) of Christ as
the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in AD 70. This was an event in which, if Christ was
present, He was invisible and not at all obvious. The following is Pentecost’s assessment of
the visibility of Christ’s return:
The second advent will
be visible. Repeated references in the
Scriptures establish the fact that the second advent will be a full and visible
manifestation of the Son of God to the earth (Acts 1:11; Rev. 1:7 Matt.
24:30). As the Son was publicly
repudiated and rejected, He shall be publicly presented by God at the second
advent. This advent will be associated
with the visible manifestation of glory (Matt. 16:27; 25:31), for in the
completion of judgment the manifestation of sovereignty God is glorified (Rev.
14:7; 18:1; 19:1). (Pentecost, 393)
Walvoord
agrees with Pentecost: “The point is
that the second coming of Christ will be a very visible event.” (Walvoord)
Pentecost understands the Second
Coming to be an event especially relevant to Israel: “He promises the second advent, at which time
the kingdom program with Israel will be resumed (Matt. 24:27-31).” (Pentecost, 464) Also, he says, “This period [70th
week] will be terminated by the second advent of the Messiah (v. 27).” (Pentecost, 280) This fits into the general scheme of
Dispensationalism, which understands that the church will be raptured before
the Tribulation and God will then deal with Israel, not only during the
Tribulation but also during the Millennium.
However, Walvoord has a bit different emphasis, as we shall see when we
consider the concept of the gathering of the elect.
I shall avoid at this time a
consideration of the topic of the “Day of the Lord.” Pentecost includes the events of the
Tribulation/70th Week as well as the Second Coming all in the Day of
the Lord (Pentecost, 231).
Pentecost interprets verse 31 to be
the regathering of Israel. First, he
refers to the promises:
A great body of Old
Testament prophecy is concerned with the restoration of the nation to the land
since the covenants could not be fulfilled apart from this regathering. That this regathering is associated with the
second advent is observed from the words of the Lord: [quotes Matthew 24:30-31] (Pentecost, 504)
Then,
he applies this to Matthew 24:31:
Verse 31 suggests that
the event to follow the second advent will be the regathering of Israel. They had been scattered because of the anger
of Satan (Rev. 12:12) and the desolation of the Beast (Matt. 24:15), but,
according to the promise, they will be regathered to the land (Deut. 30:3-4;
Ezek. 20:37-38; 37:1-14). This
regathering is through special angelic ministries. The “elect” of verse 31 must have reference
to the saints of that program with which God is then dealing, that is, Israel
(Dan. 7:18, 22, 27). (Pentecost, 280)
Note
that Pentecost uses 4 lines of evidence to come to his interpretation of
24:31. First, he believes that Old
Testament promises indicate that Israel will be regathered to the ancient
Land. Rather than apply these to the
gathering of Israel into the modern-day nation, he applies these promises to
the time of the return of Christ.
Second, he believes that internal and external evidence demands that the
Olivet Discourse be applied specifically to Israel. Fourth, he applies the mentions of the
scattering of God’s people in Matthew 24:16ff and Revelation 12:12 to the
condition of Israel at the time of Christ’s return. Fourth, verse 31 itself refers to a gathering
of the “elect,” and he connects this gathering to gathering of Israel to its
own land at the time of Christ’s return.
Walvoord has a very different
understanding of verse 31:
When Christ comes to
earth, He will send out His angels to assemble the elect: [quotes 24:31. Some have taken the “elect” here to refer
specifically to the elect living on earth, but it is more probable that this
event will include all the elect, or the saved, including Old Testament saints,
saved Israel, the church, and the saints of the tribulation period…Some will
need to be resurrected from the dead…At the second coming of Christ no child of
God will be left unresurrected or unrestored, but all will share in the
millennial kingdom. (Walvoord)
3.
INTERPRETATION
OF 24:28
Pentecost
has an interesting and surprising interpretation of verse 28. Perhaps this is a verse that invites
creativity.
In the parable of the ten virgins, the Lord is indicating
that…the next event will be the judging of living Israel on earth to determine
who will go into the kingdom. This has
been anticipated in Matthew 24:28, where unbelieving Israel is likened unto a
lifeless corpse which is consigned to the vultures, a picture of judgment. (Pentecost, 282)
Two
things are striking about this interpretation.
First, one wonders why this “anticipation” would be offered by the Lord
in the context of different subject matter.
Second, one is struck by how close this corresponds to Russell’s
interpretation (see previous article).
Russell saw the lifeless corpse of Israel surrounded by the standards of
the Roman legions. My discussion points
to a very different interpretation.
1.
SUMMARY
STATEMENT
“Taken as a whole, the revelation of
Matthew 24:4-31, with parallel passages in Mark and Luke, answers the questions
that the disciples had raised.”
(Walvoord)
Although this summary statement is
not very impressive, it says more than it appears. In fact, Walvoord believes that the Olivet
Discourse does answer the three questions of the Disciples (from his
Dispensationalist perspective). He
believes that the Luke account gives additional information not included in
Matthew. Especially, Luke includes the
description of “Jerusalem surrounded by armies.” This, he believes answers the first question
of the Disciples: When would Jerusalem and
the Temple be destroyed? The latter two
questions—concerning His coming and the end of the age—are answered by the
Discourse as it is given in Matthew.
COMMENTS
ON DISPENSATIONALIST VIEWS
In a critique of Dispensational
thought, Anthony A. Hoekema (an amillennialist) makes the following observation:
The really basic
interpretative principle underlying Hoyt's essay seems to be this: The Old
Testament provides the key for the interpretation of the New Testament. [Herman
A.] Hoyt builds his case for the future restoration of Israel as a nation
primarily on Old Testament prophecies and then proceeds to interpret the New
Testament in the light of his literal interpretation of these Old Testament
prophecies. But he ignores New Testament teachings which show that the future
of believing Israel is not to be separated from the future of believing
non-Israelites. (Clouse, 107)
This
quotation is from The Meaning of the
Millennium. Four Views. Herman A. Hoyt may or may not be an able
representative of “Dispensational Premillennialism,” (as his chapter is titled),
but I believe that Hoekema’s critique is close to on target. The Dispensationalists are very strong on
“literal” interpretation of the Bible.
Pentecost begins his book by contrasting the allegorical with the
literal method of interpretation (Pentecost, 1-15). But, Hoekema demonstrates several failings to
use literal methods in Hoyt’s essay, especially when it comes to New Testament
interpretation. What Dispensationalists
are adamant about is that Old Testament prophecies must be fulfilled
literally. They do this sometimes with
the sacrifice of New Testament principles.
Moreover, Dispensationalists are
adamant in separating God’s program for
Israel from the program of the church.
This idea revolves around the idea of the Pretribulational Rapture. The church, in their view, will be raptured
before the 70th Week/Tribulation begins. From that point on, the
church is pretty irrelevant in prophecy.
Once this method of interpretation is accepted, then Dispensationalists
can, in some cases, be fairly consistent in their interpretations of Scripture.
However, in many cases, they simply
assume that their case has been made on other grounds, and that they are
justified in “reading into” (eisogesis) a passage what they believe it
means. Thus, the whole assumption that
the Olivet Discourse is really about and for Israel is not established by
internal evidence from the passage.
·
The passage is from a Christian gospel,
written by a Christian for the Christian church.
·
The Discourse was spoken to a group of
Jesus’ disciples who would become the founding Apostles of the church. They would teach and preach the message of
salvation through Jesus. The evidence is
very strong that Peter was martyred by the Romans, indicating he had
considerable contact with the Gentile world.
·
I have discussed the practicalities of
Jesus’ warning in 24:16-20 having any impact on Israel at large, and this is
negligible.
·
That the passage is a message for the
church in the last days—or throughout history—is natural.
·
There is certainly Jewish terminology in
the passage, but this is true throughout all of the gospels.
·
I shall develop in more detail in other
places the basis for believing that the Rapture and the Second Coming occur at
the same time.
Thus,
Dispensationalist belief that the Olivet Discourse is a set of signs FOR ISRAEL
of the approach of the Second Coming is not necessarily a correct
understanding.
I do believe that Pentecost and
Walvoord have some insights into the passage that are correct. Walvoord (as I noted) pointed out the deceptions concerning Christ (verses 23-26). Although neither he nor Pentecost explicitly
note this, it is important to get Jesus’ point:
the false reports imply a “hidden” coming of Jesus, when in fact His
coming will be an event that no one on earth will miss (verse 27). As a bolt of
lightning lights up the sky for all to see, so Jesus’ sign and His return will
be seen by all. This visibility of
Christ’s coming is a point that both Pentecost and Walvoord do not miss.
I also believe that their
understanding of the Second Coming as prophesied by Jesus in verses 27 and 30 reflect a natural
reading of the passage. J. S. Russell and
other Preterists try to interpret the “coming” of Jesus as a visitation of judgment
on the Jews in AD 70. Their
interpretation would fit in the category of a “hidden coming” of Jesus. Jesus said there would be no mistake when He
returned. Everyone will know that He’s
back. The Dispensationalists have got
that right.
I find their discussion of “signs” somewhat confusing. Note that there is some disagreement between
Pentecost and Walvoord. I tend to agree
with Pentecost that the “sign of the Son of man” in verse 30 seems to be separated from the actual coming of
Jesus. Walvoord believes the sign and
the coming are one and the same. Whether
Pentecost is correct in saying that the sign is what causes the warring
factions to join forces against Christ is something I am not prepared to
discuss. However, it does appear that
the passages in Revelation and Daniel neither support nor undermine his
speculation.
Walvoord, as he is quoted by
Pentecost, tries to make a case that Parousia
(used in verse 27) can refer either
to the Rapture or to the Second Coming—which he understands to be events that
are separated by seven years. He first
makes the point that the word can be used in a “general” sense. Consider the following (quotations from
English Standard Version):
·
I rejoice at the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus, because they have
made up for your absence…(I Corinthians 16:17)
·
But God, who comforts the downcast, comforted
us by the coming of Titus… (II
Corinthians 7:6)
·
For they say, “His letters are weighty
and strong, but his bodily presence
is weak, and his speech of no account.” (II Corinthians 10:10)
·
So that in me you may have ample cause
to glory in Christ Jesus, because of my coming
to you again. (Philippians 1:26)
·
Therefore, my beloved, as you have
always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence
but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and
trembling…(Philippians 2:12)
·
The coming
of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs
and wonders…(II Thessalonians 2:9)
These
uses shade between “coming” and “presence.”
They employ a Greek word that often was used to describe a visit of a
high official. Incidentally, it is also
used in connection with the Lawless One or Man of Sin in II Thessalonians 2:9.
Walvoord lists—besides its use in
Matthew 24—three other instances where Parousia is used in reference to the
Second Coming. They are as follows:
·
I Thessalonians 3:13: So that he may establish your hearts blameless
in holiness before our God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all
his saints.
·
II Thessalonians 2:8: And then the
lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of
his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming.
·
II Peter 1:16: For we did not follow cleverly devised myths
when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his
majesty.
I
notice that Walvoord has a question mark after II Peter 1:16. He questioned his own judgment. I believe Peter is referring to the first
coming, though the Second Coming may have been in mind.
In the other two instances, there
are references to the Rapture close by.
In I Thessalonians 4:15, the Rapture is quite evident: “For this we declare to you by a word from
the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep.” The other use in I Thessalonians is
2:19: For what is our hope or joy or
crown of boasting before our Lord Jesus at his coming? Is it not you?” Though Walvoord labels this as referring to
the Rapture, it is difficult to see how he distinguishes it from 3:13 (quoted
above). Walvoord considers II
Thessalonians 2:8 to refer to the Second Coming, but, in the same chapter, is
usage that he believes refers to the Rapture, II Thessalonians 2:1: “Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to
him, we ask you, brothers…”
The truth is, Walvoord imposes upon
these examples the Dispensationalist theory of the Pretribulational
Rapture. I believe an objective study of
these will recognize that a Post-Tribulational Rapture theory will just as
consistently fit all of these examples.
When the latter theory is used, the term “Parousia” refers in every case
to the same event: the Second Coming of
Christ at which time all believers will be raptured. If this is the case, “Parousia” is being used
as a technical term. This would apply to
its use in Matthew 24:3, 27, 37, 39. The
fact that it is also used in a general way does not negate its use in a
technical sense. Many words in English are
used both technically and generally. For
example, “resistance” has a specific technical meaning in electricity, but also
can be used in common speech to mean a hindrance or impediment.
Walvoord and Pentecost do not appear
to agree on the interpretation of verse
31. Pentecost believes this verse
predicts that living Israelite believers (those who have become believers
during the Tribulation) will be gathered back to Israel by angels at the time
Christ returns to earth. Walvoord
believes that the “elect” of this verse refers to all those who have been
saved—living or dead, Old Testament or Gentiles or Hebrew, church age or
Tribulation period. He is not saying
they will all be resurrected at that time.
I would infer (from general Dispensational beliefs) that he envisions
that each category will have a separate destiny, but that they all converge at
Christ’s return.
·
Church age Christians will be
resurrected or raptured just before the Tribulation. They will return with Christ at the end of
the Tribulation at the Second Coming.
·
Old Testament saints and those
Tribulation period believers who have died will be resurrected at the Second
Coming.
·
Living Israel will be gathered at the
Second Coming.
I
believe that the term “gather” can include the Rapture of the church. Notice that the verb form is used in Matthew
24:31 and the noun form is used in II Thessalonians 2:1. The latter case is considered by Walvoord to
refer to the Rapture/Resurrection of the church (as discussed above). Notice that in Matthew 24:31 Jesus includes
elect from two areas: from the four
winds and from one end of heaven to the other.
This could include living Christians (Gentile and Jew) and those who
have died in Christ. All certainly are
the elect of God.
Quite frankly, I am a little taken
aback by Pentecost’s take on verse 28. He says it anticipates the judgment of living
Israel to determine whether they will enter the Millennial Kingdom (as quoted
above). As one reads these words of
Jesus, they are somewhat strange. I
believe, however, that they cannot be disconnected from what has already been
said. Notice the sequence of His words:
·
Verses 24-25: false prophets and false Christs
·
Verse 26: false rumors about a hidden Christ
·
Verse 27: the vivid visibility of the return of
Christ—unmistakable
·
Verse 28: an adage using a visual picture of vultures
circling overhead around above a dead body.
It
seems to me that the context points to verse 28 as a reinforcement of what
Christ has already said: He won’t be
hidden in the desert or in the city.
Just as vultures can find a dead body and become a crowd of circling
birds, so Christ’s return will be an event the whole world will know
about. I recognize this interpretation
still leaves one a bit dissatisfied, but I cannot buy into Pentecost’s interpretation.
I shall comment at another time
(when I consider the parallels to Matthew 24) more extensively on Walvoord’s
(and Pentecost’s) belief that Luke
answers the question about the destruction of Jerusalem and Matthew answers
the questions about Christ’s coming and the end of the age. I believe there may be something to this
idea.
NEXT: INTERPRETATION OF MATTHEW 24:32-35
(especially verse 34—which is an important key in this passage)
REFERENCES
Clouse,
Robert G. (ed) The Meaning of the Millennium Four Views. Downers Grove, IL:
Intervarsity Press, 1977.
Crossway
Bibles (2009-04-09). ESV Study Bible (Kindle Locations 235445-235449). Good
News Publishers. Kindle
Edition.
Pentecost,
J. Dwight. Things to Come. Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publish. House,
1958.
Walvoord,
John F. Every Prophecy of the Bible: Clear Explanations for Uncertain Times.
Colorado Springs,
CO: David C Cook. Kindle Edition, 2011.
