PMW 2020-017 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
In this blog I have previously investigated the apparent problem involved when comparing Matthew 24 and Luke 17. See: “Orthodox Preterism and Luke 17.”
There I note that Matthew separates the local judgment-coming prophecies regarding AD 70 from the global ultimate-coming prophecies of the Second Coming and the Final Judgment. Many prominent evangelical preterist scholars recognize Matthew’s clear structure. Scholars such as:
• J. M. Kik, An Eschatology of Victory (originally published as an article in 1948)
• R. V. G. Tasker, Matthew (Tyndale Bible Commentary) (1961)
• David E. Garland, Reading Matthew: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the First Gospel (1993)
• Alistair I. Wilson, When Will These Things Happen: A Study of Jesus as Judge in Matthew 21–25 (2004)
• R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (New International Commentary on the New Testament) (2007)
• R. C. Sproul, Matthew: An Expositional Commentary (2013)
• Jeannine K. Brown, Matthew (Teach the Text Commentary Series) (2015)
• Jeffrey A. Gibbs, Matthew 21:1–28:20 (vol. 3 of the Concordia Commentary on Matthew) (2018)
See my blog article: Best Matthew Commentaries. Thus, this view is not “Ken Gentry’s view,” as I frequently hear from Hyper-preterists. I got it from others. It is a well-known, highly-regarded view published by a number of reputable scholars.
As I have pointed out elsewhere, this clean separation is quite evident in Matthew 24:34–36. There Matthew’s peri de (“but concerning”) narrative transition-formula shifts his attention away from the known time of his local (metaphorical) judgment-coming against the Temple (Matt. 24:2) in Judea (Matt. 24:16), which was to be in “this generation” (Matt. 24:34). He shifts his attention to “that day and hour,” which timing neither he nor the angels know (Matt. 24:36, 50; 25:13). [1]
Consequently, after Matthew 24:36, instead of giving historical signs regarding the Temple’s soon-coming destruction (vv. 4–33), he issues warnings urging readiness at all times, at any moment — since no one knows (Matt. 24:36) when that day will occur (Matt. 24:37–39, 42–43, 50; 25:13). Thus, he moves from the known time to the unknown time; from the near-future to who-knows-when.
But in Luke 17, some of the statements that appear in both the earlier (AD 70) and the later (Second Advent/Final Judgment) sections of the cleanly-divided discourse in Matthew 24 seem to be interspersed in the “wrong” places in Luke 17. How can this be? Does this prove there is no division in Matthew 24? Not at all!
Have We Missed the Second Coming:
A Critique of the Hyper-preterist Error
by Ken Gentry
This book offers a brief introduction, summary, and critique of Hyper-preterism. Don’t let your church and Christian friends be blindfolded to this new error. To be forewarned is to be forearmed.
For more Christian educational materials: www.KennethGentry.com
Previous Evidence Rehearsed
To see why there is no difficulty, we must first note that Luke 17 and Matthew 24 are not records of the same discourse. Matthew 24 is given on the Mount of Olives (Matt. 24:3) after looking out over Jerusalem (Matt. 23:37), well after Jesus’ entering Jerusalem (Matt. 21:10) and after he had entered the temple (Matt. 21:12). Whereas in Luke 17 he is on his way to Jerusalem (cf. Luke 17:11; 18:31; 19:11).
Furthermore, in Matthew, Jesus is answering his disciples’ question regarding the future of the temple (Matt. 24:3). Whereas, in Luke 17, he is interacting with the Pharisees’ question about the coming of the kingdom (Luke 17:20–21). Then he turns to speak to the disciples (Luke 17:22).
Thus, Leon Morris notes regarding liberals who argue that Luke places this teaching in the wrong context: “It is much better to hold that . . . Jesus [either] uttered the words on more than one occasion or . . . Luke is correctly applying them to another situation” (Morris, Luke, 286). So no matter what Jesus is speaking about, Luke is not shifting the material around. He is recording a different sermon altogether.
In addition, we must understand that similar language does not entail identical events. That is, because similar prophecies occur in Matthew 24 as in Luke 17 does not mean they refer to the same historical episode. We see that similar expressions do not require identical realities when Scripture refers to Christ as a “lion” in some places (Rev 5:5), while in other places it calls Satan a “lion” (1 Pet. 5:8).
Why I Left Full-Preterism (by Samuel M. Frost)
Former leader in Full Preterist movement, Samuel M. Frost, gives his testimony and theological reasoning as to why he left the heretical movement. Good warning to others tempted to leave orthodox Christianity.
See more study materials at: KennethGentry.com
Also, consider the prophetic concept of “the day of the Lord.” In the Old Testament it occurs in several places and applies to different historical judgments. For instance, “the day of the Lord” comes upon Babylon, Idumea, and Judah (Isa. 13:6, 9; Eze 13:5; Joel 1:15; 2:1, 11; Amos 5:18, 20; Oba. 15; Zeph. 1:7; Mal. 4:5) — at different time and in different places. Even though the language is the same (and why should that surprise us since all wars are basically similar?) and though the “day of the Lord” phrase occurs in the singular (which would seem to suggest there is only one particular day of the Lord), but each “day of the Lord” is an historically distinct event. They are, however, theologically related events: all of them being judgments of God anticipating the final Day of the Lord event though they are not historically identical.
More Evidence Presented
But now I would like to provide two other lines of evidence regarding this “problem.” One is more obvious; the other more subtle.
One obvious difference between Luke 17 and Matthew 24 is that in Matthew’s discourse Jesus clearly refers to the temple’s destruction (Matt. 24:3) in Judea (Matt. 24:15–16). Yet in his pronouncement in Luke 17, Jesus does not even mention the destruction of the temple. Or the temple at all. Or even Jerusalem or Judea. These are glaring omissions if Luke 17 is talking about AD 70 and the temple.
The other, more subtle line of evidence arises when we note how some of Jesus’ language significantly differs in Luke 17 when compared to Matthew 24. In the AD 70 section of Matthew 24 (vv. 4–34), Jesus urges flight from Judea (Matt. 24:16). He warns people to leave the area in haste because of the approaching Roman troops: “Whoever is on the housetop must not go down to get the things out that are in his house. Whoever is in the field must not turn back to get his cloak” (Matt. 24:17–18).
But in Luke 17, this warning is altered in such a way that is not easily applicable to historical warfare. Yet it fits nicely with the Second Coming and its instantaneous judgment: “I tell you, on that night there will be two in one bed; one will be taken and the other will be left. There will be two women grinding at the same place; one will be taken and the other will be left” (Luke 17:34–35). The ones “taken” in each of these examples are those taken to safety by the Lord. Thus, in this text the closest of people will suddenly be separated by God’s rescue action: two people lying together in one bed (husband and wife?), or sitting and grinding together at the mill (mother and daughter?). The Roman war would not suddenly take away to safety one person lying next to another or one woman grinding alongside another.
Confusing Material Explained
But now, what about Christ’s warning in Luke 17 that: “on that day, the one who is on the housetop and whose goods are in the house must not go down to take them out; and likewise the one who is in the field must not turn back” (Luke 17:31). How can these be relevant to the Second Advent, when flight will be impossible?
We must first note that, in fact, flight is not even mentioned here, as it is in Matthew 24:16-20 (though it is in Luke’s Olivet Discourse in Luke 21:21). So what is going on here?
This directive by Christ does not overthrow the Second Coming argument. This is because the context explains Jesus’ point here. For he immediately adds: “Remember Lot’s wife” (Luke 17:32) and “Whoever seeks to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it” (Luke 17:35). So? How does this help us out of our conundrum?
Jesus is here warning people that they must not even think of holding on to the things of this world. They must be willing to leave behind all their possessions for his sake. Earlier in Luke, Jesus is recorded as warning by parable about “the seed which fell among the thorns, these are the ones who have heard, and as they go on their way they are . . . choked with worries and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to maturity” (Luke 8:14).
So here in Luke 17 Jesus warns that his followers must not be like Lot’s wife who longingly looked back to what she was leaving behind (Gen. 19:26). For such will be worthless when Christ is “revealed” at his Second Coming (Luke 17:30). His true disciples need to live their lives for him rather than for material goods or earthly relations — a point frequently made in Luke (Luke 9:24, 62; 12:33–34; 14:26; 18:29; cf. Matt. 6:33). See also Paul’s testimony (Phil. 3:7–11).
Our deliverance on the Final Day of Judgment (a deliverance reflected in Noah’s and Lot’s deliverances from judgment, each on a particular “day,” vv. 27, 29) requires a wholehearted-commitment and a single-minded orientation to Christ — over all else. As his followers, we are urged to abandon any love of material possessions and earthly matters above him (see two previous paragraphs above). Lot’s wife came close to being delivered from Sodom’s destruction. But she disobeyed God’s word (issued through the angel, Gen. 19:17) and longed for what she was leaving behind (Gen. 19:26). Christ’s followers must not hold a mindset like hers.
Jesus’ analogy, then, is teaching his disciples (and us!) that there will be no time to prepare when he returns. Jesus uses the image in v. 31 as a metaphor for attachment to earthly things. Rather than such, he is commanding a wholehearted willingness to give up all for him. Thus again, he quickly adds: “Whoever seeks to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it” (Luke 17:35). As Alfred Plummer (Luke, p. 409) notes: “The point is absolute indifference to all worldly interests as the attitude of readiness for the Son of Man.” On that day, there will be no point in even caring about such things. The event will happen so quickly that you will not even have an opportunity to retrieve your goods.
Conclusion
Therefore, we see from additional angles that Luke 17 does not contradict Matthew 24, thereby overthrowing the careful distinction that Jesus draws in Matthew 24:34–36. Luke 17 is talking only about the Second Advent, and not about the destruction of Jerusalem. But Matthew 24 speaks of both events, though separately and distinctly: first, the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (Matt. 24:4–34) and second the Second Advent to Final Judgment (Matt. 24:37–25:46).
Addendum Note
Please note that after this article was initially uploaded, I discovered some typos that needed correction. So this is effectively my “second edition.”
Footnote
1. We should not naively think Jesus is being overtly literal in Matthew 24:36. G. C. Caird warns against such a ludicrous approach. He scoffs that we must not think “Jesus knows roughly the year . . . but not whether it will be a Tuesday or a Wednesday, not whether it will be at 10 a.m. or 6 p.m.; and against such bathos it is pointless to argue.” G. C. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980), pp. 266–267. Jesus’ point is simply: “I will return at an unknown and unpredictable time.” Then his following parables urge them: be ready at all times for the unexpected.
I am currently doing research for a commentary tentatively titled: Olivet in Context: A Commentary on Matthew 21-25. If you would like to help by donating to my non-profit ministry, I would be grateful. For more information, see: GoodBirth Ministries.
Tagged: destruction of Jerusalem, Luke 17
Postmillennial Worldview 
What I don’t understand about the “duel” question in Matthew 24:3 is if the question of His coming and the end of the age is regarding His second coming, then the disciples would have had to have known for sure that He was leaving. In their reaction to His death initially I don’t see where they believed He would come back until angels told them after the resurrection as they saw Him go into heaven.
Despite their dullness in so many ways, Jesus had previously taught about the Final Judgment at the “end of the age” (at the end of history) (Matt. 13). They knew he was going to judge the world; they knew he was establishing his kingdom. For all they knew, he may just ascend into heaven directly from the earth without dying in order to receive his kingdom (a possible understanding of Dan. 7:13). Their question was probably sparked by the preceding context, regardless of whether they understood he was to die: “For I say to you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, ‘BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!'” (Matt. 23:39).
Mmm I was thinking they perhaps thought that with the destruction of the temple He would bring about the final judgement as well and the end of history as they knew it. Regardless the new messianic age began in its fullness and the Old covenant physical temple ended in 70 AD did it not?
Can you recommend a good commentary on Luke 17?
David A. Garland, Luke (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament).
Reblogged this on Acrosss the Stars and commented:
I like the careful analysis of Luke 17 vs Matthew 24. It removes confusion, while placing authority over the future squarely where it belongs: in the hands of God, who has spoken to His children about it.
Hew close to God’s Law-Word, and you can’t go wrong.
I love the article, and I’m learning a ton, but I do have one question here.
You say that, “The Roman war would not suddenly take away to safety one person lying next to another or one woman grinding alongside another.” However, why think that the taking away is to safety? I reread the chapter (perhaps I missed something in the broader context). It seems to me that verses 26-29 are quite clear that this is some sort of judgement event, and it mentions specifically Noah’s Flood and Lot’s Sodom. At the end of the chapter, verse 37, Jesus told them the answer to their question about where these people would be taken. He tells them that where the body is, the vultures will be gathered, that is, where there is sin and, therefore, spiritual death, there will be the place of punishment. This seems to immediately call to mind, at least to me, that the armies will go where judgement is needed most.
Given these things, should we still view the taking away as to safety? Is Jesus saying that they will be taken to the grave or that they will be spared from the judgement, like in the Olivet Discourse, and does that suggest that the chapters are at least related (maybe both are about the same thing in a way, but the first part of the Olivet Discourse would be about A.D. 70, an adumbration of the Second Advent, which would be the last part of the Olivet Discourse and the Luke 17 passage)?
Ultimately, it does not really matter for either interpretation is possible without changing the basic meaning of the report. However, we must understand that Luke 17 not the Olivet Discourse (which Luke records later in ch. 21). But it seems clear to me that the taking away is to safety.
The context mentions that when Jesus leaves, the disciples will long for one of his days (Luke 17:22) and that false reports will arise declaring that he is here or there (v. 23). They should not be deceived because when he comes at the end of history, it will be as obvious as a lightning flash (v. 24).
Then Jesus promises them hope in the face of judgment. He mentions Noah’s entering the ark to safety (v. 27) and Lot’s going out of Sodom to safety (v. 29). In order to be safe in the light of coming judgment, Jesus warns that no one should long for their goods and turn back to the place of judgment (v. 31). They need to remember Lot’s wife who did turn back and died (v. 32), unlike Lot himself who escaped to safety (and Noah). Then he notes whoever loses his life will preserve it (v. 32). After this he mentions the two in the bed and the two grinding (vv. 34-35), with one taken in each case. This appears to speak of their being taken to safety (as with Noah and Lot).
In v. 37, the metaphor of the vultures (actually eagles) is then differently framed by Jesus than when he uses it in Matthew 24:28, where it pictures judgment. Here he uses this image to answer the disciples questions “where, Lord?” That is, “where will the one in the bed be taken? where will the one at the grinding stone be take?” Thus, here he reframes the saying by referring to a “body” rather than a “corpse” (as in Matt. 24:28). The gathering is to the body of Christ.
I plan on having a study or two on this later.
Actually textual criticism is well-accepted by conservative scholars. It seeks to determine the proper reading a text when we have dozens or hundreds of ancient handwritten copies. Form and Redaction criticisms are dangerous.
That is great to know! I won’t shy away from textual criticism, then.
I understand why Redaction Criticism would be dangerous, but why is Form Criticism dangerous, especially in its recent form, being synonymous with Genre Criticism? I’m don’t disagree. I just don’t understand enough about textual criticism yet.
Form Criticism tends to reduce the Synoptic Gospel writers (for instance) to mere editors in a particular community who collected sayings that were floating about. They tend to doubt that Matthew, Mark or Luke actually wrote what we know to be their individual Gospels. Thus, the story-forms are actually generated by these editors to suit their local theological needs. In addition, this branch of critical theory tends to be idealistic, assuming that the story-units actually existed though we have no evidence for that. Thus, Form Criticism tends to lead to skepticism regarding the message of the Gospels.
I highly recommend reading The Jesus Crisis: The Inroads of Historical Criticism into Evangelical Scholarship by Robert L. Thomas and F. Davide Farnell (Kregel 1995)
“Form Criticism tends to reduce the Synoptic Gospel writers (for instance) to mere editors in a particular community who collected sayings that were floating about.”
Okay, yeah, I don’t agree with Form Criticism in that way at all.
“They tend to doubt that Matthew, Mark or Luke actually wrote what we know to be their individual Gospels.”
Yikes! I think that the early church fathers’ attributions are sufficient evidence that they were written by the eponymous authors.
“Thus, the story-forms are actually generated by these editors to suit their local theological needs.”
I think that, perhaps, the authors of the gospels did make theological points by rearranging material, but I don’t think that they generated the “story-forms” whole cloth, as it seems the Form Criticist (Form Critic?) does.
“In addition, this branch of critical theory tends to be idealistic, assuming that the story-units actually existed though we have no evidence for that. Thus, Form Criticism tends to lead to skepticism regarding the message of the Gospels.”
Yeah. I just can’t buy what Form Criticism is selling, then.
“I highly recommend reading The Jesus Crisis: The Inroads of Historical Criticism into Evangelical Scholarship by Robert L. Thomas and F. Davide Farnell (Kregel 1995)”
Is this book written without being affected too much by personal biases and by good, reputable scholars? It sounds very interesting. Thanks so much for all your help! I think that you are being used mightily by God to help His people better understand His word.
What are the dangers of believing Matthew 24:36-44 and Luke 17:20-37 are both speaking of AD 70 judgement?
I thank God for your ministry Kenneth as you have helped me so much to see the truth behind Matthew 24. I have studied your book obout Olivet Discourse.
I’m not fully aware of what hyper-preterists believe, however, I strongly believe that Jesus is talking about AD 70 judgement rather than the Second Advent in these verses.
Mt 24:39 says “[all the subject of God’s wrath during the time of Noah] did not know [about the wrath] until the flood came and TOOK THEM all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.”
This is followed by the verses that illustrates how out of two people at a certain place, one will be taken and the other left. You say that they will be taken away to safety, but seeing how v39 suggests that the ones that are actually taken away are the recipients of God’s wrath, isn’t it more natural to read this section to allude to AD 70 judgement where the ones that are left behind (on earth) are God’s people just as it was during Noah’s time?
In Luke 17, I see where you’re coming from but it’s hard for me to see this as talking about the Second Advent because of v25 where Jesus declared that before the Son of Man comes, “first He must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation.” Surely this cannot be talking about the Second Advent right?
Then you have v31 where you can also argue using one of the arguments you used for Matthew 24 happening in the first-century – if this is about the final judgement, who will have the time to come down of housetops to get the goods in their houses or who has the time to turn back to the field?
Lastly, you have v37 where the disciples asked “Where, Lord?” after Jesus just finished talking about how there will be two people in a certain place, one will be taken and the other left.
To this Jesus answered, “:wherever the dead body is, there the eagles will be gathered together.” This definitely sounds like Jesus saying the recipients of God’s wrath will be taken to where his armies are going to be in.
Essentially, I see that it is more natural to read Matthew 24:36-44 and Luke 17:20-37 to be both speaking of AD 70 judgement. What are the negative implications of this view?
Generally, no one text will make or break one’s theological orthodoxy. Theology arises from a study and comparison of several texts which form a theological construct. I know of orthodox interpreters who see Luke 17 and Matt. 24 as speaking of AD 70. I believe they are wrong, but they hold to a future Second Coming by means of other verses.
You are correct that in Luke 17 Jesus’ suffering many things and being rejected by this generation is referring to the contemporary setting rather than the Second Advent. But this is not what Jesus is dealing with; this is a warning that some terribly important things will impact his disciples in their own experience — but these are not associated with his Second Coming. They must not see his rejection and crucifixion as preempting his future Second Coming.
Regarding v. 31, no one will have time to come down — which is precisely his point. The Second Coming will occur when no one expects it or can escape from its implications. His followers must not focus on earthly possessions when spiritual realities are at stake. He is dramatically pointing out that the eschatological emergency arising at the Second Coming will not allow for any collecting of one’s belongings. In Luke, earthly possessions are often seen as a hindrance to salvation.
Thus, Jesus notes, when Lot’s wife longed for one last look at what she was leaving behind, she died. The point is: focus on those things that are of eternal consequence. This is why he mentions normal life activities in Noah’s day: the people in that day were more concerned with their possessions and activities of daily life than in spiritual realities that could have brought them “salvation.” Jesus is warning his disciples that they must persevere to the very end: they must not live up the end then deny Christ.
Actually, v. 37 is applying a proverbial saying in a way different from in Matt. 24. This is seen in the subtle shift of the “body” language. In Luke 17 the word “body” is soma, whereas in Matt. 24 it is ptoma. The soma is a living body, whereas the ptoma is a corpse. Therefore, the ones “taken” in Luke 17 are taken to safety (heaven), which answers the disciples’ question “where Lord?” (v. 37). I will be providing extensive arguments for this in my commentary on Matt. 21–25 — if I ever get back to it! since I am tied up with proofing and double-checking references in my Revelation commentary before it can be published.
Ken
Thank you for this article. I just found and read it today. Someone linked it to a reply to a Facebook post.
And, thank you for the 3 questions to Gary DeMar. Thank you for writing and standing against full/hyper-preterism
Steve Primo
12-13-22. 9:03 am est
Dr. Gentry, do you have a more exhaustive account of Matthew 7? I read in your book “Postmillennialism Made Easy” your response to this text used as an objection to the PM, but I would like to read a more exhaustive consideration on an exegetical level. Recommend something?
Check this out: https://reformed.org/eschaton/few_saved.pdf