JOHN
WALVOORD’S VIEWS
ON
MATTHEW
25
(FOLLOWED
BY A SUMMARY OF ALL ARTICLES)
PARABLE
OF THE VIRGINS: Pentecost regards the
parables of chapter 25 to represent a chronology of events following the Second
Coming that is described in 24:30-31. In
contrast, Walvoord regards these parables to carry warnings of the need for
spiritual preparation for the Second Coming, and he cautions against pressing
“any illustration too far.” (Walvoord, 384)
He comments on the imagery surrounding weddings that is used in
Scripture: “Israel is described as the
wife of the Lord, already married, and the church is pictured as a bride
waiting for the coming of the Bridegroom (2 Cor. 11:2).” (Walvoord, 384) In the case of the Parable of the Virgins,
the focus is on the attendants of the bride.
The lesson “is clear. When the
second coming occurs, it is going to be too late to get ready.” (Walvoord, 385)
Though Walvoord and Pentecost have
minor disagreements, they agree that the parable cannot refer to the
rapture: “Though some have viewed this
incident as the rapture of the church, there is really no justification for
this because the context is entirely related to the second coming of Christ,
and Jesus had not yet revealed any truth concerning the rapture. He could
hardly, therefore, expect His disciples to understand an illustration of a
truth that had not been revealed.” (Walvoord, 385) I take this to be a reference to Paul’s
description of the rapture in I Corinthians 15:51-54 as a “mystery” (a truth
not yet revealed until then).
PARABLE
OF THE TALENTS: Walvoord focuses his
interpretation of the Parable of the Talents only on the third servant, who
received one talent. “Why was the master
so hard on his servant? The answer is that the servant indicated he had serious
questions as to whether the master would return… What the unprofitable servant
displayed was lack of faith in his master and a desire to have his master’s
money illegally.” (Walvoord, 386)
“As
is brought out in 2 Peter 3:3–4, for one to question the literalness of
Christ’s second coming raises questions as to whether the person believed in
the first coming. If Jesus is indeed the Son of God, then His coming again is
both reasonable and to be expected. If He is not the Son of God, of course, He
will not return. Accordingly, a lack of faith in the second coming stems from a
lack of faith in the first coming. The one-talent man indicated outward
profession of service to his master but did not possess real faith.” (Walvoord,
387)
THE
SHEEP AND GOATS JUDGMENT: Walvoord is
generally in agreement with Pentecost on the Sheep and Goats Judgment—that is a
judgment of Gentiles between the Second Coming and the Millennium to determine
who among them will enter the Millennial Kingdom. He states that this particular judgment is
only mentioned in the Olivet Discourse.
(Walvoord, 387) He differs from
Pentecost on the basis of judgment.
Pentecost believes the “brothers” of Christ are the Israelite witnesses
(most like the 144,000), and the judgment is how they were treated. Walvoord uses a more traditional
interpretation that is held by many Dispensationalists: “The basis for judgment is how they treated
Christ’s brethren, the Jews, as a token of their faith or lack of it.”
(Walvoord, 387) Walvoord also agrees
with Pentecost that this judgment is separate from the judgments of the church
in II Corinthians 5:10 and of the unrighteous dead in Revelation 20:11-15. (Walvoord, 387)
He also in general agrees with
Pentecost that the Sheep and Goats appear to be judged on the basis of their
works, those works are a reflection of their salvation (Walvoord, 387). He expands this idea as he reflects on his
assumption that these Gentiles are persons who have lived in the 70th
Week/Tribulation period: “In ordinary
times it would be difficult to determine whether a Gentile is saved or lost on
the basis of his treatment of Jews. However, in the great tribulation preceding
the second coming—because of worldwide anti-Semitism and the attempt to kill
all the Jews—anyone who opposes this and actually befriends a Jew and visits
him in prison or in the hospital is obviously declaring his faith in the Bible
and his recognition that the Jews are God’s chosen people. Apart from faith in
Christ under these circumstances, no one would dare to befriend a Jew. Though
the sheep were different in nature than goats, they are demonstrated as the
saved by their works, and goats are demonstrated by their lack of good works.”
(Walvoord, 390)
In arguments that are similar to
those of Pentecost, he contrasts Dispensationalist views of the various
judgments with those of other interpreters:
“…there is no evidence that this judgment is of all men, as it deals
only with the living at the time of the second coming in contrast to the
demands of the amillennial concept of one general judgment at the second
coming. This judgment is also quite different from the judgment of the Great
White Throne (Rev. 20:11–15) because there are no resurrected people here, but
rather people living on earth. Further, the purpose of the judgment is to allow
the righteous to enter the millennial kingdom. It should be noted that there is
no resurrection related to this judgment such as would be true if it was the
rapture of the church.” He also
contrasts his views with those of the Post-Tribulationalists: “The
passage also tends to contradict the posttribulational view that the rapture
occurs at the end of the tribulation at the time of the second coming. If such
a rapture had taken place in the process of Christ’s coming from heaven to
earth and believers were caught up to meet Him, as the rapture is described,
the sheep would have already been separated from the goats, and no judgment
like this would be necessary. After Christ’s kingdom is set up on earth, there
is still the mingled picture of saved and unsaved. Living Gentile believers at
this judgment prove that no posttribulational rapture had taken place.” (Walvoord,
390)
Walvoord also comments briefly that
the church is a mystery (previously unrevealed truth). He comments that the early church was slow to
grasp this long gap in God’s time table (Walvoord, 391).
COMMENTARY
I tend to accept Walvoord’s approach
to this chapter as a more reasonable interpretation than that of
Pentecost. Pentecost insists that the
first two parables actually represent an event that advances the chronology of
Matthew 24:4-31. I maintain that these
parables are illustrations that teach spiritual lessons related to the events
that Christ has already set forth in the previous chapter. Walvoord agrees with me on that point,
although his understanding of those events is somewhat different than mine.
So,
each of the two parables relate to preparation for the Second Coming. For Walvoord, those who will need to be
prepared for the Second Coming will not be in the church, which will already be
raptured seven years before the Second Coming.
He briefly makes the point that Jesus would not be speaking of the
Rapture, since that event was not revealed until Paul wrote about it in I
Corinthians. However, one can agree that
Jesus does not reveal the rapture in the Olivet Discourse and yet still
maintain that a Post-Tribulational Rapture is consistent with that
Discourse. For Jesus to give a warning
regarding the spiritual preparedness requisite at His Second Coming is not a
case of Jesus letting the secret (of the Rapture) “slip out,” so to speak.
In
his comments on the Parable of the Talents, Walvoord seems to me to distort the
case of the servant with one talent. He
pushes the idea that this person represents a person who does not believe in
the Second Coming and that, in turn, is evidence of profound disbelief in
Jesus. However, the parable itself gives
none of this information. Instead, the
parable does focus on the attitude of the servant toward his Lord. It is an attitude of distrust. Such an attitude does not come out of a
forgiven and reconciled heart. The other
servants were eager to work for and glorify their Lord. The third servant took no chances and played
it safe, worried about punishment: “There
is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with
punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.” (I John 4:18, English Standard Version)
Walvoord
takes the two parables of chapter 25 to be spiritual illustrations, but he
takes the third passage, the Sheep and Goats Judgment, to be a literal
event. He and Pentecost agree that it is
an event that will precede the Millennium to determine who among the Gentiles
will enter the Millennial Kingdom. They
disagree in the basis of judgment.
Pentecost believes the “brothers” are Israelite witnesses and examples are
how the Gentiles treated those witnesses, but Walvoord believes the judgment is
of how the Gentiles treated the Jews during the Tribulation period. I offer a third opinion, which parallels
Pentecost’s: I believe the “brothers”
are Christian witnesses and ministers, and the Sheep and Goats are judged on
their treatment of those witnesses.
Walvoord’s
rejects other interpretations that consider this judgment to be another
description of judgments referred to elsewhere.
He believes this judgment is to be at a unique time and that the Olivet
Discourse is the only place in Scripture where it is mentioned. I have discussed these arguments in my
article on Pentecost’s views. In brief,
I think that this description is to be understood as part of the commentary
section of the Discourse, rather than an advancement of the chronology. Since it is a commentary, it gives a basis
for accountability. It is not to be
understood to be exhaustive grounds for accountability. It simply points out that people will be judged
for their response and treatment of messengers of the gospel. When that judgment takes place and who all
will be there cannot be narrowly decided simply on the basis of this passage. I have argued in the previous article that
one cannot rule out whether this represents the Great White Throne Judgment of
Revelation 20.
Walvoord’s
argues that, if the Rapture takes place at the Second Coming, then a Sheep and
Goats Judgment immediately after would not make sense. Even on the surface of that argument, one
could contradict the conclusion. Although
he and Pentecost are adamant that the judgment is of “living” persons and not
of resurrected persons, that idea is not necessarily ruled out by the
passage. It would not be inconsistent
for this passage to represent a praise of resurrected saints of the church and
a condemnation of evil persons.
BRIEF
SUMMARY
OF
THE
ARTICLES ON MATTHEW 24-25
The following is a brief of
12 articles on Matthew. I have ignored
some earlier articles. Such a summary by
necessity leaves out major concepts that one would really like to include. I hope it is helpful to those who have
faithfully followed these articles.
The major division
within the Olivet Discourse is between the chronological narrative that begins
at 24:5 and continues through 24:31, on the one hand, and the remaining
material, which I call “commentary,” that begins at 24:32 and continues through
the end of chapter 25. Within the
chronological narrative, the first section ends at verse 14, and the second
begins at verse 15 and continues through verse 31.
I believe that verses 5-14 give a
series of develops in the church age that climaxes with the completion of the
preaching of the gospel to the whole world (verse 14). The first part of that narrative, verses 5-8,
are develops within the world at large.
The second part, verses 9-14, focuses on developments within the
church.
Russell considers verses 5-14 to
describe developments over the next 40 years after Christ’s ascension. He believes all the developments—of wars,
earthquakes, famines, persecution, apostasy, and world-wide preaching of the
gospel—that were predicted by Jesus in those verses were fulfilled in that
40-year span. I believe that almost none
of those developments were completed in that 40-year span.
Pentecost believes that the entire
chronology that Jesus lays out describes the 70th Week/Tribulation
period. He believes the description of
events in 9-14 is focused on what will happen to the Jews during that
period. He does not consider the “gospel
of the kingdom” in verse 14 to be the simple gospel of salvation, but, rather
it is an announcement, by the 144,000 witnesses, of the coming of the
King. The problem with his thesis is
that verses 9-14 include a picture of a weakening people of God that are
sliding into apostasy. That is not
compatible with people who have just professed their belief in Christ through
the dynamic witness of the 144,000.
There are three events or
developments in verses 15-22. There is
the Abomination of Desolation, which is some sort of wicked action that is so
offensive as to desecrate a holy place.
This is a signal for followers of Jesus to flee to safety. And this is followed by a terrible time
called the Great Tribulation. Other
prophecies in Scripture bear out that these events take place in the period
called the 70th Week or Tribulation.
Russell believes that the
Abomination of Desolation is the presence of Roman standards in the Temple area
or in the area of Jerusalem. He believes
that the Great Tribulation is the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem and the
Temple. The Roman standards would have
been obnoxious to the Jews. However, in
the context of the siege, a display of the standards would not have been
a
crisis event that would constitute a signal for people to flee. Moreover, it probably would have been too
late for most to flee. An earlier
imposition of the standards under Cestius (4 years earlier) would probably have
been too early. Moreover, Cestius’
troops had been invited into the area by the leaders of one Jewish
faction. The Great Tribulation is
described by Jesus in such awful terms that even the siege of Jerusalem does
not seem to qualify as fulfilling that prediction.
Pentecost and Walvoord agree largely
with my concept of the Abomination and the Great Tribulation. Pentecost keeps referring back to verses 9-14
so that he uses two sections of the chronology to cover the same set of events,
because he discounts any application of the Discourse to the church. I have already indicated my disagreement with
that view. Both he and Walvoord consider
the warnings in verses 16-20 to be to Israel.
How this would work out practically—how Israelites would know of this
warning—is difficult to understand. I
believe it is a warning to the church.
Both authors also believe that the Matthew passage applies to the future
Tribulation period, but that the parallel in Luke applies to the events of AD
70.
The last part of the chronology is
24:23-31. This passage depicts the
Second Coming of Christ as the climax to the series of developments and events
that Jesus has been predicting. In the
days leading up to that Coming, there are false rumors of a hidden Christ, but
the Coming will be a dramatic event that will be known world-wide. In conjunction with that event will be the
gathering of saints, both on earth and in heaven.
Russell
tries to apply verses 24:23-31 to the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem and the
Temple. He keeps “doubling back” on that
one set of events as the fulfillment of all that Christ has said. In doing so, he ignores the obvious extended
chronology that Jesus has laid out. This
is because he is in the “Matthew 24:34 trap,” which I shall refer to later. He tries to refer to a particular false
prophet who led a group people into a building that would be burned to the
ground. This event, he maintains,
fulfills Jesus prediction of false rumors.
However, Jesus’ prediction relates directly to false rumors of the
return of Christ.
Pentecost believes 24:4-26 are signs
to Israel that will herald the Second Coming, when the kingdom program for
Israel will be resumed. How these signs
will be communicated to Israel is not clear.
It makes more sense to understand these as signs for the church to
see. He understands the gathering in verse
31 to be the re-gathering of Israel to the Holy Land after they have been
scattered by the Beast/Antichrist. It is
difficult to understand why angels would gather both believing and falsely
professing Israelites and how the gathering by angels would be described as
Israel going out to meet the Lord.
Walvoord believes this gathering will include both living persons and
resurrected persons. I believe that
verse 31 is consistent with the Rapture/Resurrection. The false rumors of a hidden Christ contrast
sharply with the very public Second Coming.
Pentecost, Walvoord, and I agree on this point.
The key of interpretation for the
Preterists—both modern-day and Russell—is Matthew 24:34. They take this time-frame literally, but
interpret portions of the rest of the predictions of the Olivet Discourse
figuratively. This means that the time
limit for the predictions of the Discourse is one generation, or about 40
years. The AD 70 destruction of
Jerusalem and the Temple fits that time frame.
Therefore, the Preterists have an event that “fits.” At the same time, this creates an
interpretation trap because they are forced to make every prophecy be fulfilled
by the same event. This is the “Matthew
24:34 trap.” I note that 24:32-33 set up
the interpretation of verse 34. The
“generation” that will observe the fulfillment of the prophecies is the
generation that observes the greening of the fig tree (the beginning of the
fulfillment). Moreover, it seems a more
sound interpretative method to use the entire Discourse to interpret 24:34 than
to use the one verse to interpret the Discourse. In fact, the Discourse depicts a lengthy
chronology that does not fit the AD 70 events and makes more sense as a
depiction of a considerable stretch of time that culminates in the Second
Coming.
The illustrations in 24:36-51 are
exhortations to be spiritually prepared for the Second Coming of Christ. They are not simply warnings to be “in on” a
plan, but rather are admonitions to preparedness. All interpreters share this view to some
degree. Russell believes that the Jews
were caught in a Roman “trap,” because they had gathered in huge numbers for
Passover at about the time the siege began, which resulted in over a million
killed. This observation says little on
the validity of his over-all viewpoint.
Pentecost has little comment on these “exhortations” to
righteousness. Walvoord and I agree with
the general principle that Biblical prophecies enable us to know a lot about
the return of Christ and yet not to know enough to pin point the day and the
hour. Walvoord believes the word “take”
in 24:40-41 means “taken for judgment.”
I believe that Greek word that is used suggests “taken along with” the
Lord. This is more consistent with an
application to the Rapture. Walvoord
comments on the last section—the good and bad servants—and believes they
illustrate the principle that belief in the first coming brings about belief in
the second coming. How this applies to
this parable is not clear. I believe the
parable says more about how an expectation of the Lord’s return affects one’s
attitudes and behavior.
Pentecost understands chapter 25 to
be a continuation of the chronology that was paused at 24:31. He believes the two parables—the Virgins and
the Talents—depict the judgment of living Israel between the Second Coming and
the Millennium to determine who will enter the Kingdom. The Millennial Kingdom he equates with the
wedding feast that celebrates Christ’s marriage to the church, which took place
in heaven. The assignment of
responsibility to the successful stewards of their talents indicates that there
will be delegation of responsibility under the rulership of Christ. This principle he believes will be carried
out in a vice-regency of either David or his descendant during the Millennium.
Walvoord
believes the two parables—the Virgins and the Talents—are illustrations that
warn to be prepared for the Second Coming.
The Virgins parable does not refer to the rapture. He interprets the third servant in the
Parable of the Talents as one who did not believe in the Second Coming.
I believe these parables continue the
commentary that is found in the latter part of chapter 24. The spiritual lessons of the need for
preparedness is obvious, but whom this should be applied to is not
obvious. The Parable of the Virgins
could refer to the Rapture in the sense of warning to be spiritually prepared
without letting the secret of the Rapture (revealed by Paul) out. The parable of the talents illustrate that
God, in His grace, imparts a partnership to us in His world-wide vision of
redemption. The third servant displays
distrust in his Lord, with no hint of lack of belief in the Lord’s return.
Pentecost believes that the Sheep
and Goats Judgment is of the Gentiles living at the time of the Second Coming
to determine who will enter the Millennium.
The judgment will be based on their treatment of the 144,000
witnesses. Gentiles will experience a
submissive role within the theocratic kingdom which belongs to Israel. Walvoord believes the Sheep and Goats are
Gentiles who are judged on the basis of their treatment of the Jews during the
Tribulation period. He and Pentecost
reject this as a judgment of works, but rather believe the works illustrate
their salvation. Walvoord observes that
great faith would be required to befriend a Jew during the Tribulation.
I believe the Sheep and Goats
Judgment is also a part of Jesus’ commentary.
It illustrates one aspect of judgment—the idea the people will be held
responsible for their treatment of Christian witnesses and ministers. This passage cannot be ruled out as referring
to the Great White Throne Judgment. My
concept of Kingdom is that it the powerful rule of God to bring about
redemption of the human race. The
Kingdom includes the cross. It uses the
church as an instrument, so the church is not a parenthesis in the Kingdom plan
of God. This idea has implications for
who will be present during the 70th Week/Tribulation period.
NEXT: Parallels to Matthew 24-25
REFERENCES:
Crossway
Bibles (2009-04-09). ESV Study Bible (Kindle Locations 314241-314244). Good
News Publishers. Kindle edition.
Walvoord,
John F. (2011-09-01). Every Prophecy of the Bible: Clear Explanations for
Uncertain
Times. David C. Cook. Kindle edition.
No comments:
Post a Comment