PRETERIST
COMMENTS
ON
MATTHEW
24:36-51
I
shall use the writings of J. S. Russell as representative of the Preterist
position. This passage is
straightforward, for the most part, in interpretation. It lends itself to whatever interpretation
has been given to the earlier part of chapter 24. So, in the two positions which I shall
represent, the representatives simply apply their respective viewpoints in
interpreting the passage.
Russell states: “All the representations given by our Lord of
the coming catastrophe…imply that it would take men by surprise.” (Russell, 91)
Although the “consummation was to fall within the term of the existing
generation,” (Russell, 89-90) the exact day and hour was unknown, even by
Jesus. This “consummation” Russell
defines as “the city taken and the temple burnt with fire” (Russell, 90). So, Russell does not see a challenge in
24:36-51 to his position. That position
is that the “Parousia” of Jesus was the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem and the
Temple within a generation of those living at the time of Jesus’ ministry.
The “lesson” that Jesus derives from
this suddenness of the catastrophe was the need for the disciples and their
followers to watch and pray—for their own safety (Russell, 92). He substantiates his position—that the siege
of the Romans was a sudden event—by referring to Josephus. Josephus gives the number of killed by the
Romans as about 1.1 million. This large
number was due, he says, to the fact that many had come to Jerusalem for the
Passover at about the time the Romans surrounded the city. (Whiston, 749) This confirmed to Russell that those who were
“watching” could understand the approaching events and escape in time before “the
consummation would fall on the Jews like a trap.” (Russell, 92-98)
Russell discusses the warnings to be
ready, lest one fall under judgment, in 24:43-51. He notes that Luke 12:39-46 is a parallel
passage, but has a different setting, which he believes is the accurate setting. Matthew uses these words as part of the
Olivet Discourse, but Russell believes that Matthew’s use of it makes it into
the “warp and woof” of the Discourse. He
argues that the passage continues Jesus’ discussion of the AD 70 “consummation”
and has nothing to do with future judgment:
“The finest instrument cannot draw a dividing line between the parts of
the discourse, and assign one portion to the judgment of the Jewish nation and
another to the judgment of the human race.” (Russell, 97)
In summation, I would say that
Russell considers the entire sub-passage, Matthew 24:36-51, to be a
continuation of Jesus’ prediction of the AD 70 destruction by the Romans. The warnings are to His disciples and their
followers to be watchful of events and avoid falling into the Romans’
trap. He sees no reference to future
events.
DISPENSATIONALIST
VIEWS
OF
MATTHEW
24:36-51
Pentecost refers to all or parts of
this span of verses several places without detailed comments. He summarizes the whole passage to be
“exhortations” to watchfulness (Pentecost, 281). The references to Noah’s day depict people
who were preoccupied with daily life.
Christ was not necessarily pointing toward licentiousness but their
carelessness: “In each of the three
illustrations…the individuals concerned were occupied with the usual round of
life without any thought of Messiah’s return.”
(Pentecost, 281)
Walvoord gives more detailed
commentary on the passage. He recognizes
the seeming contradiction between Jesus’ predictions of events leading up to
the Parousia and yet saying no one knows the “day and hour.” (Verse 36)
However, Walvoord says, one can recognize that events are leading up to
the Second Coming but “details are not given in such clarity that one can
determine the day or the hour.” Just as
there were signs the flood was coming, so there will be signs of the approach
of the Second Coming. (Walvoord*)
Walvoord clarifies that, in his view,
these signs “are in relation to the second coming of Christ at the end of the
tribulation, not to the [Pretribulation] rapture of the church, which has no
signs and is always imminent until it occurs.
(Walvoord*)
He reviews the approach of the flood
in Noah’s day when people “carried on their normal activities” (as Jesus
described in Matthew 24:38), yet many signs of the approaching flood (such as
animals coming to the ark) were visible.
In the same way, as the Great Tribulation progresses “and those who
understand the prophecies of the end time realize that approximately three and
a half years have passed, they will…expect Christ to come even though the
prophecies are not specifically detailed to allow them to know the day or the
hour. Such people will know the
year.” (Walvoord*)
He comments on Matthew 24:40-42,
which has the familiar “one will be taken and one left.” “Because this event is somewhat similar to
the rapture in that some are taken and some are left, Posttribulationalists
almost universally cite this verse as proof that the rapture will occur as part
of the second coming of Christ after the tribulation. However, a careful reading of the passage
yields exactly the opposite result. At
the rapture of the church, those taken are those who are saved, and those who
are left are left to go through the awful period…Here the situation is just in
reverse. Those who are taken are taken
in judgment, and those who are left are left to enter the millennial kingdom.”
(Walvoord*)
Walvoord goes on to contend with
Posttribulationalists who argue on the basis of a difference in the Greek words
translated “taken” or “took” in verses 39 and 41, etc. He points to Luke 17:34-35, which contains
very similar wording to Matthew 24:40-41.
The verses in Luke are followed by the interchange between the disciples
and Jesus: And they said to him, “Where,
Lord?” He said to them, “Where the corpse is, there the vultures will
gather.” (Luke 17:37, English Standard
Version) Walvoord comments: “In other words, the ones taken are obviously
put to death in judgment, in contrast to what will happen at the rapture when
the ones taken are brought to heaven. There is no scriptural basis for reading
the rapture into Matthew 24. The occasion is entirely different.”
He comments briefly on the parable
of the owner of the house and his need to set a watch: “Not knowing the exact hour, he would have to
watch continuously. Jesus applied this to those waiting for the second coming
with the exhortation, ‘So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will
come at an hour when you do not expect him’ (v. 44).”
Walvoord comments on the parable of
the good and bad stewards (24:45-51): “The
implication of this passage is that belief in the second coming of Christ is
linked to belief in the first coming of Christ. If one accepts who Christ was
and what He did in His first coming, he will also accept who Christ will be and
what He will do at His second coming and, accordingly, will live in
preparation.” It is not clear how the
good or bad behavior of the stewards links up to belief in the “first coming”
and the “second coming.” My
interpretation of Walvoord’s interpretation is that acceptance of Jesus as the
Christ means anticipating that Christ will come a second time to respond to
faithful and unfaithful living.
COMMENTS
ON
PRETERIST
AND DISPENSATIONALIST
VIEWS
OF MATTHEW 24:36-51
In some ways there is not much new
ground that is broken in the commentaries from these sources. Each of the writers uses his comments to
reinforce his own position. For Russell,
he sees the warnings of suddenness and the need for watchfulness to be
appropriate for the “consummation” that came in AD 70. Pentecost and Walvoord understand the
material to relate to the Jews (and other tribulation converts) living in the
Great Tribulation who will see the signs of the approaching Second Coming.
Russell’s focus is on the
practicalities of certain people, having been forewarned, escaping the siege of
Jerusalem. So, he refers to Josephus’
statement that many Jews were visiting Jerusalem for the Passover at the time
the siege began and the Romans snapped the trap shut. Those who were aware of Jesus’ warning would
be able to avoid that trap. However, the
warnings of Jesus are really more warnings concerning moral and spiritual
living than simply being “in on” the plan to destroy Jerusalem. It is true that Jesus’ comparison to the
people before the flood is not a direct condemnation of their licentiousness
(24:36-39), as Pentecost points out.
However, Jesus is commenting on their spiritual obliviousness.
Jesus
goes on to discuss the good and bad servants in 24:45-51. He directly connects attitudes about delay of
the Lord’s coming with behavior. The
good servant displays in his behavior an attitude of expecting the Lord to come
at any moment. The bad servant does not
expect that coming and takes that delay as a license to bad behavior. In the entire span of 24:36-51, Jesus is
concerned with heart attitudes and external behaviors. The idea of the approaching coming of the
Lord creates a fervency of love and service to the Lord which is displayed in
faithful servanthood. See I John
3:2-3: “Beloved, we are
God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that
when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is.
3 And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies
himself as he is pure.” (English Standard Version)
These warnings of Jesus do not
correspond very well with a group of Christians reading Matthew 24 and watching
current events and thus escaping the siege of Jerusalem. It corresponds better with a more widespread
set of warnings to all humankind. In
addition, as I have argued in another article, Russell continuously goes back
to a single event, the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem, as the fulfillment of
all that Jesus says in the Olivet Discourse.
Yet, the Discourse has given a series of events—one can begin, for
example, with verse 15—that occur in sequence—the Abomination of Desolation
(24:15), the Great Tribulation (24:21-22), the Celestial Signs (24:29), the
Parousia (24:30), and the Gathering of the Elect (24:31). The commentaries in 24:36-51 appear
especially to refer to the Parousia and the Gathering of the Elect. Russell ignores this and continues to hammer
on his one theme of the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.
Almost
anyone who studies the details of prophecy have a difficult time with
24:36: “But concerning
that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but
the Father only.” The difficulty is that
study of prophecy yields considerable detail about events as the time of the
Parousia approaches. Yet, there is this
element of uncertainty. Walvoord deals
with that seeming contradiction, I think, quite well. His point is that we can know a lot, yet we
cannot pin point the date. And, of
course, he would say, we can know a lot about timing once certain milestone
events come about. For example, there
are statements about time dating from the Abomination of Desolation. However, one cannot date the Abomination of
Desolation, or any other milestone event from the present. I shall use an example that may not be
tasteful to some. One may not know when
a woman will get pregnant, but, once she is pregnant, one can time with some
accuracy when the baby will be born.
The other issue is that, in the minds of
many, this verse (24:36) is talking about the Rapture. It is the most definitive statement of an
“imminent” event in the Scriptures. (I
shall, I hope, discuss that topic in more detail elsewhere.) Yet, the Dispensationalist who holds to the
Pretribulation Rapture rejects this verse as a description of the imminent
Rapture of the church. Walvoord is
careful to instruct his readers that Jesus is not talking about the
Rapture. He does not develop proof for
that, but takes it as already established.
The consequence is that, in the Dispensationalist/Pretribulation Rapture
theory, these words of Jesus—and the whole passage, 24:36-51—are relating to
“Tribulation Saints.” These are Jews and
Gentiles who are converted to Jesus during the Tribulation period. They are the ones who cannot know the “day
and hour.” They are the ones who much
must “stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming” (24:42)
and who must heed the warnings to be faithful in 24:45-51.
The wording of much of this passage makes this scenario difficult to
accept. I encourage the reader to
imagine a people who are converts in the Tribulation period. They, according to most teaching, will have
been won by the most dynamic and ardent evangelists in history (including,
perhaps, the 144,000). They will receive
and cling to Christ in the face of harsh persecution from the
Antichrist/Beast. Some of them, by some
accounts, will be given miraculous safe haven from persecution (as related in
Revelation 12:14-17). It is difficult to
make these pictures congruent with the concern of Christ that people may lose
vigilance and
become spiritually bankrupt as related
in these passages. Note that Jesus first
characterizes those who are “of the world” (as comparable to those who lived in
Noah’s day (24:37-39). Then, he gives
warnings to God’s people: to keep watch
(24:42-44) and to be faithful (24:45-51).
It strikes me that the Tribulation Saints would not need these kinds of
admonitions. On the other hand, the
people of the church, who have been around for 2,000 years and counting,
certainly need these admonitions, to be ready for the Rapture, yes, but also to
be ready for the dark days before the Second Coming. These statements come from a Posttribulation
Rapture perspective.
I want to react to one other comment
from Walvoord. He discusses the word
“taken” in verses 39-41. In verse 39,
the Greek word airo is translated
“took” to describe the action of the Flood.
In verses 40-41, the Greek word paralambano
is translated “taken” to describe the fate of certain people at the time of the
Parousia. The following is Walvoord’s
comments on this:
…posttribulationists
sometimes point out that the Greek word airo, used to express “took them all
away” (v. 39), is a different word than used in verse 40 and in verse 41 (Gr.,
paralambano : “will be taken”). Though admitting that in verse 39 at the time
of the flood those taken were taken in judgment, posttribulationists claim the
change in wording justifies reading the rapture into verses 40–42.
Walvoord
argues from context and from a parallel passage in Luke (as I describe above)
that the use of the different Greek words is not significant. Although it is certainly true that the Greek
New Testament often uses synonyms in the same passage in what seems to be a way
of giving variety, I think a case may be made that the two Greek words used
here are not exact synonyms. I have
listed all of the uses in Matthew for paralambano
and for airo in the table below. Note that the uses are really different. Paralambano
is used consistently to mean “take along with” whereas airo is used to mean “get,” “pick up,” “take upon one.” The first emphasizes the idea of bringing
someone with oneself to a place. The
second emphasizes (usually) the physical act of picking up. See the following table:
|
PARALAMBANO
|
||
|
1.20
|
Do not fear to take Mary as your wife
|
Take to yourself X as a wife
|
|
1.24
|
Took his wife
|
Took to himself X as a wife
|
|
2.13
|
Rise and take the child and his mother
|
Take along X
|
|
2.14
|
Rose and took the child
|
Took along X
|
|
2.20
|
Rise and take the child and his mother
|
Take along X
|
|
2.21
|
See 2.14
|
Took along X
|
|
4.5
|
Then the devil took him to the holy city
|
Took along X to…
|
|
4.8
|
Again the devil took him to a high mountain
|
Took X to…
|
|
12.45
|
Will take with himself seven other spirits
|
Take with oneself X
|
|
17.1
|
After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James…
|
Take along X
|
|
18.16
|
But if he will not listen, take one or two others along
|
Take along X
|
|
20.17
|
He took the twelve disciples aside
|
Take X aside
|
|
24.40
|
One will be taken and one left
|
Present passage
|
|
24.41
|
same
|
Present passage
|
|
26.37
|
He took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee along with him
|
Took X along
|
|
27.27
|
Then the governor’s soldiers took Jesus into the Praetorium
|
Took X along to
|
|
AIRO
|
||
|
4.6
|
…will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your
foot
|
Lift up X in their hands
|
|
9.6
|
Take your mat and go home
|
Pick up or carry X
|
|
9.16
|
The patch will pull away from the garment
|
?
|
|
11.29
|
Take my yoke upon you
|
Put upon yourself X as a burden
|
|
13.12
|
Even what he has will be taken from him
|
Take X from Y
|
|
14.12
|
John’s disciples came and took his body
|
Get, pick up, carry
|
|
14.20
|
Disciples picked up twelve basketfuls
|
Pick up X
|
|
15.37
|
Disciples picked up seven basketfuls
|
Pick up X
|
|
16.24
|
Take up his cross and follow me
|
Pick up X
|
|
17.27
|
Take the first fish you catch
|
Take, get, procure X
|
|
20.14
|
Take your pay and go
|
Take along or receive and keep what you have
|
|
21.21
|
Be taken up (NASB) and cast into the sea
|
X be picked up and thrown
|
|
21.43
|
The kingdom of God will be taken away from you
|
Take X away from Y
|
|
24.17
|
Let no one on the roof…go down to take anything out of his house
|
Get, pick up, procure X
|
|
24.18
|
Let no one in the field go back to get his cloak
|
Same
|
|
24.39
|
Until the flood came and took them away
|
Sweep away, take away by force
|
|
25.28
|
Take the talent from him
|
Take X away from Y
|
|
25.29
|
Even what he has will be taken from him
|
Same
|
|
27.32
|
They forced him to carry the cross
|
Carry, put upon oneself as a burden, take up
|
I
believe that Walvoord is incorrect in dismissing the use of these two
words. In verse 41, Jesus is describing
the action of the flood to take the evil people away. A flood’s action is to float an object off
its mooring to the ground, and, then, if there is a current (and there usually
is), to push the object away from its original location. There is a physical picking up and carrying
off. This is very different from taking
someone with oneself to another location.
We need to inquire: What is the point of Jesus’ illustration of
the flood? Verses 36 and 37 introduce
the illustration. First, Jesus makes the
point that no one knows exactly when “that day and hour” will be. Second, He says in that day, the times will
be as in the days of Noah. What were
those days like? People were involved in
the daily business of life. They were
oblivious to Noah and his ark. They were
oblivious to the signs of their times—that “the wickedness of
man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his
heart was only evil continually.” (Genesis 6:5, English Standard Version) So, they were “unaware” (English Standard
Version) (“knew nothing about what would happen”—New International Version)
until the flood came. Jesus is saying
that people—the people “of the world”—will be like that at the coming of the
Son of Man.
But Jesus divides humankind into two
groups. Though He uses equal proportions
in His illustrations, He does not necessarily imply that the groups will be
equal in number. Some people will be
like those of Noah’s day who were oblivious until the Flood came. But in that day there was a remnant who were
not oblivious—Noah and his family. So,
at the coming of the Lord there will be those who will be received by the Lord.
Having examined the difference in
usage of airo and paralambano, I believe that the Lord’s
intention is to say that those who are taken are the ones who will be received
by the Lord to Himself and those who are
left will experience judgment. In John
14:3, Jesus said: “And
if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to
myself, that where I am you may be also.”
The word translated “will take” is paralambano. In a Posttribulation Rapture scenario, Jesus
would return to earth and the saints would be raptured and meet Him in the air
as He descends to earth. And “so we will always be with the Lord.” (I Thessalonians 4:17b, English Standard
Version) Two people will stand side by
side; one will be taken along by the Lord and the other left. I recognize that there are still some
unanswered questions in this exegesis.
For example, the Rapture will lift people up to Jesus, rather than Jesus
taking them along. However, if we think
of the Spirit participating in the Rapture (He is the Spirit that raised Jesus
from the dead), then, in a sense, Jesus, by the Spirit, takes the Saints along
to meet Him in the air and then He takes them along with Him wherever He may go,
so that they will always be with the Lord.
In this same analysis, Walvoord
discusses Luke 17:37 (“Where the corpse
is, there the vultures will gather.”).
This passage is similar to 24:37-41.
He makes the point that verse 17:37 proves that those who are taken, are
taken in judgment. However, the use of
the term “corpse” and reference to vultures do not necessarily imply
judgment. Jesus uses the same expression
in Matthew 24:28 and it does not appear to refer to judgment there. Rather, it seems to reinforce the idea of the
public display of Jesus’ Second Coming.
I think that the expression in Luke 17 is used in the same way. It is referring to the gathering of a throng
around Himself at His coming.
I do not believe Walvoord’s analysis
of the Posttribulationist argument regarding the two words for “take” is
adequate. Nor do I believe his argument
that the “taken” are taken in judgment is adequate. His ideas fit well with his Pretribulation
Rapture theory, but do not fully explain the Scripture. This is also true when one examines the idea
that verses 24:45-51 are directed toward Tribulation Saints rather than to the
church.
NEXT: MATTHEW 25
REFERENCES
Crossway
Bibles (2009-04-09). ESV Study Bible (Kindle Locations 252650-252654). Good
News Publishers. Kindle Edition.
Pentecost,
J. Dwight. Things to Come. Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publish. House,
1958.
Russell, J. S. The
Parousia, A Critical Inquiry into the New Testament Doctrine of Our
Lord’s Second Coming.
(Google Internet Book)
London: Daldy, Isbister
& Co., 1878.
Walvoord,
John F. (2011-09-01). Every Prophecy of
the Bible: Clear Explanations for Uncertain
Times. David C. Cook. Kindle Edition.
Whiston, William, trans. The Works of Josephus, by Flavius
Josephus. N. p.: Hendrickson
Publ.,
1987.
No comments:
Post a Comment