Smoodock's Blog

Presently, I’m involved in a study of Luke 17. However, Luke records Jesus saying something here that has some bearing upon what he said in Matthew’s version of the Olivet Discourse. In the Olivet Prophecy Jesus gave several signs of his coming and of the end of the age, or when these things would occur, which was in reply to the question the four Apostles asked in Matthew 24:3 and Luke 21:7. The claim, however, is that Jesus was able to offer signs that would foreshadow the coming of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, but no sign could be offered for the coming destruction of the world, so Matthew 24:36 is interpreted to be a dividing point between the two judgments. Nevertheless, this idea cannot be adequately defended with scripture.

The problem with making Matthew 24:36 a dividing point in the Olivet Prophecy is that it forces Jesus to predict a third coming or a second ‘second’ coming! This can be seen in that he predicts his coming would be accompanied by signs in the heavens etc. (Matthew 24:27-30). However, for events following Matthew 24:36, all that could be said is that Jesus would come as a thief, i.e. without warning. This, of course, is not Scriptural, for we are told that God will not do anything without warning his people (Amos 3:7). Nevertheless, we shall consider this opposing argument by observing the chart below:[1]

The problem with this understanding is that Luke arranges what Matthew records differently, not in contradiction, but from a different perspective. Notice that Matthew claims that Jesus’ yet future coming would be as the days of Noah, but no further signs are offered (Matthew 24:37-39). Therefore, it is concluded that Jesus Second Coming must be a universal event, because Noah’s Flood was universal. Moreover, no sign could be offered for Jesus’ coming at the end of the age, because no one knew when the Genesis Flood would occur, until the day it came upon that generation. Finally, because no one had any time to flee nor even a place to flee during Noah’s day, so, too, would it be when Jesus returned at his Second Coming.

Luke also records Jesus’ coming (Luke 17:24) and likens it to the days of Noah (Luke 17:26-27). Notice that Luke says that life went on as usual, and no one seemed aware of the coming judgment, until it actually occurred, or when it was too late. So, too, according to Luke, would be Jesus’ coming or revelation (Luke 17:30). Therefore, the coming judgment event, having to do with Noah, prefigures the coming judgment event that occurs when Jesus comes at the end of time (his yet future coming). This, according to the study noted by the chart above, is proof that Jesus didn’t know WHEN (day and hour) he would return, i.e. no fleeing is recorded and no warning is given. Jesus’ coming at the end of the age occurs when mankind has no time to flee, or, if men did have time, they would have no place to flee.

Nevertheless, the text does identify what Jesus means when he says. “in that day…” (Luke 17:31). “In that day…” is the day the Son of Man is revealed (Luke 17:30). The text continues: “In that day, he who shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.” In other words, it’s time to flee! Luke rearranged what Matthew said in his version of the Olivet Discourse, showing that the alleged division in Matthew 24:36 isn’t accurate. To say there is a division there is to read that division into the text. Such a thing would be exalting men’s traditions over the word of God, making the word of God of no effect upon God’s people (cf. Mark 7:6-9).

____________________________________________

[1] The chart and argument for it can be found in Jeffery W. Hamilton’s Understanding Matthew 24.