What does Matthew 24:40, 41 mean? [Archive]

View Full Version : What does Matthew 24:40, 41 mean?

LmtedAtonement

July 21st 2007, 02:14 PM

A question:

Matthew 24:40-41:

Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

This passage, I think, is often interpreted as Jesus saying that some day He will come and suck people out of their cars and out of their kitchens and out of bed and bring them to heaven leaving the rest to deal with some seven-year (or something) time of the rewards of sinful living, et cetera. I have come to think of this passage in terms of verse 16 preceding:

Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

Verse seventeen highlights some of his emphasis on the speed with which the christians are to flee:

Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:

and He goes on in the same fashion for a space. So then, it seems that the reason that the people are in the field is because that's where they get their livlihood. The reason that one would leave is because Jesus told them to flee when they saw the abomination of desolation (probably the sacking of Jerusalem and the temple would be their first clue). And the reason that one would stay would be because they did not hear the words of Jesus, or, more likely, because they did not hearken unto the words of Jesus. I would like to hear someone speak against this interpretation and place it into the future. Why would Jesus tell his disciples these things if they weren't going to happen for over 2000 years? It seems as though his words would not be relevant, especially the words from verse 34

Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

I look forward to hearing from whoever has something to say! Thanks.

Aaron Laws

to God be the glory forever!

David_A_Reed

July 21st 2007, 06:11 PM

Confusion comes in because the disciples added to their question about the Temple’s destruction, “and what shall be the sign of your coming, and of the end of the world?” (Matt. 24:3 KJV) Jesus knew, of course, that these three events -- the Temple’s destruction, his second coming, and the end of the world -- would not be simultaneous, but he went on to answer their three questions together. So, it becomes necessary to discern which parts of Jesus’ response refer to the first century devastation on Jerusalem, and which parts apply to his coming and the end of the world.

Martin Luther explained that Matthew “cooks both into one soup”:

In this chapter there is a description of the end of two kingdoms; of the kingdom of the Jews, and also of the kingdom of the world. But the two Evangelists, Matthew and Mark, unite the two—and do not follow the order as Luke did, for they have nothing more in view than to relate and give the words of Christ, and are not concerned about what was said either before or after. But Luke takes special pains to write clearly and in the true order, and relates this discourse twice; first briefly in the 19th chapter, where he speaks of the destruction of the Jews at Jerusalem; afterwards in the 21st chapter he speaks of both, one following the other. Notice therefore that Matthew unites the two and at the same time conceives the end, both of the Jewish nation and of the world. He therefore cooks both into one soup. But if you want to understand it, you must separate and put each by itself, that which really treats of the Jews, and that which relates to the whole world.

(Martin Luther's "Sermon for the Twenty-Fifth Sunday after Trinity; Matthew 24:15-28" from his Church Postil, first published in 1525)

Calvin's parallel commentary at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom33.ii.xx.html is also enlightening.

David

LmtedAtonement

July 22nd 2007, 10:51 AM

David_A_Reed

July 22nd 2007, 05:18 PM

That's good, but the original question wasn't answered. It seems as though you're treating all the text in Matthew 24, 25, or something along that scope. I'm asking very specifically about two verses: Matthew 24:40, 41. Are these verses describing an event yet to come, or an event already happened? According to your answer...well, I'm not sure what you are supposing. I suppose you have pointed out the source for confusion, but I'm looking for the answer.You are correct. I just pasted in the quote, because I was on my lunch break at work and didn't have time to elaborate. Sorry!

Luther points out that Matthew combines Jesus' answer on the destruction of Jerusalem with his answer on his second coming, whereas Luke separates the two. So, Luke's account makes it easier to understand Matthew's.

Luke has the disciples ask about the destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem in his chapter 21, but discusses only the Second Coming here in Luke chapter 17:

"...asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come ... 'The time is coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man...the Son of Man in his day will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other. ...Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. ...two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left.'" (verses 20-35)

There was no discussion here about the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple -- just about Christ's return, yet here Jesus says, "two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left." (Luke 17:34-35)

So, while the application may be confusing in Matthew's account, it is clear in Luke's account of the same words of Jesus, that these words apply to his Second Coming.
Very good information, though. I wasn't aware of these quotes, and am glad that you have such ready access to them. Where did you become familiar with these passages in particular?I became familiar with these passages while researching my upcoming book Left Behind Answered Verse by Verse. In the book, I show that Protestants from Wycliffe and Tyndale, to Luther and Calvin, to Albert Barnes and Charles Haddon Spurgeon shared a consistent understanding of the end times prophecies for hundreds of years -- an understanding that many Christians today have forgotten since the popularity of dispensationalism in the 1900's.

The Left Behind novels teach that a seven-year tribulation after the rapture will give unbelievers and half-hearted church-goers a "second chance" at Christ's return -- something contrary to Jesus' parables and plain teachings, and contrary to what Bible-readers understood for centuries.

I had my local public library get me some of Luther's and Calvin's books from seminary libraries via interlibrary loan, and I found other material at CCEL.org and elsewhere online.

David

LmtedAtonement

July 22nd 2007, 07:14 PM

Well, this is to David Reed, or of course, anyone who would like to speak in answer to the following questions. When is it to happen, this second coming? I have heard that this would be the same expression for the coming of Christ's Kingdom. Is this the case? If so, I have heard it said by a very reputable minister of God's word and sacrament that the inauguration of the Kingdom of Christ began in the late first century and will be consumated on a later undisclosed date. How does that sound to you?
The same man points out that the inauguration and consumation of Christ's kingdom is often not distinguished: certainly in the passage of Matthew discussed, but extensively in the older testament of the gospel. Isaiah and Daniel and Ezekiel and others tend to describe eschatologically significant events as though, it might seem from those texts isolated and without the testimony of the church, those things would all happen at about the same time. The reason for this is because it was not revealed very early that the Kingdom would have a two or three stage development (inauguration, then the events leading to consumation, then consumation concluding in judgement).
In light of this, concerning the passage toward the end of Luke 17, it would be said that the second coming and the sacking of Jerusalem happen at about the same time. I think David Chilton in Paradise Restored says something to the effect of, when god comes to save, he always comes in judgement as well. He refers to the salvation of Noah and his seed, also the Exodus, also the giving of the promised land, and many other examples come to mind. When Jesus comes to save his elect and do whatever he does for his second coming (the coming of the Kingdom), he also comes in judgement of the old covenant holders who rejected him. What do you think of that?
I eagerly await your (or anyone else's) reply. Good day

May the peace of God and the assurance of his grace fill your day every day
Aaron Laws

David_A_Reed

July 22nd 2007, 10:00 PM

Aaron,

There is some truth to those interpretations. But Jesus' parables of the talents and the faithful and evil slaves, the wheat and the tares, and the ten virgins -- all given to illustrate His return -- point to a time when faithful Christians will all be rewarded, while others face punishment. That hasn't happened yet, so it seems the event lies ahead of us.

Sometimes those of us who invest a lot of time studying Scripture can offer extra insight, but God didn't produce the Bible for theologians. He gave it for ordinary people to read and understand -- people like the fishermen and prostitutes and tax collectors Jesus discipled.

So, the best way to get a proper understanding is probably to hand a copy of the Bible to a truckdriver, a grandmother, and a grocery store clerk, ask them to read it and tell you what they got from it. They are more likely to come up with the understanding God intended than is the theologian.

David

LmtedAtonement

July 23rd 2007, 12:11 AM

An open letter to Mr. David Reed,

This last post is a little disturbing. Perhaps the best way to interpret your last paragraph is to say that the fruit of extra time spent in the word is ...well not much? I tend to think that the more a person thinks on and dwells on and meditates on the word, the more he will know about the likeness of God and the will of God. (I am, of course, reminded of the Psalm 1 which reminds us that the ultimate man, that perfect son of God is one whose "delight is in the law of the LORD; and in His law doth he meditate day and night.") Also, it seems that the more intellect that the Holy Ghost gives that person, the better still that person will understand God's will and his nature. The more desire a person has to study the word of God, the more that person will understand his nature. Perhaps you're not making the beforementioned assertion - I sure hope you're not - but I do think unreservedly that Dr. Sproul knows more about the bible, and, necessarily, God's will and his likeness, than my mother (a truck driver).

[the parables of Christ] point to a time when faithful Christians will all be rewarded, while others face punishment. That hasn't happened yet, so it seems the event lies ahead of us.

I am under the impression that it is most definately the case that faithful Christians are being rewarded. Others, of course are not facing punishment in a real and final sense. Perhaps it's best to put it as my minister has put it, and I'll try very hard to do just that. He has said: if the Kingdom is here, then we would expect to see Christians thriving spiritually, the Church growing in depth and bredth, people to be doing the work of God, the gospel succeeding, et cetera, which is happening. However, there is still sin and death. What are we left to conclude? This: that the Kingdom must be here because there is evidence of Christ reigning (not only in the scripture, but in the world) but, it must not be all the way here, because there is still want of restoration to full dominion. He says something like that and that is when he talks about the inauguration and consummation of the Kingdom. So, I repeat, we are at a point in "time when faithful Christians [are] ... rewarded." :wink:

Sometimes those of us who invest a lot of time studying Scripture can offer extra insight, but God didn't produce the Bible for theologians. He gave it for ordinary people to read and understand -- people like the fishermen and prostitutes and tax collectors Jesus discipled.

This seems to speak of the difference between biblical theology and systematic theology. Surely you are familiar with the differences and similarities, and obviously, the dangers. Just because the bible is not a systematic theology book does not mean that systematic theology is useless. Quite the opposite: systematic theology has been used for many centuries to help sanctify the saints. It is only when systematic theology trumps one's biblical theology that one might be in trouble (this has happened throughout history, the most obvious occurence being the problems just before the great reformation, but the orthodox/catholic split is another, and there are many others). The fact that systematic theology sometimes does (and necessarily must) violate biblical theology does not make it null. Furthremore, I would not say that, without qualification, God gave the bible to lay-people. He gave it, but he also gave the ordinary means of grace and the church. Mainly what I'm talking about here is preaching, by which a minister of the word (who dwells on the word day and night) opens the words like a cob of corn, dropping out the truths that are tied up in the word (for it is an immensely deep book as many pagans and Christians have admitted) out like kernels of corn for all to see and appreciate. That being said, I think that the laity cannot be trusted to extract the FULL meaning of the word without aid. We have ordinary means of grace for a reason!! That's enough on that

Again, your third paragraph is a bit disturbing. Surely you would agree that it is of DIRE importance to, for instance, be able to understand the audience that a biblical writer is addressing, yes? Also, surely it does not hinder the understanding of the bible to be able to read the old testament in the original language (Hebrew) and the earliest translation (Greek) and be able to read the most important commentaries on those texts (this side of the cross) (latin) and compare english translations to boot to understand the text in its fullest context, yes? Not to say that this is the minimum education necessary to begin understanding the scripture, of course not. Perhaps you are hitting on the idea that the gospel is for everyone, stupid, retarded, smart, or wise, and does not require knowledge, but faith. Of course this is the case, but we're speaking on very subtle topics here concerning eschatology, not whether or not you accept Christ as your redeemer. Surely you also agree that these greater aspirations are not attainable by the person that corresponds to the image conjured by saying "a truckdriver, a grandmother, and a grocery store clerk". All that I am saying is that dedicated study INCREASES one's ability to accurately interpret scripture, not hinders it. Ah! an example:

If I were to give Matthew 27:46

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

to a lay-person, as normal as you are suggesting, they would surely think something like "Gee, isn't that terrible that God forsook Jesus?" or something equally vulgar. Only diligent study produces the result of recognizing that text (hopefully the Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani, not the "My God, my God..." all depending on the linguistic background) from Psalm 22. Only then can one realize that Him crying that out was not in defeat or sorrow! Although he couldn't call out the rest due to physical difficulties, it is plain that Christ was doing what he could (and the ONLY thing that anyone can do in times of distress) to comfort himself: calling to mind the promises of GOD!! This is revealed quickly as the latter half of Psalm 22:

(22:27)
All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.

Anyway. This is now too long of a post, please tell me what you have. If you agree with me on basically all these points, then retype your last submission, however, surely you have reason to believe what you believe and although I am contradicting you quite blatantly that even a sales-clerk or a gardener or a truck driver could see it, I would welcome a message of clarification.

By the way, thanks for engaging with me in this debate; I hope you're not flustered or frustrated. I refuse to be difficult for the sake of difficulty and would only like for truth to prosper through debate.

Blessed be the God that grants peace and prosperity to his faithful

Aaron Laws

dizzle

July 23rd 2007, 12:26 AM

So, the best way to get a proper understanding is probably to hand a copy of the Bible to a truckdriver, a grandmother, and a grocery store clerk, ask them to read it and tell you what they got from it. They are more likely to come up with the understanding God intended than is the theologian.

On one hand I might agree. Most ordinary people see "soon" "at hand" "this generation will not pass away" and the like and know what it means.

Oh.... just not that part. Gotcha :smile:

Lmtd Atonement, to answer your question, my present understanding would be that it refers to both. I don't believe that Scripture limits itself necessarily to a single referent in prophetic passages.

LmtedAtonement

July 23rd 2007, 03:43 AM

dizzle

July 23rd 2007, 09:06 AM

Xena,

So you're saying that when Jesus speaks of one being left and one being taken, He might be referring to an event later than 2007, and perhaps also to 70 and perhaps also to others of which I'm not thinking? This seems unacceptable. The demands for clarity in prophecy throughout scripture, and especially in Deuteronomy when it talks about the test for prophets seem to not allow this interpretation. Can you think of any other prophecies that might be fulfilled more than once? Of course, I could be misunderstanding you: however, I don't see how that could be the case. Let me know what you think!

May the God of grace give you assurance that passes all understanding

Aaron Laws

PS although the world, the devil, and your very own conscience accuse you, remember that Jesus Christ does not accuse the ones he justifies. He does not accuse those who are found to have faith in him!

Aaron, the Scripture is full of passages that have multiple referents. That doesn't negate the test of a false prophet at all since there is always at least one referent which justifies the prophet's word. A classic example is the virgin birth prophecy. The very same sort of timing indicators that I bring up for Matthew 24 exist in Isaiah 7. It very clearly is referring to an event to happen in Isaiah's lifetime. Yet Matthew tells us that it was fulfilled in Christ. "Out of Egypt I have called my son" referred to the nation of Israel.... AND Jesus.

I am going to quote some of my own material on the subject. (please refer to the original link for the footnotes and source credits)

Over the years of my studying this issue, I have emerged with a firm belief in preterism, but also with nagging feeling that the majority of orthodox preterists are bungling it up by acting like hyper-literalists in reverse - and it is exactly this mentality that is driving the giddy and the naive to embrace heresy. I hear some hyperpreterists say, "Oh well read such and such and it is just one teensy step away from my view." Sometimes they are right - some of us have gotten so drunk on the timing statements that we are inadvertantly becoming that which we scorn in dispensationalists. We deride those who want to stretch soon into millennia while we choke on the camel of our refusal to recognize that Scripture doesn't have a problem with multiple "fulfillments." While we laugh at those who expect a literally black sun and a literally bloody moon, we are the fools for not allowing the Bible to teach us that timing statements do not put the kibosh on anything future.

The conception that Isaiah prophesied was to happen in his lifetime. If a preterist claims otherwise, they are a hypocrite. Yet, we find out that Jesus actually fulfilled it. Hosea tells how God called His Son Isreal out of Egypt - yet Matthew tells us that was "fulfilled" by Jesus. Fulfilled???? How many times have I heard the standard hyperpreterist soundbite, "Ful-filled means fully fulfilled." Really? To who? Us in our modern arrogance or are we going to humble ourselves and look at the fluidity of the ancients? When we do not, we have at our feet some responsibility for those that fall into Hymenæan chasm.

So how is it that Scripture can so easily have multiple "fulfillments" without becoming silly putty in which it would be impossible to call anyone a false prophet and reign in a stampede of private and colourful interpretations? The answer is in typology.

We may say that a type is an event, a series of circumstances, or an aspect of the life of an individual or of the nation, which finds a parallel and deeper realization in the incarnate life of our Lord, in His provision for the needs of men, or in His judgments in future reign. A type thus presents a pattern of the dealings of God with man that is followed in the anti-type, when, and the coming of Jesus Christ and the setting up of His kingdom, those dealings of God are repeated, though with a fulness and finality that they did not exhibit before. [Fr JOT 38-39 quoting F. Foulkes]

With the obvious exception to his interpretation of the "kingdom," I couldn't agree more, and I think this is really crucial when we preterists are dealing with Matthew 24 and repeat the mantra that it is all about the first century (at least up to verse 34.) I think we all too readily discount any possibility that it has future typological application. The objection is stated quite frequently, "But we can't know that." But can we? I think in some respects we can though the exact application we will not know except in hindsight or contemporaneously if we in fact live through it. In the very passage that we are interpreting (Matthew 24) Jesus applies long fulfilled prophecies such as the destruction of ancient Babylon and applies them to the AD70 event. How can He do this? France assists to answer this:

. . . the conviction which lies at the root of New Testament typology. It is that there is a consistency in God's dealings with men. Because his acts in the Old Testament present a pattern which can be seen to be repeated in the New Testament events; these may therefore be interpreted by reference to the pattern displayed in the Old Testament. New Testament typology is thus essentially the tracing of the constant principles of God's working in history, revealing a 'recurring rhythm and past history which is taken up more fully and perfectly in the gospel events'. [Fr JOT 39]

Since we are still awaiting the perfect consummation it seems totally consistent with the way the Bible teaches us to interpret the Bible to still see and expect future typological fulfillment of past judgments on evil and unbelief of which the destruction of Jerusalem was set forth as a prime example.

This same conviction is already apparent in the Old Testament. The prophets frequently looked forward to a 'repetition of the acts of God'. He Exodus especially provided a model for prophetic predictions both of acts of deliverance within the national history of Israel, and of the more glorious eschatological work of God. Following the lead of the prophets, Jesus and the New Testament writers saw in the coming of Jesus a parallel and yet greater redemption. [Fr JOT 39]

Often they [Jesus' predictions of the destruction of Jersusalem] are expressed in Old Testament language which implies a typological use of the Old Testament closely related to what we have so far examined. Jewish unbelief, and the fact that it is no longer they, but Jesus and his disciples, who are the true people of God, find their logical outcome in the destruction of the Temple and capital of the nation, and this destruction, no less than these other results of the coming of Jesus, finds its types in Old Testament history. They are now to be repeated on a scale more drastic than even the Old Testament catastrophes.[Fr JOT 71]

Following these examples I do not see an issue with continuing to see in the present and future coming of Jesus a parallel and yet greater redemption and a parallel and yet greater judgment that will finally purged evil, put all his enemies under his feet, and destroyed death. Yes we have passages which explicitly teach this, but I do not think we should shy away completely in an on biblical pattern from seeing this event free figured in past judgment events, specifically "comings" of Christ.

But the objection then resurfaces, "but the text doesn't say that." In fact, in a recent radio program with Gary DeMar, he challenged a futurist caller who claimed that the seven churches in Revelation were both historical churches and typological of all churches throughout the ages. That caller was right. . . but Gary simplistically stated, "Where does the text say that?" I rejoin, "Where do you get the ground rules that the text HAS to literally say it in a wooden sense?" The Apostle Paul didn't treat the Old Testament that way, neither did any of the New Testament writers. One may then state, "Yeah but they were inspired." But that is begging the question. The Bereans searched the Old Testament Scriptures to see if what Paul said was so (Acts 17:11). Good thing they didn't act like DeMar and claim, "Where does the text literally say that the Rock that the Israelites drank from in the Exodus was Christ?" (1 Corin. 10:3-4) If we interpreted the whole Bible like that, and in atomistically literal sense, we would reject the messianic claims of Jesus. Plus, as France points out:

A type is not a prediction; in itself is simply a person, event, etc. recorded as historical fact, would no intrinsic reference to the future. Nor is an anti-type the fulfillment of a prediction; it is rather the re-embodiment of a principle which has been previously exemplified in the tight. A prediction looks forward to, and demands, an event which is to be its fulfillment; typology, however, consists essentially and looking back and discerning previous examples of a pattern now reaching its culmination. [Fr JOT 39-40]

Amen and amen.

Another misgiving takes the form of "But where are the brakes on this thing? Do we just allegorize everything? Doesn't this ignore the primary meaning?"

Our discussion of the difference between typology and allegory uncovers one feature essential to true typology: that is a real correspondence between type and antitype. This correspondence must be both historical (i.e. a correspondence of situation and event) and theological (i.e. an embodiment of the same principle of God's working). The lack of a real historical correspondence reduces typology to allegory, as when the scarlet thread hung in the window by Rahab is taken as a prefiguration of the blood of Christ; both may be concerned with deliverance, but the situations and events are utterly dissimilar. On the other hand, the lack of a real theological correspondence destroys what we have seen to be the very basis of typology, the perception of a constant principle in the working of God. This is not, of course, to demand a correspondence in every detail of the two persons or events, but simply that the same theological principle should be seen operating in two persons or events which present a recognizable analogy to each other in terms of the actual historical situation. Only where there is both a historical and a theological correspondence is a typological use of the Old Testament justified.

It is therefore clearly essential to typology that a correct exegesis of the Old Testament text should be made; only so can a real correspondence of later events with those there recorded be established. Typology may, indeed must, go beyond mere exegesis. But it may never introduce into the Old Testament text a principle which was not already present and intelligible to its Old Testament readers. Sound exegesis, and a respect for the sense of the Old Testament text thus discovered, will prevent typology from degenerating into allegory. [Fr JOT 39-40]

All of the above can, and should be applied, to the New Testament events - including the past Great Tribulation.

. . . in the coming of Jesus his Old Testament acts are repeated and consummated. [Fr JOT 43]

And since it is my position (and I believe obviously the Biblical position) that this present Messianic period is the "coming" of Christ, book-ended by two physical advents, all of the works of God are repeated and consummated until The Consummation.

http://www.preteristsite.com/plain/warrenend.html#appendixb (scroll up to appendix B, my anchor links are apparently screwed up)

eschaton

July 23rd 2007, 11:37 AM

I don't think we need to be too dogmatic when identifying the difference between allegory and typology. Typology is allegory.

Paul says:

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

The reality is Christ. And what about the parables Jesus told? Parable is another form of allegory. Is it important if the parables literally happened? Some people will say that it is. What's important is the moral of the story, not whether birds picked seed out of the field. Are the parables Jesus told subject to wild allegorizing? The scriptures shouldn't be either.

David_A_Reed

July 23rd 2007, 10:21 PM

Perhaps the best way to interpret your last paragraph is to say that the fruit of extra time spent in the word is ...well not much? I tend to think that the more a person thinks on and dwells on and meditates on the word, the more he will know about the likeness of God and the will of God. (I am, of course, reminded of the Psalm 1 which reminds us that the ultimate man, that perfect son of God is one whose "delight is in the law of the LORD; and in His law doth he meditate day and night.") Also, it seems that the more intellect that the Holy Ghost gives that person, the better still that person will understand God's will and his nature. The more desire a person has to study the word of God, the more that person will understand his nature. Perhaps you're not making the beforementioned assertion - I sure hope you're not - but I do think unreservedly that Dr. Sproul knows more about the bible, and, necessarily, God's will and his likeness, than my mother (a truck driver).I agree that more time spent prayerfully with the Word usually results in more benefit. No argument with that. It is just as true of a truckdriver who reads the Bible a lot, as it is of a theologian who reads it a lot.I think that the laity cannot be trusted to extract the FULL meaning of the word without aid.Somehow that reminds me of the arguments the Papacy used when preventing the translation of the Bible into the language of the people. As long as it was kept only in Greek and Latin for the priests to read and interpret it, the laity were safeguarded from making misinterpretations; after all, they couldn't be trusted to read it and understand.....dedicated study INCREASES one's ability to accurately interpret scripture, not hinders it. I agree ... if that study is approached prayerfully with a humble heart open to leading by the Holy Spirit.

But think of the theologians and teachers of the Law who were rebuked by Jesus in Matthew chapter 23. How did they get into that deplorable condition? They spent their time "searching the Scriptures" but they failed to benefit. Why? They had problems with their attitudes, their motives, and their personal relationship (or lack thereof) with God. Can the same happen today to professional theologians or professional clergy? Of course.

Yes, of course it helps to become more familiar with the Word. A truckdriver who reads it regularly and repeatedly will recognize Ps. 22 in Jesus' last words.

And there are a handful of passages where modern translations fail to capture the original, as in the various words all translated "love" but having different meanings in the original. It certainly helps to know the difference between AGAPE and EROS in Greek. I agree that theologians and students of Biblical languages are needed, and their work is helpful.

But I also think of the humble ordinary folk who used to read Bibles secretly in the back of a barn -- hiding from the Inquisition -- while all the theologians were loyal to the Pope and his twisted teachings.

Jesus rejoiced that the Father had hidden things from the wise and intellectual ones while revealing them to babes -- his fishermen followers. And I rejoice that the inspired Word has that power today, too.

David

BurningBush--U

July 24th 2007, 02:51 PM

""(I am, of course, reminded of the Psalm 1which reminds us that the ultimate man, that perfect son of God is one whose "delight is in the law of the LORD; and in His law doth he meditate day and night.") Also, it seems that the more intellect that the Holy Ghost gives that person, the better still that person will understand God's will and his nature.""

Taste EZE. 47

Perhaps try reading it more from this POV:

32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: 33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. 35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. 37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

In the days of Noe, the wicked were taken or washed away - scrub a dub dub!

40 <3588> <3588> <3588> Then <5119> shall <2071> two <1417> be <2071> in <1722> the field <68> ; the one <1520> shall be taken <3880> , and <2532> the other <1520> left <863> .

One man Learns and another lays aside:

But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; 49 And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken; 50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, 51 And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

LmtedAtonement

July 24th 2007, 04:43 PM

Dear Mr. Reed,

I believe that we have hashed out that the bible is for the lay as well as ultra-trained, and everyone between, and everybody's reading it is beneficial for all of society. That brings us back to post nuber 5 below. Your response so far to that post was the first paragraph in post six. I would challenge that it doesn't seem at all that those words of Christ point to a time in the future. What texts would you use to proove your statements? Of course the main purpose of the conversation is Matthew 24:40, 41. And I said that those statements are colored by verse 16 preceeding: that is, verse sixteen explains without any hesitations verses 40 and 41 in my opinion. Please let me know what you think, and God be with you!

Blessed be the God who bestows grace and peace on all those who believe on the one whom He has sent
Aaron Laws

LmtedAtonement

July 24th 2007, 04:49 PM

Mr. Burning Bush,

I hope you don't call YOURSELF the burning bush. :-) Anyway, I can make almost no sense of your message at all. What is a "Taste EZE. 47"?? I understand this:

In the days of Noe, the wicked were taken or washed away - scrub a dub dub!

Are all those numbers :

40 <3588> <3588> <3588> Then <5119> shall <2071> two <1417> be <2071> in <1722> the field <68> ; the one <1520> shall be taken <3880> , and <2532> the other <1520> left <863> .

Strongs numbers? I'll just suppose that you copied them from a source that had Strongs numbers in there. Libronyx I think does that if you ask it to. Then, I think, the climax of your message:

One man Learns and another lays aside:

Are you suggesting that the verses that are the subject of this message are referring to one person becoming learned and one person remaining stupid (or ignorant or dumb or whatever)? If so, I think that's too light of a reading. That seems like it would work just fine, if there wasn't verse sixteen before, showing us exactly what the text meant. I think that the fleeing command makes higher literary readings unnecessary.
If I am misunderstanding you, I would be glad to read more of what you have to say, otherwise, perhaps you have more insight. Until then, good day!

Yours in Christ
Aaron Laws

LmtedAtonement

July 24th 2007, 05:02 PM

Darth Xena,

What does your handle mean? Your writing is impressive, and I think is very accurate. Normally, and when I took a look at the length of the post, I would have never read something that long, however it was just good enough to continue reading the whole thing. I think your writing and quotations will ease my understanding of various prophecies and types, et cetera, in the future, but I'm not sure that they fall in line with the code of conduct. The code mentions

Remember responsive arguments are to be as personal as possible, not "cut and paste" dueling articles.
h ttp://www.theo logyweb.com/campus/faq.php?faq=campus_decorum#faq_campus_dec orum_etiquette

I'm not sure if quoting your own articles counts, and this certainly isn't a dueling articles...:wink: .
Concerning the text at hand, however, I have an hard time applying what you have said. Would you assert that every prophecy must have a typological function? That it must have a short-term, literal fulfillment, and a larger type-fulfillment? Must it mean more than the obvious (that being the result of fleeing to the mountain upon the witness of the signs mentioned earlier). Hopefully I'll hear from you or your husband soon.

God be with you
Aaron Laws

dizzle

July 24th 2007, 07:31 PM

Darth Xena,

What does your handle mean?

There was a craze here a while ago to add "Darth" to one's user name, and since I always had Xena avatars then, I just chose to go with Darth Xena, and I just pretty much like it.

Your writing is impressive, and I think is very accurate. Normally, and when I took a look at the length of the post, I would have never read something that long, however it was just good enough to continue reading the whole thing. I think your writing and quotations will ease my understanding of various prophecies and types, et cetera, in the future

Thank you very much. The commentary which that is a part of has been work of about three years or so.

I'm not sure if quoting your own articles counts, and this certainly isn't a dueling articles...:wink: .

Quoting one's own work doesn't count. I could have just as easily posted it as if I wrote here for the first time but wanted to give you the benefit of the entire context (and the endnotes).

Concerning the text at hand, however, I have an hard time applying what you have said. Would you assert that every prophecy must have a typological function? That it must have a short-term, literal fulfillment, and a larger type-fulfillment? Must it mean more than the obvious (that being the result of fleeing to the mountain upon the witness of the signs mentioned earlier).

I wouldn't say every prophecy must but I think a great many do - especially those of an eschatological nature since I think the Bible is eschatological at its core from the Fall onward. We learn in the NT that the entire OT is really about Christ so I would say that nearly every OT passage has a larger type fulfillment (and I say "nearly" rather than "all" because some were clearly and directly about the first century advent of Christ and do not require anything further).

The context here strongly echoes final consummation language.

Hopefully I'll hear from you or your husband soon.

I am sorry, I don't understand that last portion. I am not sure what my husband has to do with our discussion.

dizzle

July 24th 2007, 07:36 PM

But I also think of the humble ordinary folk who used to read Bibles secretly in the back of a barn -- hiding from the Inquisition -- while all the theologians were loyal to the Pope and his twisted teachings.

The printing press wasn't even invented at the time of the Inquisition. I doubt that many "humble ordinary folk" were incredibly literate nor had the means to afford a handwritten copy of the Bible. Further there were theologians who weren't even Catholic such as those in the EOC. Luther wasn't a humble ordinary folk either, he was a former monk.

So I guess my point is that the whole thing with "humble ordinary folk" and "learned folk" is that it is pointless. There is value in both and the rest seems like an emotional appeal and an appeal to prejudice against theologians which is quite the rage today.

eschaton

July 25th 2007, 01:09 PM

Acccording to the PBS series on the inquisition it began in France in the 12th century, and continued on and off through the 19th century. I believe the office of the inquisition only closed in the last fifteen years.

The 4-hour series spans medieval France in Episode 1, 15th century Spain in Episode 2, Renaissance Italy in Episode 3 and mid-nineteenth century Europe in Episode 4.

http://www.pbs.org/inquisition

The printing press was invented in 1440, so I think it's fair to say that it existed during part of the inquisition anyway.

John Reece

July 25th 2007, 01:36 PM

An important distinction should be noted between two different inquisitions:
The Roman Catholic Holy Office of the Inquisition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition)
The Spanish Inquisition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition)

eschaton

July 25th 2007, 01:55 PM

It is also important to note that the Spanish is only one of the inquisitions. The Spanish began in 1478 and ended in 1834. The printing press was invented in 1440.

There was also the Medieval, Portugese, and Roman inquisitions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition

BurningBush--U

July 25th 2007, 07:17 PM

to LTD atonement

Some Heed God and Some Don't.

Luke
17 27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
v.28
v.29
v.30

Genesis
7 1 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

Does it make any sense if the world and the Kingdom of God is here and always has been spoken of here to remove them and leave the wicked?

Again, it's God's men that remain:

Genesis
7 23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive , and they that were with him in the ark.

God will also remember his covenant as in the days of NOE too

but keep in in mind that some need to prepare the arc at hand:

1 Peter 3.20
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Hebrews 9
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Remember Genesis:
6 13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. 14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.

There's almost always hope for those with a repentant heart... through obedience in love:

Ezekiel
33 15 If the wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk in the statutes of life, without committing iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die.

Here's a little interesting twist to the mix, some flavor to savor in contemplation:

1 Cor. 15
20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

I John
2 28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.
3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. 4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. 6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

we are to overcome

I John
2 14 I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one.

Ted

July 26th 2007, 10:08 PM

I’ve been away, and when I come back I see one of my favorite passages discussed. But curiously, no one has discussed it. So I will.

The OP asked about Matthew 24:40-41. The first step in responsible exegesis is to establish the context. The careful reader will note that these two verses are in the middle of a segment of the Olivet Discourse that is capable of standing alone. It is book-ended by verses 35-36 and 42-44.

(35-37) Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall 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. For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah.

(42-44) Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming. But be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what time of the night the thief was coming, he would have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken into. For this reason you be ready too; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will.

Let’s paraphrase this for clarity:
A) Heaven and earth will pass away, but only the Father knows when

…other stuff…

B) so be ready for me when I come back.

The two verses in question are in the middle of the “other stuff.” The subject is the destruction of the heaven and earth as we know them. We know this because part of Jesus’ answer deals with the sunteleia tou aionos, the time when the righteous are harvested and the wicked destroyed. Jesus uses this term as a technical term in Matthew 13’s parables. It appears nowhere else in scripture.

We should also note the parallelism between verses 35 and 37. There, Jesus equates his return with the destruction of heaven and earth (and it’s not just Jerusalem). That language specifically refers to the entire created world (cf. Exod 31:17, 2 Ki 19:15, 2 Chron 2:12, Psa 115:15, etc.). That phrase occurs 26 times in the NAS, and not one of them refers to a limited area like Judea or Jerusalem, and not once does it refer to the Jewish polity or anything similar. Thus, there is no biblical warrant for any other conclusion than the fact that His return will involve the destruction of the physical earth (at least its habitable surface).

Jesus confirms this again with the first half of this rabbinic instruction.

For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. For as in those days which were before the flood they were eating and drinking, they were marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away
Notice that when Jesus returns, it will be just like Noah’s time. Everyone was wicked except the very few. The wicked people had no clue until Noah went into the ark, the door was shut, and then the flood killed them. They just kept on keepin’ on till they died.

This is the first half. The second half is a perfect parallel.

so shall the coming of the Son of Man be. Then there shall be two men in the field; one will be taken, and one will be left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken, and one will be left.

The men and women in this half of the illustration parallel the two groups in the first half. One is saved and the other is killed. Interestingly, the word for “left” is apheimi, which is translated “forgive” in the Lord’s Prayer. Thus, we may legitimately translate this, “One will be taken and the other forgiven.”

Put simply, Jesus use parallel statements to make his point. The world as we know it will be destroyed at His return, but we don’t know when that will be, so we must stay ready. Just like the days of Noah, the wicked will die when He comes, and the saints will be rescued.

Since Jesus is coming to take us to “My Father’s house” (John 14:1-3), at the parousia, the saints will meet Jesus in the air to go to heaven (ago in verse 14 can just as easily be translated “take” as “bring” see Luke 4:9, 29; John 18:13, 28, etc.). The wicked will all be killed, and no one will be left alive on the earth.

My friends, now is the time to tackle exegesis. I’ve done the job for you. Will you let the scriptures speak? Or will you impose your views on the text?

Ted

eschaton

July 26th 2007, 11:17 PM

Thanks for some worthwhile instruction Ted.

LmtedAtonement

July 27th 2007, 09:53 PM

Darth Xena,

Now that you've explained what you mean by

Lmtd Atonement, to answer your question, my present understanding would be that it refers to both. I don't believe that Scripture limits itself necessarily to a single referent in prophetic passages.

We can talk about the specific content of that quote. (the quote was in answer to my question: about to when Jesus was referring us, earlier, or later). My new question: We see how Christ might have been telling them about a time in the near future when, during the sacking of God's old covenant people, Jesus was pointing out that some would flee (in accordance to his command) and some would not. How else might this scripture be fulfilled and when? Perhaps the question that goes before this one: Do you think one can know the later fulfillment of this passage if there are two or more fulfillments?
Although I have been very impressed by your ideology, especially concerning multiple fulfillments, I am not convinced that this particular passage demands more than the standard treatment - id est more than just soon at hand fulfillment. Talk to you soon! Until then:

May the God of all graces be with you and send peace through his gospel
Aaron Laws

PS. All that about the inquisition (what, three or four posts!?) is amazing(ly unnecessary). If only I knew how to delete posts from my thread.... :-)

LmtedAtonement

July 27th 2007, 09:59 PM

Dear Burning Bush's speaker,

I'm not sure I understand your message...again. Perhaps you're saying that the passage in question (the title of the thread) is merely saying "Some Heed God and Some Don't"? If that's what you're suggesting is the full meaning of the passage, I think I disagree. Are you saying that the some heed God (namely, those who flee to the mountains when Jesus told them to?) and some don't (are left to their destruction), as an explanation of the passage at hand? If so, then you are in full agreement with my first post on the subject, and I wonder why you wrote so many barely related scriptures on your posts. I look forward to fully understanding your exegesis!

Yours in the CHRIST
Aaron Laws

LmtedAtonement

July 27th 2007, 10:20 PM

eschaton

July 28th 2007, 12:30 PM

Dear Ted,

Thank you for your time and effort concerning the explanation of the passage. Although I understand that you have, in your opinion, "let the scriptures speak [for themselves]", I must point out that just because someone may hear the text saying a different thing does not mean that they have not let the text speak in the best way they can. Not to say that this is your assertion, it just sounds dangerously close to that greviously erronious assertion. Thank you also for addressing the text most specifically and thoroughly! Although I don't know what it means...perhaps you get a pearl for that...if it's some sort of merit-based honour and has nothing to do with the programming language.
It seems as though you took a close look at verse thirty-five:

reminding everyone to look carefully at context, but forgot to mention verse 34:

It seems as though by your omission, you are not letting scripture speak. This seemeth to be a VERY important context, without it, one might miss some sort of understanding. What meaneth it?

Blessed be the man that trusts in JHWH for his righteousness. That man will not be unsatisfied!

Aaron Laws

Hi Aaron,

You might find it interesting that comments about Matt 24:34 by the church fathers don't match preterist understanding. From the Catena Aurea:

Hilary: To give sure credit to the things which should come to pass He adds, “Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass away until all these things be fulfilled.” By saying “Verily,” He gives asseveration to the truth.

Origen: The uninstructed refer the words to the destruction of Jerusalem, and suppose them to have been said of that generation which saw Christ’s death, that it should not pass away before the city should be destroyed. But I doubt that they would succeed in thus expounding every word from that, “one stone shall not be left upon another,” to that, “it is even at the door;” in some perhaps they would succeed, in others not altogether.

Chrys.: All these things therefore mean what was said of the end of Jerusalem, of the false prophets, and the false Christs, and all the rest which shall happen down to the time of Christ’s coming, That He said, “This generation,” He meant not of the men then living, but of the generation of the faithful; for so Scripture uses to speak of generations, not of time only, but of place, life, and conversation; as it is said, “This, is the generation of them that seek the Lord.” [Ps 24:6]

Herein He teaches that Jerusalem shall perish, and the greater part of the Jews be destroyed, but that no trial shall overthrow the generation of the faithful.

Origen: Yet shall the generation of the Church survive the whole of this world, that it may inherit the world to come, yet it shall not pass away until all these things have come to pass. But when all these shall have been fulfilled, then not the earth only but the heavens also shall pass away; that is, not only the men whose life is earthly, and who are therefore called the earth, but also they whose conversation is in heaven, and who are therefore called the heaven; these “shall pass away” to things to come, that they may come to better things.

But the words spoken by the Saviour shall not pass away, because they effect and shall ever effect their purpose; but the perfect and they that admit no further improvement, passing through what they are, come to that which they are not; and this is that, “My words shall not pass away.” And perhaps the words of Moses and the Prophets have passed away, because all that they prophesied has831 been fulfilled; but the words of Christ are always complete, daily fulfilling and to be fulfilled in the saints. Or perhaps we ought not to say that the words of Moses and the Prophets are once for all fulfilled; seeing they also are the words of the Son of God, and are fulfilled continually.

Jerome: Or, by “generation” here He means the whole human race, and the Jews in particular. And He adds, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away,” to confirm their faith in what has gone before; as though He had said, it is easier to destroy things solid and immovable, than that aught should fail of my words.

Hilary: For heaven and earth have in their constitution no necessity of existence, but Christ’s words derived from eternity have in them such virtue that they must needs abide.

Jerome: The heaven and the earth shall pass away by a change, not by annihilation; for how should the “sun be darkened, and the moon not give her light,” if earth and heaven in which these are should be no more?

Raban.: The heaven which shall pass away is not the starry [marg. note: sidereum] but the atmospheric [marg. note: aereum] heaven which of old was destroyed by the deluge.

Chrys.: He brings forward the elements of the earth to shew that the Church is of more value than either heaven or earth, and that He is Maker of all things. [marg. note: 2 Pet 3:5]

About the inquisition comments, I think it's a good thing when our threads contain accurate information.

dizzle

July 28th 2007, 12:59 PM

The printing press was invented in 1440, so I think it's fair to say that it existed during part of the inquisition anyway.

Thank you for the information.

dizzle

July 28th 2007, 01:01 PM

We can talk about the specific content of that quote. (the quote was in answer to my question: about to when Jesus was referring us, earlier, or later). My new question: We see how Christ might have been telling them about a time in the near future when, during the sacking of God's old covenant people, Jesus was pointing out that some would flee (in accordance to his command) and some would not. How else might this scripture be fulfilled and when? Perhaps the question that goes before this one: Do you think one can know the later fulfillment of this passage if there are two or more fulfillments?

In hindsight yes. And we use those things that have come to pass teach about things yet to come to pass.

Although I have been very impressed by your ideology, especially concerning multiple fulfillments, I am not convinced that this particular passage demands more than the standard treatment - id est more than just soon at hand fulfillment.

I think it demands it actually when you keep the consummation in view. I think keeping the consummation in view really helps to expand our focus when looking at eschatological enactments.

May the God of all graces be with you and send peace through his gospel
Aaron Laws

PS. All that about the inquisition (what, three or four posts!?) is amazing(ly unnecessary). If only I knew how to delete posts from my thread.... :-)[/QUOTE]

eschaton

July 29th 2007, 09:03 AM

Thank you for the information.

You're welcome.

LmtedAtonement

July 29th 2007, 02:42 PM

Dear Eschaton,

So, although I can't extract an express assertion from your writing, might I extrapolate that you are under the impression that the word generation means not "the whole of a multitude of people living at the same time" but rather, a race of individuals that beget one another that have similar attributes? Of course, this is not matter of meaningless semantics, but a very meaningful one.

I should be frank, I have never found it necessary to place that kind of definition on the word Generation. The greek genea, I suppose is much more important here than the english generation. I read that Thayer's says "The whole multitude of men living at the same time." Also, Arndt and Gingrich "basically, the sum total of those born at the same time, expanded to include all those living at a given time. Contemporaries." I don't know just how reputable these sources are, but I am, as of now, convinced. The meaning of the greek genos, however, seems to be the word that some extrapolate has having the spelling genea. (Genos is translated race in Acts 7:19...sometimes). I look forward to your response.

May the God of peace give us faith to put aside our daily work and trust him to provide for us as he has for our fathers, and rest on his Sabbath

Aaron Laws

dizzle

July 29th 2007, 02:49 PM

Aaron, eschaton places (IMHO) way too much emphasis on the ECF. I prefer to argue the Scripture primarily. However, on one hand, my particular approach still gives credence to the future aspect.

The ECF had some great teaching and some nutty teaching. I find it very instructive to hear what they have to say, but again, I must take my stand on Scripture. Many of the ECF were premillennial, however, eschaton does not take that as Gospel, as he should not. Interesting, the Father of Church History, Eusebius (who I daresay was much more knowledgeable about that period of time than we are) did not find such compelling either, as he had distinctly preteristic notions. Also interestingly, the RCC tradition, which places MUCH more authority in the ECF than Protestants generally do, birthed systematic preterism (Alcazar) and he was not thrown out or anathematized or disciplined (to my knowledge) thus showing that these issues are not quite so settled.

LmtedAtonement

July 29th 2007, 02:51 PM

Mrs Darth Xena,

If you can, please expound on this topic:

I think it demands it actually when you keep the consummation in view

Also, I have certainly noticed that keeping the consummation in view helps exegesis, and it helps place various passage in context and explain their significance and time frame. I haven't noticed it expanding the focus...per se. However, I don't think that's NEARLY as important as the previous quote. And, about the previous quote, here is my question: how does keeping the consummation in view demand a double-fulfillment of this particular passage? The consummation, I assume you mean, is the second coming of Christ, during which the ressurections and judgements will take place, as well as "every tongue confess", et cetera, and new heavens and new earth. Is this somewhat accurate? I, again, look forward to hearing from you.

GOD BE WITH YOU
Aaron Laws

John Reece

July 29th 2007, 03:15 PM

I read that Thayer's says "The whole multitude of men living at the same time." Also, Arndt and Gingrich "basically, the sum total of those born at the same time, expanded to include all those living at a given time. Contemporaries." I don't know just how reputable these sources are, but I am, as of now, convinced.

The sources you cite are quite reputable and correct in that in the context of Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30, and Luke 21:32, the sense of genea (genea)] is as defined by BDAG: "the sum total of those born at the same time, expanded to include all those living at a given time and frequently defined in terms of specific characteristics, generation, contemporaries.

eschaton

July 29th 2007, 04:25 PM

Dear Aaron and others,

IMHO, those who either knew the apostles personally or knew those who were Acquaintances of the apostles were much more knowledgable about these things than moderns who pick up a dictionary and determine the scriptures mean this or that. Ancient Christians didn't use exactly the same methods of interpretation we use today.

In my investigation of the first two hundred years of early christian writings I haven't found the preterist idea held by any church fathers. I've been over this several times here at TWEB. The earliest I've found the preterist idea about Mat 24:34 by anybody esteemed was about the 16th century. I would have to search my notes to see who that was right now because I don't remember off the top of my head.

When I say preterist idea I'm speaking mainly about the tribulation and antichrist. Many futurists hold to the idea that such scriptures as Mat 24:15 are about 70 AD. Some ECF did too, but it was mainly after the first 200 years.

The early church fathers felt there was an allegorical level to the scriptures that they referred to as "spiritual." Insisting on only a strict literal interpretation was sometimes referred to as "Jewish." I have found that idea is supported in scripture.

Since the first century interpretation has depended more and more on the literal sense to the extent that many people today would deny that there is any allegory in scripture. There was a big change about 500 years ago and modern hermeneutic methods were developed after that. I don't think it is right to dismiss the views of the ancients. Many of them gave their lives for Christ. I don't see where Jesus and the apostles used modern methods, and I don't remember them arguing about the meaning of words.

Thank you

Ted

July 29th 2007, 08:14 PM

reminding everyone to look carefully at context, but forgot to mention verse 34:... It seems as though by your omission, you are not letting scripture speak. The seemeth to be a VERY important context, without it, one might miss some sort of understanding. What meaneth it?
A good question. I dealt with this at length in http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=47655&highlight=matthew+24. I hesitate to send you to a thread with hundreds of posts, but the OP has the basic logic. In essence, verse 34 (the famous “this generation” verse) deals with the AD70 parts of the discourse, but is unrelated to the parousia, which happens “after” AD70, with no interval specified.

A second element is that Jesus has concluded one part with verse 34, and introduces a new segment in verse 35, a distinction present in both Greek and English. BTW, you will find many who disagreed with me in that other thread. But I will point to the fact that several professors of Greek have reviewed my work and found it defensible. A couple have adopted it as their position. An academic form of that paper is in process now and will be submitted for publication as soon as it is ready.

Eschaton has done a nice job of reviewing the ANF on this. Curiously, he doesn't cite any ANF that directly addresses the key verse (v. 29) that gives us trouble. Of course, I couldn't find one, either.

I would expand John Reece's comment on genea by noting that its interpretation is generally subject to the immediate context in which it is used. In this case, that context drives us to “contemporaries.”

Ted

eschaton

July 29th 2007, 08:42 PM

Thanks Ted.

Here is commentary from the same compilation of Aquinas. It deals with verse 29. You can find the entire commentary at ccel.org or newadvent.org.

29. “Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

30. And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gloss., non occ.: As soon as the Lord has fortified the believers against the arts of Antichrist and his ministers, by shewing that His coming would be public, He proceeds to shew the order and method of His coming.

Chrys.: By the tribulation, He means the times of Antichrist and the false Prophets; for when there are so many deceivers, the tribulation will be great. But it shall not extend through any great length of time. For if for the elect’s sake the Jewish war is shortened, much more shall this tribulation be shortened for their sakes; for which reason He said not “After,” but “Immediately after,” for He shall come immediately after.

Hilary: The darkening of the sun, the failing of the moon, and the fall of the stars, indicate the glories of His coming.

Origen: One will say, As at the breaking out of great conflagrations, great darkness is at the first caused by the smoke, so when the world shall be consumed by fire, which shall be kindled, even the great luminaries shall be darkened; and when the light of the stars is decayed, the rest of their substance, incapable of exaltation, shall fall from heaven into what it was, when it was first raised aloft by the light.

When this shall have taken place, it follows that the rational heavenly powers shall suffer dismay and derangement, and shall be suspended from their functions. “And then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven,” that sign by which the heavenly things were made, that is, the power which the Son wrought when He hung upon the cross. And the sign shall appear in heaven, that men of all tribes 823 who before had not believed Christianity when preached, then by that sign, acknowledging it as made plain, shall grieve and mourn for their ignorance and sins.

Others will think otherwise, that as the light of a lamp dies away by degrees, so when the supply of the heavenly luminaries shall fail, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon and the light of the stars shall grow dim, and that which in their composition is earthy shall fall from heaven. But how can it be said of the sun that its light shall be darkened, when Esaias the Prophet declares, that in the end of the world, there shall be light proceeding forth from the sun? [Isa 30:26]

And of the moon he declares that it shall be as the sun. But concerning the stars, there are some that endeavour to convince us that all, or many of them, are larger than the whole earth. How then shall they fall from heaven, when this earth would not be large enough to contain them?

Jerome: These things, therefore, shall not come to pass by any diminution of light, for in another place we read that the light of the sun shall be sevenfold; but by comparison with real light, all things shall seem dim.

Raban.: But nothing hinders our supposing that the sun and moon with the other stars shall for a time lose their light, as we know did the sun at the time of the Lord’s passion; as Joel also says, “The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon blood, before the great and manifest day of the Lord come.” [Joel 2:31]

But when the day of judgment is passed, and the life of future glory shall dawn, and there shall be a new heaven and a new earth, then shall that come to pass of which Isaiah speaks, “The light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold. The stars shall fall from heaven,” [Isa 30:26] is expressed in Mark; “There shall be stars falling from heaven,” [Mark 13:25] that is, lacking their proper light.

Jerome: “By the powers of heaven,” we understand the bands of the Angels.

Chrys.: Very fitly shall they be shaken and dismayed, seeing so mighty a change being wrought, their fellow-servants punished, and the universe standing before a terrible tribunal.

Origen: But as, at the dispensation of the Cross, the sun was eclipsed, and darkness was spread over the earth; so when the sign of the Son of Man appears in heaven, the light of the sun, moon, and824 stars, shall fail, as though waning before the might of that sign. This we understand to be the sign of the cross, that the Jews. may see, as Zacharias and John speak, “Him whom they have pierced,” [Zech 12:10, John 19:37] and the sign of victory.

Chrys.: But because the sun will be darkened, the cross would not be seen, if it were not far brighter than the rays of the sun. That the disciples might not be ashamed, and grieve over the cross, He speaks of it as a sign, with a kind of distinction. The sign of the cross will appear to overthrow the shamelessness of the Jews, when Christ shall appear in the judgment, shewing not only His wounds, but His most ignominious death, “And then all the tribes of the earth shall mourn.” For when they shall see the cross, they shall bethink them how they have gained nought by His death, and that they have crucified Him whom they ought to have worshipped.

Jerome: Rightly does He say, “the tribes of the earth,” for they shall mourn who have no citizenship in heaven, but are written in earth. [Jer 17:13]

Origen: Morally, one may say that the sun, which shall be darkened, is the Devil, who shall be convicted in the end of the world, that whereas he is darkness, he has feigned himself to be the sun; the moon, which seems to receive its light from this sun, is the Church of the wicked, which professes to have and to give light, but then convicted with its sinful dogmas, shall lose its brightness; and all those who, either by false teaching, or false virtues, promised truth to men, but led them astray by lies, these are fitly called stars falling from, so to say, their own heaven, where they were raised on high, exalting themselves against the knowledge of God.

For illustration of this discourse, we may apply that place in Proverbs, which says, “The light of the just is unquenchable, but the light of the wicked shall be quenched.” [Prov 4:18] Then the brightness of God shall appear in every one who has borne the image of the heavenly; and they of heaven shall rejoice, but they of earth shall lament.

Aug., Ep. 199, 39: Or, the Church is the sun, moon, and stars, to which it is said, “Fair as the moon, bright as the sun. Then shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,” [Song of Songs 6:10] because in that ungoverned fury of wicked persecutors, the Church shall not be seen.

“Then shall the stars fall from heaven, and the powers of heaven shall be825 shaken,” because many, who seemed to be shining in God’s grace, shall give way to their persecutors, and shall fall, and even the stoutest believers shall be shaken. And these things shall be “after the tribulation of those days,” not because they shall happen when the whole persecution is overpast, but because the tribulation shall be first, that the falling away may come after. And because it shall be so throughout all those days, it shall be “after the tribulation of those days,” yet on those very days.

Ted

July 29th 2007, 09:11 PM

Eschaton,

I just read that twice, and don't see anyone who deals with Matthew 24:29. What did I miss?

Ted

eschaton

July 29th 2007, 09:16 PM

Eschaton,

I just read that twice, and don't see anyone who deals with Matthew 24:29. What did I miss?

Ted

Try again Ted. I mistakenly copied from chapter 25 before I read it. Sorry. I have re-edited.

David_A_Reed

July 30th 2007, 02:14 PM

I would challenge that it doesn't seem at all that those words of Christ point to a time in the future. What texts would you use to proove your statements? Of course the main purpose of the conversation is Matthew 24:40, 41.
Aaron LawsI believe that the weight of the evidence points to a future application, but I will not be so bold as to claim to "prove" it beyond doubt or disputation. Time will tell.

David

David_A_Reed

July 30th 2007, 02:20 PM

I prefer to argue the Scripture primarily. However, on one hand, my particular approach still gives credence to the future aspect.

The ECF had some great teaching and some nutty teaching. I find it very instructive to hear what they have to say, but again, I must take my stand on Scripture.Bravo!

If Scripture leaves room for more than one interpretation by sincere, honest believers, it is because the divine Author meant to leave it that way. Certainly, He could have included the words or phrases that would leave no room for dispute -- as He did with many other matters -- but He chose to leave some matters less clear in his Word.

It is in those areas that we can learn to respectfully disagree, while embracing those we disagree with as fellow believers who love God.

David

Ted

July 31st 2007, 09:00 PM

eschaton

August 1st 2007, 10:46 AM

Eschaton,

I've read a number of those comments before. BTW, Chrysostom and Hilary are not ANF.

I must have been insufficiently exact in my comment. I've not seen any ANF deal with the eutheos in 24:29. They generally assume a view of the Discourse in their writing. Most take the apocalyptic signs as future to them. But none of them seem to be aware of the idea that the AD70 troubles are "immediately" followed by the parousia.

Ted

Most earlier fathers, such as Origen and Hippolytus, felt that 24:15 was talking primarily about the future antichrist. Later fathers saw a change somewhere after verse 22.

Chrys.: When the Lord had finished all that related to Jerusalem, He came in the rest to His own coming, and gives them signs thereof, useful not for them only, but for us and for all who shall be after us.

As above, the Evangelist said, “In those days came John the Baptist,” [Matt 3:1] not implying immediately after what had gone before, but thirty years after; so here, when He says, “Then,” He passes over the whole interval of time between the taking of Jerusalem and the beginnings of the consummation of the world.

Among the signs which He gives of His second coming He certifies them concerning the place, and the deceivers. For it shall not be then as at His former coming, when He appeared in Bethlehem, in a corner of the world, unknown of any; but817 He shall come openly so as not to need any to announce His approach.

Wherefore, “If any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there, believe not.”

Jerome: Wherein He shews that His second coming shall be not in lowliness as His first, but in glory; and therefore it is folly to seek in places little and obscure for Him who is the Light of the whole world. [marg note: John 8:12]

Hilary: Notwithstanding, by reason of the great tribulation in which men shall be cast, false prophets promising to shew aid present from Christ, will falsely affirm that Christ is present in divers places, that they may draw into the service of Antichrist men discouraged and distracted.

Chrys.: He speaks here of Antichrist, and of certain his ministers, whom He calls false Christs and false prophets, such as were many in the time of the Apostles; but before Christ’s second coming there shall come others more bitter than the former, “And they shall shew great signs and wonders.” [2 Thes 2:9]

Is that what you mean?

LmtedAtonement

August 1st 2007, 01:08 PM

I believe that the weight of the evidence points to a future application, but I will not be so bold as to claim to "prove" it beyond doubt or disputation. Time will tell.

David

Dear David Reed,

I have reason to think that you believe in the future application. If so, and if you find it important to disagree with me on this point, there must be a reason. I trust that the reason is not because you grew up hearing it and have now written a book or two (or three or more) about it and now are duty bound to uphold the same position. So, what is your basis for disagreement?

May God bless you with his grace and remind you of his promises to you
Aaron Laws

David_A_Reed

August 1st 2007, 01:58 PM

My reason is as I stated in my earlier post above:Matthew combines Jesus' answer on the destruction of Jerusalem with his answer on his second coming, whereas Luke separates the two. So, Luke's account makes it easier to understand Matthew's.

Luke has the disciples ask about the destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem in his chapter 21, but discusses only the Second Coming here in Luke chapter 17:

"...asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come ... 'The time is coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man...the Son of Man in his day will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other. ...Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. ...two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left.'" (verses 20-35)

There was no discussion here about the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple -- just about Christ's return, yet here Jesus says, "two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left." (Luke 17:34-35)

So, while the application may be confusing in Matthew's account, it is clear in Luke's account of the same words of Jesus, that these words apply to his Second Coming.

David

Ted

August 1st 2007, 04:08 PM

eschaton

August 1st 2007, 10:29 PM

Eschaton,

Thanks for the detailed comments.
Chrysostom basically takes my approach where the apocalyptic signs refer to the parousia, separate from AD70. Jerome, who supplied statim in verse 29 for the Vulgate seems to use roughly the same approach, not seeing a close time frame between AD70 and the parousia.

Curious...

Did none of them read verse 29 as "immediately" in their minds?

Ted

29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

I'm not sure I'm following. You're saying "immediately" puts the tribulation and parousia together at a time later than 70 AD. Right?

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.

eschaton

August 1st 2007, 11:14 PM

The description of 70AD ended after verse 22 in the commentary I posted in message 44. That's where those fathers saw the beginning of end time tribulation, not the 70AD destruction of Jerusalem. They differ from you on item #4 in your table because you go on to verse 26. I think that takes away any tension that might be caused by "immediately."

I personally agree with the earlier fathers, Irenaeus, Hippolytus and Origen. The whole discourse is allegorical and primarily about the eschaton. Here are some of their comments.

Hippolytus
[Rev. xi. 2:
And the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months]
(Ms. Rich. 7185, f. 5v, line 10)

'(On this): The city is the Church ; and these months they are to

persecute her and kill, when the false Christ [St. Matth. xxiv. 24]

shall come, because she worships him not. Now of this said Daniel, He

shall approve the covenant for many, one week; in the half of the week

shall cease the sacrifice [Dan, ix. 27]. The half of the week: that is,

three years and a-half; and these make the forty and two months which

are mentioned. The sacrifice he speaks of is not that of sheep, but the

prayers of the upright. And the holy city he speaks of is the righteous,

i. e. [those] who are oppressed and trodden under foot by the horn that

sprang up in the midst [Dan. vii. 8, 20, 21, 25], which is Antichrist,

as Daniel said.

Hippolytus 12 otherwise interprets that which is said in the Gospel,

When indeed ye shall see the pollution of desolation [St. Matth. |138

xxiv. 15] : for he says that it is not concerning the Jews, and the

laying waste of Jerusalem, that these things are said, but concerning

the end of Antichrist. The elect [ib. 22] he speaks of are the

Christians who are in this conflict. And He says, Pray that ye fly not

on the Sabbath or in winter [ib. 20] : i. e. He advises that we be not

overtaken by those things that are coming on us, when we are unoccupied

in righteousness, as the Jews [are unoccupied] on the Sabbath, or

troubled with worldly cares and sins, as one that is in a winter storm.

There shall be tribulation such as there was not like it since the

beginning of the world, etc. [ib. 21 ; cp. Dan. xii. 1].

On this Hippolytus says, that in the siege of Vespasian this did not

come to pass; for nothing new happened to the world in his days beyond

the things that were before. If you speak of war, many times it has

happened in former times : and if again of captives, there have not

lacked massacres or blood-shedding that was more than that [of the

siege]. And if of the eating of children and unclean beasts, lo also in

the days of Ahab 13 these things were [2 Kings, vi. 28]. Accordingly it

is not concerning Jerusalem that the Lord said this; for when He willed

to speak concerning her, He said, When ye shall see the army compassing

the city, know that the desolation thereof is nigh [St. Luke, xxi. 20].

Hence the pollution of devastations He speaks of is Antichrist. And

Daniel said, [In] the half of the week standeth the abomination in the

sanctuary [Dan. ix. 27 ; cp. xi. 31]. Now "Vespasian did not set up in

the temple an idol, but that Legion 14 which Trajanus Quintus placed, a

chief man of the Romans : he set up the idol there which is called Kôre.

|139

Also the Apostle has written that these things are concerning

Antichrist, Except if there come first a falling away, and the Man of

iniquity be revealed, so that he as God shall sit in the temple, whom

our Lord Jesus shall consume, etc. [2 Thess. ii. 3, 4, 8]. From these

[words] it is evident that Vespasian did not call himself God, nor did

he sit in the temple, nor was he killed by the Spirit of the Lord.

Accordingly it is manifest that in the end tribulation arises against

the Church, such as was none like it.'

========================================================================
Irenaeus
Chapter XXV.-The Fraud, Pride, and Tyrannical Kingdom of Antichrist, as

Described by Daniel and Paul.

1. And not only by the particulars already mentioned, but also by means

of the events which shall occur in the time of Antichrist is it shown

that he, being an apostate and a robber, is anxious to be adored as God;

and that, although a mere slave, he wishes himself to be proclaimed as a

king. For he (Antichrist) being endued with all the power of the devil,

shall come, not as a righteous king, nor as a legitimate king, [i.e.,

one] in subjection to God, but an impious, unjust, and lawless one; as

an apostate, iniquitous and murderous; as a robber, concentrating in

himself [all] satanic apostasy, and setting aside idols to persuade

[men] that he himself is God, raising up himself as the only idol,

having in himself the multifarious errors of the other idols. This he

does, in order that they who do [now] worship the devil by means of many

abominations, may serve himself by this one idol, of whom the apostle

thus speaks in the second Epistle to the Thessalonians: "Unless there

shall come a failing away first, and the man of sin shall be revealed,

the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that

is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple

of God, showing himself as if he were God." The apostle therefore

clearly points out his apostasy, and that he is lifted up above all that

is called God, or that is worshipped-that is, above every idol-for these

are indeed so called by men, but are not [really] gods; and that he will

endeavour in a tyrannical manner to set himself forth as God.

2. Moreover, he (the apostle) has also pointed out this which I have

shown in many ways, that the temple in Jerusalem was made by the

direction of the true God. For the apostle himself, speaking in his own

person, distinctly called it the temple of God. Now I have shown in the

third book, that no one is termed God by the apostles when speaking for

themselves, except Him who truly is God, the Father of our Lord, by

whose directions the temple which is at Jerusalem was constructed for

those purposes which I have already mentioned; in which [temple] the

enemy shall sit, endeavouring to show himself as Christ, as the Lord

also declares: "But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation,

which has been spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy

place (let him that readeth understand), then let those who are in Judea

flee into the mountains; and he who is upon the house-top, let him not

come down to take anything out of his house: for there shall then be

great hardship, such as has not been from the beginning of the world

until now, nor ever shall be."216

=====================================================================

Origen: Mystically; In the holy place of the Scriptures, both Old and

New Testament, Antichrist, that is, false word, has often stood; let

those who see this flee from the Judaea of the letter to the high

mountains of truth. And whoso has been found to have gone up to the

house-top of the word, and to be standing upon its summit, let him not

come down thence as though he would fetch any thing out of his house.

And if he be in the field in which the treasure is hid, and return

thence to his house, he will run into the temptation of a false word;

but especially if he have stripped off his old garment, that is, the old

man, and should have returned again to take it up. Then the soul, as it

were with child by the word, not having yet brought forth, is liable to

a woe; for it casts that which it had conceived, and loses that hope

which is in the acts of truth; and the same also if the word has been

brought forth perfect and entire, but not having yet attained sufficient

growth.

Let them that flee to the mountains pray that their flight be not in the

winter or on the sabbath-day, because in the serenity of a settled

spirit they may reach the way of salvation, but if the winter overtake

them they fall amongst those whom they would fly from. And there be some

who rest from evil works, but do not good works; be your flight then not

on such sabbath 816 when a man rests from good works, for no man is

easily overcome in times of peril from false doctrines, except he is

unprovided with good works.

But what sorer affliction is there than to see our brethren deceived,

and to feel one’s self shaken and terrified? Those days mean the

precepts and dogmas of truth; and all interpretations coming of “science

falsely so called” [1 Tim 6:20] are so many additions to those days,

which God shortens by those whom He wills.

LmtedAtonement

August 2nd 2007, 10:10 AM

My reason is as I stated in my earlier post above:
David

Dear David,

Thanks for that repost, it is helpful. I see what you had to say, but from that quote alone, I am not pointed to a future fulfillment. That all sounds like Christ's first return with judgement on Israel and salvation for his elect, although not apart from tribulation. Do you have any thing more specific to add?

May the peace of Christ be with you

Aaron Laws

Ted

August 3rd 2007, 04:50 PM

The basic problem with eutheos/immediately is that it places all of the discourse within a very short time frame. That means it's all AD70, or Jesus was a false prophet. Using the English, many skeptics have latched on to the false prophet line.

In the post I referenced, I explored the semantic range of eutheos. I found that its root meaning is "next in sequence," not "without intervening passage of time." The disciples asked a question in verse 3 they thought was about a single event: the parousia. In it, Jesus would destroy the temple to set up the heavenly one on earth with himself as king. This would be the Day of the Lord the OT speaks of in several places.

Jesus spent the Discourse separating the destruction of Jerusalem from the parousia. If they were the same event, there'd be no reason for the Discourse. He'd give a one or two-line answer, and off they'd go. Our problems come from eutheos, which has been historically understood as "without intervening passage of time" in almost all translations from the Vulgate on. And that gives rise to the problem.

I split the discourse into four segments, with a short interjection in verses 26-31 to contrast AD70 with the Parousia to prevent misunderstandings, then in verse 35 Jesus segues into the Parousia for the rest of the Discourse. This differs from the verse 22 division of some of the early scholars.

Ted

eschaton

August 5th 2007, 12:01 PM

Maybe you're right Ted, but the way I understand it both the earlier and later church fathers disagreed with your view.

I guess I shouldn't say disagreed because they at least partially agreed with you.

Ted

August 5th 2007, 02:09 PM

The ECF's were struggling with what the Discourse meant, and engaged in exegetical work to figure it out, much as we do. They had one great advantage, facility in Greek, and one great disadvantage, learning the basics of the faith. That is, they didn't have to wrestle with eutheos because they read it naturally. They didn't have the English translations to muddy the waters.

On the other hand, prophecy wasn't the primary interest of the early church. The basics of the identity of the Messiah and salvation by faith in Him dominated the intellectual scene. Related issues like inclusion of the Gentiles and obsolescence of Torah observance were also close at hand.

It would have been nice if the ECF's had grilled the apostles (Polycarp, etc.) so that our questions would be fully answered. But because their focus was elsewhere, they didn't. The delayed acceptance of Revelation fits this focus. It wasn't answering their key questions.

In short, the ECF's are in basically the same boat as us. They deal with exegetical issues as they approach the subject of end-times. And they seem to lack an authoritative apostolic interpretation.

Ted

vette

August 9th 2007, 04:23 PM

Hi Ted,

Two questions if you don't mind:

-Could you cite a source where I can see for myself that the root meaning of eutheos is "next in sequence," not "without intervening passage of time."

-And what about the "tribulation, such as hath not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, nor ever shall be." How does that figure into the 70AD scenario?

Thanks.

dizzle

August 12th 2007, 01:10 PM

Ted

August 14th 2007, 10:09 PM

vette,

Here is the pertinent part of my paper

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 more often concerned with timing. For example, the Greek aorist tense generally speaks of past action with continuing consequences beginning at an unspecified point in time.

In some contexts, eutheōs conveys the idea of “suddenness” or “quickness.” Other times it conveys the idea of moving in a direct line toward a goal, reflecting its origin from euthus, which means to be “straight” or “normal.” Lexicons include “straightway,” “at once,” “soon,” “next,” and “immediately” in their list of equivalent English words. Unfortunately, it is not possible to determine from sentence structure just which translation is to be preferred in a given case. The context has to be considered.

Crossing the sea “eutheōs”
John relates the story of Jesus walking on water (John 6:16-21). The disciples were rowing from the east side of the Sea of Galilee toward Capernaum on the west. This would be a trip of five or six miles, and they had covered three or four (John 6:19). In other words, they were out in the middle, miles from shore when a storm came up. Jesus appears at the boat, walking on the water. He gets in the boat and calms the storm. “Immediately (eutheōs) the boat was at the land” (John 6:21, NAS).

We have two choices. Either Jesus miraculously transported the boat several miles to land, or eutheōs is mistranslated here. The idea of a miracle here is suspect, since Jesus’ miracles are all clearly identified in the Gospels, and here it would be an inference. The parallel accounts in Mark and Matthew paint a different picture.

Mark 6:53 and Matthew 14:34 say, “when they had crossed over they came to land at Gennesaret.” The verb diaperaō is used 13 times in the New Testament and LXX. The other 11 times it refers to the natural act of a person traveling over a body of water.

The idea that this might be an “immediate” miraculous three-mile transport of the boat is certainly not beyond God’s abilities. But it is outside the language of scripture. Jesus’ miracles are all clearly identified in the gospels. The story of Philip provides an instructive comparison. At the end of his encounter with the Ethiopian eunuch, “the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away.” He “found himself at Azotus” (Acts 8:39-40). Philip’s miraculous transportation cannot be missed in the text. The “Spirit of the Lord” is the subject and Philip is the object.

In both Matthew and Mark, the disciples are the subject of the sentence. In both accounts, “they crossed over” and “they came to land at Gennesaret.” The subject is explicit. Mark goes further, recording that “they moored to the shore.” Thus, the language leads us to a purely natural understanding of events where the disciples perform all the actions. They rowed for another four miles or so. When they got to shore, they tied up the boat.

If this was a miraculous event, there is no evidence for it in the grammar. In fact, the grammar speaks against it. If God had transported the boat for several miles, He would be the subject of the sentence. Further, the disciples or the boat would be the object of the sentence. Neither is true, so we should expect that no miracle is present in the narrative. How then, should we understand eutheōs in John’s account?

John’s grammar could be used to infer a miracle, if the other accounts weren’t present. But since their language is so clear, we must suggest that eutheōs has a semantic range that includes a meaning other than “immediately.” As we will develop shortly, it appears best to say that when John says the boat arrived eutheōs, he is really saying that the disciples rowed directly to shore. They didn’t take any side trips to other towns. They went “straightway.” This old term, which the KJV uses thirty-two times for eutheōs, simply means “in a direct course.” It doesn’t say anything about how long the trip takes. Borrowing language from our next discussion, we could say that, “next, the boat arrived at the land.” John merely states that the next event in sequence is their arrival at the dock. There wasn’t any notable event to talk about between Jesus getting into the boat and landfall.

“Immediately” (days later!)
The second example comes from Mark 1:21.

And they went into Capernaum; and immediately on the Sabbath He entered the synagogue and began to teach.

The Greek word here is euthus, the root form which eutheōs is derived. They are so closely related that the Louw-Nida lexicon treats them as interchangeable. It says, “Euthus probably implies what was done on the immediately following Sabbath. Accordingly, one may translate this expression in Mk 1.21 as ‘and on the next Sabbath he went into the synagogue and taught.’” Louw-Nida goes on to say that either word describes, “a point of time immediately subsequent to the previous point of time (the actual interval of time differs appreciably, depending on the nature of the events and the manner in which the sequence is interpreted by the writer).” In other words, “next in sequence,” not “right away.”

In Mark 1, Jesus had recruited disciples during the week. (They were out fishing.) We have no information to tell us which day (or days) He did it. All we know is that when Sabbath came, Jesus went into the synagogue to teach. He didn’t teach on Friday night, since synagogue services were during the daylight hours. Thus, Jesus’ teaching didn’t even begin “immediately” as the Sabbath began. Instead, he simply began teaching at the next Sabbath synagogue service.

“Next in sequence”
When we apply this to the Olivet Discourse, as Louw-Nida does, we can see that the proper understanding of eutheōs is to convey sequence, not timing. Jesus was asked about two events. His primary purpose in discussing them is to separate them in both character and time. The exact timing of the later event is concealed, since only the Father knows when it will happen (Matt 24:36, cf. Acts 1:7). The near event is in “this generation” (Matt 24:34).

Let’s illustrate this for clarity. Once a person is elected to office, the next thing for him to do is to assume that office. But if the office is President of the United States, the election is in the first week of November, and the inauguration is in the third week of January. This is a gap of about ten weeks. For our purposes, we could say that the inauguration follows the election eutheōs, since those are the only two events we are discussing. The process of selecting cabinet officers and so on has not been included in the conversation, so even though that task happens between the election and the inauguration, it is “invisible.” We didn’t make it visible by including it in the discussion. In the same way, Jesus is only discussing two events: AD70 and His parousia. Nothing else is in view, so the sequence only involves the first event (AD70) and the next event (parousia).

We need to compare eutheōs to another “chronological” word used in the Discourse. Tote tells us “when.” 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 word 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. We should also note that “immediately after” is functionally the same as “at that time,” since “immediately” implies no passage of time.

If, however, we take the information we have discovered and apply it to the verse, we can now properly translate it as follows:

Next, after the tribulation of those days, 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.

The careful reader will note that we have placed commas around the phrase “after the tribulation of those days.” The original Greek has no punctuation, but it does use word order to help in some cases. The segment in view is eutheōs de meta tēn thlipsin tōn hēmerōn ekeinōn. Meta tēn thlipsin tōn hēmerōn ekeinōn is in what is called the “attributive position” with regard to eutheōs. That is, it describes an attribute of eutheōs. Whatever eutheōs means, it comes “after the tribulation of those days.” And while the word order in the rendering above is good English, it is less clear than:

After the tribulation of those days, next 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.

This rendering emphasizes that the tribulation will come, there will be a gap, and “next” the Day of the Lord will come. Since Jesus is only speaking of two events – AD70 and His parousia – first one will come, next the other will come. No other events are in view, so one is seen as coming in succession after the other. This should not, however, be mistaken to say that the interval between them is short. That information is notably absent from the Discourse.

We may note at this point that by correcting our translation 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 rendered it, they would never have seen a conflict to resolve the way we do with modern English 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.

Ted

vette

August 15th 2007, 06:14 PM

Got it. Thanks.