From: Apocalyptic
and History: Matthew 24 Return to Home
By Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2013
[Page 226]
CHAPTER SIX:
TRANSITION:
FROM NEAR FUTURE
TO INDEFINITE FUTURE
(Matthew 24:34-36; Mark 24:30-32; Luke
21:32-33)
As presented at length in the
beginning of this study, we understand these three verses as constituting the
pivot of the chapter. All that went
before describe the immediate tragedy of the fall of Jerusalem. All that comes afterwards (including chapter
25) points to the indefinite future, to that unknowable time when Jesus returns
and the purposes of this physical earth are no longer needed. “The end of the world” in the traditional
interpretation of the expression.
1. PREVIOUSLY DESCRIBED EVENTS IN THE NEAR
FUTURE/THE
THEN-LIVING GENERATION (Matthew
24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32)
The importance of the preceding
prediction to those listening is stressed even more emphatically, “Truly, I say
to you, this generation will not pass away till all [Page 227] these
things take place.” The reading has only
minor superficial differences in the three recountings.
The verse not merely indicates that
the events will take place soon, it asserts both imminency and drives the theme
home even harder by stressing the current generation. The themes of imminency and this generation
fulfillment were ones ripe with Old Testament precedent.
For example, the punishment of
Israel for mutinous unbelief was that they would be unable to conquer the
Promised Land. This punishment was not
one reserved for some distant retribution but one coming upon the then living
generation (Numbers 32:8-13; Deuteronomy 2:14-15). Much of the prophetic literature of the Old
Testament contained thundering warnings of the imminence of God bringing
nations against Israel. Although the terminology
of “this generation” is lacking, essentially the same concept is
presented.
Much has been written about the
meaning of the words “this generation” in Matthew 24:33. Six basic interpretations have been
suggested:
1.
It has been interpreted as asserting that the Jewish people would not
die out before the end of the world.[1] This approach has been criticized on the
grounds that though the underlying Greek word might have the sense of
“race” or “nation” in some places, there is none where it is clearly required
or necessary.[2] Others scoff at even the possibility,
arguing that “there is no linguistic evidence to substantiate” the approach.[3] Richard B. Gardner suggests that even if the
term generation could sometimes refer to ethnic Israel, the use of the term in
this gospel (11:16 and 12:38-42 in particular) exclude it as being the idea
intended in this context.[4]
The Jewish people had already
survived some two thousand years since Abraham.
After such an extended period of time, to assert that they would survive
until the end of the world would seem to be little more than an empty truism. It would have been taken for granted. Furthermore, taken this way it really conveys
no information at all. As F. F. Bruce
asks, “[W]hat point would there be in such a vague prediction? It would be as much as to say, ‘At some time
in the indefinite future all these things will take place.’ ”[5]
[Page 228] Most
important is the fact that what has been narrated before does not refer
to end world events at all. This
approach runs contrary to the interpretive framework asserted implicitly and
explicitly by the text itself.
Furthermore, interpreting the preceding text as referring to the Fall of
Jerusalem yields quite credible results as we look for events that might have
been alluded to. With only modest
exception, the events (at the absolute minimum, parallel or similar events) can
either be documented or are overwhelmingly probable within that time
frame. To project it all into the yet
distant future only introduces needless complication into a framework that
performs quite adequately and best matches the apparent intent of the text
itself.
2.
Some extend the expression from an ethnic allusion to a species
one: “the human family” will not vanish
before these things occur.[6] Why would such a prolonged description of
tragedy be relevant to human beings unless they existed when it happened? The very rationale for the text’s existence
requires the human species to be in existence; it would be a mere (empty?)
restating of the obvious.
3.
The verse has been taken to mean that all the events will occur in the
same generation, but not as specifying when that generation would
be. It will be that unpredictable final
generation of the human race.[7] The wording of the text, however, clearly
is such that the contemporary listeners would have taken it as alluding to their
lifetimes. In light of the quite
adequate interpretation that approach yields, this alternative is also
superfluous.
4.
A moral spin is suggested by those who contend that Jesus is teaching
that a people like that current generation (rebellious, sign seeking,
evil) will never pass away until Jesus returns.[8]
As precedent Robert H. Gundry argues that Matthew 23:35-36 includes in
“this generation” those who had killed Zechariah many hundreds of years
previously: “you” murdered them; hence,
this generation included those of Zechariah’s day.[9] Matthew 23:35-36, however, does not assert
that “this generation” killed Zechariah, only that Divine judgment was
coming upon “this generation” for deeds of that kind: what was going on had happened before and it
was now time for the postponed Divine reckoning.
Attempting to define “this
generation” as equivalent to the church puts a positive moral spin on the
theory,[10] but
is no more compelling.
[Page 229] 5. Yet another approach is to read the verse as
saying that a sufficient amount would be immediately fulfilled to prove
that all would ultimate occur. This was
the approach of John Calvin,[11] The text makes no claim, however, to be
covering all of history. Indeed, it is
only marginally church-ocentric. It is
actually dealing with the dangers of Palestine in the first century and, only
secondarily, the lessons for Christians of the day to learn from those dangers.
In a related approach, some
interpret it as referring only to the beginning of sufferings that would
occur in the then living generation, “that is, the events described in
24:6-26.”[12] Placement of verse 34 after verse 26 would
make this quite credible; since it occurs much later, such a limitation is very
unlikely.
6.
The most natural interpretation remains the one most easily obtained
from a reading of the text: It prefers
to the generation then living.
Barring the most pressing of reasons--or extraordinarily good direct
evidence--the meaning should be interpreted within that framework. Especially when verses 34-36 are stressing
the contrast between promptly to-be-fulfilled events and ones for the far
distant future. The clincher is that the
text does yield an adequate interpretation fully consistent with typical
Old Testament rhetoric and the events of the first century as well.
2. IN CONTRAST, THE DATE OF THE ULTIMATE PASSING
AWAY OF THE VISIBLE WORLD IS UNKNOWABLE (Matthew 24:35-36; Mark 13:31-32; Luke
21:33)
Until now, the Matthewean text has
concerned itself with events contemporaries would live to see. At this point the text changes emphasis and
contrasts those painful events that generation would live through with the
promise (and warning) of end time events, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but
my words will not pass away. But of
that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but
the Father only” (Matthew 24:35-36)
[Page 230] Luke
omits all reference to the unknowability of the date of the final end. In Matthew it is affirmed that angels are
unaware of it and many manuscripts add, “nor the Son.” The lack of the words in some manuscripts has
led the genuineness to be questioned, and it is common to believe that the
reason for the omission was the ambivalence or hostility of copiers to the
doctrine being taught. Oddly enough the
gospel usually regarded as the oldest (i.e., Mark) has the same words and they
are unchallenged on textual grounds. If
this priority be granted, then this is an example of how the earliest sources of
Christ’s life had no difficulty in affirming ideas that might be a stumbling
block to the next generation. It also
argues for their conscious desire to maintain an accurate and reliable written
record regardless of whether they had or did not have personal sympathy
toward a concept being discussed.
Old Testament precedent. The Torah presents itself as
binding upon both the immediate and following generations. In the prophets we find possible allusions to
the ending of the world. Admittedly,
apocalyptic rhetoric being applied to events of this world makes it far more
difficult to determine whether the language is “really” there or merely verbal
precedent for a greater “literalism” on the subject in the New Testament.
The imagery of teaching (“words”)
not passing away carries with it the idea of abiding authority. For example, the message of God is described
in Isaiah 40:3, “The grass withers, the flower fades: but the word of our God will stand for ever.” (In 1 Peter 1:23-15 that Isaiahian text is
applied to the gospel preached by the early Christians.)
The rabbis were well aware of this
doctrine of “permanent” authoritativeness.
As one of them wrote, “Everything has its end, the heavens and earth
have their end; only one thing is excepted which has no end, and that is the
Law.”[13] The fact that Jesus’ words would remain
binding even beyond the current world was an assertion of their
authoritativeness not mere equal to that attributed to the Mosaical system then
being followed, but actually superior.
Hence one may [Page 231] fairly say that not only are Jesus’ words
inherently true but that in a very real sense they are “more firm than creation
itself.”[14] An astounding assertion of authoritativeness.
In the current context of Matthew,
however, the most important element is the strange introduction of
“unknowability.” In spite of all the
claims to Jesus’ authority and even supernaturalness that are scattered
throughout the four gospels, here we have an explicit assertion of something beyond
His knowledge. He simply doesn’t
know it.
This is not without Old Testament
precedent: By and large the Torah and
the prophets stress the immediate relevance of their contents to their day and
age. Even so there are a few places
where facts and information are knowingly withheld, though it is of interest
that the fact is clearly stated rather than leaving the reader
constantly wondering where and when the phenomena has occurred. These are presented as matters God does not
intend for the human race to know. If
not permanently, then at least for a period of time.
In Deuteronomy 29:29 Moses is
presented as warning Israel, “The secret things belong to the Lord our God; but
the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children for ever, that we
may do all the words of this law.” Here the
text apparently has in mind a permanent withholding.
In Daniel 12:8-9, however, the
withholding is in regard to the understanding of Daniel’s prophecy and is
presented as one that will eventually come to an end, “I heard, but I did not
understand. Then I said, ‘O my lord,
what shall be the issue of these things?’
He said, ‘Go your way, Daniel, for the words are shut up and sealed
until the time of the end.” Those who do
finally grasp the point God was driving at will do so because of their
spiritual purity and receptivity, “Many shall purify themselves, and make
themselves white, and be refined; but the wicked shall do wickedly; and none of
the wicked shall understand; but those who are wise shall understand” (verse
10).
Isaiah’s vision is also described as a
sealed book, “And the vision of all this has become to you like the words of a
book that is sealed. When men give it to
one who can read, saying, ‘Read this,’ he says, ‘I cannot, for it is sealed.’ And when they [Page 232] give
the book to one who cannot read, saying, ‘Read this,’ he says, ‘I cannot read.’
” (Isaiah 29:11-12). Once again, the
inability to understand is described as rooted in the spiritual lack of the
listener/reader (verses 13-14).
The “vision” under discussion
(29:11) could refer to the immediately preceding chapters. Most commentators who explicitly state an
opinion, prefer to make it a broader reference including the entire book up to
this point.[15] The first person handed the scroll is an
individual who is literate, but he is prevented from opening it because of the
seal on the document (29:11). These are
the ones who have “the technical skills to understand” but who fail to do so
because of a lack of “spiritual insight.”[16] In contrast are the illiterate who have no
hope for understanding because they do not even have the rudimentary abilities
that are essential. Both are frustrated
but for very different reasons. The
latter could overcome their inability through study, but there has never been a
method of study that guaranteed that the former could overcome their equally
serious weakness.
In Isaiah 29:11-14 the imagery of a
sealed scroll is used to rebuke those who could not grasp the meaning: either due to their learning outdistancing
their insight or due to sheer lack of ability to read the words in the first
place. In Daniel 12, the imagery is
shifted to that which can not be understood at all because the information has
been hidden from one and all. In Isaiah
the rebuke is on the reader/listener; in Daniel the warning is don’t even make
the attempt--it will do you no good. The
text will only begin to make sense at “the time of the end” (Daniel 12:9), when
they finally occur. They will be grasped
retroactively rather than anticipated in advance.
In Matthew 24 and Mark 13 the
inability to derive a valid conclusion as to when Jesus returns is not due to
lack of moral insight or skill, as was the case in Daniel and Isaiah. Rather it is, like in Deuteronomy, because
God has kept the information strictly within His province and has refused to
reveal it at any time to any one.
“Nor the Son”
[Page 233]
In spite of the apparent
explicitness of the text, it is not uncommon to find efforts to prove that
Jesus really did--somehow--have knowledge of the date. One means of doing so is immediately ruled
out. Although the phrase is omitted
from some ancient manuscripts of Matthew (not so of the Markian parallel),[17] the words are found in so many that they do
not deserve rejection on grounds of lack of documentation[18]--though
the divided evidence does lead some translations to make note of the fact.
Accepting the legitimacy of the
textual reading, the perceived incompatibility between this and the attribution
of various traits of deityship to Jesus in the four gospels, has been resolved
in different manners. As early as the
fifty century, Gregory the Great interpreted it to mean that Jesus was not
permitted to reveal the information, not that it was literally and absolutely
unknown to Him.[19] Acts 1:7 is cited in vindication of that
claim.[20] Acts 1, however only refers to what “the
Father” knows concerning the future and neither asserts nor denies what “the
Son” knows.
Others take it as simply meaning
that Jesus declined to exercise His omniscience on this question.[21] Yet others see it as one of those
limitations Jesus labored under while in human form but which was removed after
the resurrection.[22] In other words, it was voluntary, temporary
ignorance due to His partaking of a human nature.[23] One wonders why it would have been limited
to this one particular area, however.
Why should there be a reluctance to
accept such a modest knowledge limitation as is asserted in Matthew 24, even in
a strict Jesus = deity interpretation of His nature? If the New Testament can picture Jesus as
being made king by the Father and eventually returning the
kingdom to the Father (1 Corinthians 15), then in at least some areas there are
differences in function and authority.
Why should it be odd if there be a few differences in withheld
knowledge/information as well? The
“equality” of Jesus with God depicted in the New Testament is that of a shared
deityship; a possession of that nature or essence that is identical--there is
nothing incompatible between that and what is depicted in the current text.
[Page 234] Verse
36 implies a vigorous warning against prophetic speculationists of our
era. Jesus had available to Him the
scroll of the book of Daniel. If Jesus
could not deduce from that book (or any other Torah or prophetic text) the
exact date of the ultimate end, who are we to do such? Are we better scriptural exegetes on such
matters than Jesus? Although those
accepting only a naturalistic Jesus might assume such for themselves, those
most liable to such date setting are among those claiming the highest
theoretical belief in Jesus’ supernaturalness.
If applied to the fall of Jerusalem,
Jesus’ denial of knowing the day and hour has been applied to the very narrow
idea of not knowing the exact day and hour.[24] But why even take the time to deny knowledge
of “anything so incredibly trivial?”[25] Indeed, why would the Father provide to Him
all the details except the final one? If
so many repeated signs were to warn the disciples of the events imminence, it
is hard to imagine a reason for Jesus to be denied knowledge of the specific
timing. In contrast, if the ultimate
parousia is the event depicted only in the broad brush strokes of the remainder
of the chapter, an explanation is far more forthcoming: there would be no obvious and clear
cut signs of that event--unlike those that would precede the Jerusalem
catastrophe.
[1]de Dietrich, 128. Cf. Hendriksen, 943. For a lengthy list of commentators who have
applied the expression “generation” to the Jews as an ethnic group, see Michael
Sours, The Prophecies of Jesus (Oxford, England: Oneworld Publications, Limited, 1991), 141,
footnote 150.
[2]Cf. the remarks of Broadus, 491-492. Though the underlying word genea is
used in the Greek language of papyri in the sense of “family” (Guthrie, 796) there is still a
considerable jump from this to that of an entire “ethnic group/family/race”
covering both now and into the indefinite future.
[4]Gardner, 347.
[5]Bruce, Hard Sayings of Jesus, 226.
[6]Obach and Kirk, Luke, 216, place
this possibility on a par with the strictly Jewish interpretation.
[7]Keener, 346. Cf.
Karris, 238. Differently worded
but with the same idea apparently in mind is Stephenson Humphries-Brooks,
“Matthew,” in The Gospels, edited by Walter E. Mills, et. al., in the Mercer
Commentary on the Bible (Macon, Georgia:
Mercer University Press, 1996), 47.
[8]Bock, 343; Browning, 152; Danker, 338;
Johnson, 328; Tolbert, 268; Sharon H. Ringe, Luke, in the Westminster
Bible Companion series (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), 254.
[9]Gundry,
Matthew, 491.
[10]A. Irvine Robertson, Lessons, 116.
[11]Calvin, 382.
[12]Patte, 341.
[13]As quoted by Evans, 314.
[15]For example, Peter D. Miscall, Isaiah
(Sheffield, England: JSOT
Press/Sheffield Academic Press, 1993) 76;
John D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1-33, in the Word Biblical Commentary
series (Waco, Texas: Word Books,
Publisher, 1985), 386; Edward J. Young, The Book of Isaiah, Volume
Two: Chapters 19-39, in the New
International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,
1969), 317.
[16]Oswalt, 532. Cf. J. Ridderbos, Isaiah, translated
by John Vriend, in the Bible Student’s Commentary series (Grand Rapids
Michigan: Regency Reference
Library/Zondervan Publishing House, 1985), 234.
[17]Filson, 258.
[18]Ellison, 167; Johnson, 552.
[19]See quotation of the text in Brunner,
880.
[20]Adam, 88.
[21]See quotation in Brunner, 880. This is also the approach of Gundry, Matthew,
492.
[22]Calvin, for example; cf. Brunner, 880.
[23]McGarvey and Pendleton, 632.
[24]Owen, 325.