Nonlinear memory

A prima facie problem with the Olivet Discourse is that Jesus appears to make the fall of Jerusalem, the Parousia, and the end of the world roughly simultaneous. One explanation is that this is composite discourse, so it reflects an editorial, thematic sequence rather than the original sequence. The Olivet Discourse may be a composite discourse, parts of which were delivered at different times, then spliced together. 

Nowadays, many commentators regard the Gospels as very artfully crafted works with a narrative theological strategy. But as Lydia McGrew and I have discussed, it's preferable to view them as oral histories.

Between about the 1:21-25 min mark of this panel discussion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz-OZF1fmCA

Lydia has a different explanation for the Olivet Discourse. Before commenting on that I'd like to take a step back to draw a distinction between misremembering and not remembering. I'm sure we've all had long conversations which we then recount to a friend. We don't remember the exact flow of the conversation. We don't remember the sequence in which things were said. Certain things stick out in our minds, and that's what we recount.

That's different from misremembering. In misremembering, we mistakenly think we're reproducing the original sequence. 

Now Lydia's point is that the disciples may not recall the original sequence of what Jesus said. So when the discourse is retold by the Synoptics, there may be an unconscious rearrangement of the order in which things were said. As a result, some things are put together as if they go together, in a way that doesn't match the flow of what Jesus said. 

That can foster the misimpression that Jesus synchronized certain events when in fact these are different, chronologically separate, spaced out events. The discourse doesn't reflect historical continuity, but memorable highlights. In recounting them they appear to be concurrent or overlapping events, when in fact that's selective, nonlinear recall.  

Olivet Discourse synoptic parallels

https://faiththinkers.org/olivet-discourse-and-parallels

Prophetic blanks

Conservatives have often argued that the critical position rests on a dogmatic, rationalistic denial of the possibility of predictive prophecy. For the critical scholar, however the issue is one or probability. That Daniel’s predictions have particular relevance to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes is not in dispute…There is no apparent reason, however, why a prophet of the sixth century should focus minute attention on the events in the second century. J. Collins, Daniel (Fortress Press 1993), 26.

That sounds plausible, but it's superficial. Bible prophecy is selective. Focussed on the big events. The Babylonian Exile was a big event for Jews. Suppose that's when Daniel was written. What's the next big event on the prophetic calendar? The Antiochean crisis is a good candidate. 

That would tempt many Jews to commit apostasy. So it would be very encouraging for 2C BC Jews to realize that a 6C prophet foresaw their ordeal, and predicted that God would deliver them.

And what's the next big event on the prophetic calendar? What's the big event between the Antiochean crisis and the advent of Christ? There's nothing of comparable importance in-between. So it's not unreasonable think Dan 11 has a blank, an unstated interval, between Antiochus and the next big event.

That's how prophetic timetables in Scripture work. They skip over minor events and focus on the high points or low points. 

Was Jesus a failed prophet?

Mt 24:34 ("Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place") is a familiar crux. Did Jesus mispredict the future?

There are different explanations. And I've discussed this on numerous occasions. But here's another angle. The question at issue is the relationship between his fall of Jerusalem prediction  and his end-of-the world prediction. These are adjacent, but are they coreferetial? Are they synchronized?  

This verse is embedded in the Olivet Discourse. That's an extended block of text (Mt 24-25). But did Jesus deliver that entire address at one sitting, or is this a composite text? 

Matthew and Luke both have a tendency to group related material together. For instance, the Sermon on the Mount is often thought to a composite text, where Matthew combined things Jesus said at different times and places. 

In that's the case in regard to the Olivet Discourse, then we're dealing with two or more separate oracles of salvation and judgment. Each is prophetic, but may well have different referents. When combined, there are no editorial seams, so we're left with one continuous block of text–which fosters the superficial impression of one continuous chain of events. But the continuity is literary rather than chronological. Like other composite speeches in Matthew and Luke, there may be no explicit textual clues to distinguish the underlying sources, which were delivered at different times and places. It's just run-on. Yet the impression of continuity is an editorial artifact. There's the original setting for each speech, but in writing a biography, the narrator must rearrange some material to produce a linear flow. Writing is a different medium from speaking. Writing about history is different from how history is experienced. 

Pretenders and the Parousia

23 Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the messiah!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 24 For false messiahs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you beforehand. 26 So, if they say to you, ‘Look, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go out. If they say, ‘Look, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. 27 For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man (Mt 24:23-25).

i) The Olivet Discourse is often thought to be an embarrassment for Christian theology because, on one interpretation, Jesus made a false prediction. He synchronized the Parousia and the end of the world with the fall of Jerusalem. 

Certainly there are element to the extended prophecy that suggests events leading up to and including the fall of Jerusalem. Yet on another interpretation, there's a shift from a short-term oracle to a long-term oracle. I myself find that persuasive. 

ii) But I'd like to make another point. Consider vv23-27. This doesn't fit the fall of Jerusalem. So it suggests that at this juncture, the oracle is looking beyond the fall of Jerusalem to a more distant denouement. 

I take the thrust of vv23-27 to be that Christians won't have to go looking for messiah when he returns. The onus will not be on them to apply criteria to ID the messiah. Rather, when he comes back, the return of Christ will be so unmistakable that this will undoubtedly be the true messiah, in the person of Jesus.

But it's hard to see how the fall of Jerusalem fills the bill. To begin with, Jesus refers to false prophets and messianic pretenders who perform signs and wonders. That's a stock phrase that triggers associations with the miracles of the Exodus. But Jesus said even that's an unreliable indicator. Yet Exodus-redux miracles are far more impressive than what happened at the fall of Jerusalem. So if even miracles on the scale of the Exodus fail to ID the true messiah's return, the fall of Jerusalem would surely fall short. There was nothing supernatural about the fall of Jerusalem. At best, Josephus reports a few miracles. But even if we credit them, those are less spectacular than Exodus-style miracles. If, in the greater case of Exodus-redux miracles, these are unreliable criteria, then a fortiori, the lesser case of Jerusalem's downfall would be even more ambiguous.  

Faint with fear

12 When he opened the sixth seal, I looked, and behold, there was a great earthquake, and the sun became black as sackcloth, the full moon became like blood, 13 and the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree sheds its winter fruit when shaken by a gale. 14 The sky vanished like a scroll that is being rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place. 15 Then the kings of the earth and the great ones and the generals and the rich and the powerful, and everyone, slave and free, hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains, 16 calling to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb, 17 for the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?” (Rev 6:12-17).

I'd like to give a bit more attention to the interpretation of this passage, in reference to Alan's post: 

http://www.alankurschner.com/2015/05/19/you-tell-me-what-will-cause-the-world-to-faint-with-fear-apocalyptic-skies-causing-celestial-disturbances-or-mark-biltzs-benign-lunar-eclipses/

i) What's the relationship between the initial earthquake and subsequent events? Is there a consistent cause-and-effect relationship? Does the earthquake directly trigger these events?

To a modern reader, there's no causal relationship between earthquakes and shooting stars. Perhaps, though, someone would argue that if ancient people believed in the three-story universe, then an earthquake might shake things loose from the sky. The land would be equivalent to the floor or foundation, and the sky to the roof or ceiling.

If so, one problem with that argument is that there's no correlation between earthquakes and shooting stars. Earthquakes occur without shooting stars and shooting stars occur without earthquakes. Ancient people were keen observers of the natural world. So there's no reason to think they'd connect the two. Indeed, there's reason to think they wouldn't connect the two, given the absence of any correlation. In their experience, earthquakes didn't trigger meteor showers. 

ii) There's the question of what the second clause in v14 envisions. With reference to mountains, it seems to suggest landslides. The earthquake leveled mountains.

Islands can also be shaken by earthquakes. Question is whether the verb means "moved" or "removed." As we know, earthquakes can generate tsunamis and tidal waves. It's possible that that's alluded to here, although text doesn't say that or imply that. 

Islands can also be susceptible to volcanic destruction. The Minoan eruption is a famous case. The Mt. Tabora eruption is another case in point. Likewise, the Krakatau eruption.  Once again, though, the text doesn't say that or imply that. It's just a wild guess. 

iii) Then there's the question of whether we should construe the imagery literally or figuratively. 

a) On the one hand, the OT records God using actual natural disasters in divine judgment. So it's certainly possible, perhaps even probable, that natural disasters will figure in the final judgment.

b) On the other hand, Beale has documented that stars, mountains, and islands can symbolize human and heavenly powers. In addition, the same end-of-the-world imagery recurs in subsequent chapters. But, of course, the world can only end once.

Furthermore, I assume any earthquake of sufficient magnitude to level mountain ranges would annihilate life on earth. 

c) In addition, v14 is literally inconsistent with vv15-16. If the earthquake leveled the mountains, then people couldn't take refuge in the mountains after the earthquake. By then the mountain ranges would be heaps of rubble. Vv15-16 presume that the mountains are still intact (pace v14). So the imagery is flexible.

d) However, it's possible that the choice between literal and metaphorical is a false dichotomy. Maybe the specific imagery is figurative, but that's used to as placeholders to indicate real natural disasters. In other words, perhaps the text employs stock imagery for natural disasters. These don't describe the natural disasters. Rather, they are conventional synonyms for natural disasters. Paradigm examples of familiar kinds of natural disasters. So there could be real natural disasters, but not necessarily the specific catastrophes denoted by the stock imagery.

It's hard to say if the language refers to actual physical cataclysms. Only time will tell.

iv) Contrary to Alan's interpretation, the text doesn't say the people were terrified by the natural disasters. Rather, they were terrified by Jesus returning in judgment. 

Indeed, they are so horrified by the prospect of facing him that they'd rather be buried alive in collapsing caves and crumbling mountains (cf. Lk 23:30). Although the natural disasters are undoubtedly horrendous, they pale in comparison with Jesus himself, as the eschatological judge.

v) Another problem with Alan's interpretation is that if these cascading disasters were triggered by volcanic activity, why would they head for the hills? Why take refuge in mountains to escape volcanic activity when volcanoes are mountains? Would they not be motivated to put as much distance as possible between themselves and nearby mountains or mountain ranges? Do people who fear the forest fire seek refuge in the forest? 

vi) Incidentally, both Aune and Koester document how Greco-Roman literature identified the solar/lunar imagery with solar/lunar eclipses, and attached ominous significance to these phenomena. So that would be a natural association for the original audience to make.

Dark skies

This is a surrejoinder to Alan's rejoinder:

But to answer Steve's question, no, it would not automatically connote a lunar eclipse since I presume ancient people could easily distinguish between a lunar eclipse that causes a reddish color and something more dramatic such as a nearby volcano causing severe atmospheric conditions.

To begin with, most ancient people never witnessed a volcanic eruption. You must live where there are active volcanoes. And even then, volcanic eruptions are rare. By contrast, a lunar eclipse is far more common. 

The biblical description—and this was a point in my article—conveys a cluster of heavenly and terrestrial events happening in conjunction with each other (e.g. Joel 2, Mt 24, Luke 21, Rev 6). Not piece meal. Which explains why it terrifies the wicked. Meteorites, volcanoes, and perhaps some other catastrophe most certainly will cause this.

i) On what exegetical basis does he conclude that volcanoes (in conjunction with other phenomena) "most certainly" will cause this. None of his prooftexts specifies volcanos. At best, that's a possible way to explain the imagery. 

ii) Moreover, none of his prooftexts says the wicked are terrified by volcanic eruptions (in conjunction with other phenomena). 

this is not some normal eclipse that lasts mere moments or minutes,

A lunar eclipse can last for 100 minutes, not "mere moments" or a few minutes. 

it conveys a universal phenomenon, not a local region

A volcanic eruption is a local, regional phenomenon–not a universal phenomenon. 

At best, Alan can postulate a supervolcanic eruption with global atmospheric effects. But that's reading something into the text rather than reading something out of the text. At best, that would be consistent with the text, not an implication of the text. 

"Then the kings of the earth…"

i) To a modern reader, "the earth" will trigger a planetary perspective, but it would be anachronistic to impute that outlook to John's audience.

ii) In addition, taking refuge in mountains and caves indicates a local, regional perspective. Many parts of the world don't have mountains or caves. 

iii) Another problem with taking a global perspective is that endtime prophecy is typically set in the Mideast. What was the known world to the original audience.

If, however, we're going to broaden that out to include North America, South America, Japan, Iceland, Indonesia, &c., then why assume the Middle Eastern locale for endtime events is literally intended? Why not view that as a placeholder for events which may, in fact, occur in different capitals, with different superpowers? There's that tension in dispensational hermeneutics. 

But volcanic ash can cause the moon to have a reddish color.

But in that event an observer would seen the sun as well as the moon. Indeed, the sun would be more clearly visible than the moon-give the superior brightness of the sun. 

Steve is assuming some constant effect as well as only being perceived in a single, local region. The way the sun and the moon will appear to someone in say America will likely be perceived at a greater or lesser degree in Europe.

I don't see how that rescues Alan's argument. If the volcanic ash is thick enough to obscure the sun, it will be thick enough to obscure the moon. If, conversely, it's thin enough to emit filtered moonlight, then it's thin enough to emit filtered sunlight. Although the effect may be localized, it will be the same effect depending on the locality. If the fallout is think in that region, it will obscure sun and moon alike. If it's think in that region, it will filter sun and moon alike. 

Indeed, it could filter sunlight but opaque moonlight since moonlight is dimmer than sunlight–whereas Alan's theory requires the reverse. That's his quandary. 

Sure it did, at least the sun. 

I have doubts about Alan's interpretation of the NASA pictures:

i) To begin with, what they clearly show is not the sun or moon, but a landscape floodlit by red illumination.

ii) Alan doesn't point to what he has in mind, but I guess he identifies the fireball directly above the volcano as the sun. If so, I question that identification. To begin with, it would be unusual for the sun to rise or set right over a mountain. If a mountain is located in the north or south, it will never be in the vicinity of sunrise or sunset. 

And even if a mountain is located in the east or west, it would only be during a few days of the year that the sun might rise or set right over the mountain. 

iii) Volcanos generate plasma clouds and St. Elmo's fire. They eject fiery particles into the atmosphere directly above the volcano. 

In addition, clouds above the volcano will be underlit by the lava and magma in the crater. That's not the sun. Rather, that's a reflection. 

iv) Moreover, the pictures don't' show the moon at all. 

Further, the thicker the clouds of ash, the more it would block out the moon, the lighter the more likely to give it a red tint.

Again, though, Alan's dilemma is that sun and moon are paired prophecy. Ash that's thick enough to block sunlight will block moonlight, while ash that's thick enough to filter moonlight will filter sunlight. So he needs to explain how his theory is consistent with reddish moonlight but opaquing sunlight. 

Lunar eclipses do not cause the reaction we see in the Bible from the celestial disturbances (notice the plural). 

That's not an exegetical conclusion. Alan is projecting what he thinks the observer will find fearful. 

God's eschatological harbinger will not be an atomized luminary event—it will be a cluster of events warning the wicked of his impending wrath.

You can have a cluster of events involving a meteor shower, solar eclipse, and lunar eclipse. You can have a sequential solar and lunar eclipse.

Not sure what Steve's point is. Ancient as well as modern people regard them as ominous. 

Modern observers don't typically regard a solar or lunar eclipse as an omen. 

I am sure Steve is not a preterist. I am almost certain he interprets the celestial disturbances in Mt 24 happening in the future. So not sure how "ancient people" is relevant since this is a prophetic description of a future people's reaction.

i) When we interpret an ancient text, we must consider for what that would mean to the original audience. 

ii) Moreover, even prophecies about the distance future are couched in imagery familiar to the ancient audience, viz. calvary, archers, warhorses, fortified cities, siege warfare. So that's the interpretive point of entry. 

John saw a vision of a harbinger that God will use to warn the world of his impending wrath. This harbinger is obviously nature, where John uses imagery to describe a unique cluster of heavenly-terrestrial events that will happen just before the day of the Lord.

If the imagery is symbolic, then we must ask what it stands for. For instance, what about Zechariah's vision of a lying scroll and winged women (Zech 5:1,9). Does Alan think that's literal?

What about Joseph's dream of the sun, moon, and stars bowing down to him (Gen 37:9). Does he think that's literal?

I think it's useful to explore how eschatological imagery could be physically realistic. But I don't regard that as the default meaning. There's no presumption that it must be physically realistic. That's just one of the interpretive options.

Steve selectively left out eyewitness accounts of seeing a reddish moon caused by volcanic ash. 

Alan keeps evading the conundrum of moonlight without sunlight. How does volcanic ash obscure the sun without obscuring the moon? 

So my point is that no one can read the biblical accounts of the harbinger in Joel 2, Mt 24, Luke 21, and Rev 6 and walk away thinking that there is going to be a single, isolated lunar eclipse. 

No doubt the eschatological imagery is far more varied. 

Supervolcano

Here's a provocative post:

http://www.alankurschner.com/2015/05/19/you-tell-me-what-will-cause-the-world-to-faint-with-fear-apocalyptic-skies-causing-celestial-disturbances-or-mark-biltzs-benign-lunar-eclipses/

That's very interesting. However, I don't think the scientific or exegetical evidence justifies the conclusion:

i) To ancient readers, wouldn't a blood red moon automatically connote a lunar eclipse? Isn't that the association it would ordinarily trigger?

ii) In principle, there are different things that can block sunlight. However, when sun and moon are paired, with unusual optical effects attributed to both, surely that would suggest a solar and lunar eclipse.

And that's an accurate description of both. In a solar eclipse, the sun turns black (except for a fiery halo or annulus), while the moon turns red. 

iii) As for volcanic eruptions, how would volcanic ash have a differential effect on sunlight and moonlight? It would block out both, right?

iv) Even assuming, moreover, that it had a differential effect, if it's thick enough to block out sunlight, it will be more than thick enough to block out moonlight. The sun is far brighter than the moon, so what blocks sunlight will certainly block moonlight–which is dimmer to begin with.

And if it's thin enough to let some light filter through, that would be sunlight rather than moonlight. 

v) Although the NASA pictures are spectacular, they don't show a blackened sun and a reddened moon.

vi) Didn't ancient people regard solar and lunar eclipses as very ominous (in both senses of the word). They took celestial prodigies seriously.

vii) Perhaps Alan's unstated objection is that it's physically impossible to have a solar and lunar eclipse simultaneously, inasmuch as sun, moon, and earth must occupy different relative positions respectively:

In a solar eclipse, the moon comes between the sun and the earth: sun>moon>earth

In a lunar eclipse, the earth comes between the sun and the moon: sun>earth>moon

But that just means the imagery isn't realistic. It's stock, eschatological imagery. Indeed, John saw this in a vision. 

viii) Finally, I'll conclude with some eyewitness accounts of volcanic ash:

http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/local/ash-and-aftermath-of-mount-st-helens-our-readers-remember/article_9d5e133a-fc6a-11e4-969a-37af86c094a1.html

Susan La Riviere, Yakima 

Once the new year of 1980 hit, seismologists and volcanologists became alerted to steam coming out of Mount St. Helens’ dome. Small earthquakes were noted and citizens were warned that there might be a volcanic eruption within the year. Here in Yakima, we were not warned about emergency precautions to take if an eruption happened. Although volcanic activity was part of our conversations, no one seriously considered that the mountain would explode. 

On Sunday morning, May 18, 1980, I was on the phone talking long distance to my parents who were visiting relatives in south Louisiana. I said, “It looks like a terrible dust storm is coming from the west. The sky is black in that direction and it isn’t yet noon. I also heard some thunder so we might get ... Mom? Dad? Are you there?” All phone connections were cut off. I heard a loud clap of what sounded like thunder, the windows shuttered and a storm of darkness surrounded the house. We could not see the street lamp at the corner of Barge and North 36th Avenue.

The television was not working, but KIT radio announcers came in clearly with news about the volcanic eruption of Mount St. Helens. We were told to fill the bathtub with water because it was unknown if the ash was radioactive. Farmers were warned to shelter their animals, and owners of domestic animals were instructed to bring all the pets into the house. The sky rained sand the rest of May 18. 

Water did not wash the sand from roofs. Instead, the sand absorbed the water and the combined weight caused many roofs to collapse. Yakima was buried in sand and the sky was filled with powdered ash for many months.

Glenn Rice, Yakima

On May 18, 1980, my family was on the way to a summer home in the Cascades. As we approached the “Y” at the intersection of Highway 12 and State Route 410, the sky became dark with clouds, wind, dust, thunder and lightning. This was different because the air also smelled of sulfur. I said, “Turn the radio on; something is happening.” And indeed it was! We turned around, and it took an hour and a half to return to Yakima because of poor visibility. The sun seemingly set in the east, it was dark, the streetlights came on, the birds were silent and the crickets were out.

Ramona Murray, Selah

May 18, 1980, looked like the beginning of a beautiful spring day in the Wenas Valley. The hay fields looked good on our cattle ranch and our cattle were grazing on the other side of the hill.

Suddenly, the sky turned black with red and green lightning and something was falling from the sky. We thought it was rain, but it was ash. Mount St. Helens had erupted.

The sparrows clustered by our rooftop near the porch light. Thank goodness the power stayed on and radio station KIT kept us informed.

In the afternoon, my husband, Austin, and our son Dave tied kerchiefs over their noses, took flashlights and left in the pickup to see about our cattle. The cattle had broken down the fence and were coming home. One cow died. 

My daughter Valerie and I went to bed for a while. At about 7:30 p.m., the ash stopped falling and the sky was light. We stepped outside. It smelled like a chemical lab and it looked like the moon. Everything was gray. A red tailed hawk was searching in the sky, cawing. The little bantam rooster was crowing. These were welcome sounds.

Nancy M. Burgess, Yakima

I went out to take the covers off the tomatoes, and when I went in, I told my wife, “There’s a big storm coming. A really black cloud in the southwest is heading our way.”

Later, at church, we were sitting in the choir, and the ash started falling like rain on the slanted window above us. Our priest told us not to worry. He had been in Italy during World War II and Mount Vesuvius had erupted. He said this was not nearly as bad. He was the only one who didn’t make it home.

When we got home, I went next door to check on my 80-year-old mom. I was worried she would be frightened. Instead, she had set out all of her candles and filled the bathtub with water.

My sister in New York told me later that she had tried to call our mom when she heard about the eruption. The operator told her that all circuits were down and that Yakima had been wiped out. She was frantic before she finally got through to me.

I was in the State Patrol. It was my day off, but all off-duty personnel had been called in to work. They sent me out to the Naches junction to turn back any cars heading up toward the mountains. We stopped one car, and the man said his kids were camping up that way and nobody was going to keep him from going to find them. We let him pass.

Lightning was flashing all around us, but it wasn’t like it usually is. This lightning flashed horizontally. The hair on our heads was standing straight up. It was really pretty scary. We finally went into the gas station to get out of the ash and wind.

Literal Antichrist

http://www.alankurschner.com/2015/01/28/5-reasons-the-bible-teaches-a-literal-personal-antichrist-not-figurative-impersonal-ep-22/

Wake me up after the world ends

I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place (Mt 24:34; par. Mk 13:30; Lk 21:32).

i) Neil Nelson has argued that it's an idiomatic, endtime descriptor:

http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/38/38-3/JETS_38-3_Nelson_369-386.pdf

ii) Robert Stein has argued that "these things" and "all these things" in Mk 13:29-30 refer back to their programmatic use in 13:4, which limits 13:30 to the fall of Jerusalem, foretold in 13:2, rather than the Parousia. 

iii) However, the point of this post is not so much to determine what it means but to determine what it can't mean. Liberals scholars view it as a classic failed prophecy. Jesus predicted the end of the world within the lifetime of his contemporaries, but that obviously didn't happen. Inerrantists try to salvage the prophecy with ingenious reinterpretations, but that's special pleading. If you didn't have a prior commitment to inerrancy, you wouldn't resort to these face-saving interpretations. The liberal interpretation is clearly the most straightforward. So goes the argument. 

iv) I'd like to explore the unspoken assumptions of the liberal interpretation. One issue concerns the meaning of a "generation." Arguably, this typically denotes a group of people living at a particular time in history. It's possible that it has a more specialized connotation in Synoptic usage (a la Nelson). But let's consider the generic sense for the sake of argument. That would mean Jesus is referring to his contemporaries. 

v) Now, there's more than one context or audience for the Olivet Discourse. On the one hand, there's the historical setting. Jesus was addressing the disciples. 

But, of course, the Olivet Discourse was recorded in the Synoptic Gospels. So there's the audience for the Synoptic Gospels. The context of the Synoptic Gospels. 

But that requires us to distinguish between "this generation" and the Christian generation reading the Synoptics. By the time the Synoptics were written, Jesus had spoken about "this generation" at least a generation before the younger generation of Christians reading (or hearing) the Synoptics. By the time the Synoptics were written, "this generation" already represents the older generation, whereas the reader represents the next generation. 

On conventional conservative dating, Mark was written in the 50s while Matthew and Luke were written in the 60s. So, chronologically speaking, "this generation" is already that generation. The previous generation–in relation to the younger generation. By that I mean, many of Jesus contemporaries were no longer alive by the time the Synoptics were written. They had already passed away.

Of course, the fact that some members of the older generation have come and gone doesn't mean the "generation" as a whole has come and gone. Some of his contemporaries would still be alive. But that itself raises an interesting question. Does "this generation" mean the last surviving member of that generation? Does it come down to one lone survivor? Would "all these things take place" before he (or she) died? Does it mean "all these things take place" before some of them or most of them pass away? Is it quantitative? If so, what's the fractional terminus ad quem? What's the minimal percentage that must still be alive? 

Perhaps, though, asking that question shows that we are asking the wrong question. 

vi) How did the Synoptic authors understand the prediction? On the face of it, the liberal interpretation generates a dilemma. If Jesus predicted that "this generation" would witness the end of the world, and if it's recorded in Gospels written a generation later, then we're getting down to the wire. If "this generation" is already the former generation, then does that mean the end of the world is just a few years away–from the chronological vantage-point of Matthew, Mark, and Luke? From "now" (their time) until the end of the world–using the older generation as the cut-off. Is that how they understood it? 

But they sure don't act as if the world is coming to an end any time soon. If they thought the world was going to end a few years from "now" (their time), why did they even bother to write their Gospels? After all, this prediction had been handed down apart from their Gospels. So why is there a pressing need to write it down now? 

Indeed, isn't the point of committing all this Jesus-tradition to writing for the benefit of posterity? If their own generation is on the way out, if their own generation is likely the final generation, then for whom are they writing their Gospels? If, up until this point, Jesus tradition had been preserved and  passed down apart from their Gospels, why write it up at the very time when the prediction is about to overtake them? 

Doesn't the very existence of the Gospels imply long-range planning? A degree of permanence? 

Isn't an obvious reason for writing the Gospels that the living memory of Jesus is dying out? That you need to put this in writing for later generations? The Apostles and others who witnessed the public ministry of Christ are dying or going to die. If you wait too long, it's too long to recover their recollections. Oral history is a very perishable commodity. 

Weren't the Gospel writers, from the very fact that they were Gospel writers, expecting the world to be around for the foreseeable future? To be around for at least several generations to come–necessitating a permanent record of the life and teaching of Christ? Isn't this for the benefit of future generations? Christians who will come on the scene long after they have died?

vii) And not only that, but aren't the Gospels loaded with material that's pretty irrelevant, pretty passé to readers, if–in fact–the world is about to end? If they thought their readers represented the last or next to last generation of the human race, isn't a lot of the material in the Gospels misleading or distracting? Would you build a history museum if you knew an earthquake was going to destroy the museum (indeed, the entire city) five or ten years later? And if, anything, the liberal dating of the Synoptics (80-100) intensifies the conundrum. Surely, by then, the clock struck midnight. Did they miss the end of the world? 

So even if you didn't have a precommitment to the inerrancy of Scripture, it's not special pleading to think the liberal interpretation of Mt 24:34 must be seriously askew. 

Refuting Dr. Ben Witherington III on His Eschatology

http://www.alankurschner.com/2014/10/20/a-refutation-of-dr-ben-witherington-iii-long-on-assertions-short-on-actual-argumentation/

Historical Commentary on Matthew 24:37—41

Recently, I have been responding to Jamin Hubner's interpretation on Matthew 24:37—41. He think that those who are taken are the wicked to judgment, and those who are left are the righteous. I have completely disagreed with him arguing that it is a tortured reading of the text. I believe that the natural reading is that those who are taken at the parousia are the righteous, and those who are left are the wicked for judgment.

Here is my argumentation.

Here was his response to my article.

Here is my response to his response.

In this article, I would like to reply to two issues.

First, Hubner (and Dickerson) suggest that Darby holds the terminus a quo interpretation (taken=righteous and left=wicked):

"Anyway, the essay by Matthew Dickerson seems to have a fair point: "Many Christians have been interpreting the end times backwards for decades. Hasn't our common picture of the Rapture imagined the followers of God - those who are saved - getting taken away while the wicked are 'left behind'?" (p. 41) I wish that would have been clear to Darby a century and a half ago, but, I guess bad exposition happens...

[And in another article Hubner stated]: "In both cases those “left behind,” as we have often heard in the last century, are actually the righteous" (emphasis mine).

Hubner is mistaken on two fronts.

1. This text is not a "dispensational" text. In fact, in general, standard dispensational scholarship agrees with Hubner by interpreting those who are taken as the wicked and those left, the righteous. In the dispy-pretrib schema those who are taken, are taken to judgment at Armageddon, and those who are left, are the righteous to enter the Millennium. So Hubner and Dickerson are creating a strawman. Dispy exceptions are not the rule.

2. There have been interpreters for centuries who have never heard of "dispensationalism" yet interpret those who are taken as the righteous and those left the wicked. Heck, we can go back over 1,500 years ago, for example, Hilary of Poitiers who commented on this text as saying:

Christ shows that a judgment is coming, since between two people in a field, one is taken up and one left behind. Between two grinding at the mill, one is chosen and one rejected. Between two lying in bed, one departs and one remain, This teaching means that the separation of the faithful from the unfaithful will consist in one being accepted and the other abandoned...One group will be taken up through the faith that produces good works, and the other group will be abandoned in the fruitless works of the law, grinding in vain at a mill that will never produce heavenly food....one of the two lying in bed will be taken up but the other wll be left behind. For by accepting one and rejection the other, God's judgment will prove their merit of each confession. SC 258:198-200

It is interesting to note that Hilary does not show any polemic in a debate of who is taken and who is left. It is just understood, which suggests that this was probably the accepted interpretation.

More could be cited but one more should suffice from Chrysostom:

All these things are demonstrations that he knew what was to come. It would be like the days of Noah:"Then two men will be in the field; one is taken and one is left," so unexpected will it be. It is without thought that they will be taken. PG 58:704; NPNF1 10:464.

The second issue I want to address is that Hubner cites a couple of scholars and pastors who agree with his interpretation suggesting that my interpretation is in the minority (as well as the above false notion that my interpretation is relatively new in church history again suggesting that my view is in the minority in the grand scheme of church history). I don't believe in stacking commentaries that agree with one's interpretation, as if consensus = correctness. But when someone implies that their interpretation represents the consensus when in fact it does not, then I'll respond. Hubner lists:

“In the context of 24:37-39, “taken” presumably means “taken to judgment” (cf. Jer. 6:11 NASB, NRSV).” – Keener, IVPBBCNT, 115

“Who was taken away in the judgment of the flood? Not Noah and his family. They were left behind to carry on God’s work.” – DeMar, Last Days Madness, 196

“the one shall be taken, and the other left; as before, one shall be taken by the Romans, and either put to death, or carried captive.” – John Gill, Exposition of Matthew

“[Wright] contends that “being ‘taken’ in this context means being taken in judgment. There is no hint, here of a ‘rapture’, a sudden ‘supernatural’ event which would remove individuals from terra firma. Such an idea,” says Wright, “would look as odd, in these synoptic passages, as a Cadillac in a camel-train. It is a matter, rather, of secret police coming in the night, or of enemies sweeping through a village or city and seizing all they can. If the disciples were to escape, if they were to be ‘left’, it would be by the skin of their teeth” (Victory, 366).]” – Sam Storms, quoting NT Wright

The individuals he cites are unusual.

First he cites Keener's Bible Background commentary, which Keener does not even take a position. He says "presumably" without any argumentation except for tagging a reference from Jeremiah, informing us with nothing. I checked out what Keener actually said in his more fuller commentary on Matthew and he has all but one sentence on this issue! (the rest devoted to background and textual issues). Moreover he is uncertain because he says, "If Jesus means "taken in judgment...the taking parallels the different expression in 24:39, where the flood "took" the wicked away" (592). So Keener is not even sure, and if he were he does not provide argumentation.

Next he cites DeMar, a fluffy postmil popularizer (and someone who apes France's commentary). Hubner just cites DeMar's assertion providing zero argumentation.

Then he cites John Gill's saying something about the Romans taking or something. I can't make heads or tails out of that.

Finally he cites Sam Storms quoting NT Wright. First, as many know Wright possesses an unbiblical over-realized eschatology so his interpretation is not dependable. Further, Hubner provides none of Wright's exegesis, only his anti-rapture crusade (which probably for him is an "American invention" as every other doctrine that Wright loathes).

So there you have it, an odd collection of non-argument quotations.

Let's go to some serious exegesis on Matthew.

The most scholarly English commentary on Matthew in print is the three volume work by Davies and Allison. I was checking to see where they came down on this interpretation, and sure enough they agree with me. In fact, they provided me some more nuggets to support my interpretation. But what caught my eye was when they claimed that my interpretation is the consensus. They write:

But are the righteous taken to meet the Lord in the air? [n68: So most.] Or are the wicked removed by angels and cast into fire? The former is more likely. [Then he goes on to provide argumentation] p.383]

In my reading on the Olivet Discourse I have found that my interpretation is the most common by scholars. And those that agree with me are mostly non-dispensationalists. And with Davies-Allison's authoritative research my conclusions are confirmed that my interpretation is in the consensus. Does it make it right? Of course not, but it shows that anyone who claims otherwise must provide the data to overturn the history of interpretation of this text and thus prove Davies-Allison's claim false.

In summary, (1) my interpretation goes back to the early church fathers, and is suggested to be the consensus back then. (2) My interpretation is the consensus in modern research attested by a range of non-dispensational scholars and traditions.

An Untenable Response on Matthew 24:37-41

Jamin Hubner, a co-blogger of mine at Alpha & Omega has responded to my article in which I argue that in Matt 24:37–41 those who are left behind are the wicked for judgment.

I concluded that his response was untenable for three reasons. (1) He used texts outside of Matthew 24 and imported their foreign meanings back into Matthew 24. (2) He quoted some commentators on this text that did not further his argumenation (3). The responses he gave to my four reasons I deemed as surface-level. In summary, he breaks the unity between Matthew 24:31 and 37-41. To disconnect these two passage misses Jesus' meaning.

I'd like to address his points one by one.

But before I do that, at the beginning of his article he made this comment: "[I] deny that the thousand years in Revelation 20 is a literal 1,000 year reign."

Even though this assertion has nothing to do with the text in this article, I want to clear up a misconception I hear frequently from my amill brothers.

The real debate has never been about whether the 1,000 years are a literal 1,000 years. Maybe they are literal, maybe they are not. I think they are literal. But they could just represent a long duration of time. I have no problem as a premillennialist saying that they are symbolic of a long period of time. Fine. But the whole debate has been on when the inception of that time begins. Amills place it at Christ's first coming, Premills place it at the second coming. That is the crux interpretum. This is why amillers are notorious for diving right into 20:1 and lifting it out of its context and placing it at Christ's first coming. But if one takes the context as a whole (the context begins in Chapter 19:11) then one can observe that the time period begins at Christ's Return.

Next Hubner writes:

Just so we have the text in our faces, here it is (ESV), beginning with Luke’s Gospel:

He goes on to first cite Luke 17:22–35. But this is not the text at hand. And it does not recognize that Luke and Matthew can (and often do) have different purposes in Jesus' eschatological teaching. We should not collapse Luke's teaching into Matthew, or vice versa. We should start with Matt 24:37–41, and once we exhaust exegetical considerations, then we are warranted to move outward, which helps to protect our interpretation from importing unintended meanings into our text. Second he cites the text at hand Matthew 24:37-41.

Then he lists this chart as if to prove something that he does not explain. I don't share his preterist presuppositions, especially for Matthew's account. Nevertheless, my aim is to focus on Matthew's purpose in illustrating the parousia event.

Next he writes:

It seems obvious enough (for me) that the ones “taken” in Matt. 24:40-41 correspond to the ones “swept…all away” in v. 39 (“destroyed them all,” Lk. 17:29), and the ones “left” (v. 40-41) correspond to Noah and his family left on earth (v.37-39). This is especially clear against the backdrop of previous words of Jesus in the gospel of Matthew, when at “close of the age,” “the Son of Man will send his angels and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers and throw them into the fiery furnace” (13:4-42). In both cases those “left behind,” as we have often heard in the last century, are actually the righteous. As scholars and pastors have said:

Notice here he immediately goes outside of the text to cite two texts: Luke 17:29 which actually argues against his position, since it is Lot who was delivered, and Sodom left to be destroyed.

Then he cites Matthew 13:4-32 and selectively quotes: “the Son of Man will send his angels and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers and throw them into the fiery furnace." Then he follows up with this assertion: "In both cases those “left behind,” as we have often heard in the last century, are actually the righteous." But this is not the case as I pointed out above on Lot, in addition, since Jesus just a bit earlier stated:

“Let both grow together until the harvest. At harvest time I will tell the reapers, “First collect (syllego) the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned, but then gather (synago) the wheat into my barn.”’ (Matt 13:30)

The weeds are collected and tied and placed to the side in order to not waste time burning them; then the task of harvesting the valuable harvest is performed first. And only after the costly harvest is complete would the weeds be disposed of by burning them. In ancient Palestine, weeds were often bundled and used later for fuel, as were other agricultural scraps (Snodgrass, 202).

Then he cites assertions of selective commentators.

“In the context of 24:37-39, “taken” presumably means “taken to judgment” (cf. Jer. 6:11 NASB, NRSV).” – Keener, IVPBBCNT, 115

“Who was taken away in the judgment of the flood? Not Noah and his family. They were left behind to carry on God’s work.” – DeMar, Last Days Madness, 196

“the one shall be taken, and the other left; as before, one shall be taken by the Romans, and either put to death, or carried captive.” – John Gill, Exposition of Matthew

“[Wright] contends that “being ‘taken’ in this context means being taken in judgment. There is no hint, here of a ‘rapture’, a sudden ‘supernatural’ event which would remove individuals from terra firma. Such an idea,” says Wright, “would look as odd, in these synoptic passages, as a Cadillac in a camel-train. It is a matter, rather, of secret police coming in the night, or of enemies sweeping through a village or city and seizing all they can. If the disciples were to escape, if they were to be ‘left’, it would be by the skin of their teeth” (Victory, 366).]” – Sam Storms, quoting NT Wright

These are not arguments. I could list commentators that support my conclusion as well. But I am more interested in argumentation, instead of creating a catalog of commentators that agree with me. So no reason to comment here.

Finally Hubner begins his critique.

My first reason I gave was:

First, it breaks the parallelism of the illustrations. Noah’s family being delivered is described first ("the day when Noah entered the ark," v 38) then the judgment on the ungodly is described second ("the flood came and swept them all away," v 39). To preserve the parallel, a man in the field and a woman grinding at the mill is first described as taken (delivered), then the other man in the field and other woman grinding at the mill are left (judgment).

He responds:

I disagree. The specific chronology-parallels Alan demands is neither the point of the text nor part of the parallel drawn from Noah’s flood, but is an artificial requirement constructed to “preserve” something that doesn’t really exist.

But that is the natural reading. It cannot be ignored since the illustrations illustrate the parousia. And when the text states that God will take his elect with him at the parousia, and his follow up illustrations state that people will be "taken," you can't simply say that it is "artificial."

He writes:

Clearly, the comparison between Noah’s flood and the Coming of the Son is made to demonstrate unexpectedness and the fact that there is judgment (group A) and non-judgment/deliverance (group B). That’s what Noah’s flood and the Coming of the Son of Man have in common, and that’s why Jesus brings it up.

The comparison demonstrates not just unexpectedness, but separation in deliverance and judgment, hence the emphasis in the parousia event and the illustrations.

He writes:

Judgment and deliverance are simultaneous. Both “taken” and “left” are in the same tense (present passive indicative) and both “entered” and “swept” are the same tense (aorist active indicative – making them contemporaneous).

Two comments here, first, actually, the context is that deliverance comes first, then judgment. That is the consistent pattern in Scripture. Lot was delivered first, Noah's family is delivered first. The resurrection will occur then the Day of the Lord's wrath. They will indeed be back-to-back events on the same day, but not "simultaneous."

Second, he commits the "Greek tense=time" fallacy, and invokes the Greek verb tense system in determining the "kind of action." This is a demonstrable error (See Exegetical Fallacies by D.A. Carson, ch. 2 on tense fallacies; Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood, Porter (Studies in Biblical Greek ; Vol/ 1); Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek by Constantine Campbell).

Context and lexeme determine time and kind of action, not mere morphological tense forms.

My second reason I gave was:

Second, some translations render the action of the flood illustration in verse 39 as, “the flood came and took them [the wicked] all away.” The rendering “took” is unfortunate because unsuspecting readers may assume that it is the same term used in verses 40–41 that have “taken.” This is not the case because there are two different Greek terms with very different meanings. The English Standard Version recognizes this and accordingly replaces “took” with “swept away”: “and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man” (Matt 24:39 ESV). The Greek term here is airō, which in this particular context of the judgment-flood illustration means to “take away, remove.” Therefore, this meaning is roughly opposite of the intimate receiving sense of paralambanō in verses 40–41.

Not surprisingly, just a few days later, Jesus uses this same term of intimate receiving when he taught reassurance to these same disciples about his return: “And if I go and make ready a place for you, I will come again and take (paralambanō) you to be with me, so that where I am you may be too” (John 14:3). Same context, same audience, same terminology.

His response was by citing France's commentary:

The verb is παραλαμβάνω rather than a simple λαμβάνω, and if the compound is more than just a stylistic variation, it might be understood to mean “take to oneself” (as in 1:20; 17:1:1; 18:16; 20:17). If the passive verbs are understood as “divine passives,” that would mean that God has taken selected people to himself, leaving the rest to conclude their life on earth. Some have therefore suggested that this passage speaks of a “rapture” of the faithful to heaven before judgment falls on the earth. This is not the place to investigate the complex dispensational scheme which underlies this nineteenth-century theory, but it should be noted that insofar as this passage forms a basis for that theology, it rests on an uncertain foundation. We are not told where or why they are “taken,” and the similar sayings in vv. 17-18 about people caught out in the course of daily life by the Roman advance presupposed a situation of threat rather than of rescue; to be “taken” in such circumstances would be a negative experience, and Matthew will use παραλαμβάνω in a similar threatening context in 27:27. The verb in itself does not determine the purpose of the “taking,” and it could as well be for judgment (as in Jer. 6:11) as for refuge. In light of the preceding verses, when the Flood “swept away” the unprepared, that is probably the more likely sense here. (R.T. France, NICNT, 941)

I sensed that Hubner was obfuscating on this point by citing from France for the following two reasons:

1. France says, "We are not told where or why they are “taken." This is not the case. The whole point of the illustration is to illustrate the parousia. We are taken so we can be with Jesus! “And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet blast, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.” (Matt 24:31).

2. France imports a different meaning of paralambono into this context when he asserts: "and Matthew will use παραλαμβάνω in a similar threatening context in 27:27." And he says, "The verb in itself does not determine the purpose of the “taking,” and it could as well be for judgment (as in Jer. 6:11) as for refuge." This is simply not true to the lexical data. And yet, I addressed this very point in my original article which Hubner ignored:

Another objection to this interpretation claims that paralambanō does not always carry the sense of receiving in a positive sense. This is true, but misleading. Of the 49 times this term is used in the New Testament they will cite 3 times it is used negatively (Matt 27:27, John 19:16, Acts 23:18). But this is not a warranted reason because it is a rare meaning of the word found in a narrow specific context of a prisoner being handed over to the jurisdiction of soldiers, a context that is not related to our parousia illustration. It is a strained lexical argument to apply this unlikely meaning to our target passage (On avoiding this type of error, see D.A. Carson’s Exegetical Fallacies, “Word-Study Fallacies,” 37–41).

Hubner writes:

As France noted above, word studies alone are not sufficient to establish the meaning of παραλαμβάνω in Matt. 24:40-41. And it seems unjustified for Alan to automatically assert that the term in Matt. 24:40-41 means an “intimate receiving sense.”

"Automatically assert"? Really? I am the one staying in the text. I am the one showing how this term comports with the parousia event. In fact, Hubner completely ignores what I wrote here:

Not surprisingly, just a few days later, Jesus uses this same term of intimate receiving when he taught reassurance to these same disciples about his return: “And if I go and make ready a place for you, I will come again and take (paralambanō) you to be with me, so that where I am you may be too” (John 14:3). Same context, same audience, same terminology.

The conceptual and literary parallel with John 14:3 is extremely relevant to our text in Matthew 24. To ignore it is not to deal with the argumentation from the other side head on, thus weakening his position.

Then he writes:

The term is used in Matthew 27:27, which says “Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the governor’s headquarters.” Not “intimate” if you ask me. Nor is “Then it goes and brings seven other spirits more evil than itself” (Lk 11:26), or “So he delivered him over to them to be crucified. So they took Jesus” (John 19:16), or “So he took him and brought him to the tribune and said” (Acts 23:18).

At this point he commits a common lexical fallacy, I wrote (again):

Another objection to this interpretation claims that paralambanō does not always carry the sense of receiving in a positive sense. This is true, but misleading. Of the 49 times this term is used in the New Testament they will cite 3 times it is used negatively (Matt 27:27, John 19:16, Acts 23:18). But this is not a warranted reason because it is a rare meaning of the word found in a narrow specific context of a prisoner being handed over to the jurisdiction of soldiers, a context that is not related to our parousia illustration. It is a strained lexical argument to apply this unlikely meaning to our target passage (On avoiding this type of error, see D.A. Carson’s Exegetical Fallacies, “Word-Study Fallacies,” 37–41).

Hubner states:

Of course, Alan could easily respond with a dozen or so verses demonstrating that the term can be “an intimate receiving” as he says. And that’s precisely my point: words studies are not enough, as I’m hoping Alan would agree.

It is Hubner who is arbitrarily stating meanings of words. While I have been careful to show how this word means such and such in specific contexts. Hubner and France grabbed meanings from unrelated contexts and read them back into Matthew 24. I have shown meanings from very relevant contexts and thus support my position on Matthew 24 (e.g., John 14:3).

He cites John Walvoord as disagreeing with me. And how is that relevant? At this point, I am getting the impression that this is filler. Why is this surprising that Walvoord disagrees with me, as those other commentators above? If I list more guys that agree with me than Hubner, does that mean my interpretation is the correct one? Walvoord is pretrib. It is generally posttribs and prewrathers who take the position that those who are taken are taken in the resurrection/rapture. So Hubner's citation of Walvoord is irrelevant.

My third reason I gave was:

Third, it is important to remember that the agricultural illustrations in verses 40–41 (men in field and women grinding) are not intended to illustrate the illustration of Noah and the flood in verses 37–39, but instead illustrates the climax of the Olivet Discourse, which is the gathering of God’s people at the parousia (Matt 24:30–31). At the separation when the parousia begins in verse 31, who is being taken? It is God's elect. That is the point of invoking the illustration in the first place.

He asserts: "I disagree, and I see absolutely no exegetical basis for believing this at all." Really? At the parousia God's people are taken, then Jesus uses illustrations to demonstrate that people are "taken," and Hubner says, "I see absolutely no exegetical basis." Um, OK.

He writes:

First of all, there is simply no reason to separate v.38-39 from v.40-41 (how is one going to understand v.40-41 apart from 38 and 39, and why would one wish to do so?), let alone declare that verses 30-31 is a “climax of the Olivet Discourse” (what type of climax? Because v.34-35 seems equally or more climactic if you ask me, and perhaps v. 44 as well), or that v. 37-39 is somehow an illustration of this climax. Alan references v. 30-31 which says “they will gather his elect from the four winds.” But, does that really sound like “swept them all away” (v. 39) and “destroyed them all” (Lk 17:29)? There is absolutely no exegetical basis – except raw presupposition – to say that v.40-41 specifically summarizes or illustrates v.30-31.

1. There are two illustrations that illustrate the parousia. They are Noah and a two-fold agricultural illustration. The first illustration with Noah even explicitly states that it is illustrating the parousia (twice!): "so the coming of the Son of Man will be. "

2. Hubner denies that the climax of the OD is the parousia. Verses 1-31 are primarily didactic followed by vv.32ff as application-hortatory. And again, the illustration is explicit to what it is referring to: "so the coming of the Son of Man will be. " How could Jesus be more specific?

3. Next he makes a blunderous misunderstanding of my position, he writes: "Alan references v. 30-31 which says "they will gather his elect from the four winds.” But, does that really sound like “swept them all away” (v. 39) and “destroyed them all” (Lk 17:29)?" That is not my position. Hubner grossly misrepresented me. The gathering of the elect is God's people, not for judgment! How Hubner misunderstood this is beyond me. Those who are taken in the illustrations are the righteous, which corresponds with those who are taken at the parousia in verse 31, the elect.

He writes:

There is absolutely no exegetical basis – except raw presupposition – to say that v.40-41 specifically summarizes or illustrates v.30-31.

Yes there is, immediately before vv 40-41 in v 39, it says, "It will be the same at the coming of the Son of Man." It is clearly referring back to the parousia event in v 31. How could Jesus be more specific? Do you really want to assert, "There is absolutely no exegetical basis"? Really?

Next he writes:

Second of all, even if Alan is correct, this completely contradicts his first point. Did he not just argue for parallelism between Noah’s flood and the two grinding and being in a field? Then why does he now completely deny this connection and make the radical assertion that the men in field and grinding really have nothing to do with Noah and the flood, but actually parallels verse 31?

Hubner is reading me carelessly. It goes back to his blunderous misunderstanding of my position. The elect of God at the parousia that are gathered, which is referred to by the ones who are taken (paralambanō) in the illustrations.

My fourth reason I gave was:

Fourth, Luke records the same illustration that Jesus gives to describe his coming: “(34) I tell you, in that night there will be two people in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. (35) There will be two women grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.” (37) Then the disciples said to him, “Where, Lord?” He replied to them, “Where the dead body is, there the vultures will gather” (Luke 17:34–37). This last verse containing the disciples’ question of “where” is insightful because Jesus responds that where the dead body is it will attract vultures—this judgment imagery evokes vultures hovering over dead people, who represent those deemed judged, the ungodly, not the righteous. This comports much better with those who are “left” and not with those who are taken.

Hubner does not recognize (as even Dickerson seems to) that this comports with those who are left for judgment. He gives a strained reading that honestly I cannot make heads or tails with. He writes, "Alan wants to say that, somehow, the corpses on the ground represent those who are “left.” That makes no sense." It makes no sense because there seems to be a forcing of an interpretive grid on the illustration, ensuring a desired outcome. The natural reading as I have shown has those who are left as being judged.

In my estimation, Hubner failed to provide substantive responses to my points. Of all of them, my third argument is most problematic for them. It is the natural reading that the illustrations that Jesus uses illustrate the parousia event. To deny it, results in a tortured reading.

What astonishes me is that Hubner denies there is a correspondence between these two passages:

Parousia Event: “(30) Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man arriving on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. (31) And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet blast, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.” (Matt 24:29–31)

Illustrating the Parousia: “(37) For just like the days of Noah were, so the coming of the Son of Man will be. (38) For in those days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark. (39) And they knew nothing until the flood came and took them all away. It will be the same at the coming of the Son of Man.” (Matt 24:37–39)

Only imposing an unwarranted theological grid can deny this natural reading of the text.

To sum up my main point:

It is important to remember that the agricultural illustrations in verses 40–41 (men in field and women grinding) are not intended to illustrate the illustration of Noah and the flood in verses 37–39, but instead illustrates the climax of the Olivet Discourse, which is the gathering of God’s people at the parousia (Matt 24:30–31). At the separation when the parousia begins in verse 31, who is being taken? It is God's elect. That is the point of invoking the illustration in the first place!