From: Apocalyptic
and History: Matthew 24 Return to Home
By Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2013
[Page 238]
CHAPTER SEVEN:
THE GREATER COMING
THAT WAS POST FALL OF
JERUSALEM
(Matthew 24:37-44; Mark
13:33)
1. WORLD TO BE UNPREPARED AS IN NOAH’S DAY
(24:37-39)
Old Testament precedent/intended application. Not only is there Old Testament precedent for
the imagery of unpreparedness, Jesus even specifies its location--the narrative
of the destruction of the human species (except for Noah and his family) by a
devastating deluge (Genesis 6). The
text takes for granted that most individuals will be as unprepared as in that
primeval era. That also finds implicit
root in the Genesis narrative: only Noah
and his family take advantage of the opportunity of escape. Everyone else is unconcerned.
Furthermore, if there is one central
hallmark of canonical prophets it is their lack of “success.” In spite of the vigor with which they spoke,
in spite of the repetition of their message time and again, the vast bulk of
the people remained unprepared for whatever crisis the prophet had been
predicting. Hence the unpreparedness of
the people for the Lord’s return would not be anything out of [Page
239] step with prophetic precedent.
It had been typical in the past; it would remain true in this return of
Jesus in judgment, an event that the context links with the end of the world
(verse 35).
Application to second coming.
Some see in the reference to eating and drinking an allusion to
over-indulgence--excess--in such matters.[1] However the text is totally lacking any
explicit condemnation for specific forms of moral misconduct. Nor is the speaker likely to be rebuking he
enjoyment of the harmless pleasures of life.[2] Jesus Himself had attended the marriage
feast at Cana (John 3) so he was hardly in a position to condemn marrying and
giving in marriage!
What is targeted is the
allowing of such matters to blot out concern for the spiritual aspect of life,
as embodied in readiness for the second coming.
In Genesis (6:5) the depravity of the world is stressed; here that
emphasis is lacking. The world at that
end time may be depraved; it may be quite deeply concerned with moral
matters--at least as it defines such issues.
But even if the latter, society (considered as a collectivity) is
utterly unprepared to explain and justify its course before Jesus. The moral state of civilization is left
totally open: Moral, immoral, or amoral,
in all of these situations it will be unprepared to justify its conduct
before Jesus.
Fall of Jerusalem interpretative option. If one were to take this as a reference to
the more immediate danger to Jerusalem, how would the text be relevant to such
a discussion? One way would be by
stressing how that even in an ominous era, it is so easy to become preoccupied
with immediate concerns that one does not prepare for events taking a worse
turn. How many Jews stayed in Germany
until it was too late? How many Jews
stayed in adjoining Austria until after the forcible merger of the two
countries? I took a graduate class a few
years back with an elderly gentleman who was Jewish and from Austria. As soon as Hitler took power his family made
prompt arrangements to leave for safer places in the west. Such perceptive individuals were, sadly, a
minority.
Unfortunately that frame mind seems
inherent in the human species. Hence we
have every reason to believe that there were those in the Palestine of the pre-70
[Page 240] era who missed their opportunity to escape due to one rationalization
or another. They continued about their
regular daily activities until they got ground into the earth by the violence
and bloodshed that spilled over their land.
One strong argument against
interpreting the verses in a Jerusalem context is verse 39 and the emphasis on
the unawareness of the people. Jesus had
just gone to considerable length to stress that their would be
considerable warning signs of the coming fall of the city. That catastrophe was not without
warning.
On the other hand the analogy made
with the Flood stops just short of being a hundred percent conclusive. The situation implied in the Genesis text
forces us to concede this. The giant ark
is not depicted as supernaturally appearing out of nowhere; it had to be
constructed by Noah. The many years
built in erecting such an incongruous facility had to be a topic of
public conversation, debate, and derision.
By its nature it had to result in some type of teaching about it
by Noah. The New Testament depiction of
Noah as a preacher of righteousness (2 Peter 2:5) is a logical deduction from
the nature of the social situation that is taken for granted by Genesis. Hence, even in the underlying analogy with
the end time there is not quite an absolute lack of knowledge; only a
lack of heeding that knowledge.
2. MANY TO BE FOUND UNACCEPTABLE (Matthew
24:40-41)
In these verses, the emphasis is on
the fact that some would accept the message of preparedness while others would
dangerously delay the needed action.
“Then two men will be in the field; one is taken and one is left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one
is taken and one is left” (Matthew 24:40-41).
A similar urban versus farming
contrast is also found in verses 17 and 18 of this chapter. (Though a female/male distinction is
noticeably absent in the earlier verses.)
There the emphasis is upon the need for each one to take responsibility
for oneself and to flee. The implication
is that all have a reasonable chance of escaping unharmed. Here the emphasis is dramatically
different: here the emphasis is that all
will not “escape” and the one taken/one left imagery is utilized to
convey that reality.
[Page 241] Women
are introduced into the text, pursuing a typical job of theirs in that era--grinding grain into a usable form to
bake. The mill under discussion is not
the massive grinding mill towed by oxen.
Instead the reference is to the hand operated one that women utilized to
grind grain into a form where it could be utilized to bake bread.[3] One woman poured the grain and the other
moved the stone to do the crushing.[4]
Old Testament precedent. The
unpreparedness theme is continued in these verses. While before, there is a “worldwide”
perspective (as most appropriate with Noah as precedent), here it is
“localized.” Jesus speaks of small
groups of two men and women and how they will be treated differently. In the account of the Genesis flood only a
handful are counted as faithful and entered the ark that would rescue
them. Here the proportion is
fifty-fifty: one taken/one left. But the idea is the same: massive unpreparedness. Whether it be 99.9% or “only” 50%, large
parts of society is unprepared.
Jesus had already warned that “most
men’s love will grow cold” (24:12) and we examined in that context Old
Testament precedents for such dire warnings.
Those same warnings apply here as well.
Application to second coming.
In an end time context, the idea most likely would be that one of the
two is taken to heaven while one is not.
The reference to multiple locations (countryside versus apparent urban
setting) and gender (male versus female) would carry the lesson that it would
affect all individuals regardless of geographic location or sexual gender.
Although this is most probable in
light of the intended time frame, it is not without its difficulties. For one thing, the text does not identify
whether it is the “good” people who are taken or the “evil” ones.[5] For
that matter if the “evil” are left, what happens to them? Although the text does not exclude the
possibility of them being later removed for their punishment, so far as the
text directly states they are left on earth. Is their punishment to reside in a “hell on
earth”?
[Page 242] On
the other hand if it be the faithful who are left, then the idea would be of
the permanent removal of the human conveyors of the moral contagions that
pollute earth. In that approach, the
“new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells” (2 Peter 3:11-13)
is not a synonym for the “heaven” of traditional thought but alludes to such a
dramatic purifying and alteration of the earth and its inhabitants that it
becomes the permanent abode of the redeemed.
It becomes “heaven” in the sense of being the permanent home of the
faithful covenant keepers.
In spite of the possible limitations
on the certainty of our interpretation the arguments in favor of an end time
context remain the most compelling scenario.
The difficulty is not so much in presenting a reasonable interpretation
as to being sure which was in the mind of the Speaker.
Fall of Jerusalem interpretative option. George M. Lasma contends that the text refers
to events that grow out of the fall of a city and would, therefore, reasonably
apply to the fall of Jerusalem,[6]
When a town is attacked
and captured by enemies, all the young
women and men are taken captive.
The men of war are killed and the elderly
women are left behind.
Easterners respect women of old age and consider it
a sin to kill them.
Jesus predicted the fall
of Jerusalem; the holy city and the sacred
shrines were to be defiled and destroyed, the people were to fall by
the sword
and young women and men were to be carried into slavery. The invading
forces would also enter the privacy of the home. Even the young girl who sat
grinding wheat in the inside chamber would be dragged out while the
older
woman would be disregarded and left to starve and die.
This approach is also not without
difficulties. There is no adjective of
age to distinguish between those taken and those who are left. Furthermore, Lasma himself identifies those
working “in the field” (verse 40) as males.[7] According to [Page 243] him,
males were either killed or taken in capture.
Here, though, we read of one being “taken” and the other “left”;
although “left” could mean “left dead,” one would more normally assume that he
was “left alive” such as the individual who was taken was “taken alive.”
This is not to deny that the numbers
taken prisoner were unquestionably vast.
Josephus estimated that 97,000 were taken away prisoner, though he makes
no estimate of the respective number of individuals as to gender.[8]
A serious problem exists in the
Jerusalem scenario in explaining the apparent difference between the urbanites
and farmers in verses 17 and 18 as contrasted with these verses. Those earlier verses are written as if all
can escape--if they merely promptly act upon the warning of danger. Here it is explicitly stated that some will not
avoid being “taken.” Although this is
not an absolute contradiction with verses 17 and 18 since the feasibility of
all escaping is merely reasonably implied rather than being required by the
text, the tension between the two references would still be unexpected.
One means of dealing with this
difficulty would be to argue that the preceding part of the chapter refers to
the earlier stage of the Roman assault, when flight was still
feasible. At the stage depicted in these
verses that option will be available only to the most fortunate.
3. THE LESSON FOR BELIEVERS: BE READY! (Matthew 24:42-44; Mark 13:33-37;
Luke 21:34-36)
A. THE ILLUSTRATION IN MATTHEW: THE UNWARNED HOUSEHOLDER (Matthew 24:42-44)
Old Testament precedent.
To “watch” is to be alert, to be ready, to be prepared. Here again we have Jesus returning to a theme
that he had introduced earlier. In
Matthew 24:13 Jesus had warned of the need to “endure to the end,” [Page
244] which carries with it the inherent message of continuing
preparedness. Hence the Old Testament
texts introduced at that point have a relevance in the current context as well.
Both the term and the concept
of “watchfulness” are found in the Old Testament. In Proverbs 8:32-36, the imagery is of one
carefully “watching daily” at the gates of true wisdom (verse 34) so that
injury and death may be avoided (verse 36).
This imagery finds an echo in Jesus’ reminder that the alert property
owner will avoid the loss of his possessions (Matthew 24:43). Since the house is presumably occupied, the
owner thereby avoids the danger of needless injury and death, as in
Proverbs.
We may also see a foreshadowing of
the teaching in Habbakuk where the prophet writes that, “I will take my stand to
watch, and station myself on the tower and look forth to see what he will say
to me, and what I will answer concerning my complaint” (Habbakuk 2:1). Here the watchfulness is for the opportunity
to speak with God (cf. following verses).
Since it would be impossible for him to know exactly when God
would speak, Habbakuk would be in the same position as the believer in Matthew
24:42, who needs to be prepared for whenever the Lord finally acts.
Turning to the underlying concept,
we find it repeatedly presented in contexts of alertness toward one’s own
potential temptations and weaknesses.
They were to “take heed” not to even discuss the various gods who were
worshipped around them (Exodus 23:13).
Although no explicit reason is given, presumably it was lest they be
enticed into their worship. When the
people are warned in Exodus 34:12 to “take heed to yourself, lest you make a
covenant with the inhabitants of the land” this rationale is made explicit (cf.
vss. 13-16). There was a grave danger
that the pagan environment would subvert their monotheistic faith. “Take heed lest your heart [note again the
inward emphasis, rw] be deceived, and you turn aside and serve other gods and
worship them” (Deuteronomy 11:16).
Since nature abhors a vacuum not
only in the physical realm but also in the spiritual and ethical as well, the
Israelites were taught to compensate for the danger of their environment by an
intense stress upon the divine code they possessed. As [Page 245] summed
up in Joshua 22:5 the idea was to, “Take good care to observe the commandment
and the law which Moses the servant of the Lord commanded you, to love the Lord
your God, and to walk in all His ways, and to keep His commandments, and to
cleave to Him, and to serve Him with all your heart and with all your
soul.”
Outward observance was only half the
protection they needed; it had to go hand-in-hand with an inward
emotional/psychological commitment to the God of their nation, “Take good heed
to yourselves, therefore, to love the Lord your God” (Joshua 23:11). The two were complementary rather than
contradictory; when combined it would assure their whole-hearted
obedience. When separated the result
would be empty emotionalism (pseudo-love) or sterile formality (“legalism,” in
its worst sense).
To turn once again to Jesus’
remarks, He is emphasizing the danger that can be inflicted on the unprepared
under cover of night. Here it is the
danger of theft (Matthew 24:43). Job
36:20 presents an even greater danger that can come in the hours of
darkness--death, “Do not long for the night, when peoples are cut off in their
place.” If the text had been in the
singular (“person”), the image might have been that of death--either by natural
caused or by violence. The plural
(“peoples”), however, would seem to point to a broader danger, such as a city
falling to any enemy under cover of
night. Or thieves raiding a sleeping band of
traveling merchants.
Application to second coming. The exegesis of Matthew 24:42-44 is
easy in this context: be prepared and
stay prepared. The reason for it is
spelled out in the reality that, unlike the Fall of Jerusalem for which there
were ominous preliminary signs, for the return of Jesus there would be
none. He would simply return “at an hour
you do not expect” (verse 44); “you do not know on what day your Lord is
coming” (verse 42).
Fall of Jerusalem interpretative option.
These verses are especially difficult to fit into a Jerusalem
format. First of all, those in that
situation did have warnings [Page 246] the
catastrophe would occur. In the early
part of the chapter they are spelled out in detail. Furthermore, the illustration used here of a
thief breaking in is of an avoidable disaster. Indeed, the double admonition to be prepared
for it (verses 42, 44) also imply this avoidability. As depicted in the text leading up to verse
34, the Jerusalem disaster was inevitable.
The parallel account in Luke 21 has
been appealed to as evidence that this section relates to the fall of
Jerusalem.[9] In Luke 21-34:36 there is the admonition that
early believers not “be weighed down with dissipation and drunkenness and cares
of this life and that day come upon you suddenly like a snare.” Instead they are to “watch at all times,
praying that you may have strength to escape all these things that will take
place, and to stand before the Son of Man.”
Since this is an allegedly obvious reference to the fall of Jerusalem
and since it concludes the account, then Matthew’s concluding words should also
be interpreted as referring to the fall of Jerusalem.
Although both texts stress the need
to be watchful (prepared), a mere comparative reading of Matthew 24:42-44 and
Luke 21:34-36 shows that the development of the theme is entirely
different. In Luke the emphasis is on
watchfulness against our own human weaknesses (Luke 21:34); in Matthew 24 the
illustration of watchfulness against other people (the potential thief)
is used to drive home the same message of preparedness for the second
coming. Although found in the broad
context of the same sermon, what we have is a different and additional argument
to drive home the same message of preparedness.
Assuming two different events (Jerusalem versus end time) are under
discussion in the two texts, because of this fact it proves nothing, one way or
another, as to the intent of Matthew 24:42-44.
All the two texts have in common is the element of watchfulness; nothing
beyond that. That plea would be relevant
to both the fall of Jerusalem and the second coming as well and
could appropriately be discussed in both contexts.
Furthermore, it is far from certain
that even in Luke the reference is to the fall of Jerusalem. In that book, the admonition comes after the
shift from the short term (“this generation will not pass away till all has
taken place”) to the long term [Page 247]
(the passing away of “heaven and earth”) (verses 32-33). Hence the same transition from Jerusalem
to a far more distant event is also introduced. What is lacking is Matthew’s reference to no
one knowing the day and hour of that event.
Yet, even lacking that, one can reasonably expect that the frame of
reference has shifted to that a much latter time. And in Matthew 24 that event is identified at
length as the final coming of Jesus.
Hence, it is likely that the same time period is under discussion
and that both accounts present differing parts of Jesus’ admonition to
watchfulness. In Luke it is grounded in
personal weakness and in Matthew in the danger it holds if one is unprepared. Hence supplemental arguments are being made
to make even strong the case for personal alertness.
B. THE ILLUSTRATION IN MARK: THE LEADING SERVANT WHO BECOMES BLIND TO HIS
RESPONSIBILITIES DUE TO THE PASSAGE OF TIME (Mark 13:33-37)
Unlike Matthew--who introduces the
precedent of the Noahanic flood and the odd reference to one being taken and
one left--Mark immediately passes from the unknowability of the final hour
(Mark 13:32) to the need for constant preparation for it because of its
unknowability. Hence, in a straight
beginning to end reading of Mark we have nothing to distract from the division
of the text between short term (fall of Jerusalem: Mark 13:5-30), a transition section pointing
out the shift in time frame (Mark 13:30-32) to long term (Mark 13:33-37). Hence it is even clearer on the matter than
Matthew because it lacks the unexpted taken/left reference.
Mark leaves out any mention of the
broken in home as a warning to alertness that is found in Matthew
24:43-43. Instead, he immediately passes
to the parallel of a master who has left on a journey and left various servants
in charge of different responsibilities and how important it was for them to be
ready for whatever hour of the day or night he ultimately returned (Mark
13:34-37). This story reminds one of the
story that follows next in Matthew 24: 45-51:
there again servants are left behind with certain responsibility, but in
Matthew a distinctive “twist” is added [Page 248] concerning
the servant who misuses his liberty of action provided by the master being away
to take advantage of others. That
servant is threatened with the severest punishment when the master returns
(Matthew 24:50-51).
This is completely lacking in Mark’s
parable: In Mark the story is starkly
simple, you are like a servant left to manage on your own--accept that
responsibility and opportunity and be prepared for the master’s return. In contrast, in Matthew, the premise is taken
one step further--but don’t you dare take advantage of others for as sure as your
master will return he will punish you for it.
The emphasis on four different times
of the night (evening, midnight, cockrow, morning) fits in well with the theme
that the parousia could potentially come at any time. Nothing is ruled out. The Romans were used to keep four night
watches such as alluded to in the text,[10]
while the Jewish custom was three[11] and
an allusion to either would have made the same point.[12]
The closing word is literally an
emphatic “Watch!” “The Greek word
indicates a call not to be surprised or unprepared, not to be caught off guard,
not to be insensitive to the situation at hand.”[13] There is always the danger that only veneer of faithfulness will be found
there, but not the substance. Of being
“faithful” but not “dedicated.”[14]
C. THE ILLUSTRATION IN LUKE: THE PERPETUAL DANGER OF INDIVIDUAL HUMAN
WEAKNESS UNDERMINING PREPARATION (Luke 21:34-36)
As in Matthew, Mark’s reference to
one being taken and one left is omitted in Luke’s recounting. Also missing (again as in Mark), is Matthew’s
reference to the unpreparedness of the world in the age of Noah as precedent
for its unreadiness for the final end.
Luke shifts immediately from the reality of the heavens and earth eventually
passing away and the abiding authoritativeness of Jesus’ message (Luke
21:32-33) to the abiding need to be psychologically prepared and to reign in
those [Page 249] self-destructive temptations that would
destroy that readiness. Matthew presents
this need through the example of the chief servant who yields to his baser
desires and becomes a plague on his fellow servants. In Luke there is no mention that one might
have a lower or higher status. Instead
the emphasis is upon human weakness as a danger in and of itself.
The danger is pictured as coming
from more than one direction:
“dissipation and drunkenness and cares of this life” (Luke 21:34). The first two may grow out of self-hatred--as
is so often the case in our world--or may be the result of the “cares of this
life” overwhelming one. Even if the
worries and difficulties of living do not drive one to such excesses, they may
still gut one’s individual spirituality to the point where only an empty shell
is left. That person, the implied
warning is clear, will be as unprepared for the return of Jesus as the one in
open sin and rebellion.
“Dissipation” renders the sole New
Testament usage of a word that literally means “drinking-bout.”[15] “Partying to excess” might be our
contemporary equivalent concept.
Presumably the difference here between “dissipation” and “drunkenness”
is either that the former is a periodic binge while the latter is an on-going
lifestyle or that the former is the means of accomplishing the latter.[16]
As Jesus’ words are recounted in
this text, there is no magic solution to the problem of self-destructiveness
and despair. To the extent that a
solution is to be found it will be through “praying that you may have strength
to escape” all the evils life can bring on (Luke 21:36). Our modern world has provided various
medications and therapies that can assist in overcoming one’s own physical and
emotional weakness. Even in our
technologically advanced age, however, there is an intangible something that
still gnaws away at the inner psyche and which prayer remains an essential
component for healing. Otherwise one has
only hidden the problem or placed a figurative band aid over it.
The message of all three gospel
accountings of Jesus’ apocalyptic message is that harm, hurt, and injury can
come. But it is also that they can be
triumphed over.
[Page 250]
[2]Johnson, 553.
[3]Morris, 615, and Newman and Stine,
757.
[4]Bruce, Hard Sayings of Jesus,
232. Boles, 474, argues that the two
women would be jointly pushing it at the same time, which would imply one of
moderate size.
[5]Williams, 442.
[6]George M. Lasma, Gospel Light: Comments on the Teachings of Jesus from
Aramaic and Unchanged Eastern Customs (Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company, 1936), 136. For a similar view, from a much earlier
date, see John J. Owen, 326.
[7]Lasma, 135.
[8]Wars VI:9:3.
[9]Dawson, [n.p.]
[10]Mitton, 107.
[11]Lane, 483.
[Page 251] [12]Augustine Stock, The Method and Message
of Mark (Wilmington, Delaware:
Michael Glazier, 1989), 346-347, believes all four watches are specified
to prepare the reader for the betrayal of Jesus that follows: In the evening He has the last Supper;
around midnight He is arrested; at cockcrow Peter denies him, and
in the morning the trial is held.
On the other hand it makes a perfectly fine point in its own right
without such considerations entering the picture.
[13]Mitzi Minor, The Spirituality of
Mark: Responding to God (Louisville,
Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press,
1996), 70.
[14]Cf. Donald H. Juel, A Master of
Surprise: Mark Interpreted
(Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press,
1994), 85.
[15]Johnson, 329.
[16]I. Howard Marshall, 782, suggests that, in addition to its literal meaning, the warning was also a “metaphorical warning [of] disciples against succumbing to the intoxicating attractions of the sinful world.”