An Interpretation of Matthew 24-25 (Part 22)
Dr. Thomas Ice
"Butimmediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, andthe moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and thepowers of the heavens will be shaken." -Matthew 24:29
One of theoriginal questions that the disciples ask Jesus at the beginning of thisdiscourse was "what will be the sign of your coming?" He has been answering the question since verse 23. Having spoken of His coming in verse27, Jesus now builds upon His previous point that He will not arriveclandestinely, but His return will be a clear, public event that will takeplace suddenly. Just such aglorious appearing is exactly what is described in verses 29 and 30.
The Sun, Moon, andStars
Matthew 24:29 isnot a new revelation by our Lord. Old Testament passages like Isaiah 13:9-10 and Joel 2:31; 3:15 alsoreference this "black out" and light show that will occur "immediately afterthe tribulation," in preparation for Christ's second coming as noted in Matthew24:30. These Old Testamentpassages refer to the same future events that Christ describes in verse29. In conjunction with the returnof Jesus, Israel will be rescued from her tribulation by the Lord Himself(verse 31). We see the theme ofrescue associated with the Lord's return reinforced from the contexts of theseOld Testament passages, especially Joel 2 and 3, especially 2:31 and 3:1-2.
It is clear thatour Lord has quoted part of His declaration about the sun and moon in Matthew24:29, "But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will notgive its light, . . ." from Joel 2:31. Both are speaking of the same time and events-the timeimmediately following the tribulation and in conjunction with Christ'sreturn. Thus, it is interesting totake note of Joel 3:1-2, which provides a "time text" saying that the "blackout" (Joel 2:31) will occur "in those day and at that time" (Joel 3:1). In conjunction with this is described atime when the Lord will "restore the fortunes of Judah and Jerusalem" (Joel3:1). Not judgment, butdeliverance, as in Matthew 24. This event is said to be a time when the Lord "will gather all thenations" (Joel 3:1) in the valley of Jehoshaphat just north of Jerusalem. Further, it will be a time in whichIsrael will have been regathered from among the nations (Joel 3:2). This will be the time in which the sunand moon will be darkened.
Preterist Folly
Of course,preterists believe that these events are connected to the first century. "Here we encounter remarkable cosmicdisturbances that seem too catastrophic for applying to a.d. 70," says Gentry. He believes that "this portrays historical divine judgment under thedramatic imagery of a universal catastrophe."[1] How does he arrive at such aconclusion? "To understand itproperly we must interpret it covenantally, which is to say biblically, ratherthan according to a presupposed simple literalism."[2] It goes without saying that any passagein the Bible must be interpreted biblically. So, why does Gentry feel compelled to make such astatement? He does this because heis getting ready to put forth an un-biblical interpretation. He already admitted that it does notseem that these events happened in the first century. Since he apparently cannot provide a textual interpretation,he has to bring in his preconceive theology as the real basis for hisunderstanding of the text. He isnot interpreting the passage biblically, but theologically. Dr. Gentry uses his preconceivedpreterist notion as the true basis for his "interpretation" at this point. This is obvious to any attempting tohandle the text from the proper perspective of the literal, grammatical, andcontextual approach. Only those whoare already committed to preterism, no matter what the text says, will fall forGentry's equation of covenantalinterpretation with a proper biblical approach.
Dr. Gentrybelieves that verse 29 "draws upon the imagery from Old Testament judgmentpassages that sound as if they are world-ending events."[3] I have already noted such arelationship. This point is not amatter for debate, however, Gentry is typical of how preterists mishandle therecognized Old Testament relationship.
SinceGentry admits that this passage sounds like it did not occur in the firstcentury. This is why, by his ownadmission, he must introduce his theology (if covenant were a true synonym for biblical, why must he tell us?) as a factor forinterpreting this text. Whilethose following the normal canons of sound hermeneutics-the historical, grammatical, contextualapproach-cannot find Dr. Gentry's view taught from the passage. Dr. Gentry must employ a historical,grammatical, and theological hermeneutic to (mis)explain the passage. Since the preterist erroneous believesthat these events had to occur in the first century they are forced to viewsthat are not supported by the words, phrases, and context of the passage. If anyone is allowed to subjectivelyintroduce their theology as part of the hermeneutical process, then it shouldnot be surprising to find that the text supposedly teaches what ispresupposed. But that is not trueexegesis, but it is a widely practiced form of eisegesis. Dr. Robert Thomas' recent comment aboutDr. Gentry's interpretative approach is on the mark when he says, "Gentry's useof symbolism is inconsistent and self-contradictory. A factoring of preunderstanding into the interpretiveprocess inevitably leads to unimaginable extremes in hermeneutical abuse."
Handling Figures of Speech
When I study theOld Testament figures that preterist say speak of the passing of a greatpolitical power, I wonder how they know what the original figures mean? I do not see a textual basis for theirunderstanding either in the Old Testament or in Matthew 24. There are no biblical passages thatestablish the preterist use of these figures. In 1857 Rev. D. D. Buck made the following hermeneuticalpoints about interpreting Matthew 24:29, which are still valid in our own day:
(1.) The use of metaphoric language implies aknowledge or idea of what would be understood if such language were appliedliterally. No one ever uses figureswithout having in view the literal things from which the figures are derived. .. . If we say Christianity is the sun of the world, it implies that we have aprevious understanding of the nature and fact of the sun.
(2.) Now, whence did this ancient figurativeuse of the darkening of the luminaries arise? How did it happen that it was so common for the prophets tospeak of ordinary, limited judgments, in language which all admit would, ifused literally, apply to the general judgment? How became it so common to speak metaphorically of thedarkening of the sun, moon, and stars, and the passing away of theheavens? Figures are the shadow ofthe literal. Where is thesubstance that originates the shadow? Metaphors are borrowed from literal speech. Where is the literal speech, and the revelation of theliteral idea, of the blotting out of the bright heavens, and the downfall ofthe world?
(3.) This question is to be settled bythose who seize upon every reference to these great events, and pronounce themfigurative. Will they please totell us where there is a spot in all the Bible where the literalist may planthis feet, and stand up in defense of orthodoxy, and give a philosophicalexplanation of the commonness of such language as appears to refer to the dayof Judgment?[5]
Comparing Scripture With Scripture
Luke 21:24 says,"and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into allthe nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles untilthe times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." This text provides an outline of the history of Jerusalem from the timeof the destruction of Jerusalem until Israel's redemption at the second coming(Luke 21:25-29). The time in whichthe sun and moon will be darkened will follow the end of "the times of theGentiles," according to Luke 21:25. The fact that the blackout of Matthew 24:29 is to come at the end of thetimes of the Gentiles, "immediately after the tribulation of those days," makesit clear that it could not have happened in the first century since, accordingto Luke 21:24, the Roman destruction of the Holy City would commence that timewhich has gone on now for almost 2,000 years. This event must be future and in conjunction with a time inwhich the Lord will deliver His people, not judge them (as in a.d. 70).
If the preteristinterpretation of this passage is left to stand then it creates tremendouscontradictions between the text and the historical records of the Romansiege. Rev. Richard Shimeallexplains the preterist problem as follows:
Historically, therefore, the state ofthe case amounts to this:
(1.) The high-priest of the Jewish nation and many of hisassociates had been murdered, and the whole body of the priesthood overthrown;and, if there were any religious services, they were conducted by such wretchesas the robbers saw fit to appoint.
(2.) Their temple was changed into a citadel and stronghold of anarmy of the vilest and most abominable robbers and murderers that everdisgraced the human race.
(3.) Their "holy houses" (synagogues) throughout theland had been pillaged and destroyed by the ruthless and bloody Sicarii.
(4.) Their judiciary and temple officers had either fled fortheir lives to the Romans, or had been murdered by the robber-gangs of thecity, while their nobles and men of-wealth perished by myriads. And finally,
(5.) Whether within the capital or throughout the borders ofJudea, east, west, north, and south, the ecclesiastical and civil institutions of the nation were exterminated, and the countryconquered and laid waste by the Romans, or ravaged by organized banditti.
And thus, reader, it continued to theend. These, we repeat, are the historicalfacts of the case. And yet, our commentators have trustedthe interpretation of some of the most important parts of the Bible to thetheory, the principal argument to sustain which lies in the assumption that theJewish ecclesiastical and civil governments were destroyed "after"the destruction of Jerusalem!
What shall the writer say more? He claims to have settled the questionby undeniable historicfacts. If anything, let it be inthe form of the following appeal to logic:
l. If by the heavenly luminaries be meant the ecclesiasticaland civil States and rulers of the Jews, and the darkening of them refers totheir destruction; and if this was effected by the Roman legions, it followsthat it must have occurred either before or during thetribulation that resulted in their ruin.
2. But, inasmuch as the object of the war was to reduce the nation to obedience,or to bring it to ruin, it could not have preceded it.
3. It must therefore have occurred during the war. Recollect we are now speaking of the darkening of the sun, moon, andstars, as denoting the so-called Jewish tribulation at the hands of the Romans. We repeat, then, it must have occurredduring the war. Now, it isundeniable, that that war did not cease until its object was effected. It is also undeniable, that the nationwas in ruins before the warwas ended. And it is a fact, also,that the predicted tribulation continued undiminished, if indeed it did notincrease in severity, to the last.
It is, therefore, we submit,settled-historically and logically settled-that it was during, and not after, that time of trouble, that the so-calledJewish luminaries were darkened. And, what is decisive of this point, are those notable words of Christ, "Immediatelyafter tribulation of those days,the sun shall be darkened," etc.; which shows conclusively that our Lord was notspeaking of that event in the29th verse of this chapter.[6]
(To BeContinued . . .)
Endnotes
[1] Kenneth Gentry in Thomas Ice and Kenneth L.Gentry, Jr., The Great Tribulation: Past or Future? Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), p. 55.
[2] Gentry in Ice and Gentry, Great Tribulation, p.55.
[3] Gentry in Ice and Gentry, Great Tribulation, p.56.
[4] Robert L. Thomas, "New Evangelical Hermeneuticsand Eschatology," A paper presented at the 12th Annual Pre-TribStudy Group, (Irving, TX, December 8, 2003), p. 32.
[5]D. D. Buck, Our Lord's Great Prophecy (Nashville: South-Western Publishing House, 1857), p. 229.
[6]Richard Cunningham Shimeall, Christ's SecondComing: Is It Pre-Millennial orPost-Millennial? (New York: John F. Trow and Richard Brinkerhoff,1866), pp. 157-59.