MATTHEW
24:32-35
(English
Standard Version)
“From the fig tree
learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves,
you know that summer is near. So also, when you see all these things, you know
that he is near, at the very gates. Truly, I say to you, this generation will
not pass away until all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass
away, but my words will not pass away.
THE
PRETERIST VIEW OF
MATTHEW
24:32-35
The verses quoted above are central
to the Preterist view of Scriptural interpretation. I shall use some lengthy quotes in this
article, because I believe these quotes represent that view and illustrate the
importance that is placed on the Preterist understanding of these verses. In brief, that understanding is: Jesus
predicted the prophecies of the Olivet Discourse would take place before the
total passing away of the generation that He and His disciples were a part of,
roughly within 40 years, and this prediction was verified by the destruction of
Jerusalem and the Temple in AD 70.
As
I include the quotes below, throughout this article (and this is generally my
policy), italics and quotations, use of capitalization, etc. are all in the
original works that are quoted. My
remarks are in brackets.
I
shall use three authors to represent this position. J. S. Russell (whom I have referred to
extensively in previous articles) wrote in the 19th Century. He, as far as I can tell, does not start with
this passage to determine his interpretative method. However, it does play a powerful role in his
interpretation. R. C. Sproul is an
influential writer of the 20th and 21st Centuries. His book, The
Last Days According to Jesus, focuses a great deal of attention on the
issues surrounding this Scripture passage.
Hank Hanegraaff’s book, The
Apocalypse Code, also focuses on this Scripture.
J.
S. RUSSELL ON MATTHEW 24:32-35:
Here the prophecy and
the parable [the prophecy is 24:31, the parable is 13:41-50] represent the
self-same scene, the self-same period:
they alike speak of the close of the aeon or age, not of the end of the
world, or the material universe; and they alike speak of that great judicial
epoch as at hand. How plainly does St. Luke, in his record of
the prophecy on the Mount of Olives, represent the great catastrophe as falling
within the lifetime of the disciples:
[quotes Luke 21:28] Were not
these words spoken to the disciples who listened to the discourse? Did they not apply to them? Is there anywhere even a suspicion that they
were meant for another audience, thousands of years distant…?
But, as if to preclude even the possibility of
misconception or mistake, our Lord in the next paragraph draws around his
prophecy a line so plain and palpable, shutting it wholly within a limit so
definite and distinct, that it ought to be decisive of the whole question.
[then quotes Matthew 24:32-34 and parallels]
Words
have no meaning if this language, uttered on so solemn an occasion, and so
precise and express in its import, does not affirm the near approach of the
great event which occupies the whole discourse of our Lord. First, the parable of the fig-tree intimates
that as the buds on the tree betoken the near approach of summer, so the signs
which He had just specified would betoken that the predicted consummation was
at hand. They, the disciples to whom He was speaking, were to see them, and
when they saw them to recognize that the end was “near, even at the doors.” Next,
our Lord sums up with an affirmation calculated to remove every vestige of
doubt or uncertainty,--[quotes 24:34].
One
would reasonably suppose that after a note of time so clear and express there
could not be room for controversy.
Ninety-nine persons in every hundred would undoubtedly understand His
words as meaning that the predicted catastrophe would fall within the limits of
the lifetime of the existing generation.
Not that all would probably
live to witness it, but that most or many would…He gave them [the disciples]
plainly to understand that His coming, the judgment of the Jewish nation, and
the close of the age, would come to pass before the existing generation had
wholly passed away, and within the limits of their own lifetime. (Russell, 82-84)
Russell
hammers home the lesson that is so obvious to him, which I have already stated
in bold before the quotation: What Jesus
was speaking about would happen within the disciples’ lifetime. Since Russell contends throughout his book
that the Parousia of Jesus is equivalent to the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem
and the Temple, this paragraph from Scripture confirms his thesis. Or, it is just as probable, that Matthew
24:32-35 is the basis for his thesis. Though he does not overtly make this point,
he has used this mention of a time-frame of one generation throughout the
book. He does not always refer to the
passage from Matthew 24. He also refers
to Matthew 10:23 (Russell, 26ff) and 16:27-28 (Russell, 29ff), for example.
R. C. SPROUL ON MATTHEW
24:32-35:
The
time-frame issues, which arise out of Matthew 24:32-35 and similar passages
that are mentioned above, are very central to interpretation of prophetic
Scripture for R. C. Sproul. He relates
how he encountered liberal higher criticism in seminary and how the Scripture I
have in focus in this article played an important role. He also highlights the criticism of an avowed
atheist, Bertrand Russell, who pointed to these Scriptures to prove that Jesus
was a false prophet (note that Sproul uses the Mark parallel passage):
The most critical
portion of this text [Mark 13:1-30] is Jesus’ declaration that “this generation
will by no means pass away till all these things take place” (13:30). When [Bertrand] Russell pointed to this
pronouncement, he made two important assumptions. The first is that “this generation” refers to
a specific time-frame that would be roughly forty years. That is, the terminus for the fulfillment of
this prophecy is forty years….The second assumption made by Russell (and
others) is that the phrase “all these things” includes all of the subject
matter of his future prediction, including his coming in clouds of power and
glory.
…Since, again according to Russell, the parousia did not
take place within this time frame, both Christ and the Bible are wrong. (Sproul, 16)
This
challenge from a philosopher from the outside was matched by higher critics on
the inside. Albert Schweitzer is known
as a humanitarian hero, but he also was a Biblical scholar who shook the
liberals of his day. He made the case
that Jesus was not merely an ethical teacher but was an apocalyptic prophet who
expected the coming of the Kingdom in power and who died in failure. Schweitzer’s book brought about 20th
century efforts by higher critics to deal with Jesus’ prophetic teachings. This led to a series of solutions—“realized
eschatology,” “already and not yet,” and the “D-Day analogy.” (Sproul, 20-23)
For Sproul, the moderate and liberal
critics are unsatisfying. Instead, he
believes that the best answer to the seeming “failure” of Jesus’ prophecies is
the Preterist position, which posits the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem and the
Temple as the fulfillment of those prophecies.
The central thesis of [J.
S.] Russell and indeed of all preterists is that the New Testament’s time-frame
references with respect to the parousia point to a fulfillment within the
lifetime of at least some of Jesus’ disciples.
Some hold to a primary fulfillment in A.D. 70, with a secondary and
final fulfillment in the yet-unknown future.
Whatever else may be said of Preterism, it has achieved at least two
things: (1) It has focused attention on
the time-frame references of New Testament eschatology, and (2) it has
highlighted the significance of Jerusalem’s destruction in redemptive
history. (Sproul, 25)
In
the following, he lays out what he believes are the main alternatives in
interpretation of the Olivet Discourse and the direction taken by the
Preterists:
This problem of literal
fulfillment leaves us with three basic solutions to interpreting the Olivet
Discourse:
1. We
can interpret the entire discourse literally.
In this case we must conclude that some elements of Jesus’ prophecy
failed to come to pass, as advocates of “consistent eschatology” maintain.
2. We
can interpret the events surrounding the predicted parousia literally and
interpret the time-frame references figuratively. This method is employed chiefly by those who
do not restrict the phrase “this generation will not pass away…” to the life
span of Jesus’ contemporaries.
3. We
can interpret the time-frame references literally and the events surrounding
the parousia figuratively. In this view,
all of Jesus’ prophecies in the Olivet Discourse were fulfilled during the
period between the discourse itself and the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D.
70.
The third option is
followed by preterists. The strength of
the preterist position is found precisely in this hermeneutical method. (Sproul, 66)
Although
Sproul takes comfort in Russell’s interpretation and the Preterist position, he
recognizes it presents problems. The
following is his assessment:
[A problem] posed by Preterism, and by far the most
crucial, is whether there remains a future hope for the church. Is the “blessed hope” for a future,
consummate parousia of Christ, and article of faith for historic Christianity,
a false hope? Is the eschatology that
includes the parousia to be reduced to an utterly “realized eschatology”?
These questions require that we distinguish between moderate preterism and radical preterism. Moderate preterism, though it sees the coming
of Christ predicted in the Olivet Discourse as having been already fulfilled,
still believes in a future consummation of Christ and his kingdom, based on
other New Testament texts…. Radical
preterism, on the other hand, sees
virtually the entire New Testament eschatology as having been realized
already. (Sproul, 68)
HANK
HANEGRAAFF ON MATTHEW 24:32-35:
Hank
Hanegraaff is the “Bible Answer Man” on the radio. He strenuously attacks Dispensationalists (as
well as teachers of the “prosperity gospel” and others that he sees to be
dangers to the church). His book, The Apocalypse Code, is quite polemical,
especially in discussing Tim LaHaye. The
following is at the beginning of his chapter in which he attacks what he
believes to be failure to interpret according to ordinary use of grammar and
vocabulary:
Asked under oath to verify his lawyer’s declaration,
“There is absolutely no sex of any kind” between the president of the United
States of America and White House intern, Monica Lewinsky, William Jefferson
Clinton responded, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” (Hanegraaff, 70)
The following is his
direct application of the principle that he is espousing:
When it comes to interpreting Scripture, we should not
suppose that the rules of grammar mysteriously change. When Jesus says, “I tell you the truth, this [sic] generation will certainly not
pass away until all these things have happened,” “this” means “this.”
The meaning of the pronoun you in the context of Christ’s Olivet Discourse is just as
clear. When Jesus says, “You will hear of wars and rumors of
wars…Then you will be handed over to
be persecuted and put to death...” it should be obvious that he is referencing
a first-century, not a twenty-first-century generation. (Hanegraaff, 72)
Hanegraaff discusses the challenge
of skeptics who use Matthew 24:34 for ammunition. Among others, he cites Jewish critics, as in
the following:
[Gerald] Sigal sums up this sentiment, saying, “No amount
of Christian theological acrobatics will ever solve the problems engendered by
the historical reality that a promised imminent fulfillment made two thousand
years ago did not occur as expected
by the New Testament. Simply stated,
Jesus is never coming back, not then, not now, not ever.” (Hanegraaff, 76-77)
Hanegraaff follows this by pointing
to what he believes is a lame defense of the Scripture by a Dispensationalist,
as follows:
Although
quite clever, Tim LaHaye’s rebuttal, “We believe ‘this generation’ refers to
those alive in 1948” is about as believable to a discerning skeptic as
Clinton’s quip, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” In fact, the moment dispensationalists such
as LaHaye utter such statements, our baloney detectors must surely flash,
“Warning! Grammatical gyrations
ahead!!!” As the skeptic Gerald Sigal
has well said, “This generation” appears fourteen times in the Gospels and always applies to Jesus’ contemporaries.
(Hanegraaf, 77)
Hanegraaff (as do others, such as
Russell) cites other instances in which Jesus used “this generation” as
evidence for the Preterist interpretation of Matthew 24:34, as follows:
Just as it is grammatically implausible for Jesus to have
meant anything other than the generation to whom he was speaking in this
context [Matthew 12:38-45], so too it is grammatically impossible for him to
have been referencing anything other than the generation present during his
delivery of the Olivet Discourse—as “this” means “this” here [in 12:38-45], so
“this” means “this” and not “that” there [Matthew 24:34]. (Hanegraaff, 79)
Hanegraaff discusses another
suggestion that has been made to try to deal with the problem of Matthew
24:34. That solution is to translate the
Greek word genea to mean “race”
rather than “generation” (which is a possible meaning of the word). This same possibility is discussed by the
Dispensationalists that I quote below.
The following is from Hanegraaff:
Legendary dispensationalist Dr. C. I. Scofield suggested
that generation did not mean
“generation”—it meant “race.” Thus, in
answer to the question, “When will this happen?” Jesus really meant to say, “I tell you the
truth, this race will certainly not pass
away until all these things have happened….”
Scofield went so far as to say that, as “all lexicons”
reflect, the Jewish “race…will be preserved…a promise wonderfully fulfilled to
this day.” [Hanegraaff then demonstrates
that this is not supported by the lexicons.]
DeMar goes on to explain that “the Greek word genos rather than geneais best translated ‘race’…”
This reality is reflected in modern translations such as the New King
James Version, New American Standard Version…. Scofield’s superstar status,
however, has ensured that his equivocation on the word generation persists in the present as a pragmatic method of saving
Jesus from the charge of making false prophecies.
This ploy, however, is seldom satisfying to those who
doubt the credibility of the Gospels.
Common sense dictates that [Jesus did not say “this race of people will
certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.”] Rather, our Lord is delineating the very
signs that would precede the judgment of Jerusalem and the end of the age of
sacrifice. (Hanegraaff, 79-81)
Notice
that Hanegraaff emphasizes the role of the destruction of the Temple to “end
the age of sacrifice.” This is a major
theme that Russell emphasizes also.
Hanegraaff parallels much of the
material in Sproul’s book. Sproul is
more open about the role that various theological positions play in approaches
to interpretation than Hanegraaff.
Hanegraaff, quite frankly, is quite pugnacious in places—perhaps having
had some personal encounters with certain persons that he singles out for
attack. He also attempts to exalt what
he claims is his approach to Scripture (which he describes using the acronym
“LIGHTS”). He is writing for a somewhat
different audience that the more irenic Sproul.
DISPENSATIONALIST
VIEWS OF
MATTHEW
24:32-35
Pentecost
does not give a detailed exegesis of the passage. The quotation below is the extent of his
commentary. His explanation of the
passage, in which he concurs with Chafer, is that its main message is that, as
the events predicted in the passage take place, those experiencing them may be
certain of the climax, which is the second coming of Christ. He discusses the issue of the word “genea” by giving three theories:
·
It refers to the generation of Jesus and
His disciples.
·
It refers to the generation at the time
of the Tribulation.
·
It refers to the race or nation of
Israel.
He
does not delve into reasons to accept or reject these theories. Moreover, he does not seem to have any
appreciation for the gravity of the issue.
I think it is possible that Preterist thinking was not as prevalent
among evangelicals at the time his book was written (1958). The following is from his book (Incidentally,
he gives the span of the passage through verse 36, but uses that verse to start
the next section, so the “36” was doubtless in error.):
The chronology of the events of the end of the age is
briefly interrupted in order to give practical exhortation to those who will be
witnessing these events. These
instructions are given in verses 32-51.
The parable of the fig tree (vs. 32-36) is spoken to show the certainty
of the coming. Chafer writes:
It is doubtless true
that the fig tree represents in other Scriptures the nation of Israel (cf.
Matt. 21:18-20), but there is no occasion for this meaning to be sought in the
present use of that symbol. When the
things of which Christ had just spoken, including even the beginnings of
travail, begin to come to pass, it may be accepted as certain that He is nigh,
even at the doors.
The fulfillment of the
signs that were given in the preceding verses would herald the coming of the
Messiah as certainly as the new shoots on the fig tree heralded the approach of
summer.
There is a difference of opinion over the interpretation
of “generation” in Matthew 24:34. Some
have held that it applied to the present generation to which Christ spoke, so
all this prophecy would have been fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem
in 70 A.D. Others hold that the word has
reference to the future, so that Christ is saying that those who witness the
signs stated earlier in the chapter will see the coming of the Son of man
within that generation. It hardly seems
necessary to state this fact, inasmuch as it was known that only seven years
would intervene between the beginning of this period and the coming of the
Messiah, or three and a half years from the appearance of the Desolator to
Messiah’s advent. However, such may be
the interpretation. Still others hold
that the word generation is to be taken in its basic usage of “race, kindred,
family, stock, breed,” so that the Lord is here promising that the nation
Israel shall be preserved until the consummation of her program at the second
advent in spite of the work of the Desolator to destroy her. This seems to be the best explanation. (Pentecost, 280-281)
Walvoord
discusses the issue of the fig tree.
It is often interpreted to refer to Israel, so many believe that Jesus
was referring to the reconstituting of modern Israel in 1948. So, they say, within a generation of 1948,
the Tribulation and, following it, the coming of Christ, would be
completed. Walvoord rejects that notion
and gives his reasons in the following:
A common interpretation
has been to interpret the fig tree as a type of Israel and the revival of
Israel as the budding of the tree. The
fig tree could very well be a type of Israel, but it does not seem to be so
used in Scripture. Good and bad figs are
mentioned in Jeremiah 24:1-8; the good figs are those carried off into
captivity, and the bad figs are those who remain in the land of Israel….In
Judges 9:1-11 fig trees are mentioned but not in relation to Israel….There is
no indication in the interpretation of Matthew 21:18-22 and Mark 11:12-14,
20-26 that relates the fig tree to Israel.
Accordingly, though many have followed this interpretation, there is no
Scriptural basis.
A better explanation is the simple explanation that the
fig tree is used as a natural explanation….When the events described in the
preceding verses occur, it will be a clear indication of the second coming of
Christ being near. The sign in the
passage is not the revival of Israel, which is not the subject of Matthew 24,
but rather the details of the great tribulation, which occurs in the three and
a half years preceding the second coming.
Accordingly, “all these things” (v. 33) refers not to the revival of
Israel but to the events of the great tribulation. (Walvoord, page not available*)
Walvoord also discussed the meaning
of genea.
In the following quotation, he indicates his interpretation that the
reference in 24:34 is to the generation living at the time of the Tribulation:
Jesus made a further comment on the situation in saying,
“This generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened….”
The normal use of the word generation
is in reference to the time span between one’s birth and the time when one
becomes a parent. Obviously, the
generation that lived in Christ’s day did not see all the things described in
the preceding context. Some have
inferred from this that the term generation
is a reference to Israel and have asserted that Israel will not pass away
until all these things are fulfilled.
However, Israel will never pass away.
Still other scholars take generation
as an indefinite period of time.
The most natural meaning, however, is to take it as
normally used as a reference to a period of twenty-five to forty years. But instead of referring this to the time in
which Christ lived, it refers back to the preceding period that is described as
the great tribulation. As the great
tribulation is only three and a half years long, obviously, those who see the
great tribulation will also see the coming of the Lord. Regardless of how it is interpreted, Christ
affirmed, in support of the fulfillment of the prophecy, that His words will
never pass away even though our present earth and heaven will ultimately be
destroyed. (Walvoord, page not
available*)
*Because
of my version of Kindle, I am not able to determine page numbers in Walvoord’s
book.
COMMENTARY
ON ISSUES AND
INTERPRETATIONS
OF
MATTHEW
24:32-35
This passage is the crux of the
Preterist argument. As Sproul stated,
Preterism “has focused attention on the time-frame references of New Testament
eschatology.” It is this passage, and
especially verse 34, that has been used to put the time-frame question in
focus. I have dedicated much space in
previous articles doing my best to demonstrate that Preterism is not a viable
theory. I believe much of what I have
said is valid criticism of that theory.
However, when one comes to verse 34, one must recognize the gravity of
the challenge.
Although I do not always agree with
the Dispensational approach, I do have much sympathy for that method of
interpretation. Yet, I was disappointed
in the glib manner that was used in dealing with this passage and the Preterist
challenge. I do not disagree with the
outcome of Dispensational interpretation of the passage as much as I am
concerned that the passage is not taken seriously.
The following are my conclusions
concerning Matthew 24:32-35:
1. I
believe that attempting to use another translation for genea is not warranted. In
the context, it is difficult to force the word “race” or “nation” into the
sentence. The lesson of the fig tree has
just been given. That lesson is that a
short period of time will occur between two sets of events. A comment about the disappearance of a race
is not appropriate to that lesson.
2. Thus,
the question comes down to this: What
generation is Christ referring to? Is it
the generation of Himself and His disciples—in first century? Or, is it a generation at some future time?
3. The
next question is: Can the answer come
simply from the sentence that gives rise to it?
Does the word “this” give sufficient information to answer the
question? Hanegraaff’s sarcastic use of
the Bill Clinton example would imply “Yes, anyone can infer that ‘this’ means
only one thing in this context.”
4. Notice
that the preceding two verses set up a time frame: when the fig leaves come on, summer is
near. In the same way, “when you see all
these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates.”** So, there is a set of events that precede the
consummate event. As we progressed
through verse 4 through 26, we noted the various developments and events that
Christ predicted would lead to His Parousia.
·
Events in the world, such as wars and
earthquakes
·
Developments within the church, such as
persecution, dissension, coldness
·
The world-wide preaching of the gospel
·
The Abomination of Desolation
·
The Great Tribulation
·
Included within that Tribulation would
be various kinds of deception, including rumors of a hidden Christ
I have argued that these
predictions were not fulfilled within the first century. Jesus says
that, when these events have been
fulfilled, then the consummate event is about to take
place. Having set that time frame, He then goes on
to say “this generation” will not pass
away until all has taken
place. I believe it is possible, within
the paragraph at hand, to
understand “this generation” to
refer to a future generation when the events that Jesus
predicted will be fulfilled. **The pronoun subject in the clause “___is
near, at the
gates…” is not explicit. Some translations give “he” and others “it.”
5. There
is a second line of reasoning to come to the same conclusion. I have argued that the Preterist
interpretations of Matthew 24:4-31 are not valid. I especially have focused on the attempt by
Preterists to assert that all the predictions of Christ in verses 21-31 are
fulfilled by the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. The fallacy of that interpretation is that
they posit one event to fulfill many predictions. Whereas it is a natural reading of these
verses to infer that several different events take place, they can only name
one fulfillment. The Great Tribulation
of verses 21-26 is a different event from the celestial signs of verse 29, and
those signs are different from the coming of Christ in verse 30 along with
associated gathering of the elect in verse 31.
To try to posit the destruction of Jerusalem as fulfilling all these
predictions is not faithful to the text.
In addition, as I stated above, I believe Preterist interpretation of
the material in the preceding verses (4-20) also do not fit well with events of
the first century. Thus, if the
Preterist interpretation is invalid for the preceding material, then trying to
fit the message of verses 32-35 into the first century is also invalid. The Preterists have tried to use verses 32-35
(especially verse 34) to validate their interpretation of verses 4-31. In other words, they have made one verse govern the interpretation of the
entire two chapters. It seems a more
valid method of interpretation to use
the context of the entire Discourse to interpret the one verse. Since a reasonable interpretation of the
Discourse is that it is predicting the future Second Coming of Christ, then
“this generation” would refer to the future generation at the time of that
Coming.
1. Although
I have not, to this point, considered other prophetic Scriptures, one does
eventually have to deal with those Scriptures.
In some of those passages, the events that are predicted are
unambiguously in the future. That would
apply, for example, to I Corinthians 15 (the great chapter on the
Resurrection). However, some Preterists,
because they are caught in what I have called the “Matthew 24:34 trap,” insist
that even the Resurrection of the saints must somehow be interpreted as a first
century event (Sproul, 160-167). This
would be an example of reduction to absurdity which the holders of the position
have created for themselves. Instead,
when one considers other New Testament Scriptures (for example in I and II
Thessalonians, I Corinthians 15, Acts 1:11, and the book of Revelation), the
overwhelming evidence is that the Parousia of Christ is in fact a future Second
Coming. The fact that the Parousia is
the climax of the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24:30) leads one to understand that
Jesus is predicting events that will take place in our future and not in the
first century. This leads us to
interpret verse 34 from that perspective and to consider that “this generation”
refers to the generation that will live
as the events of the Discourse are being fulfilled or completing their
fulfillment.
NEXT: “STAY AWAKE”—MATTHEW 24:36-51
REFERENCES
Crossway
Bibles (2009-04-09). ESV Study Bible (Kindle Locations 235498-235507). Good
News Publishers. Kindle edition.
Hanegraaff,
Hank. The Apocalypse Code. Nashville:
Thomas Nelson, 2007.
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.
Sproul, R. C. The
Last Days According to Jesus. Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998.
Walvoord,
John F. Every Prophecy of the Bible: Clear Explanations for Uncertain Times.
Colorado
Springs, CO: David C Cook. Kindle
Edition, 2011.
No comments:
Post a Comment