Please help us meet a $15K matching challenge here
I saw the following on Facebook: “The Sign of His Coming By Hugo Grotius: A Preterist Commentary on the Mount Olivet Discourse with Commentary by Dr. Kenneth L. Gentry and Jay Rogers.” The authors argue that the subject shifts from the judgment on Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple from Matthew 24:4-24:34 to a distant future coming of Jesus in Matthew 24:35-36 and following.
Matthew 24:27 and 24:37 presented a problem for Gentry because they use the same language related to Jesus’ coming.
• “For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes as far as the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be” (24:27).
• “For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah” (24:37).
At one time, Gentry believed Matthew 24:27 referred to the AD 70 coming of Jesus. He later changed his mind because he could not distinguish this from the use of “coming” in Matthew 24:37, 39, 42-44, and 25:31. He had to postulate two comings to avoid being charged with aiding and abetting full preterism. In his books Perilous Times (pages 72-73) and The Great Tribulation: Past or Future? (pages 53-55), Gentry interpreted Matthew 24:27 as referring to the judgment coming of Jesus in AD 70. Gentry needed at least a few verses to support his futurist view regarding Jesus’ Second Coming. The following is from his 2010 book The Olivet Discourse Made Easy.
I should note that my interpretation of this verse [Matt. 24:27] has changed recently. In earlier works (Perilous Times; The Great Tribulation: Past or Future?) I argued that the lightning flash could refer to his spiritual judgment-coming in AD 70. This is certainly possible, given the dramatic nature of prophetic language. But I now reject that view because of grammatical and contextual reasons. The “for” (grammar) in v. 27 clearly gives the reason (context) why they should not expect that he may be off somewhere in a wilderness. His physical return will be visible to all. After all, the original question (24:3) shows the disciples’ conflating of the two events: AD 70 and the second advent. Just a few verses later (24:36ff), Jesus will begin focusing on that more glorious event.[1]
How does Gentry’s interpretation square with his interpretation of Matthew 24:34? If one item before verse 34 has not been fulfilled, then why not the other items? This is quite the dilemma.
And It Came to Pass
“I commend this volume as a fine introduction to some of the most fascinating and important elements of preterist interpretation and hope that it will stimulate serious, scholarly research and discussion into the questions that remain in doubt.” — R.C. Sproul (1939-2017), founder and chairman of Ligonier Ministries
Buy NowThe appeal of Grotius (1583-1645) for Gentry and Rogers is that he divides the Olivet Discourse at verse 36.
Grotius establishes a structural dividing line at Matthew 24:36, distinguishing between the historical events leading up to AD 70 and the timing of the final judgment, which is unknown. He interprets phrases like “this generation” literally as Christ’s contemporaries who witnessed the siege, and views cosmic imagery (such as the darkening of the sun) as symbolic language for the collapse of Jewish political powers. While he assigns Matthew 24:4-35 to the historical destruction of Jerusalem, he reserves Matthew 24:36 through Chapter 25 for the future, universal final judgment.
At nearly the same time, Henry Hammond (1605-1660) published Paraphrase and Annotations on the New Testament in 1653. It has gone through numerous editions over the years. What does Hammond say about Matthew 24:27?
- All such deceits may prove ruinous to you; for this judgment and vengeance upon the Jews shall come so as that it cannot be avoided; but it shall at the same time fall upon several parts of the land, or at a moment, like lightning, fly from one corner to another; this day a great slaughter of Jews in this place, to morrow in another a great way off.
*****
- But of the point of time when this judgment shall come (see note [a] on Heb. x., and 2 Peter iii. 10.) none but God the Father knows that, (see note [b] on Mark xiii.) and that must oblige you to vigilancy, and may sustain you in your trials, (when you begin to faint by reason of persecutions from the Jews, ver. 12, which this is to set a period to,) by remembering that how far off soever your deliverance seems to be, it may and will come in a moment unexpectedly.
- But this judgment on the Jews shall be like that on the old world in respect of the unexpectedness of it: see Luke 17:20.
Hammond continues to apply these verses to events surrounding Jerusalem’s judgment before that generation passed away.
Chap. XXV. 1 At that point of time last spoken of, the heavy visitation on this people, the condition of Christians will be fitly resembled by the parable of the ten virgins, which took hand-lamps, (then in use, and fit to carry abroad for night-lights,) and went out to fetch a bridegroom and the bride, and wait on them to the feast.
For additional insight into Hammond’s comments and whether there is a transitional verse, see Jonathan E. Sedlak’s Reading Matthew, Trusting Jesus: Christian Tradition and First-Century Fulfillment within Matthew 24-25. Sedlak concludes that Hammond “interpreted all of chapters 24 and 25 as pertaining to first-century events and the assurance of their fulfillment in past history. According to Hammond, only the final judgment scene of Matt. 25:31-46 could possibly be interpreted in relation to a future state for humanity and a future ‘coming’ in judgment; even so, Hammond still interpreted Matthew 25:31-46 in light of its first-century context surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem, which is considered to be the most obvious way in which Jesus’ disciples would have understood the entire discourse” (279).
Gentry believes that the use of “long time” is an important time indicator in Matthew 24:48 and 25:19. He’s not alone. A line of evidence offered by those who believe that events following Matthew 24:35 refer to the personal and physical return of Jesus is the meaning given to “delays” (24:48: chronizei), “after a long time” (25:19: polyn), and the “delay” (chronizontos) of the bridegroom (25:5). For some commentators, these examples indicate that different events are in view, one near (the destruction of Jerusalem) and one distant (a future physical coming of Christ). This is the view of Stephen F. Hayhow.
Both parables, the parables of the virgins (vv. 1-13), and the parable of the talents (vv. 14-30), speak of the absence of the bridegroom/master, who is said to be “a long time in coming” (v. 5) and “After a long time the master of the servants returned…” (v. 19). This suggests, not the events of A.D. 70 which were to occur in the near future, in fact within the space of a generation, but a distant event, the return of Christ.[2]
Notice that the evil slave says, “My master is not coming for a long time,” literally, is “delayed” (Matt. 24:48). The evil slave then proceeds to “beat his fellow-slaves and eat and drink with drunkards” (24:49). But to the surprise of the “evil slave” the master returned when he least expected him (24:50). The master did not return to cut the evil slave’s distant relatives into pieces (24:51); the master cut him in pieces. The evil slave was alive when the master left and when the master returned. In this context, a “long time” must be measured against a person taking a trip. A “long time” can be even shorter, “Now Herod was overjoyed when he saw Jesus; for he had wanted to see Him for a long time, because he had been hearing about Him and was hoping to see some sign performed by Him” (Luke 23:8). I cover this issue in my book Last Days Madness.
Last Days Madness
In this authoritative book, Gary DeMar clears the haze of "end-times" fever, shedding light on the most difficult and studied prophetic passages in the Bible, including Daniel 7:13-14; 9:24-27; Matt. 16:27-28; 24-25; Thess. 2; 2 Peter 3:3-13, and clearly explaining a host of other controversial topics.
Buy NowThe same idea is expressed in the parable of the “talents.” A man entrusts his slaves with his possessions (25:14). The master then goes on a journey (25:15). While the master is gone, the slaves make investment decisions (25:16-18). We are then told that “after a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them” (25:19). In this context, “a long time” is no longer than an average lifetime. The settlement is made with the same slaves who received the talents. In every other New Testament context, “a long time” means nothing more than an extended period (Luke 8:27; 23:8; John 5:6; Acts 8:11; 14:3, 28; 26:5, 29; 27:21; 28:6). Nowhere does it mean centuries or multiple generations. For example, Simon “had for a long time astonished them with his magic arts” (Acts 8:11).
The delay of the bridegroom is no different from the “long time” of the two previous parables. The bridegroom returns to the same groups of virgins (25:1-13). The duration of the delay must be measured by the context, and in the context of the various comings, the audiences remain the same. Similar language is used in Luke 12:35-48. The Bible defines a long time in various ways: “Now a man was there who had been ill for thirty-eight years. Jesus, upon seeing this man lying there and knowing that he had already been in that condition for a long time [πολὺν … χρόνον], said to him, ‘Do you want to get well?’” (John 5:5-6).
Grotius, Gentry, and Rogers have not offered compelling evidence for a long delay lasting nearly 2000 years! Those who first read the Olivet Discourse never would have considered such a delay.
[1] The Olivet Discourse Made Easy: You Can Understand Jesus’ Great Prophetic Discourse (Draper, VA: Apologetics Group, 2010), 102, note 27. J. Marcellus Kik followed the same line of argument in his book Matthew 24 (page 66).
[2] Stephen F. Hayhow, “Matthew 24, Luke 17 and the Destruction of Jerusalem,” Christianity and Society 4:2 (April 1994), 4. Robert Young in his comment on Matthew 25:1 about the Parable of the Ten Virgins: “THEN], that is, when the things mentioned in the preceding chapter are taking place among the unbelieving Jews in Palestine, the rule of the reign of the heavens shall be exercised on the believing ones in a manner similar to the way in which ten virgins were treated by the bridegroom they professed to honour” (Concise Critical Comments on the Holy Bible [London: Pickering & Inglis, n.d.], 25).