Matthew 24: an analysis

[Ted]

To all,

The post that follows is an analysis of Matthew 24 from a structural (subject) perspective. It has gone through several stages of discussion and review by several experts in Greek, including at least three professors of Greek exegesis. One reviewer (not a professor) called it "idiosyncratic." The professors have offered a variety of responses, all of which have basically been favorable, ranging from "straight-forward" to "defensible" to "brilliant."

I'd love to claim the last as a universal assessment (who wouldn't?), but I'm sure that you will have your own assessments to add. Without further ado, Here it is.

Ted

***

Matthew 24: A Structural Analysis
Ted Noel
Richard Noel

Thesis:
The Olivet Discourse as presented in the Gospel of Matthew is a response by Christ to two separate questions from His disciples. It addresses both near and far events. The disciples may not have understood that the questions were about separate issues. Christ’s response clearly addresses two separate issues. They are separate and distinct in both subject and time of fulfillment.

Synopsis:
The Olivet Discourse, particularly as presented in the Gospel of Matthew, appears to present the interpreter with a difficult problem. In particular, Matthew 24:34 appears to require that every element of the Discourse be fulfilled within the lifetime of the generation that heard Jesus speak. Matthew 24:29 appears to require that the Day of the Lord be fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem. Numerous critics have pointed to these difficulties as an excuse to regard Christianity as a false belief system, since elements of the Discourse “clearly” have not been fulfilled within the prescribed time, implying that Jesus was a false prophet.

The best-known systematic approach to the resolution of the “problem of non-fulfillment” is Preterism, which basically declares that all of the Discourse was fulfilled in the AD70 destruction of Jerusalem, within one generation of its delivery. Other systems, such as Dispensationalism, have not to my knowledge presented a detailed analysis of the Discourse that resolves the difficulty of “this generation.” Instead, they tend to rely on arguments about the semantic domain of genea while ignoring contextual issues. If context is considered, it is asserted that “this generation” is the generation that sees the signs of the parousia Jesus described. Historicism has done little better. Of note here is the fact that ancient interpreters, in particular the Ante-Nicene Fathers, appear to be completely unaware of our modern difficulty.

The currently available explanations are generally unsatisfying. This paper will attempt to resolve the “problem of non-fulfillment” by means of structural analysis based on the semantic elements of the Discourse, separating it into near and far components. A critical translation issue will be addressed.

This paper will not deal substantially with the parallel accounts in the Gospels of Mark and Luke. Nor will it attempt a detailed exegesis of the prophecy.

Analysis:
The Olivet Discourse was delivered by a native Aramaic speaker, but was recorded in Greek. Therefore, we may be certain that when the Holy Spirit inspired the apostolic writer, He led him to a careful choice of words in this second language. In particular, the Greek words telos and sunteleia are of interest. Both of these words properly translate “end,” or “conclusion.” They come from the same root word. But there is a nuance of meaning missing from this bare definition.

Telos differs from sunteleia primarily in the addition of the prefix sun- (or syn- in some references) to the root. This prefix denotes a “combining together,” and will be illustrated later. At this point it is sufficient to note that if there were no substantive difference between telos and sunteleia in Greek, there would be no substantial reason to use both forms in the Greek account of the Discourse. This suggests that the author’s use of these two forms is intended to convey a substantive difference in meaning.

The Discourse begins with the disciples admiring the Temple in 24:1. Jesus responds that, “all these things… will be torn down” (24:2). So far, there can be no dispute as to the subject of conversation. “All these things” (panta tauta) describes the Temple and its surroundings. The parallel accounts in Mark and Luke confirm this. The disciples respond, “When shall these things (tauta) be?” (24:3). Once again, there is no dispute as to the subject of the query. It is the Temple.

If the disciples had stopped there, there would be nothing to dispute. But they didn’t. They asked another question, “What shall be the sign of your coming (parousia) and of the end (sunteleia) of the age?” This has led to a raging debate. Is that really a second question? Or is it a continuation of the first? Did the disciples expect the ultimate denouement of history with the deliverance of Israel (cf. Acts 1:6) to happen at the time of the destruction of the Temple? Curiously, the parallel accounts record a slightly different question that does not lead to this argument, so they offer no help here.

At this point, we must interject a brief note about the phrase “end of the age” (sunteleia tou aionōs). Jesus also uses this exact phrase in Matthew 13:49 and 28:20. In chapter 13 it describes the time when the angels remove the saints from the earth and throw the wicked into fire. In chapter 28, Jesus says that He will be with the apostles “always, even unto the end of the age.” Since we know that John lived past AD70 (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2:22:5), either the end of the age was after AD70, or Jesus was no longer with John after AD70. Since the latter option is ludicrous, the end of the age is at some point after AD70, at least in Jesus’ mind. Since He had used the phrase to teach the disciples long before the Olivet Discourse (Matt 13:49), we may be confident that the disciples were using it the with the same meaning that Jesus did. That is, “the end of the age” specifically refers to a time when God’s universal judgment rewards the saints and punishes the wicked.

On the other hand, it is quite likely that the disciples did misunderstand what Jesus was trying to teach them. After all, they had misunderstood many things in the past, and would continue to misunderstand until Pentecost. Their misunderstanding would lead them to ask a two-part question in 24:3, thinking both parts were integral to the same issue. Jesus’ answer, on the other hand, is not necessarily constrained by their confusion. (Of course, by the time of writing, the apostolic author had experienced the anointing of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, and did clearly understand.)

Jesus responds to the disciples with a direct, personal instruction, “See to it that no one misleads you” (24:4). The Greek is quite clear that His statement is directed to the disciples, not some later, unidentified group. Thus, we may be certain that whatever He is discussing is germane to the disciples. And in verse 6, we see the first appearance of telos.

Jesus explains that there would be false Christs and wars, but this is not the telos. These signs to be seen by the disciples are leading to something different from the sunteleia they asked about in verse 3. They aren’t harbingers of Jesus’ parousia. His arrival to reward the saints and punish the wicked (cf. 13:39) isn’t in view. This is our first verbal separation between AD70 and Jesus’ parousia.

Through verse 9 we see the recurrent use of “you” (2nd person plural) indicating that the discussion is still up close and personal. Verse 10 begins with “at that time” (tote), again indicating a continuation of events that the disciples will see.

In English, verse 13 appears to many to be directed to a parousia in the distant future, even though it is tied verbally to the near events. In fact, it is presented as the immediate result of those near events, so we must look at it carefully.

Matthew 24:13 But the one who endures to the end, he shall be saved.

What is “the end?” Is it the “end of the age” (24:3), as the distant future view seems to require? “The end” here is telos, not sunteleia. When used as it is here, it speaks of the conclusion of a single series of events.

In a modern parallel, a presidential candidate will campaign in order to be elected. His election is the telos of his campaign. In contrast, hundreds of election campaigns could lead to the assumption of power by a party different from the one in office. This would be the sunteleia, or consummation of a large number of series of events. It is the “combining together.”1

This contrast shows us that verse 13 is not referring to “the consummation of the age,” but to “these things,” that is, the destruction of Jerusalem. In other words, the one who endures as God’s servant through all the troubles listed in the preceding verses will be saved. In this context, we may propose a dual understanding of “saved.” Beginning in verse 15, we see a discussion of the flight of Christians from Jerusalem. The explicitly local language in verse 16 confirms this. Tradition tells us that God’s people were saved from the horrible events of AD70 when they fled to Pella in AD66 after Cestius Gallius withdrew his armies from Jerusalem (cf. Luke 21:20).

In a different sense, we may be reasonably assured that any church member who had gone through all the events leading to AD66 would also have developed faith to continue with Christ the rest of his life. But an odd question remains.

Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a witness to all the nations, and then the end shall come.

Many evangelicals have used this verse as a rallying cry to spread the gospel to the far reaches of the globe before an expected future parousia. They place it in parallel with the Great Commission in Matthew 28:17-18. But the “end” in this verse (contra Matt 28:20) is telos, not sunteleia. Thus, if the semantic analysis we have done so far is correct, the terminus ad quem for this statement is the destruction of Jerusalem, not the parousia. Further, it means that every line of Jesus’ Discourse so far has been devoted to the issue of AD70. He has not departed on any side discussions.

Excursus on the Gospel as a Witness
Some may question to what the gospel can witness. Everywhere else in scripture a person is the witness. And two-witness theology runs through scripture, particularly in the New Testament where Jesus provides a number of witnesses to His death, burial, and resurrection (Acts 1:7, 1 Cor 15:1-8). But the gospel stands as a witness to something that Jesus does not explicitly identify. Space does not allow a full discussion of this issue, so a brief summary will have to suffice.

God chose Abraham and his descendants as His missionaries (Gen 12:3). He provided them with a location where every nation would have contact with them through trade (Gen 48:16, Deut 28:10). He gave them the ministry of prophets and miracles. But when the greatest prophet of all (Matt 21:11, John 4:19) came to them, the physical children of Abraham rejected Him (John 1:11). They had been given a set period of time to come into conformity with the covenant (Dan 9:24), and they failed. So in AD34, Stephen, acting as God’s prosecuting attorney, brought a covenant lawsuit against the Jews. They lost their birthright blessing (cf. Exod 4:22), and it passed to the church (Luke 12:32), a nation producing the fruit of it (Matt 21:43).

The gospel, spread by the church, was not simply a message of redemption. It was an announcement that salvation was not longer “from the Jews” (cf. John 4:22). The physical Temple in Jerusalem was no longer important (cf. Matt 27:51) in God’s economy. Once that message had been “proclaimed in all creation under heaven” (Col 1:23), God could execute judgment on rebellious Jews and destroy the Temple, providing the second witness that Christians should not regard the Jewish Temple services as having continuing redemptive importance. Shortly after Paul penned those words, Jerusalem was destroyed.

Continuing…
Returning to the text, verses 15-16 speak of the disciples, giving a warning of a prophesied event that marks the time to “flee Judea.” Verses 17-18 warn that this exit must be expeditious. Verse 19 echoes the curse of Deuteronomy 28:56-57 and clearly applies to the tribulation declared in verses 21-22. And we may note from Josephus’ account that if the siege of Jerusalem had been extended, it is likely that “no life would have been saved” (v. 22).

In verse 23 Jesus begins a set of directions regarding false Christs and false prophets. They will be at one place or another, declaring that they are the promised parousia. They are not to be believed “because” (v. 27) the parousia will be visible everywhere. We should note that the emphasis in verse 27 is not on the speed of the parousia, but on its universal visibility.

Verse 28 echoes an Old Testament curse on God’s enemies, declaring that they will be eaten by birds rather than being buried (Deut 28:26, Job 39:30, Ezek 39:17, Hab 1:8). And it brings us to a translation problem. The Greek is:

Eutheōs de meta tēn thlipsin tōn hēmerōn ekeinōn ho hēlios skotisthēsetai kai hē selēnē ou dōsei to phellos autēs kai hoi asters pesountai apo tou ouranou kai hai dunameis tōn ouranōn saleuthēsantai

Translated traditionally, verse 29 reads:

But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give her light and the stars will fall from the heaven and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.

(to part 2)

[Ted]

(part 2)

Bible students will readily recognize the Old Testament signs of the Day of the Lord in this verse. If we accept the common reading, it says that “immediately” after the troubles leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem, the Day of the Lord will come. That is, the destruction is the Day of the Lord. Of course, that means that the gathering of the saints (v. 31) had to happen in AD70 as well.

This presents a serious problem to all Christians. Preterists suggest that all this was fulfilled at AD70. Ed Stevens goes so far as to declare that the parousia was complete in AD70 in Expectations Demand a First Century Rapture (Bradford, PA: International Preterist Association, 2003). But the “event” Stevens proposes is not testified to by any witness still extant. And that is contrary to scripture’s call for us to determine the truth from “the mouth of two or three witnesses.”

If we look at the writings of the ante-Nicene Fathers, they are almost completely silent on this issue. Cyprian quotes a large section of Matthew 24 in Treatise 11 (in Greek, of course, including verse 29), but makes no exegetical comment on verse 29. I have found no other writer of that era that even says as much as Cyprian. This suggests that these native Greek speakers and writers were completely unaware of the difficulty we are wrestling with. And that suggests that we need to look at the Greek again.
The word eutheōs is the crux of the matter. It appears 36 times in the New Testament, and is commonly translated “immediately.” But this translation presents a problem. It misses a nuance of the Greek that is absent in English. Greek is far more concerned with the quality of action than English, which is often concerned with timing. For example, the aorist tense speaks of action with continuing consequences beginning at an unspecified point in time.

Eutheōs conveys the idea of “suddenness” or “quickness.” It is not concerned with the how much time passes between events. “When?” is the task of tote. In verse 23 tote is used to say, “If someone says to you at that time…” and in verse 30 to say, “the sign of the Son of Man shall appear in heaven at that time…” Since Matthew used this explicitly chronological adverb so closely on both sides of verse 29, this further suggests that he intended something other than chronology in verse 29 when he used eutheōs. The only chronology in verse 29 is conveyed by “after.”

When the seeds fell on rocky soil (Matt 13:5), they sprung up “quickly” (eutheōs) since there was little soil between them and the surface. This speaks of rate of germination, not the interval between sowing and germination. The disciples found a colt “quickly” (eutheōs, Matt 21:2). This speaks of the rapidity of the search, not the period between their dispatch and the search. Even when Jesus rescued Peter from the waves, the emphasis is on how quickly (eutheōs, Matt 14:31) Jesus extended His hand, not how long it took him to decide to extend it.

We should not stop there. English translations place eutheōs as a modifier of “after.” But it is an adverb, and modifies verbs, not prepositions. In this case, the action it modifies is darkening of the sun and moon, the falling of the stars, and the shaking of the powers of the heavens. That is, these actions happen “suddenly,” or in Jesus’ words a moment later, “like a thief in the night.” Put in good modern English style, including the Greek nuance of eutheōs, verse 29 says:

But, after the tribulation of those days, suddenly the sun will be darkened, the moon will not give her light, the stars will fall from the heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.

We should note at this point that by adjusting our understanding of verse 29, we have placed ourselves in what appears to be the status of the ante-Nicene Fathers. If they understood the verse the way I have just presented, they would never have seen a conflict to resolve the way we do with modern translations. This would explain why we do not see any discussion of such a conflict in their writings. Since this issue is so central to the proper understanding of the parousia, if it existed in the original, it is inconceivable that nearly three centuries of brilliant men would completely ignore it.

Finally, our understanding conforms to Jesus’ comment in Acts 1:7 where the apostles are not to know “the times or epochs the Father has set by His own authority.” Comparison with parallel synoptic accounts is instructive here.

After the tribulation of those days, suddenly the sun will be darkened, (Matt 24:29 personal translation.)
But in the days after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened,
(Mark 13:24 personal translation.)

The only substantive difference is Matthew’s inclusion of “suddenly” to tell how fast the sun’s light will go out. Both of them say that it will happen “after the tribulation.” Luke’s more interpretive account says that the Day of the Lord will come at the end of “the times of the Gentiles” (Luke 21:24-25). While interpreters dispute the exact meaning of this phrase, it is most likely that it extends at least into the modern era. 2

At this point, it may be instructive to consider the logic of verse 29 as conventionally translated. If the signs of the Day of the Lord are to come “immediately after” the tribulation, that implies that the tribulation ends, then the signs appear without delay. In the conventional Preterist interpretation, “the Son of Man coming on the clouds” (v. 30) happens during the siege of Jerusalem, which is clearly part of the tribulation.3 The Preterist view thus converts verses 29-30 from sequential chronology into concurrency.

Using the translation we have just determined, verses 27-31 emphatically differentiate the parousia from AD70. The destruction of Jerusalem won’t be the parousia, because the parousia will be dramatically different. “After” the tribulation of those days (i.e. the days of the destruction of Jerusalem), the signs of the Day of the Lord will come (v. 29) and the Son of Man will appear in the sky (v. 30). He will gather the saints from the entire world (v.31). Read in this fashion, Matthew’s account matches Mark and Luke perfectly. If we read it traditionally, Matthew says the Day of the Lord happens in AD70, while Mark and Luke place it “later.” Such an apparent scriptural “contradiction” should alert us to the need for a resolution such as we have just found.

Jesus delivers this entire section (vv. 27-31) as an intentional contrast to the destruction of Jerusalem, so that the disciples will not confuse the destruction of Jerusalem with the parousia. The parousia comes “after” the destruction of Jerusalem. This construction is indefinite, requiring an appreciable gap. It may be years or eras. Jesus does not supply any information about its length in Matthew. But in Luke He identifies it as “the times of the Gentiles.”

So far, Jesus’ primary message has been to inform the disciples about events leading to the destruction of Jerusalem. This continues in verses 32-34. The parable of the fig tree recapitulates the idea that various signs, such as those discussed earlier, will precede the destruction of Jerusalem. The disciples are to discern them properly. But verse 33 has another translation issue.

The NAS says:

Matthew 24:32-33 "Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender, and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; even so you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door.

The KJV says, “it is near” in verse 33. The Greek does not include the subject of that clause, so it must be inferred from the context. “Summer” is the subject in verse 32, symbolic of the destruction of Jerusalem. Thus, “it” is the proper subject in verse 33, not “He.” Jesus is saying that when the signs are seen, the event is near.

“All these things” (panta tauta, cf. 24:2) will happen before “this generation” dies (v. 34). We may now confidently state that it does not matter how one goes about determining which generation is in view, the result is the same. If we say it is the generation of Jesus’ listeners, the statement is true, since Jerusalem was destroyed 39 years after the Discourse. If we say it is the generation that sees the signs preceding the destruction, it still points to AD70. The argument that the semantic range of genea extends to a “race” or similar flies in the face of the structure of Jesus’ argument and must be rejected.

In verse 35, Jesus changes subjects.

Matthew 24:35 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall not pass away.

Here Jesus makes an explicit statement that “heaven and earth” will pass away. The Preterist argument that this is a figurative expression for the Jews or their government is unconvincing. After all, Jesus has been making very concrete statements about Jerusalem all along. He was asked two very concrete questions in 24:3. To now suggest that His discussion is suddenly figurative smacks of eisegesis, since there is nothing in the Discourse to suggest such a shift. Further, if “heaven and earth” are figurative, it should be reasonable to suggest that “all these things” and “My words” are also figurative. No interpreter I know of suggests that.

Verse 36 starts with “But of that day and hour no one knows…” What “day and hour?” The rules of grammar are clear. We look backwards to the nearest antecedent. And that is the time that “heaven and earth will pass away.” This is the parousia, as 2 Peter 3:5-7 makes quite clear.

Verse 37 begins the famous parallel with the days of Noah. At that time, the wicked people “kept on keepin’ on” (“eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage”) until Noah entered the ark and the flood killed them (“took them away”). In exactly the same way, at Jesus’ parousia, one in the field will be killed (“taken”) while the other is “left” (remains, cf. 1 Thes 4:15).

Following this illustration, Jesus continues with a series of parables about His parousia. The destruction of Jerusalem is never again in view.

Conclusion:
The Olivet Discourse is a simple, direct, exposition of two separate issues – the destruction of Jerusalem and Jesus’ parousia. The parousia comes “after” AD70. How long “after” is not stated. It has been misunderstood for centuries because of a modern lack of appreciation for a basic nuance of Greek time perception. Its structure is as follows.

1. Verse 1: The disciples notice the Temple.
2. Verse 2: Jesus says the Temple will be torn down.
3. Verse 3: The disciples ask when it will be torn down and when Jesus will return, mistaking them to be the same event.
4. Verses 4-26: Jesus describes events around the destruction of Jerusalem, with various warnings.
5. Verses 27-31: Jesus contrasts AD70 with the parousia so that the disciples won’t get the two confused.
6. Verses 32-34: Jesus completes His discussion of AD70.
7. Verse 35 – on: Jesus discusses the parousia, which is future to AD70, but at an undefined interval.

In summary, Preterists are correct in applying 24:34 to AD70. There is no legitimate contextual or lexical reason for any other conclusion. “All these things” (panta tauta) refers specifically to Jesus’ statement that the Temple would be destroyed in 24:2, and the disciples’ follow-up question about “these things” (tauta) in 24:3. On the other hand, they are incorrect in applying the Day of the Lord language to AD70. Jesus was asked a compound question. He gave a direct and logical compound answer.

Modern interpreters have been presented with a false dilemma as a result of using a word in English that does not convey the nuance of the Greek eutheōs. This word has been improperly placed as a sequence modifier rather than an expression of the character of events. Modern translators have either been unaware of this error, or have not corrected it because of traditional readings.

All of Jesus’ predictions about AD70 were fulfilled in detail. His predictions about the parousia remain to be fulfilled, since His parousia remains future. The difficulties asserted by the skeptics do not exist.

__

1. A more technical illustration comes from the words “thesis” and “synthesis.” A thesis is a single proposition. By adding the prefix syn-, we describe not a single proposition, but a combination of propositions.
2. In this case, for the sake of discussion, I have accepted the common Dispensational position that the “days of the Gentiles” ended in 1976 when Israeli soldiers captured the Temple mount area. My personal belief is that this more properly extends to the time of the resurrection of the saints.
3. This comes from their reading of Josephus.

[Etcetera]

Very nice piece, Ted. Clearly a lot of thought went into it.

It all rather hangs, however, on ευθεως, does it not? I have issues with various elements of your analysis, but would like to focus (at least for now) on your proposed retranslation of that Greek word.

Eutheōs conveys the idea of "suddenness" or "quickness." It is not concerned with how much time passes between events. "When?" is the task of tote.

This is the rub, of course. I like your breakdown of the possible referents into time between events and suddenness or quickness of the event itself. That makes things pretty clear. I shall use that distinction in looking at your retranslation.

There are at least three things standing in the way of translating ευθεως as suddenly instead of as immediately in Matthew 24.29:

1. Etymology.
2. Usage.
3. Context.

I shall take each of these in turn.

1. Etymology.

The adverb ευθεως, like many adverbs, is derived from an adjective. The adjective whence it is derived is ευθυς. Liddell-Scott confirms this for us:

ευθεως, Adv. of ευθυς (q.v.)

We turn, then, to ευθυς, and we find that it means:

A. [1] straight, direct, whether vertically or horizontally....

This meaning of ευθυς is, of course, exactly what led to the King James translation of the adverb as straightway. Smyth, in the definitive Greek Grammar, agrees with this translation in §136a:

ευθυς means straightway....

In fact, when I am translating the New Testament, I use straightway as my usual translation for this adverb in order to distinguish it from παραχρημα, which I translate as immediately.

Already the etymology of ευθεως begins to point us in a particular direction. If the root meaning of its original adjective is straight or direct, then its adverbial quality probably gives it the meaning of in the most direct, or straightest, manner. If this is the meaning, then we are clearly talking about time between events, not quickness of the event itself. We are talking about the straightest route from point A to point B.

There is a sense in which ευθυς, the adjective, refers to quality, but it does not in this case refer to timeliness in any way. Liddell-Scott again:

A. [2] in moral sense, straightforward, frank....

This extended meaning is clearly beside our point. The other extended meaning of the adjective is the feminine nominitive when used as a noun...:

A. [3] ευθεια, η, as Subst... straight line....

...which clearly plays into the meaning of straightway for the adverb derived from this adjective, not quickly.

2. Usage.

How the adverb itself is actually used in Greek texts will, I submit, confirm our etymological suspicions. Let us round out our Liddell-Scott entry:

B. as Adv.... ευθυ and ευθυς II. ευθυς, of Time, straightway, forthwith....

You really only looked at instances of the true adverb ευθεως in your essay; you did not consider that ευθυς is used adverbially even more frequently than ευθεως.

Liddell-Scott again, emphasis mine:

C. regul. Adv. ευθεως, used just as ευθυς...

Synoptic studies confirm that ευθεως and ευθυς are used interchangeably. Take Matthew 8.3 = Mark 1.42 = Luke 5.13:

And he stretched out his hand and touched him, saying: I am willing; be cleansed. And straightway [ευθεως] his leprosy was cleansed.

And straightway [ευθυς] the leprosy left him and he was cleansed.

And he stretched out His hand, and touched him, saying: I am willing; be cleansed. And straightway [ευθεως] the leprosy left him.

Note that Matthew and Luke use the true adverb ευθεως to say what Mark says with the adverbial application of the adjective ευθυς. And note the action here. Is the text really saying that the leprosy left the leper quickly, like it started clearing up at his head and moved down the rest of his body in an expeditious fashion, but this process could have started hours later, for all we know? Not for my money. It looks very much like the text is saying that the leprosy was cleansed immediately after Jesus spoke the word of cleansing. That is, the crucial timespan is, to use your helpful terminology, that between the two events (between the word of cleansing and the miracle itself), not that of how long the healing process took once it began.

Which brings us to your other examples:

When the seeds fell on rocky soil (Matt 13:5), they sprang up "quickly" (eutheōs) since ther was little soil between them and the surface.

Perhaps. But why not immediately? (I note in passing that this is another instance in which Mark has ευθυς.) This seed grew up much sooner (with less interval between the two events, sowing and sprouting) than the deeper seed, but also with much less of a root system. The straightway in this part of the parable corresponds with the straightway of the explanation of this part of the parable in Mark 4.16:

And in a similar way these are the ones on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, who, when they hear the word, straightway [ευθυς] receive it with joy;


Are these people hearing the word, waiting an undisclosed span of time, then when they are finally ready to obey they receive it all of a sudden, without warning? I think not. They receive the word at first, immediately, but do not last long in the heat of the day. Even if your retranslation is possible, so is the accepted dictionary definition.

The disciples found a colt "quickly" (eutheōs, Matt 21:2). This speaks of the rapidity of the search, not the period between their dispatch and the search.

Well, I agree that it does not speak of the period between their dispatch and the search. But, given the text, that is not a very tempting option anyway:

Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied there and a colt with her; untie them, and bring them to me.

No, the interval in question is not that between dispatching and searching; it is that between entering the village and finding the donkey. The disciples will find the donkey just as soon as they go into (εις) the village. But we are still talking about the time between events, not about how quickly the event itself transpires once it is underway. Even if your retranslation is possible, so is the accepted dictionary definition.

Even when Jesus rescued Peter from the waves, the emphasis is on how quickly (eutheōs, Matt 14:31) Jesus extended His hand, not how long it took him to decide to extend it.

The part about deciding to extend his hand is not in the text. This case is a clear score for the traditional translation. Jesus is reaching out his arm to save Peter. Surely Matthew is not talking about how lightning-fast his "draw" was, from hip to grip in a fraction of a second. Surely the point is that Jesus reached for Peter as soon as Peter cried for help. We are talking about the time between the cry for help and the reaching out to help. Even if your retranslation is possible, in this case the traditional translation is preferable.

I have scanned the instances of ευθεως and ευθυς in the New Testament, and do not find any for which the traditional translation fails us. There are quite a few, however, in which your retranslation is quite unlikely. Luke 12.36, for example:

And be like men who are waiting for their master when he returns from the wedding feast, so that they may straightway [ευθεως] open the door to him when he comes and knocks.

Surely the point is not how quickly the door swings on its hinges whenever the servants get around to opening it for their returning master. The whole point is that the open the door immediately upon his knock, so as not to leave him standing outside for very long. This is a clear example of ευθεως referring to the interval of time between two events (the knock and the opening of the door).

From the same chapter, Luke 12.54:

And he was also saying to the multitudes: When you see a cloud rising in the west, straightway [ευθεως] you say: A shower is coming, and so it turns out.

If Jesus is speaking here of how quickly the modified verb say takes place, he is calling his hearers fast-talkers! When you see a cloud rising in the west, you speak very quickly. No, rather, he is saying that they immediately call the upcoming weather based on the sign; he is saying that there is no great interval of time between seeing a cloud and telling that it means rain.

I could go on at some length with such examples, especially with ευθυς in the mix, but I think these are enough to show that the Greek dictionary is not far wrong when it recommends immediately or straightway as the translation for ευθεως. Our etymological suspicions are confirmed.

3. Context.

You translate Matthew 24.29 = Mark 13.24 as follows:

After the days of those days, suddenly the sun will be darkened....

But in the days after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened....

Something is present in your translation of the Matthean verse that is absent in your translation of the Marcan verse: You left the demonstrative εκειναις unrendered in Mark 13.24. Matthew 24.29 has the genitive form of this demonstrative adjective, which you accurately translate as those. But you have no those in Mark 13.24. When we slip it back in, we get one of the two following options:

But in those days after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened....

But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened....

Only that comma differentiates between these two versions. You will doubtless prefer an interpretation along the lines of the first version: But in those days [that come] after that tribulation.... In other words, you will not want to find an antecedent for those days in the previous discussion. You will want those days to stand on their own, pointing forward to an as-yet unmentioned timespan, a time potentially long after anything that has so far been discussed.

Perhaps that is why you left out those in Mark 13.24, because when we see a phrase like those days we instinctively ask ourselves: Which days? And we just as instinctively look to what immediately precedes the expression for our answer.

I submit that Mark is speaking about the same basic timeframe in 13.24 as he is in 13.5-23. The expression those days seals the deal. Which days? The days that he has been describing all along, naturally. Mark 13.21, 24:

And then if anyone says to you: Behold, here is the Christ, or: Behold, he is there, do not believe him.

But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light.

All of this makes the most sense if Mark 13.24 is referring to the most recently mentioned time period. Jesus says that in the days in which people are pointing to false christs and false prophets, and immediately (as we know from Matthew) after the tribulation, something will happen that will reveal who the real Christ and the real prophet is. This signal event is, in fact, the endpoint of the tribulation, which puts to rest your objection against preterism:

In the conventional Preterist interpretation, "the Son of Man coming on the clouds" (v. 30) happens during the siege of Jerusalem, which is clearly part of the tribulation.

I have no idea how conventional this interpretation is, but it is not my interpretation. In my view the image of the son of man coming on the clouds means vindication. Jesus predicted the fall of Jerusalem and the temple within a generation. Until the city and temple fell, he was not yet fully vindicated. His vindication, then, coincides (without delay, as you put it just before the quotation above) with the end of the tribulation. Once the city was wiped out, those days of incomparable misery were for all intents over. Jerusalem had lost.

And look again at Matthew 24.29 = Mark 13.24:

But straightway after the tribulation of those days....

But in those days, after that tribulation....

The phrase those days is clearly looking back to an antecedent in Matthew. How do you intend to show that it is clearly not looking back to an antecedent in Mark?

One quick point about another aspect of your essay. Your point about the missing patristic problem with Matthew 24.29 has a hole in it. In order for your point to work you would have to identify those fathers for whom that verse even could be a problem. If someone believes that the great tribulation itself is future, then what difficulty would he have in accepting that Jesus would come in glory immediately after it? In other words, only someone who clearly admitted that Matthew 24.15-28 was already past, but felt that 24.29-31 was still future, would have your perceived problem. So help us out here. Whom did you have in mind? Which fathers thought that the tribulation period was past but the cosmic upheavels still future? In whose writings would we expect to find some tension at this point, but do not?

One last thing...:

Here [in Matthew 24.35] Jesus makes an explicit statement that "heaven and earth" will pass away. The Preterist argument that this is a figurative expression for the Jews or their government is unconvincing. After all, Jesus has been making very concrete statements about Jerusalem all along.... To now suggest that His discussion is suddenly figurative smacks of eisegesis, since there is nothing in the Discourse to suggest such a shift.

Alas, language does not work that way. What is figurative depends almost entirely upon the expression itself, not upon immediate context. I ask you to consider yet again my old example in English: Better not take the convertible. It's raining cats and dogs out there.

Applying your objections to this statement yields: The argument that "cats and dogs" is a figurative expression for a heavy rain is unconvincing. After all, the rest of the statement, about taking a convertible, is very concrete. To now suggest that the statement is suddenly figurative smacks of eisegesis, since there is nothing in the rest of the statement to suggest such a shift.

We simply do not look to the immediate context to determine our idioms. It might be a good idea not to take the convertible if in fact it is raining literal felines and canines.

As for the expression itself, is Haggai 2.21 literal (see verse 23)? What about Isaiah 65.17 (see verse 20)? What about Jeremiah 4.23 (see context)?

I love, by the way, your distinction between τελος and συντελεια. I think that you are really on to something there.

In the name.

Etcetera.

[John Reece]

Ted,

In addition to Etcetera’s exegesis re euqewV, you should consider D. A. Carson’s list of Word-Study Fallacies in Exegetical Fallacies, especially the fourth in his list: “Appeal to unknown or unlikely meanings”, regarding which he writes:


There are many examples of this fourth fallacy. Some spring from poor research, perhaps dependence on others without checking the primary sources; others spring from the desire to make certain interpretations work out, and the interpreter forsakes evenhandedness.
. . .

. . . this fourth fallacy may be obscured by considerable exegetical ingenuity; but it remains a fallacy just the same.

The Olivet Discourse was delivered by a native Aramaic speaker, but was recorded in Greek. Therefore, we may be certain that when the Holy Spirit inspired the apostolic writer, He led him to a careful choice of words in this second language. In particular, the Greek words telos and sunteleia are of interest. Both of these words properly translate “end,” or “conclusion.” They come from the same root word. But there is a nuance of meaning missing from this bare definition.

Telos differs from sunteleia primarily in the addition of the prefix sun- (or syn- in some references) to the root. This prefix denotes a “combining together,” and will be illustrated later. At this point it is sufficient to note that if there were no substantive difference between telos and sunteleia in Greek, there would be no substantial reason to use both forms in the Greek account of the Discourse. This suggests that the author’s use of these two forms is intended to convey a substantive difference in meaning.


That calls to mind another of the word-study fallacies noted by D. A. Carson:


The root fallacy

One of the most enduring of errors, the root fallacy presupposes that every word actually has a meaning bound up with its shape or its components. In this view, meaning is determined by etymology; that is, by the root or roots of a word.
. . .

I am simply saying that the meaning of a word cannot be reliably determined by etymology, or that a root, once discovered, always projects a certain semantic load onto any word that incorporates that root.

Consider the use of a verbal cognate of the sunteleia in Mark 13:4 :


"Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished (sunteleisqai = present passive infinitive of suntelew)?"

In that context, “these things” refers to the destruction of the Temple, and the use of the verbal cognate of sunteleia in that context is in harmony with BDAG’s definition of sunteleia:


sunteleia
a point of time marking completion of a duration, completion, close, end

BDAG’s definitions of the verbal cognate noted above are:


suntelew

to complete something that has been in process, bring to an end, complete, finish, close
to carry out or bring into being something that has been promised or expected, carry out, fulfill, accomplish
to exhaust the supply of something
to come to the end of a duration, come to an end, be over

In the definitions above, note the absence of the sense you seek to assert on the basis of what Carson defines as "the root fallacy".

Blessings,

John

[Trout]

This thread is being closed temporarily, only to move it to a different area pending the approval of Ted.

[Ted]

It all rather hangs, however, on ευθεως, does it not?
Actually, while ευθεως is in the center of the argument, there are several lines of evidence that converge on that center.
1. telos vs. sunteleia in Matthew’s usage.
-- This appears, in Matthew’s version of the Olivet Discourse, to cleanly discriminate between near and far elements.
2. Harmonization of the synoptics in the use of Day of the Lord language with regard to timing.
-- Mark makes no comment about proximity of the Day of The Lord and AD70 other than “after,” as I noted. Luke says that the Day of the Lord comes after the “times (plural) of the Gentiles are fulfilled” (Luke 21:24). This virtually requires a delay long after AD70. Further, the language of Romans 11:25 demands an extended period for Gentile conversions. This is legitimately parallel with “the times of the Gentiles.”
3. The contrast between eutheōs and tote.
--Note the tote is unequivocally accepted as meaning “at that time.” This is a direct statement of immediacy. It is used on either side of eutheōs in the discourse. This suggests that if Matthew intended “immediately,” he would have used tote.
4. The exegetical leaps that are required to make eutheōs compatible with the observed evidence if the typical English form is used.
--I’ve talked about suddenly switching from literal to figurative without any textual indicators. Also, note the complete lack of witnesses for a universal first-century rapture of the Ed Stevens model. Second, the Day of the Lord language is universal throughout scripture in the eschatological passages. To limit it to Jerusalem smacks loudly of eisegesis.
5. The translations used in other Bibles. Most use “immediately,” but some do not.
-- The Russian Synodal Translation uses “quickly.” (My sister-in-law is a native Russian speaker.)
-- The ELB Revidierte Elberfelder (1993) uses “Aber gleich nach der Bedrängnis jener Tage...” This phrasing appears to be idiomatic, and can be understood as “quickly.” (German experts, please.)
-- The SRV Reina-Valera (1909) has” Y luego después de la aflicción de aquellos días...” Literally: “And later, after the affliction of those days...” Curiously, the verse does not appear to even include any adverb of speed or a comment on immediacy in this translation.

These examples are admittedly in the minority, but they do show that some have translated this passage in roughly the way I am proposing. While this is not probative per se, it does show that I have not completely departed the planet.

Smyth, in the definitive Greek Grammar...
This is called “the appeal to authority,” and is a classic error in logic. There are a number of Greek grammars. I’m quite sure that if we examined them, we could find places where they disagree. Koine Greek is an ancient language that was lost. We have no native speakers, and so cannot appeal to them. We have reconstructed the language in the best way that we are able. But there are nuances and idioms that have escaped the experts. At the ETS meeting, there are language papers every year that deal with the true intent of this or that passage, exploring what a particular word, phrase, or sentence may really mean. My paper falls into that category. (BTW, I’m not the Greek expert in this endeavor. I have relied on several, including my brother, who is the one who spotted the issue in the first place. But I’m the writer in the family...)

If the root meaning of its original adjective is straight or direct, then its adverbial quality probably gives it the meaning of in the most direct, or straightest, manner.
On this we will be in complete agreement. But you bring out a point that you have ignored. Eutheōs is, as you say, a “true adverb.” It modifies verbs. As one reviewer said, “I agree that eutheōs belongs with the verbs." That is, it modifies the darkening of the sun, etc. Put in plain language, it says that when the sun is darkened, it happens “straightaway.” It doesn’t fade slowly, it happens right now. That is functionally the same as Jesus’ comment about the Day of the Lord coming “like a thief in the night” (24:43-44). The thief doesn’t take all night, he gets in and out “quickly.”

Note that Matthew and Luke use the true adverb ευθεως to say what Mark says with the adverbial application of the adjective ευθυς. And note the action here. Is the text really saying that the leprosy left the leper quickly, like it started clearing up at his head and moved down the rest of his body in an expeditious fashion, but this process could have started hours later, for all we know? Not for my money. It looks very much like the text is saying that the leprosy was cleansed immediately after Jesus spoke the word of cleansing. That is, the crucial timespan is, to use your helpful terminology, that between the two events (between the word of cleansing and the miracle itself), not that of how long the healing process took once it began.
In logic, this is called a red herring. You have proposed a different definition of “quickly.” I used that word because it is easier in English. But you will note that I equated it to “suddenly.” Thus, your example is non-sequitur and therefore does not apply.

No, the interval in question is not that between dispatching and searching; it is that between entering the village and finding the donkey.
I’ll take your edit here. But even you admit that my translation is possible here. But I submit that it is actually more likely than yours. After all, when do the disciples enter the village? Is it when they pass the boundary between the first two dwellings? Is it when they pass the first garden? It’s a fuzzy boundary. Given that, “quickly” makes far more sense than “immediately.”

The part about deciding to extend his hand is not in the text. This case is a clear score for the traditional translation. Jesus is reaching out his arm to save Peter. Surely Matthew is not talking about how lightning-fast his "draw" was, from hip to grip in a fraction of a second. Surely the point is that Jesus reached for Peter as soon as Peter cried for help. We are talking about the time between the cry for help and the reaching out to help. Even if your retranslation is possible, in this case the traditional translation is preferable.
Again, I must disagree. While “deciding” is not in the text, it is a necessary part of the process. In 14:30, Peter calls out to Jesus, “Lord, save me.” That takes some bit of time. I challenge you to get that out before you are immersed. So Jesus waited till Peter got wet, then quickly got him out of the water. It still speaks of speed, not proximity, even if proximity is implied in the narrative.

If Jesus is speaking here of how quickly the modified verb say takes place, he is calling his hearers fast-talkers! When you see a cloud rising in the west, you speak very quickly. No, rather, he is saying that they immediately call the upcoming weather based on the sign; he is saying that there is no great interval of time between seeing a cloud and telling that it means rain.
What’s wrong with saying that you speak quickly? There is some urgency indicated by the storm cloud. Cattle and sheep must be gathered. Family members should come in away from the lightning. This sort of urgency would be perfectly answered “quickly.”

Only that comma differentiates between these two versions. You will doubtless prefer an interpretation along the lines of the first version: But in those days [that come] after that tribulation.... In other words, you will not want to find an antecedent for those days in the previous discussion. You will want those days to stand on their own, pointing forward to an as-yet unmentioned timespan, a time potentially long after anything that has so far been discussed.

Perhaps that is why you left out those in Mark 13.24, because when we see a phrase like those days we instinctively ask ourselves: Which days? And we just as instinctively look to what immediately precedes the expression for our answer.
If you are going to do that in harmonization, I suggest you include alla in its ordinary sense of negation. Then the sentence would be,

“On the contrary, in the days after that tribulation the sun will be darkened...”

This is a statement of deliberate contrast, and to look back to the the tribulation the way you do denies that contrast.

One quick point about another aspect of your essay. Your point about the missing patristic problem with Matthew 24.29 has a hole in it. In order for your point to work you would have to identify those fathers for whom that verse even could be a problem. If someone believes that the great tribulation itself is future, then what difficulty would he have in accepting that Jesus would come in glory immediately after it? In other words, only someone who clearly admitted that Matthew 24.15-28 was already past, but felt that 24.29-31 was still future, would have your perceived problem. So help us out here. Whom did you have in mind? Which fathers thought that the tribulation period was past but the cosmic upheavels still future? In whose writings would we expect to find some tension at this point, but do not?
This is why I started the other thread on the ANF. I had done word and phrase searched on the ANF to try to locate any comment at all on this issue. All I found was a general agreement that the parousia was future. No one at all commented on 24:29. But IIRC, Justin Martyr applies the destruction of Jerusalem in a way that would be consistent with the plain language of tribulation leading up to AD70 in his Dialogue.

No one was able to help me with any citations, and I am quite certain that some of the ANF did apply the tribulation to pre-AD70. After all, they were close to the apostles chronologically, some had direct or one-step-removed contact, and it seems inconceivable that every one of them falls into your “tribulation and DOL future” mold.

(regarding “heaven and earth”) We simply do not look to the immediate context to determine our idioms. It might be a good idea not to take the convertible if in fact it is raining literal felines and canines.
That’s a nice discussion, so it should be applied to the specific phrase in question. The Preterist idea is that “heaven and earth” refers to some Jewish element that disappears. But if you look in the OT, the phrase is used 18 times. Every example is one of three forms.
1. God who made “heaven and earth.” (literal)
2. God calls “heaven and earth” to witness, praise, etc. (Heaven and earth are literal, but used in a figurative way to personify everything that God created.)
3. Absalom’s head was between “heaven and earth” when he got stuck in the tree (2 Sam 18:9). (Heaven and earth are very literal.)

In other words, there is no exegetical excuse for using the phrase in anything but a literal way. All the other examples become non-sequitur as a result.

I love, by the way, your distinction between τελος and συντελεια. I think that you are really on to something there.
Thank you, but it’s not original. I got it from Richard M. Davidson PhD, of Andrews University. (A Hebrew scholar!)

The root fallacy

One of the most enduring of errors, the root fallacy presupposes that every word actually has a meaning bound up with its shape or its components. In this view, meaning is determined by etymology; that is, by the root or roots of a word.
. . .

I am simply saying that the meaning of a word cannot be reliably determined by etymology, or that a root, once discovered, always projects a certain semantic load onto any word that incorporates that root.

The issue is not that the words are always used as the sum of their parts. Rather, the issue is whether Matthew uses them way to make a distinction between them.

A post-script: If we look in the BDAG Lexicon, there is a curious citation in the entry on eutheōs. "The Sudden in the Scriptures ’64, 46-72; LRydbeck, Fachprosa 167-76."

Curious.

Ted

[Etcetera]

Ted:

Actually, while ευθεως is in the center of the argument, there are several lines of evidence that converge on that center.

None of which, as they stand, changes the fact that if your view of ευθεως is incorrect, the argument topples. To wit:

1. telos vs. sunteleia in Matthew’s usage.

Even if your are completely correct about these words (and I have stated that I like the distinction; I am not 100% convinced yet, mind you, but I like it) nothing prevents both from occurring at roughly the same time. In your analogy of the political campaigns, for instance, the sum of all the campaigns might be the consummation, while each individual victory is an end, yet all may well be decided on election Tuesday, all at roughly the same time.

This appears, in Matthew’s version of the Olivet Discourse, to cleanly discriminate between near and far elements.

You did not even attempt to demonstrate that the basic meaning of the one entailed nearness and the basic meaning of the other entailed distance. You merely argued that one was a single event while the other had a sum-total effect. That says nothing in and of itself about timing.

Harmonization of the synoptics in the use of Day of the Lord language with regard to timing.

They harmonize perfectly at 70. Even if 70 is utterly wrong, the timing terms themselves fit with it.

Mark makes no comment about proximity of the Day of The Lord and AD70 other than “after,” as I noted.

He says that the cosmic signs and the coming of the Lord will happen in those days. That is a comment on proximity.

Luke says that the Day of the Lord comes after the “times (plural) of the Gentiles are fulfilled” (Luke 21:24). This virtually requires a delay long after AD70.

Where, or how, does Luke 21.24 say that? He nowhere connects the endpoint of Jerusalem being trampled underfoot chronologically to the rest. Clearly the beginning of the trampling was to start in conjuction with the rest of the chapter, but that in no way implies that everything said after the until clause is now far in the future.

An analogy. Imagine a man running for sheriff in a small rural county, and his campaign speech goes like this:

On the very day I am elected sheriff I will kick Billy Joe Braxton off the force for police corruption, and I will throw that ol' drunk Jim Bob Wheezer into jail, and won't let him out till Christmas 2030, and I will run that thievin' Mayor Hickland and his crooked cronies out of town on a rail, and....

That until clause about Christmas 2030 does not push the rest of the campaign promises to that year or after. We still expect our fearless candidate to run off Mayor Hickland at about the same time as he begins tormenting poor Jim Bob.

The contrast between eutheōs and tote.
--Note the tote is unequivocally accepted as meaning “at that time.”

And ευθεως is just as unequivocally accepted as meaning straightway, but that did not stop you. Nevertheless, I agree with you that τοτε means at that time.

This is a direct statement of immediacy. It is used on either side of eutheōs in the discourse. This suggests that if Matthew intended “immediately,” he would have used tote.

It suggests no such thing. What it suggests is that Matthew is placing the tote statements in the general chronological vicinity of the preceding events while he is placing the eutheōs statement in the immediate chronological vicinity of the preceding event.

The translations used in other Bibles. Most use “immediately,” but some do not.

Those which use quickly may not really be evidence, as we often use that word to mean immediately. Definition 4b under quick in my American Heritage is: Done or occurring immediately. (Lest you think that number 4 is too far down the list to be of service, two of the definitions above it relate to mental acuity). Now, of course I do not speak Russian or German, so that would depend on the linguistic peculiarities of each.

The SRV Reina-Valera (1909) has” Y luego después de la aflicción de aquellos días...”

Hmmm. My 1960 Reina-Valera has: E inmediatamente después de la tribulación de aquellos días....

I would say that the 1909 is a mistake. One ought to render the adverb somehow.

This is called “the appeal to authority,” and is a classic error in logic.

If you look closely, you will see I used none of my authorities as the thrust of my argument. In fact, I cited them in the etymology section and qualified that entire point by calling it a suspicion. I am not certain how much more care I could have taken to avoid a charge of logical error.

Besides, do you really think that citing acknowledged authorities on the language is always invalid? In fact, it would be remiss not to deal with them on some level. It would be like writing a paper about the Johannine communities without referring to Raymond Brown.

And surely, surely if you are allowed to cite obscure foreign-language translations of Matthew 24.29 in support of your definition of ευθεως then I am allowed to cite the definition as given by one Herbert Weir Smyth in support of mine! Right?

There are a number of Greek grammars. I’m quite sure that if we examined them, we could find places where they disagree.

Absolutely. But do they disagree on ευθεως? If there is a consensus between them on that, then it hardly matters if they disagree on future perfect passives or some such. Furthermore, every field of inquiry has more certain and less certain points, more disputed and less disputed (and even the occasional undisputed) positions. If there is disagreement between the grammars on this adverb, that is a sign that the definition of ευθεως ranks among the less certain positions. If, on the other hand, there is no such disagreement to be found, that is a sign that the definition ranks among the more certain positions.

But what am I going on for? You are the one who brought up disagreement amongst the grammars. Which ones disagree on the definition of ευθεως?

At the ETS meeting, there are language papers every year that deal with the true intent of this or that passage, exploring what a particular word, phrase, or sentence may really mean.

All of which I am complete favor of.

On this we will be in complete agreement. But you bring out a point that you have ignored. Eutheōs is, as you say, a “true adverb.” It modifies verbs. As one reviewer said, “I agree that eutheōs belongs with the verbs."

Well, this statement needs fleshing out. In truth, adverbs can regularly modify verbs, adjectives, or other adverbs. Furthermore, prepositions (or, if you prefer, prepositional phrases) are adverbial or even adjectival in nature, and often attract the adverb. (As in: Thomas, ever in trouble, tried vainly to wriggle out of his new predicament, in which the adverb ever really modifies the prepositional phrase in trouble.) And sometimes the adverb can modify a mere phantom of a verb, as in the Greek expression οι τοτε ανθρωποι. What does the adverb τοτε modify there?

Let us suppose, however, for the sake of argument that in this case the adverb belongs with the verb. If we rephrase our English translation to make certain that it modifies the verb, we might get:

After the tribulation of those days, the sun will immediately be darkened....

Which is still saying that the sun will be darkened very soon after the tribulation. The adverbial opposite would be:

After the tribulation of those days, the sun will eventually be darkened....

This would entail a delay. Immediately would entail the absence of any delay. Your thesis gains nothing by making certain that we understand that the adverb goes with the verb.

That is, it modifies the darkening of the sun, etc.

Yes.

In logic, this is called a red herring.

No need to patronize. I took logic too.

You have proposed a different definition of “quickly.” I used that word because it is easier in English. But you will note that I equated it to “suddenly.” Thus, your example is non-sequitur and therefore does not apply.

(This discussion is in relation to the healing of the leper.) I did not intentionally switch meanings on you. I used quickly in the way that I thought you were using it. It was not meant as a red herring.

Your article made a very useful distinction between the time between two events and the time that the event itself takes to resolve. My point with the leper is that it looks like the text is trying to say that the time between the word of healing and the actual cleansing of the disease was negligible. It does not look like it means that once the leprosy started to fade it did so quickly.

How were you using the adverb quickly? To describe the time between the word of healing and the actual miracle, or to describe how long it took for the leprosy to vanish once the process started? See, I naturally assumed that you meant quickly to apply to the latter, since it is the former that you are trying to eschew as a definition of ευθεως.

As for suddenly, by the way, your usage is unclear to me. That adverb, to me, suggests unexpectedness, which is a feature that your analysis does not in any way cover, and which neither quickly nor immediately necessarily entail. But this is your beast to tame, so how are you using suddenly? To which of your categories does it apply, to the time between events or to the duration of the event itself?

I’ll take your edit here. But even you admit that my translation is possible here.

Indeed, all words can hypothetically mean a plethora of things taken in a single context. The trick is to sift the neutral instances (those in which one cannot really tell) from the positive and negative instances (those in which it virtually has to mean one thing over and against another).

For instance:

1. I saw a monkey the other day.
2. That monkey landed perfectly after swinging by its tail.

Sentence number 1, taken in isolation, tells us very little about what a monkey is. If your position was that a monkey is a kind of animal, while mine was that it is a kind of boat, such a statement would not help us at all; it is neutral evidence.

Sentence number 2, on the other hand, would constitute positive evidence for your position over and against mine.

What you have done is select examples that could go either way (and even some of those look much better translated the traditional way, in my humble opinion). What you need to do is find a few in which immediately is ruled out, while quickly is the safe bet.

But I submit that it is actually more likely than yours. After all, when do the disciples enter the village? Is it when they pass the boundary between the first two dwellings? Is it when they pass the first garden? It’s a fuzzy boundary. Given that, “quickly” makes far more sense than “immediately.”

I am not certain how a fuzzy boundary in any way mitigates the meaning of immediately. If I say: Immediately upon entering Dallas I was sideswiped by a semi, do we really have to debate whether I was actually in Dallas instead of a suburb like Mesquite? Immediately would still mean immediately even if I really meant the Metroplex as a whole rather than the actual city limits of Dallas, or if I really meant that I had gotten my first glimpse of the downtown buildings, or even if I got confused and really meant San Antonio.

To take your village parameters specifically into account, which of those options would have falsified the prediction if ευθεως really does mean straightway or immediately? If the disciples pass the outermost garden and spot the donkey right then and there, does that nullify what Jesus said? If they pass the first hut and find the donkey tethered to the other side, does that nullify the prediction? Obviously not.

It is quite possible, in other words, to say something fuzzy like immediately upon entering the neighborhood without changing our basic working definition of immediately.

Again, I must disagree. While “deciding” is not in the text, it is a necessary part of the process.

I am not following. How is making a decision (or not) vital to the meaning of the adverb?

In 14:30, Peter calls out to Jesus, “Lord, save me.” That takes some bit of time. I challenge you to get that out before you are immersed. So Jesus waited till Peter got wet, then quickly got him out of the water. It still speaks of speed, not proximity, even if proximity is implied in the narrative.

So it makes no sense to you to say that person X was in peril, and person Y helped him immediately after being made aware it. It is just highly unlikely, in your judgment, that a narrator would ever describe the timing of the saving effort with relation to the preceding cry for help as immediate. I suggest that it is perfectly natural to say that person X cried for help, and help came immediately.

Again, I am not following.

And I am not certain why you have suddenly introduced proximity into the equation. Unless you mean proximity of events.

What’s wrong with saying that you speak quickly? There is some urgency indicated by the storm cloud. Cattle and sheep must be gathered. Family members should come in away from the lightning. This sort of urgency would be perfectly answered “quickly.”

When you see a cloud, you speak at more syllables per second than usual. Does that really seem the point to you? Do you really think that Jesus is addressing how fast one talks in an urgent situation compared to an unpressured situation? Frankly, I cannot see your preferred meaning at all in this verse.

When you see a cloud, you immediately realize that it means rain. Am I crazy for thinking that this is really the point?

If you are going to do that in harmonization, I suggest you include alla in its ordinary sense of negation. Then the sentence would be,

“On the contrary, in the days after that tribulation the sun will be darkened...”

This is a statement of deliberate contrast, and to look back to the the tribulation the way you do denies that contrast.

I fully accept a strong contrast between verses 5-23 and verses 24 and following. The former are negative and are the result of evil men, consisting of persecutions, famines, wars, hatred, desolation, woe, and false leads... in short, the great tribulation. The latter are the positive turnaround, when at last God himself intervenes in the affairs of evil men and brings their regimes toppling down. Men will hate men more than ever before, Jesus says, but (αλλα) then God will act in power and bring those men to an end.

This is why I started the other thread on the ANF. I had done word and phrase searched on the ANF to try to locate any comment at all on this issue. All I found was a general agreement that the parousia was future. No one at all commented on 24:29. But IIRC, Justin Martyr applies the destruction of Jerusalem in a way that would be consistent with the plain language of tribulation leading up to AD70 in his Dialogue.

Then Justin Martyr is the place to start. But until you can point to a father in which the immediacy of Matthew 24.29 should have been a concern, there is no point hailing the patristic silence as a sign that Matthew 24.29 does not betoken immediacy.

I will leave the discussion of heavens and earth for another time.

In him.

Etcetera.

[John Reece]

The root fallacy

One of the most enduring of errors, the root fallacy presupposes that every word actually has a meaning bound up with its shape or its components. In this view, meaning is determined by etymology; that is, by the root or roots of a word.
. . .

I am simply saying that the meaning of a word cannot be reliably determined by etymology, or that a root, once discovered, always projects a certain semantic load onto any word that incorporates that root. -- D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies

The issue is not that the words are always used as the sum of their parts.

You slough off Carson’s words by misquoting them.

You wrote:

. . . Telos differs from sunteleia primarily in the addition of the prefix sun- (or syn- in some references) to the root. This prefix denotes a “combining together,” and will be illustrated later. . . .

. . . This would be the sunteleia, or consummation of a large number of series of events. It is the “combining together.”1

1. A more technical illustration comes from the words “thesis” and “synthesis.” A thesis is a single proposition. By adding the prefix syn-, we describe not a single proposition, but a combination of propositions.

What you wrote fits Carson’s definition of “the root fallacy”.

What do you have to say about the fact that in Mark 13:4 (= Mark's version of Matthew 24:3) the verbal cognate of sunteleia is used with reference to the destruction of the Temple?


Mark 13:4

"Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished (= passive infinitive of suntelew )?" (ESV)

Here is R. T. France's comment re the use of the verbal cognate of sunteleia in Mark 13:4


4 The persistent view that the second half of the question has a more ‘eschatological’ reference that the first half, while it is primarily due to a prior judgment about the subject matter of the discourse which follows, is also sometimes supported by Mark’s use of the verb sunteleisqai, which for us recalls Matthew’s extension of the question to cover also the sunteleia tou aownoV. But unless we are to assume that when Mark wrote his readers were already familiar with Matthew’s version of the question (and that would still be a minority view). Matthew’s phrase is not a good guide for the intended sense of Mark’s verb. tauta panta are the same tauta as in the first half of the question, the things being predicted by Jesus in verse 2, the plural presumably due to the recognition that the single ‘event’ of the temple’s destruction would not be accomplished in an instant but must be an extended process. The completion of this process, the stage by which every last stone had been dislodged, is appropriately expressed by suntelew, to bring to completion. While the verb could appropriately be used to describe an eschatological consummation, its normal use (as in Luke 4:2, 13; Acts 21:27) is the ‘carrying out’, ‘accomplishing’ of a process. It is the technical term h sunteleia to aiwnoV in Matthew (cf. the use of sunteleia for the Hebrew QC in LXX Dn. 8:19; 11:27) which brings in a specifically eschatological reference (cf. Mt. 13:39, 40, 49; Heb. 9:26) which does not belong to the verb on its own. – R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark (NIGTC), pages 507-508.

[Terral]

Ted:
Ted >> Thesis: The Olivet Discourse as presented in the Gospel of Matthew is a response by Christ to two separate questions from His disciples. It addresses both near and far events. The disciples may not have understood that the questions were about separate issues. Christ’s response clearly addresses two separate issues. They are separate and distinct in both subject and time of fulfillment.
First of all I would like to point out the obvious double standard that exists on this Board for OP’s forwarding Preterism versus those supporting a future fulfillment of the ‘day of the Lord’ prophecies of Scripture. My thread that proved beyond all doubt that the Preterism Theology was riddle with error was deleted, because I asked too many questions and made too many points; but my OP was one tenth the size of yours. OP’s are limited to a specific number of characters and back to back posting is forbidden, but your extremely long OP containing Preterist Propaganda is allowed to stand. Next your Thesis Statement is flawed from the very beginning by including the supposition that Christ is addressing near and far events. The question from the Twelve pertains to the signs relating to “Your coming” and the “End of the Age.” Matt. 24:3. Christ’s reply in His Olivet Discourse is a direct and straightforward response to the question from His chosen elect. Since “Your coming” AND the “end of the age” is connected in the question, then Christ’s answer pertains to events that lead up to this singular ‘coming’ and ‘end.’ Therefore, your work is best described as ‘garbage in and garbage out.’
Ted >> Synopsis: The Olivet Discourse, particularly as presented in the Gospel of Matthew, appears to present the interpreter with a difficult problem. In particular, Matthew 24:34 appears to require that every element of the Discourse be fulfilled within the lifetime of the generation that heard Jesus speak. Matthew 24:29 appears to require that the Day of the Lord be fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem. Numerous critics have pointed to these difficulties as an excuse to regard Christianity as a false belief system, since elements of the Discourse “clearly” have not been fulfilled within the prescribed time, implying that Jesus was a false prophet.
In typical Preterist fashion the writer begins by heading straight to Matthew 24:34 to redefine Christ’s definition of the phrase “this generation.” They must first play the shell game of offering various possible definitions of this key phrase to then select the one that best fits their explanation. There is no difficult problem to solve in understanding Christ’s definition of the true identity of ‘this generation’ of this passage. That is the one to see all the signs He just described in Matthew 24:3-29 that lead up to “Your coming” and the “end of the age” (vs. 30+31). Christ had no idea of He was addressing ‘that generation’ living 2000 years ago, or one living 10,000 years in the future, as the ‘Father Alone’ (Matt. 24:36) knows when these events shall take place. Christ was forced to teach the ‘end of the age’ through the signs the parable (vs. 32) associated with these end time events over the fact that He had no way of knowing ‘when’ these same events would happen. For Christ to know He was addressing “that generation” living 2000 years ago, then He had to know ‘when’ they would come to pass. That is the ‘problem’ of everyone trying to pass off Preterism as a legitimate Theology and belief system.
Ted >> The best-known systematic approach to the resolution of the “problem of non-fulfillment” is Preterism, which basically declares that all of the Discourse was fulfilled in the AD70 destruction of Jerusalem, within one generation of its delivery.
That is about a crock if I ever heard one. Peter’s generation is the one giving us our New Testament Scripture, which was canonized hundreds of years after 70 AD. Where are their letters describing the fulfillment of Matthew 24 +25 that Christ already came on the clouds (Matt. 24:30) with His angels (Matt. 24:31, 25:31) to judge the living (Matt. 25:31-33) and the dead (Rev. 20:11-15)? How is it that every reference to the ‘day of the Lord’ (Zeph. 1:1-7, Joel 2:28-32, Acts 2:17-21, 1Thes. 5:1+2, 2Thes. 2:1+2, 2Pet. 3:10-12, etc.) is made in the FUTURE TENSE by every Bible author in both the OT and NT? According to the Preterist interpretations, the prophecies in the Book of Revelation were fulfilled twenty or thirty years before those things were written. Again, where is the written testimony that “The Romans” fulfilled all the ‘day of the Lord’ and ‘end of the age’ prophecies of Scripture? They simply DO NOT EXIST. Scholars believing that Revelation was penned prior to 70 AD are in the extreme minority, as most place the writing of this book of prophecy (Rev. 22:7, 10, etc.) to between 90 and 100 AD. Preterism is a man-made theology that is in the vast minority among modern day professing Christians, and your biased view that this represents the ‘best-known’ approach is RIDICULOUS . . .
Ted > > Other systems, such as Dispensationalism, have not to my knowledge presented a detailed analysis of the Discourse that resolves the difficulty of “this generation.” Instead, they tend to rely on arguments about the semantic domain of genea while ignoring contextual issues.
Again we are forced to endure suppositions that are not based in reality or fact, and there is no ‘problem’ to be resolved over Christ’s own definition of the phrase. Let’s look at the verses in question and allow the reader to decide. Christ is answering the question from the Twelve concerning “Your coming” and the “end of the age” throughout the passage in Matthew 24:4-29 by describing a detailed series of events. He then describes His actual coming with His angels in Matt. 24:30+31 to say:
“Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; so, you too, when you* see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation* will not pass away until all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away [ at the end of the age; Rev. 20:11 ], 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 alone.” Matt. 24:32-34.
Christ is forced to teach ‘when’ these events take place in a parable, because “the Father alone” knows the day and hour of their fulfillment. He says when “you” [ this generation ] see “all these things” [ signs and events of Matt. 24:4-29 ] recognize that He is near [ Your coming ], right at the door [Matt. 24:30+31 ]. This generation living to see all these things will also see “Your coming” and the “end of the age.” The fact that Christ had no knowledge about ‘when’ all these events transpire disqualifies Him from knowing if He was addressing “that generation” living 2000 years ago. For Preterism to have one leg on which to stand, then they must force the knowledge of ‘when’ all of these events take place into the mind of Christ and the ears of Peter and the Twelve. If Christ had the knowledge of these things being fulfilled by the Romans in 70 AD, then He never conveyed that information to anyone. Since His feet are to stand on the same Mount of Olives (Zech. 14:3+4), when that mountain is split in two, then quite obviously the events of Matthew 24 (Zech. 14) have yet to be fulfilled. Anyone can clearly see that the Mount of Olives is still in one piece today.
Ted >> If context is considered, it is asserted that “this generation” is the generation that sees the signs of the parousia Jesus described*. Historicism has done little better. Of note here is the fact that ancient interpreters, in particular the Ante-Nicene Fathers, appear to be completely unaware of our modern difficulty.
Right here is where you present the truth in one sentence*, then discount it by changing the topic and heading off into Historicism. Therefore, one sentence of your entire work is based upon the truth of Scripture, while the remainder is build upon false suppositions and complete nonsense. Good luck in propping up your Preterism, as the whole man-made theology makes no Biblical sense whatsoever.

In Christ,

Terral

[Etcetera]

Ted, rest assured that you did not deserve a single one of those slurs on your work. Please take them as the bizarre misrepresentations (you a preterist??) and unfounded mischaracterizations that they are, and go on with the work of the kingdom.

Etcetera.

[studyhound]

Ted, rest assured that you did not deserve a single one of those slurs on your work. Please take them as the bizarre misrepresentations (you a preterist??) and unfounded mischaracterizations that they are, and go on with the work of the kingdom.

Etcetera.
I totally agree Etcetera, Ted did a wonderful job and should be proud of his work. Even though I may disagree with some points it is thought provoking and a wonderful read.

:sh:

And terrel should shut his hole before he knows what he is talking about.

[John Reece]

A post-script: If we look in the BDAG Lexicon, there is a curious citation in the entry on eutheōs. "The Sudden in the Scriptures ’64, 46-72; LRydbeck, Fachprosa 167-76."

Curious.

Ted

Ted,

You are grasping at a straw. The "curious citation" to which you refer in the quote above is on the subject of the difference between euqewV and euquV. It does not refer to the usage of euqewV in the context of Matthew 24:29.

In essence, you are seeking to persuade us that the following are wrong:
the editors of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament
the editors of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament
the editors of the seven Greek-English Lexicons I have checked
the authors of the three Greek Grammars I have checked
the translators of the thirteen English Bible versions I have checked
the six writers of exegetical commentaries on the Greek text of Matthew I have checked

and that – at long last, after many years of study by countless scholars of the Greek New Testament – only Ted and Richard Noel have succeeded in figuring out the true sense of euqewV in Matthew 24:29.

That strikes me as unlikely, which is why it seems to me that your theory is an example of what D. A. Carson described as the fourth in his list of Word-Study Fallacies:


4. Appeal to unknown or unlikely meanings

There are many examples of this fourth fallacy. Some spring from poor research, perhaps dependence on others without checking the primary sources; others spring from the desire to make certain interpretations work out, and the interpreter forsakes evenhandedness.
. . .

. . . this fourth fallacy may be obscured by considerable exegetical ingenuity; but it remains a fallacy just the same.

You are not the first to seek a way around the natural sense of euqewV, so as to support your presuppositions regarding the text of Matthew 24.

Here is a comment by A. B. Bruce in The Expositor's Greek Testament:


Ver 29. euqewV. . . . Matthew's word naturally means : immediately, following close on the events going before, the thlipsis of Jerusalem. One of the ways by which those to whom euqewV is a stumbling block strive to evade the difficulty is to look on it as an inaccurate translation of pT)M, supposed to be in Hebrew original.

So far, I have found no scholar of ancient and/or Biblical Greek literature who has proposed your solution to the presuppositional problem.

[Etcetera]

To those versions and editions helpfully counted by John Reece, one might add the Vulgate of Jerome, who translates Matthew 24.29 as follows:

Statim autem post tribulationem dierum illorum sol obscurabitur et luna non dabit lumen suum et stellae cadent de caelo et virtutes caelorum commovebuntur.

That word statim is probably the strongest of at least three different Latin words for immediately (and it gives us, as an aside, our medical expression stat, meaning right away, without delay).

The other two such words that I have in mind, for the incurably curious, are confestim and continuo.

So, if ευθεως does not mean immediately, then either Jerome mistranslated (both here and in many other verses with ευθεως) or the entire Latin scholarly community is wrong about statim in just the same way that the entire Greek scholarly community would have to be wrong about ευθεως.

Etcetera.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Ted. That is a great article. I know I promised to get back to you with my comments, but I was waiting until I had a block of time to give it the undivided attention it deserves. Alas, I have not found that time. However, I do have one quick question.

The "coming in clouds" of v. 30, IMHO parrallels quite nicely with OT "coming in clouds" passage that describe God coming in judgment.

Do you see Mt. 30 as parrallel to the OT "coming in the clouds", or do you see that as a literal coming in the clouds?

Thanks.

[kofh2u]

Ted:
To all,

Kofhy:
Oh.
Well, if you are extending academic freedom to include a person like myself, great.

TWO POINTS:

1) It is unreasonable to argue, AS YOU DO, that unrepentent and confirmed Jews, especially those who served mammon, preached Christianity and thereby fulfilled the prophecy:

Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a witness to all the nations, and then the end shall come.

AM I WRONG?
I take it that you imply the Jews themselves did this, immediately after the crucifixion, agruing that Jews were already to be found dispersed for economic reasons.

They could speak the gospel to everyone!

You are saying that Jews spread the gospel? This seems an oxymoron.

NEVERTHELESS, YOU SAID:

" God chose Abraham and his descendants as His missionaries (Gen 12:3).

He provided them with a location where every nation would have contact with them through trade (Gen 48:16, Deut 28:10)."

AM I WRONG?
You follow the above statement with what appears to be just that, a rather ridiculous assumption that, Jews are responsible for Christianity:

YOU SAY:
Once that message had been “proclaimed in all creation under heaven” (Col 1:23), God could execute judgment on rebellious Jews and destroy the Temple, providing the second witness that Christians should not regard the Jewish Temple services as having continuing redemptive importance. Shortly after Paul penned those words, Jerusalem was destroyed.

2) SECOND, AN OMISSION?

You gloss over this event, that is, the cataclysm of sun/moon/stars falling.

What the heck is that all about?

Did it happen yet?

How do you see this as a rational occurence, past, present, or future?


"But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give her light and the stars will fall from the heaven and the powers of the heavens will be shaken."

[Ted]

To all,

I appreciate the comments that have been made. In reviewing them, it is clear that certain issues I had not considered have been raised. Further, in investigating them, information has been developed which strengthens the case I presented. This post will deal only with the issue of telos and sunteleia. The concerns about eutheōs will have to wait for another post.

Please forgive what appeared to be a misquotation regarding “fallacies” in interpretation of words. My intention was not to quote, but to offer a snapshot summary of my impression of the thrust of that argument. In essence, I saw that the argument was that one could not blindly combine the components of a word to create the complete understanding. This would ignore idiomatic or other ways of using the composite word. And, as far as that goes, it would be true.

In order to deal with the question with regard to telos and sunteleia, I did the complete NT word study. I believe that it will be enlightening.

Sunteleia is used 6 times in the NT. Matthew uses it 5 times (13:39, 40, 49; 24:3; 28:20) and Paul uses it in Hebrews 9:26. (I am assuming that Paul wrote Hebrews, but I don’t want to debate that.) In every case in Matthew, it is sunteleia tou aiōnos (the end of the age). (Actually, 13:39 is anarthrous, but with 13:40 & 49 being articular. Since it clearly refers to the same subject, the difference is unimportant.) These first three verses are in the parable of the wheat and the tares. Jesus repeatedly explains there that the “end of the age” is the time that the wicked are “thrown into the fire” and the saints remain in His kingdom. Of particular note is the fact that the “field” in this parable is kosmos, not ge (land). Matthew’s use of this word is instructive.

In 4:8, it refers to “all the kingdoms of the world.” This is clearly not limited to the Jewish “land” (ge). In 5:14, the Jews are “the light of the world,” echoing Genesis 12:3’s commission to evangelize “all the families of the world.” In 13:35, he speaks of “the foundation of the world,” harking back to Creation. 16:26 asks what the profit is for a man if he “gains the whole world” in exchange for his soul. 18:7 says, “Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks.” This isn’t clear enough to help. 24:21 speaks of the “beginning of the world” again looking back at Creation. 25:34 makes the same allusion. 26:13 speaks of the “whole world,” emphasizing the universality of the word.

All of the clear uses of kosmos in Matthew speak of the entire world, not the “Jewish world.” Some are explicit in including non-Jewish nations. And the less clear also make sense when applied to the entire world. Thus, we may properly take the word to refer not to some Jewish sphere, but to the entire world.

Looking again to “the end of the age,” in 13:35, the clear kosmos reference is the entire world. So, when at “the end of the age” the field (13:38) is the kosmos, it is not referring to anything Jewish, but to the entire world. Thus, when the angels harvest the field at the “end of the age” (13:39), the reference is similarly to the entire world. Therefore, the sunteleia tou aiōnos is an event involving the entire world. Since this is the exact phrase used repeatedly in chapter 13, we ought to regard it as a technical term describing the time when the wicked and saints of the entire world receive their rewards. It is the eschatological Day of the Lord, since its events are the same as those of the Day of the Lord. When we look at 24:3 and 28:20, there is no context that would suggest that we alter this view. In particular, 28:20 clearly extends beyond AD70 as discussed before. Further, since the context of 28:20 deals with making disciples of “all the nations” (28:19), which is the entire world, “the end of the age” in 28:20 is clearly the same “end of the age” as in chapter 13.

This leaves us with only 24:3 in question. There are no other instances of sunteleia tou aiōnos in scripture. It is a fundamental principle of interpretation that if all uses of a particular term have a single meaning, then the single questioned usage would ordinarily have that same meaning. The only exception would be if a specific contextual indicator of a different intent existed. But no such indicator is present in chapter 24, so sunteleia tou aiōnos in 24:3 should be understood in the same way as everywhere else in Matthew.

Hebrews 9:26 is the only other place that sunteleia is used. But the phrase there is sunteleia ton aiōnōn. This speaks of “the end of the ages”. It is a different expression from Matthew’s technical expression on lexical grounds. Further, Heb 9:26 specifically identifies the “end of the ages” as the cross. This is not AD70, nor is it the time when the wicked are punished and the saints rewarded. Thus, we may disregard it for our purposes.

Interim conclusion:
Sunteleia tou aiōnos is a technical term. It refers to a time of universal reward and punishment, not to the end of some Jewish aspect of history. It is the Day of the Lord.

Telos:
[Telos[/I] is used a number of times in the NT. (Matt 10:22; 17:25; 24:6, 13, 14; 26:56, Mark 3:26; 13:13, 26, Luke 1:33; 18:5; 21:9; 22:37, John 13:1, Rom 6:21-22; 10:4; 13:7, 1 Cor 1:8; 10:11; 15:24, 2 Cor 1:13; 3:13; 11:15, Php 3:19, 1 Thes 2:16, 1 Tim 1:5, Heb 3:14; 6:8, 11; 7:3, James 5:11, 1 Pet 1:9; 3:8; 4:7, 17; Rev 2:26; 21:6; 22:13) Individually discussing all of these would be prohibitive. So we will cover a few key passages, remembering that the true issue is how Matthew uses the word, not how the other writers use it.

Two passages are curious. Matt 17:25 and Rom 13:7 use it to refer to a tax. This odd use has no bearing on our discussion and will not be revisited.

With one exception, all the rest have telos in the singular, and in every singular case, it refers to the single terminus of a single course of events. For example, Jesus “loved (His own) unto the end” (John 13:1). This speaks of the “end” of His life. Heb 3:14 says, we have become partakers of Christ “if we hold fast to the end.” This is the end of our lives. Again, it is a singular thread. We could go on, but you see the pattern. Telos is used to speak of the singular outcome of a singular thread of events.

The sole exception is 1 Cor 10:11. “Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.” The key phrase is telē tōn aiōnōn. Note that telos here is in the plural, as is aiōnos. This is a completely different construction from any we have studied so far. But curiously, if we apply the sun- prefix to telos to get sunteleia, a “consummation,” we find that telē tōn aiōnōn is functionally identical to sunteleia ton aiōnōn. The first expression speaks of multiple conclusions to multiple threads by using the plural word form. The latter speaks of the same thing by using a prefix on the singular to speak of multiple threads concluding in a single event. That is, 1 Cor 10:11 and Heb 9:26 both speak of a confluence of events leading to the cross.

All that is left is to reconsider telos in Matt 24. It appears in verses 6, 13, and 14. Verse 6 is the end of the first sentence in Jesus’ response to the disciples. This begins in verse 4 with “see that no one misleads you.” This is a personal address to them, and when He says “this isn’t the end yet” (v. 6), it’s pretty clear that this is referring to a sequence that affects them personally. Whether it is synonymous with the sunteleia tou aiōnos is not yet clear. Verse 13 clears up the ambiguity. There, Jesus says that the person who perseveres in faith to the end of the troubles leading to AD70 will be saved. Verse 14 I discussed in the original post, and will not repeat.

Of particular importance is the fact that later on these events are most emphatically distinguished by Christ from the Day of the Lord, which in numerous passages is identical in content with the sunteleia tou aiōnos. Thus, the telos is not synonymous with the sunteleia tou aiōnos.

Conclusion:
1. Sunteleia, as discussed in the first post, speaks of a “consummation.” By way of contrast, telos speaks of the end of a single thread.
2. Sunteleia tou aiōnos is a technical term used exclusively by Matthew. He defines it in chapter 13 as the universal eschatological Day of the Lord. It is the universal conclusion of history.
3. Telos is distinguished internally in Matthew 24 from the sunteleia tou aiōnos, particularly in verses 13-14. In Matthew 24, it refers to AD70.

Ted

[John Reece]

To all,

I appreciate the comments that have been made. In reviewing them, it is clear that certain issues I had not considered have been raised. Further, in investigating them, information has been developed which strengthens the case I presented. This post will deal only with the issue of telos and sunteleia. The concerns about eutheōs will have to wait for another post.

Please forgive what appeared to be a misquotation regarding “fallacies” in interpretation of words. My intention was not to quote, but to offer a snapshot summary of my impression of the thrust of that argument. In essence, I saw that the argument was that one could not blindly combine the components of a word to create the complete understanding. This would ignore idiomatic or other ways of using the composite word. And, as far as that goes, it would be true.

In order to deal with the question with regard to telos and sunteleia, I did the complete NT word study. I believe that it will be enlightening.

Sunteleia is used 6 times in the NT. Matthew uses it 5 times (13:39, 40, 49; 24:3; 28:20) and Paul uses it in Hebrews 9:26. (I am assuming that Paul wrote Hebrews, but I don’t want to debate that.) In every case in Matthew, it is sunteleia tou aiōnos (the end of the age). (Actually, 13:39 is anarthrous, but with 13:40 & 49 being articular. Since it clearly refers to the same subject, the difference is unimportant.) These first three verses are in the parable of the wheat and the tares. Jesus repeatedly explains there that the “end of the age” is the time that the wicked are “thrown into the fire” and the saints remain in His kingdom. Of particular note is the fact that the “field” in this parable is kosmos, not ge (land). Matthew’s use of this word is instructive.

In 4:8, it refers to “all the kingdoms of the world.” This is clearly not limited to the Jewish “land” (ge). In 5:14, the Jews are “the light of the world,” echoing Genesis 12:3’s commission to evangelize “all the families of the world.” In 13:35, he speaks of “the foundation of the world,” harking back to Creation. 16:26 asks what the profit is for a man if he “gains the whole world” in exchange for his soul. 18:7 says, “Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks.” This isn’t clear enough to help. 24:21 speaks of the “beginning of the world” again looking back at Creation. 25:34 makes the same allusion. 26:13 speaks of the “whole world,” emphasizing the universality of the word.

All of the clear uses of kosmos in Matthew speak of the entire world, not the “Jewish world.” Some are explicit in including non-Jewish nations. And the less clear also make sense when applied to the entire world. Thus, we may properly take the word to refer not to some Jewish sphere, but to the entire world.

Looking again to “the end of the age,” in 13:35, the clear kosmos reference is the entire world. So, when at “the end of the age” the field (13:38) is the kosmos, it is not referring to anything Jewish, but to the entire world. Thus, when the angels harvest the field at the “end of the age” (13:39), the reference is similarly to the entire world. Therefore, the sunteleia tou aiōnos is an event involving the entire world. Since this is the exact phrase used repeatedly in chapter 13, we ought to regard it as a technical term describing the time when the wicked and saints of the entire world receive their rewards. It is the eschatological Day of the Lord, since its events are the same as those of the Day of the Lord. When we look at 24:3 and 28:20, there is no context that would suggest that we alter this view. In particular, 28:20 clearly extends beyond AD70 as discussed before. Further, since the context of 28:20 deals with making disciples of “all the nations” (28:19), which is the entire world, “the end of the age” in 28:20 is clearly the same “end of the age” as in chapter 13.

This leaves us with only 24:3 in question. There are no other instances of sunteleia tou aiōnos in scripture. It is a fundamental principle of interpretation that if all uses of a particular term have a single meaning, then the single questioned usage would ordinarily have that same meaning. The only exception would be if a specific contextual indicator of a different intent existed. But no such indicator is present in chapter 24, so sunteleia tou aiōnos in 24:3 should be understood in the same way as everywhere else in Matthew.

Hebrews 9:26 is the only other place that sunteleia is used. But the phrase there is sunteleia ton aiōnōn. This speaks of “the end of the ages”. It is a different expression from Matthew’s technical expression on lexical grounds. Further, Heb 9:26 specifically identifies the “end of the ages” as the cross. This is not AD70, nor is it the time when the wicked are punished and the saints rewarded. Thus, we may disregard it for our purposes.

Interim conclusion:
Sunteleia tou aiōnos is a technical term. It refers to a time of universal reward and punishment, not to the end of some Jewish aspect of history. It is the Day of the Lord.

Telos:
[Telos[/I] is used a number of times in the NT. (Matt 10:22; 17:25; 24:6, 13, 14; 26:56, Mark 3:26; 13:13, 26, Luke 1:33; 18:5; 21:9; 22:37, John 13:1, Rom 6:21-22; 10:4; 13:7, 1 Cor 1:8; 10:11; 15:24, 2 Cor 1:13; 3:13; 11:15, Php 3:19, 1 Thes 2:16, 1 Tim 1:5, Heb 3:14; 6:8, 11; 7:3, James 5:11, 1 Pet 1:9; 3:8; 4:7, 17; Rev 2:26; 21:6; 22:13) Individually discussing all of these would be prohibitive. So we will cover a few key passages, remembering that the true issue is how Matthew uses the word, not how the other writers use it.

Two passages are curious. Matt 17:25 and Rom 13:7 use it to refer to a tax. This odd use has no bearing on our discussion and will not be revisited.

With one exception, all the rest have telos in the singular, and in every singular case, it refers to the single terminus of a single course of events. For example, Jesus “loved (His own) unto the end” (John 13:1). This speaks of the “end” of His life. Heb 3:14 says, we have become partakers of Christ “if we hold fast to the end.” This is the end of our lives. Again, it is a singular thread. We could go on, but you see the pattern. Telos is used to speak of the singular outcome of a singular thread of events.

The sole exception is 1 Cor 10:11. “Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.” The key phrase is telē tōn aiōnōn. Note that telos here is in the plural, as is aiōnos. This is a completely different construction from any we have studied so far. But curiously, if we apply the sun- prefix to telos to get sunteleia, a “consummation,” we find that telē tōn aiōnōn is functionally identical to sunteleia ton aiōnōn. The first expression speaks of multiple conclusions to multiple threads by using the plural word form. The latter speaks of the same thing by using a prefix on the singular to speak of multiple threads concluding in a single event. That is, 1 Cor 10:11 and Heb 9:26 both speak of a confluence of events leading to the cross.

All that is left is to reconsider telos in Matt 24. It appears in verses 6, 13, and 14. Verse 6 is the end of the first sentence in Jesus’ response to the disciples. This begins in verse 4 with “see that no one misleads you.” This is a personal address to them, and when He says “this isn’t the end yet” (v. 6), it’s pretty clear that this is referring to a sequence that affects them personally. Whether it is synonymous with the sunteleia tou aiōnos is not yet clear. Verse 13 clears up the ambiguity. There, Jesus says that the person who perseveres in faith to the end of the troubles leading to AD70 will be saved. Verse 14 I discussed in the original post, and will not repeat.

Of particular importance is the fact that later on these events are most emphatically distinguished by Christ from the Day of the Lord, which in numerous passages is identical in content with the sunteleia tou aiōnos. Thus, the telos is not synonymous with the sunteleia tou aiōnos.

Conclusion:
1. Sunteleia, as discussed in the first post, speaks of a “consummation.” By way of contrast, telos speaks of the end of a single thread.
2. Sunteleia tou aiōnos is a technical term used exclusively by Matthew. He defines it in chapter 13 as the universal eschatological Day of the Lord. It is the universal conclusion of history.
3. Telos is distinguished internally in Matthew 24 from the sunteleia tou aiōnos, particularly in verses 13-14. In Matthew 24, it refers to AD70.

Ted

Very good, Ted.

[Etcetera]

Ted:

I concur with John. Very nice presentation. Looking forward to your take on straightway.

Etcetera.

[Ted]

Personal History:
Before we consider eutheōs, please allow me to make some general comments on the genesis of the Matthew 24 paper. I think these will enlighten the audience in a general way. Since they are introductory history, I really don’t want to try to debate them. Following them, I will carry on with the more substantive issues.

I have avoided Matthew 24 for a long time. Having read a number of “expositions” of it, I found myself completely baffled. If verse 29 says that “immediately after the tribulation of those days” (AD70) the Day of the Lord comes, then we have two logical options.

One: Jesus is a false prophet, as the skeptics say, and Christianity is a delusion. I think all of us reject that for intensely personal reasons, as well as for what we individually call evidence.

Two: The Discourse is true. This leaves us with the Ed Stevens/John Noē approach where the universal Day of the Lord happened in AD70. This is called “neo-Hymenaeism” and is declared a heresy on this board. I happen to agree with that conclusion, but it remains the only apparently rigorous application of the text.

In order to avoid that conclusion, the “orthodox Preterist” position “re-casts” the Day of the Lord language in a local context, and applies it to Jerusalem, leaving out its universal aspects. In a way, it spiritualizes this part of the Discourse. I know this sounds a bit harsh, but that’s the way I see it. Other schools with futurist elements find other ways to parse the Discourse, and again run into inconsistencies. This is where I started.

I have studied prophecy for a number of years. The more I study, the more I see an amazing total unity of scripture on both prophecy and soteriology. They are part and parcel of the same story. In essence, they are the same story, often told in metaphor or symbol, using different pictures to appeal to different minds. They are completely unified in all respects. And they have certain specific elements.

1. God has a problem. Sin arose in a perfect creation. God has to deal with sin in a way that will allow His creations free choice. At the same time He must permanently abolish sin.
2. God is just and orderly in His dealings. This is essential for the final resolution of the sin problem.
3. God is gracious. He recognizes that no fallen being can meet the requirements for salvation on his own.
4. There is only one plan for all men for all time. This stands in stark contrast to Dispensationalism.
5. God’s prophetic outline is intended to be a continuing hope for fallen humanity right up to the time of Jesus’ universal parousia. Thus, it contains discussion of and hope for the conflict yet future. This stands in contrast to Preterism as I understand it. (It flatly contradicts the Stevens/Noē approach.)

I could go on, but this is the bare framework. Years of study continue to illuminate more elements of the glorious unity of these theses. Beyond this, there are some key concepts.

1. All of scripture speaks of one voice on any given issue. Therefore, any contradiction is a problem in our understanding, not in the original.
2. All translation is necessarily affected by the translator’s theological leanings. This is only partially avoidable. A classic example is Luke 23:43, where the placement of a comma (not present in the original) before or after “today” has opposite effects on the understanding of the state of the dead.
3. No translation from one language to another perfectly reflects the original in all respects. It is simply impossible to transform all of the lexical, semantic, and social nuances of biblical languages into readable English.
4. Simple passages must be used to interpret the less simple.

Matthew 24:29 is the fly in the ointment. As commonly translated, it flies in the face of all that I understand from the entire corpus of prophetic writings. Many of them, such as Daniel 2, are so clear that I cannot admit that they are the problem. It has to be my past understanding of 24:29 that has been in error. But how?

So, I started looking at the Discourse. By reading carefully, I was able to see the basic structure, but Jesus’ statement verse 29 flatly contradicted everything else He talked about. It just didn’t make sense. But, having dealt with translation issues before (you may have seen my work on Dan 9:25), I dug in. I discussed many issues with my brother (degree in biblical Greek). I then sent those arguments out to others. One got shot down quickly. But the other held up. And as you have critiqued, further discussion has refined the issue.

End history, begin eutheōs discussion:
On this point, John Reece quoted D. A. Carson’s “fallacy” of “appeal to unknown or unlikely meanings.”
There are many examples of this fourth fallacy. Some spring from poor research, perhaps dependence on others without checking the primary sources; others spring from the desire to make certain interpretations work out, and the interpreter forsakes evenhandedness.
. . .

. . . this fourth fallacy may be obscured by considerable exegetical ingenuity; but it remains a fallacy just the same.
I readily admit that I have a desire to work toward a conclusion. I think all of us do. You may remember Theonomy in our discussion of the millennium. IMHO he used a forced interpretation of John 5:28, because to allow a different one would destroy his case. But this is not to point a finger. It simply shows that we all work from biases. I am admitting mine. But I think it comes from a well-studied knowledge of scripture on this issue.

I think that you will admit that using eutheōs as “suddenly” or “quickly” is not an “unknown” meaning. After all, the nuances of Greek are not the same as English. You have admitted that these different nuances could work in a majority of the NT examples of the word. I have argued that even in the disputed ones, it would work. But we may be able to dispense with that argument by noting that words do not always carry a meaning in such a crystal-clear way as to eliminate semantic range. If we allow there to be a range of meaning for eutheōs, however narrow, we can cover all of the other examples easily, but will not resolve the case in point.

Further, if we declare that the translation is necessarily correct because the majority of translations use it, we will have committed a cardinal error. While this might be in agreement with Carson, we will have made the translators inerrant rather than the text. We ought to grant them considerable respect, but not inerrancy.

In sum, I do not think that Carson’s fallacy applies. I showed three Bible translations that use my approach, and have now become aware that the BBE (1980) is also generally consistent with it. Thus, the question as to whether this is an “unlikely meaning” is open and on the table.

Let us now proceed to consider the different nuances. There are four translations of eutheōs that have been proposed: “immediately,” “straightway,” “quickly,” and “suddenly.” 24:29 uses a postpositive construction. Let us consider the effect of that structure on our word choice.

Postpositives are not used very often in English. It’s an issue of style. Let’s look at a trivial example. “Quickly, but after you try for the rebound, get down the court to defend.” This construction emphasizes two things. The basketball player must run fast down the court to defend (straightway?). BUT... first he has to try to get an offensive rebound if his teammate misses his shot. The player must not default the rebound to the other team. Only when there is no chance for one is he to run. If the rebound is tipped around, it may take several seconds before the chance to rebound the ball has passed. Only then must he run “quickly” to prevent the other team from scoring on a fast break. There is a special emphasis here on rebounding. The interval between the shot and running is determined by the time required to secure the rebound. It is the element in the postpositive position. The speed of running is completely unrelated to it. Now let’s move to the Greek.

De meta (“after,” accusative) is used in the postpositive four times in the NT (Matt 24:29, Luke 9:28, John 13:7, Acts 28:17). But before looking at them, let’s look at Heb 7:21 (genitive case postpositive).

Literally translated, Heb 7:21 says:
“He, but with an oath spoken toward himself – the Lord swore not with changing His mind, ‘Thou art a priest forever...’”
Notice the emphasis. Levitical priests did not become priests by taking an oath. They were anointed for service. This construction emphasizes Jesus’ oath to Himself to show the difference between Jesus (Melchizedek priesthood) and the others.

Now to the accusatives.
Luke 9:28 (lit) “It came to pass, but after about eight days...”
Acts 28:17 (lit) “It came to be, but after three days...”
Neither of these is very good English style, so the translators smooth them out. But we can see that the emphasis in both cases is on “after -x- days.” It’s not on “it came to pass.” That is, the Greek makes us pause a moment to see the special emphasis.

John 13:7 (lit) “You will know, but after these things...” The NAS says “you will understand hereafter.” This is at the Last Supper, as Jesus washes Peter’s feet. Jesus’ statement strongly emphasizes that “later” Peter will understand, even though he doesn’t have a clue now. We know that happened 50 days later, at Pentecost. The interval is undefined in the passage, and can be properly understood only in hindsight. Please note that this passage is directly parallel in form and emphasis to 24:29.

Matthew 24:29 is identical in its postpositive construction to all three of these above. So, if we are to maintain a literal translation in postpositive form, we would have:
“Eutheōs, but after the tribulation of those days...” We have established four options for eutheōs. Let’s see how they work out.

1. “Immediately, but after the tribulation of those days...”
2. “Straightway, but after the tribulation of those days...”
3. “Quickly, but after the tribulation of those days...”
4. “Suddenly, but after the tribulation of those days...”

The first two clearly create a contradiction in the English of the sentence. It’s not possible to be both “immediately” and “after.” “Straightway” doesn’t really help, since it is an archaic near-synonym of “immediately.” But further, these two choices ignore the semantics of the sentence. The postpositive draws our attention to a