An Interpretation of Matthew 24-25 (Part 17)

Dr. Thomas Ice

"And unless those days had been cutshort, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those daysshall be cut short."

-Matthew 24:22

In our journeythrough the Olivet Discourse, the passage at hand has a number of interestingissues with which I will deal. They include: the cuttingshort of days, no life would be saved, and who are the elect? I shall proceed to deal with them.

The Cutting Short ofDays

Three-quartersrapture advocate, Marvin Rosenthal, says "The Lord is teaching that the GreatTribulation will be cut short."[1] He continues: "The shortening of the Great Tribulation to less than threeand one-half years is one of the most important truths to be grasped if thechronology of end-time events is to be understood."[2] Does this text teach that the Lord willcut short the number of days prophesied elsewhere from 1260 days (Rev. 11:3;12:6)? Will the Great Tribulationbe less than 1260 days? Simplyput, no! What does it teach?

First of all,only Mark (13:20) has a parallel passage to Matthew, while Luke does not. Luke's omission of this verse isperhaps due to the fact that his focus is upon a.d.70,[3]thus this statement relating to the future tribulation would not beappropriate. Mark tells usspecially that it is "the Lord" who had cut short those days. Otherwise, there is no significantdifference in the two passages.

The Greek wordfor "cut short" has the core meaning "to cut off," or, when applied to time "tocut short."[4] Dr. Randolph Yeager notes that the verbused both in Matthew and Mark means "'lopped off', 'mutilated.' To shorten. Always in the New Testament in a chronological sense-Mt.24:22, 22 Mk. 13:20, 20."[5] It is significant to note that bothverbs (in Matthew and Mark) "are all in the aorist tense and indicative moodwith the augment," declares Dr. Renald Showers. "Aorist tense verbs have no time significance except whenthey are in the indicative mood with the augment. That form is used to express past time.[6]"[7]. What does this mean?

Dr. Showers tellsus that "a number of scholars have concluded that since the two verbs in Mark13:20 are in that form, they are expressing action in the past and thereforehave significant bearing on the meaning of Jesus' statement."[8] What is that bearing? It is that the "aorist tenses areprophetic pasts: God has alreadydecided about the future,"[9]as one scholar explains. Anothersays, "The future tense interprets the preceding 'had been shortened' as havinga future reference (like the Hebrew 'prophetic perfect')."[10] This means that the cutting short,spoken of by our Lord in both Matthew and Mark, is some thing that has alreadytaken place in the past when God's plan for history was put forth before thecreation of the world. "The aor.Tenses put this action in the past," concludes Ezra Gould. "The language is proleptic, stating theevent as it already existed in the Divine decree."[11]

MarvinRosenthal's conjecture that these passages support his mistaken view that theGreat Tribulation will be cut short of its Divinely decreed 1260 days does nothold up under scrutiny of the biblical text. Dr. Showers explains as follows:

Jesus was teaching that God in the past had already shortenedthe Great Tribulation. He did soin the sense that in the past He determined to cut it off at a specific timerather than let it continue indefinitely. In His omniscience, God knew that if the Great Tribulation were tocontinue indefinitely, all flesh would perish from the earth. To prevent that from happening, in thepast God sovereignly set a specific time for the Great Tribulation to end.[12]

Saidanother way, God, in His omniscience, knew that if He let the Great Tribulationgo 1320 days (an arbitrary number for the sake of illustration), then all fleshwould be wiped out. Therefore, ineternity past when God was planning this time of history, He cut it short to1260 days, so that the elect would in fact be saved.

No Life Would Have BeenSaved

We have alreadyseen previously that for Satan and the Antichrist their goal for these eventsis to destroy the Jewish people. Why does the Devil want to do that? He believes that if he can destroy the Jews, then He will beable to prevent the second coming, since Christ's return is a response to theconverted Jewish remnant's request for physical deliverance. Satan believes that if he can prevent akey event in God's predestined plan for history from occurring then he willhave defamed God and proven his slander that God is not worthy of His exaltedposition. He cannot succeedbecause God is faithful to fulfill His word.

So what does thephrase "no life would have been saved" (lit. "all flesh would not be saved")mean in light of Christ's prophetic sermon? There are two views that I think are worthy of considerationand they revolved around the meaning of the term "no life." Does it refer to the Jewish remnant,which is destined for salvation during this time, or does Christ have in mindall humanity? First, I agree withthe general consensus among commentators that salvation in this context refersto physical deliverance and not salvation from one's sins (i.e.,justification), because the danger in this context is physical, not spiritual.[13]

Before studyingand writing this current commentary, I held the view that "no life," or "noflesh" was a reference to Israel. I have changed my mind and now think that this phrase refers to allhumanity. Why have I changed? I have changed my mind primarilybecause of the lexical data (i.e., how a word or phrase is used in otherinstances). Dr. Stanley Toussaintexplains:

BAG[14]take pasa sarx to mean every person, everyone. With the negative they take it to mean no person, nobody and listMatthew 24:22 and Mark 13:20 as instances of this meaning. The expression pasa sarx comes from the Septuagint which in turnlooks at the Hebraism kol basar"all flesh." Gesenius[15]says this Hebrew construction means "all living creatures . . . especiallyall men, the whole humanrace . . . " Therefore, tointerpret "all flesh" in Matthew 24:22 and Mark 13:20 as referring toJews living in Judea in a. d. 70is too limiting. "Allflesh" describes all humanity.[16]

Dr.Craig Evans concurs:

reflects Semitic idiom (e.g., Gen 9:11: "never again shall all flesh be cut offby the waters of a flood", Isa 40:5: "all flesh shall see it together"). . . . the warning that the period of tribulation will be so severethat unless shortened it will extinguish human life argues that the prophecyportends more than the Jewish war. . . . but the fate of the whole of humanity did not hang in the balance.[17]

It appears thatSatan's effort to destroy the Jews would result in the total annihilation ofall humanity, were not for Christ's intervention at the second advent. This fact provides us with furtherinsight into the purposes of Christ's return.

Who Are The Elect?

The term "theelect" is uttered three times by Jesus in the Olivet discourse (Matt. 14:22,24, 31; also in Mark 13:20, 22, 27). I believe that all three uses must refer to the same entity in eachinstance. They clearly refer, incontext, to some group of believers during the tribulation. Since the church has been raptured, itcannot refer to her. Thus, does"the elect" reference saved Jews and Gentiles, or only the Jewish remnant? I believe that this term refers to theJewish remnant, primarily because of contextual factors.

While it is truethat the term "the elect" is used in the New Testament Epistles of church agebelievers (i.e., both Jews and Gentiles) (see Rom. 8:33; Col. 3:12; 2 Tim.2:10; Titus 1:1), it is also true that this term is used in a variety of otherways. Note multiple uses asfollows: Rufus, a choice man (Rom.16:13); elect angels (1 Tim. 5:21); of Jewish believers (1 Pet. 1:1; 2:9);Christ a choice building stone (1 Pet. 2:4, 6); a chosen lady (2 John 1); achosen sister (2 John 13). In theOld Testament the term "elect" is used in the following references to Israel: Isaiah 42:1; 43:20; 45:4; 65:9; 65:15;65:22; Psalm 89:3; 105:6, 43; 106:5; 1 Chronicles 16:13. The verbal form of "to choose" is useddozens of times in relation to Israel in the Old Testament (i.e., Deut.7:6). Even though a majority ofthe biblical occurrences refer to Israel, usage must always be determined by howit is used in a specific context. "In this context, it is most likely used regarding the nation,"concludes Dr. Ed Glasscock. "Danielidentifies this time as 'decreed for your people and your holy city,' indicatingthat Israel, not the church or mankind in general, will be the center of theTribulation suffering."[18]

We have seen thatthe term elect has a fairly wide range of usage. "Out of every dispensation there will be some gathered ofGod's mere mercy and sovereignty. These are 'the elect' of that dispensation," explains RobertGovett. "Therefore the term has asmany special meanings as there are dispensations."[19] But since the focus of this passage isupon Israel it is not mystery that Christ has them in mind. William Kelly says, "the evidenceunmistakably points to a converted body of Jews in the latter day, not standingin church light and privilege, but having Jewish hopes, and while awaiting theMessiah."[20] The term "the elect" is most likelyused because Christ looks forward to those belonging to the Jewish remnant,though not yet saved, they are chosen to such a destiny-the elect. Maranatha!

(To BeContinued . . .)

Endnotes

[1] Marvin Rosenthal, The Pre-Wrath Rapture of theChurch (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990), pp.108-09.

[2] Rosenthal, Pre-Wrath Rapture, p. 111.

[3] See Alan Hugh M'Neile, The Gospel According toSt. Matthew (London: MacMillan, 1915), p. 350.

[4] Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and OtherEarly Christian Literature, atranslation and adaptation by William F. Arndt & F. Wilbur Gingrich(Chicago: The University ofChicago Press, 1957), p. 442.

[5] Randolph O. Yeager, The Renaissance NewTestament, 18 Vols. (BowlingGreen, Ken.: Renaissance Press,1978), vol. 3, p. 301.

[6] H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A ManualGrammar of the Greek New Testament(New York: The Macmillan Company,1927), p. 193.

[7] Renald Showers, Maranatha: Our Lord, Come! A Definitive Study of the Rapture ofthe Church (Bellmawr, NJ: The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry,Inc., 1995), p. 51.

[8] Showers, Maranatha, p. 51

[9] W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr., ACritical and Exegetical Commentary on The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 3 vols. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1997), vol. 3, p. 351.

[10] Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for aMixed Church under Persecution,second edition, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), p. 484.

[11] Ezra P. Gould, A Critical and ExegeticalCommentary on The Gospel According to St. Mark, (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1896), pp. 247-48.

[12] Showers, Maranatha, p. 51

[13] See Morna D. Hooker, The Gospel According toSaint Mark (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991), p. 316.

[14] Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and OtherEarly Christian Literature, atranslation and adaptation by William F. Arndt & F. Wilbur Gingrich(Chicago: The University ofChicago Press, 1957).

[15] William Gesenius, A Hebrew and English Lexiconof the Old Testament, including the Biblical Chaldee, 13^th. Edition, Translated from Latinby Edward Robinson (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1882).

[16] Stanley D. Toussaint, "ACritique Of The Preterist View Of The Olivet Discourse," unpublished paperpresented at The Pre-Trib Study Group, Dec. 1995, no page number.

[17] Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27-16:20 in Word Biblical Commentary, 34b (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001), p. 322.

[18] Ed Glasscock, Moody Gospel Commentary: Matthew (Chicago: Moody Press, 1997), p. 472.

[19] Robert Govett, The Prophecy on Olivet (Miami Springs, FL: Conley & Schoettle Publishing Co., [1881] 1985), p. 54.

[20] William Kelly, Lectures on The Gospel ofMatthew (Sunbury, PA: Believers Bookshelf [1868] 1971), p.492.