In my last post, I said there were three options for Matthew 24:1-35: it could refer to Christ’s final return, it could be talking about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD, or it could be discussing the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ. I said I swung between option 2 and 3: the temple destruction and Christ’s death. But even as I was preaching, I was conscious that I had dismissed the connection of earlier sections of the chapter with the second coming of Christ too easily.
The main reason was verse 34—that “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place”. I said, linguistically, this really did refer to the generation alive when Christ spoke these words and not to a much longer era.
So what about the actual “coming of the Son of Man”? This ‘coming’ (= ‘parousia’ in the Greek) is directly referred to in verses 27 and 30, and now in verses 37, 39 and 44, with a related reference to another ‘coming’ word in verse 42. I am fairly convinced now that this coming of the Son of Man must refer to the final return of Christ to judge the world.
Why do I think this? Elsewhere in this Gospel, the phrase refers to the final coming and judgement:
- Matthew 25:31-32: “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.”
- Matthew 16:27: “For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done.”
Furthermore, like Jesus in this chapter, other New Testament authors also use the imagery of the coming of Christ being like a thief and being accompanied by a trumpet. With regards to the thief imagery, consider
- 1 Thessalonians 5:2: “For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.” (Cf. 1 Thess 5:4.)
- 2 Peter 3:10: “But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.”
With regards to the trumpet imagery, note these references:
- 1 Corinthians 15:51-52: “Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.”
- 1 Thessalonians 4:16: “For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.”
Presumably Paul and Peter got these images of thief and trumpet and the manner of their application from Jesus himself, (indirectly via oral tradition in Paul’s case). For example in Matthew 24, Jesus mentions the trumpet blast in verse 31 just after his coming in verse 30, and the thief image in verse 43—again, as he mentions of his coming. That is, if Peter and Paul applied these images to the final coming of Christ, then presumably it’s because Jesus used these images the same way himself. It would seem strange to use them in entirely different ways than the Lord.
So I think there’s little doubt that with talk of the coming of the Son of Man, Jesus is referring to his final ‘coming’. And in the material which follows from Matthew 24:36-25:13, he’s also addressing the possibility of its delay from a human perspective.
It seems like a bit of a compromise, but perhaps Matthew 24 had multiple fulfilments. Some bits fulfilled at one level, and other related bits fulfilled later at a second, more complete level. I’ve heard this called prophetic telescoping sometimes—where you can see several stars as you look up a telescope tube, but you can’t tell if they’re equally close or perhaps at different distances. Why? Because you lose depth perception. I think the reader of Matthew 24 faces the issue of telescopic loss of distance perception. Matthew 24:3 suggests the disciples thought several events would occur together: judgement on the temple, Jesus’ second coming and the end of the age. But Jesus suggests that these events may be spread out more widely in time. There’s judgement on the Jerusalem temple following the rejection of Jesus on earth. That did happen in that generation’s lifetime. But there’s a later judgement as the Son of Man comes at the end of the age after worldwide gospel preaching, and at different times in chapter 24, one of these events is in the foreground and the other is in the background, and vice-versa.
What do you think? (Especially if you are Peter Bolt!)
Hey Sandy, although I’m not Peter Bolt, I still have a comment. In fact, because I’m Gordon Cheng, I have a comment—a universal blogging truth if ever there was one.
I think you are on your strongest ground when you look to other parts of Matthew to provide the key to unlock the meaning of Matthew (which you do when you refer to Matt 25 and Matt 16).
So let me question you where I think you’re at your strongest, then, and ask why these references <i>also</i> are not explained in terms of an allusion to Dan 7:13,
“I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.”
That is, with our ‘night vision’ goggles on, we see that the ‘coming’ is from the perspective of the heavenly throne, so that the Son of Man is coming from earth to heaven, and not the other way ‘round. And if the coming is from earth to heaven, it is actually a <i>going away</i> (from earth), which most naturally fits with the idea of Jesus’ ascension.
(I know you alluded to this in your previous post, but I think it is such a spiffing point that I am dredging it up all over again).
Dan 7:13 is clearly a scene of universal judgement, so the fact that Mt 25 and Mt 16 are also scenes of universal judgement is hardly surprising, is it? They need not be <i>final</i> judgement, so much as the beginning of it.
And the Boltian interpretation—that these references to Jesus’ ‘coming’ are still (at heart) about the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ—emerges unscathed.
I deliberately pass over your references to the epistles, in the hope that Peter will at some stage emerge from his Underworld
to offer some further comment.
I think telescopic fulfilment is on the right track. Remember that when the OT prophets used their telescopes, they only saw a single coming of the Messiah!
And those nasty dispies… they might say that most of the NT telescopes collapsed the second coming into a single event.
Dear Sandy;
I’m not persuaded that the “telescope” view is all that helpful. I still incline very much to the view that Jesus’ words refer to his death, resurrection and ascension (with Gordon’s view on the “coming” being a coming to heavenly power at the right side of God.)
I take your point about interpreting the passage by other references to the event in the Gospel of Matthew. But let’s take this one you quoted:
Matthew 25:31-32: “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.”
I’d never thought of this before, but could this not be a very good description (in symbolism) of what is happening now that Jesus has risen? From his throne in heaven the whole world is spread out before him. They are being separated into two groups by the act of gospel preaching which is now happening. This view is supported by the fact that (as has often been pointed out) the differentiating criterion is how the world responds to Jesus’ “brothers” ie the disciples who are preaching the gospel.
In other words, rather than the sheep and goats passage illuminating the apocalyptic comments, those comments actually illuminate the sheep and goats passage.
Worth considering, anyway.
Regards
Neil Foster
Friends, thanks for bothering to comment. It is encouraging to know that someone is reading and thinking.
As I said in the initial post on this topic, I can see the attraction of the Bolt thesis. But I do not think that the complex of death, resurrection and ascension can account for all that is in Matthew 24 (and as it leads into chapter 25).
I would be really interested in what you think about my idea that since the thief and trumpet imagery is used in the epistles to refer to the final coming, then this should give us a strong hint as to how Jesus himself used this imagery.
As an additional comment here, I note that Paul seems to make explicit that his use of the trumpet imagery in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 as the harbinger of the Lord’s descent and the resurrection of the dead is based on “a word of the Lord” in v15…
This presumably refers to oral tradition of Jesus’ earthly teaching that had been passed onto Paul.
Neil, thanks for commenting.
I have to say that I think you are drawing a long bow to suggest Matthew 25:31ff begins after the resurrection and ascension of Jesus and applies to the present age of gospel preaching.
Here are some reasons:
1. V31 refers to the Son of Man coming in glory and sitting on the throne in heavenly glory. Certainly Jesus’ death was a key moment of glory – especially in John’s Gospel – although this glory was veiled. But it appears most natural to me to see his glory in the parable of the sheep and goats as being completely manifest and public here. I.e. his glory here is obvious.
2. V32 suggests that all the nations are gathered before him rather than scattered throughout the world as they now are.
3. What is on view is not only separation into the two categories of sheep and goat, but also the immediate entry into two alternatives:
– the inheritance prepared since the creation of the world (v34), or
– departure into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels (v41).
4. I do not doubt that this parable is about how people have reacted to Christians and particularly to Christians preachers (the least of the King’s brothers) as they visit and as they suffer. However, it pictures people looking back to how they have treated such people as the explanation for their immediate fate.
All this seems very consistent to me with picturing the final and great day of judgment (though of course it teaches us how to prepare for that day).
So I am not persuaded yet by this re-reading of Matthew 25:31ff.
Incidentally, I have now dug out my copy of Broughton Knox’s Collected Works and the article on “The Five Comings of Jesus” mentioned by Gordon.
I note that Broughton saw the third coming of the Son of Man being his coming on the clouds of heaven in Matt 24:30 and 34 as being his coming to the Father in the ascension to sit at his right hand.
However Broughton refers to Matthew 25:31ff as his fifth coming – the final parousia – his coming with the angels for the final judgment (distinguished from what he calls the third coming on the clouds to receive the kingdom referred to above). Broughton says this final coming “with the angels” for judgment was already referred to in Matthew 16:27 (and he gives some probable OT background in Deut 33:2 (LXX) and Zech 14:5.
So Broughton did not see Matthew 25:31 (nor 16:27) as referring to the ascension and the age of gospel preaching.
Incidentally, Broughton’s second coming is associated with the destruction of Jerusalem which he sees predicted in Matthew 24:15 (and also v27).
In other words, it appears that in identifying multiple comings Broughton proposed a view not dissimilar to what I called the telescope view.
Dear Sandy;
I am happy to be corrected, and I see the force of the points you make about the passage following Matt 25:31 seeming to a final judgment where people immediately go to one fate or the other. But I am still unsure- after all, on what is probably too much of a tangent, what does it mean when we are told that Jesus’ disciples will “sit on thrones” and judge Israel? (Matt 19:28) I think this makes most sense when it refers to the act of “judging” as the act of gospel preaching. It seems to me possible that the metaphors of ruling and judging can be used for the divisive act of gospel preaching (as Peter, of course, is said to be given the power of the keys in a similar context (Matt 16:19). Still thinking it through.
Regards
Neil F
(see earlier comments on part one)
Sandy, I think your criticisms of Peter’s thesis are fair ones. Whilst it rightly seeks to preserve the centrality of the cross, I don’t think it adequately explains all the data. Like the complete Preterist view of Revelation, or the eschatology of Moltmann, if taken to its logical extremities, it could be open to the charge of leaving nothing in the text at all of the personal return of Jesus in judgement at the end of time, especially if the sheep and goats parable is simply about the gospel dividing people.