Preterists interpret Matthew 24:21 as hyperbole: "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be."
Okay. The argument is that Jesus was symbolizing a very terrible time in Jerusalem, but that it didn't necessarily mean it would be unprecedented, because clearly there have been situations in history that have been at least equally terrible as the 70 AD war. Then they go on to point out other similar phrases in scripture to prove their case that it's just hyperbole and that Jesus was following a similar style of language.
I might accept that as a reasonable argument if it were just that one verse in Matthew. The problem is that they always ignore the following verse: "And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened."
Putting aside who and what the "elect" is (which raises a whole other slew of issues and debate), Jesus is clearly describing a situation in history that will be terrible. We all agree.
But then he seems to offer God's solution that will mitigate that terrible situation. How does that fit into the hyperbole paradigm? I'm sure preterists can make it fit forcefully, but I'm guessing it would end up more of a stretch than to just assume a literal unprecedented time of history, which will require an unprecedented divine action -- God's intervention.
Futurist interpretation: This is how I'm guessing many futurists interpret this passage, which I feel needs to clear some things up.
First of all, I happen to agree with the preterists about the interpretation of the word "world." End of the world in the OD just means End of the age, not the literal making of a new heaven and earth. In a pre-mil paradigm, the ACTUAL end of the world doesn't occur until another thousand years after the tribulation. I'm not sure how a futurist, who rejects a pre-mil belief, would interpret that, but then I've never personally met a futurist who doesn't hold a pre-mil belief. The eschatological positions seem to go hand-in-hand.
With that said, Jesus is literally talking about a time of mass human population die-off as a result of the tribulation. It's unprecedented because the world population has never been this big before. We see this in Rev 6:8, where it describes a quarter of the population dying off. Then in Rev 9:18, another third of the population is wiped out. Now, I'm no mathematician, but that's a whole lot of people, possibly more than half the population -- 3-4 billion people, something that has never happened in the history of mankind -- "such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be."
It's a scary thing, and it undoubtedly makes a lot of folks, including Christians, uncomfortable. So, no, the OD is not describing the end of the world, it's the end of the age. And, no, everyone in the world doesn't die off UP TO Armageddon (and I don't even believe everyone is killed during this event either, but that's a whole other story). Why are folks still left alive up to this event? Because the following verse explains why -- "And EXCEPT those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved."
Okay. The argument is that Jesus was symbolizing a very terrible time in Jerusalem, but that it didn't necessarily mean it would be unprecedented, because clearly there have been situations in history that have been at least equally terrible as the 70 AD war. Then they go on to point out other similar phrases in scripture to prove their case that it's just hyperbole and that Jesus was following a similar style of language.
I might accept that as a reasonable argument if it were just that one verse in Matthew. The problem is that they always ignore the following verse: "And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened."
Putting aside who and what the "elect" is (which raises a whole other slew of issues and debate), Jesus is clearly describing a situation in history that will be terrible. We all agree.
But then he seems to offer God's solution that will mitigate that terrible situation. How does that fit into the hyperbole paradigm? I'm sure preterists can make it fit forcefully, but I'm guessing it would end up more of a stretch than to just assume a literal unprecedented time of history, which will require an unprecedented divine action -- God's intervention.
Futurist interpretation: This is how I'm guessing many futurists interpret this passage, which I feel needs to clear some things up.
First of all, I happen to agree with the preterists about the interpretation of the word "world." End of the world in the OD just means End of the age, not the literal making of a new heaven and earth. In a pre-mil paradigm, the ACTUAL end of the world doesn't occur until another thousand years after the tribulation. I'm not sure how a futurist, who rejects a pre-mil belief, would interpret that, but then I've never personally met a futurist who doesn't hold a pre-mil belief. The eschatological positions seem to go hand-in-hand.
With that said, Jesus is literally talking about a time of mass human population die-off as a result of the tribulation. It's unprecedented because the world population has never been this big before. We see this in Rev 6:8, where it describes a quarter of the population dying off. Then in Rev 9:18, another third of the population is wiped out. Now, I'm no mathematician, but that's a whole lot of people, possibly more than half the population -- 3-4 billion people, something that has never happened in the history of mankind -- "such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be."
It's a scary thing, and it undoubtedly makes a lot of folks, including Christians, uncomfortable. So, no, the OD is not describing the end of the world, it's the end of the age. And, no, everyone in the world doesn't die off UP TO Armageddon (and I don't even believe everyone is killed during this event either, but that's a whole other story). Why are folks still left alive up to this event? Because the following verse explains why -- "And EXCEPT those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved."
Comment