One Reply to “The Olivet Discourse – Fulfillment When?| A Response to A Poster – #3”

1. I am intrigued by the responses. I trust my continued responses are not uninvited.

   That said, I must say that in my attempt to summarize, I do at times over state things, or state things imprecisely, which your responses certainly pick up upon. That said, I am, again, indicating that ‘clarification’ is in order, as well as further dialogue my case. Moreover, I believe, in my haste, I did wrongly examine the case in Daniel 12, so I am correcting that here, as follows. My appologies.

   I said, “I don’t see much ‘eschatology’ in Matthew 13, as some do”. I also said, “I do not, however, interpret Matthew 13 as primarily eschatalogical.”. The second is more precise. My intent was not to deny the eschatological elements therein, but to indicate their prominence in the chapter as a whole. You are correct, that the Wheat and the Tares, as well as the dragnet parables comment on the end, but the yeast, mustard seed, treasure, pearl, and sower parables do not. My point was that 5 of the 7 parables are not overtly eschatalogical. Further, while it is arguable, I do not see the eschatology contained in the Wheat and the Tares to be the main pedagogical purpose of the passage, although it certainly is contained within, and from it certain conclusions are certainly intended to be drawn. While truths may certainly be extracted from it, the purpose seems to be to illustrate the presence, side-by-side, of the true and the false, up until the time of the end.

   As for Mt13.43, I wholly agree that it is a direct reference to Dan12:3, a claim which can hardly be denied. Additionally, the phrase “sunteliea tou aioniou” is analogous in both passages. It is agreed by me that they certainly do talk about the same ‘coming’, point #2 through #4 above. But, as for ‘scan’t, my comments were in reference to the chapter as a whole. Even the parable of the wheat and the tares itself, as I understand it, while obvious elements can and should be understood from it, the primary message is reflected in the statement, “Let both grow together until the harvest.”. The key is ‘until’, and this is the primary picture in the parable. The wicked will endure until the end, so as not to harm the wheat with their removal. The other points are valid, but the intent of the passage appears, to me, to be the ‘mean time’.

   Further, as for your statement regarding a separation between Daniel 12:1 and vv2-4, you said, “This is another remarkable claim that I find no support for in the text and context”. Further studying what you are saying, I see the point you are trying to make with the ‘all these things’ of v5, and I did not fully understand your case before I began replying, and gave an inconsistent answer. However, I still contend that there is no support in the text that necessarily connects v1 and vv2-3, temporally. Looking from history, we know vv2-3 are the work of the cross of Christ. Notice the cues in v2-3, however. In v1, (NIV) it speaks of ‘at that time’, but vv2-3 shift to the eternal.. ‘everlasting life … everlasting contempt’ and ‘like the stars for ever and ever’. So, the textual clues coupled with the historical understanding of the context of the cross gives, to me anyway, indication that v2-3 are speaking of something different than the specific time frame of Daniel 12:1, which I do put in the First Century. Put more plainly, the accomplishment of v2-3 was plainly in this period, through the cross, although their full realization is yet ongoing. But, again, Daniel 12:2-3 are as applicable to us today as they were then, in my reading. I’m still planning to shine, even though I wasn’t alive in the time of Michael’s Daniel 12:1 standing.

   But, I do not see the objection to the dividing of Daniel 12 after v4. The discourse given by the man speaking to Daniel ends in v4, and v5f describes the resultant of the vision. I suppose you could stand on the claim that “all these things” of v5&7 must include the vv2-3 ones, but, since they are ‘eternal’ states, certainly the conclusion of those things did not happen, even if their beginning did. Their shining ‘forever and ever’ was not ‘completed’ in the same time-frame as v7, so it seems there is the possibility of some leeway. The case could be argued in your direction, but I do not see it as air-tight. The other clear reading of this, and perhaps it is presuppositional as you say, but would be that the accomplishment of ‘those who sleep in the dust’ was brought about in that time-frame through the cross, even though its ultimate fulfillment is still in the sense of “will”, future tense. Even if the fullness of it was not so accomplished, its essence was, and hence, the fulfillment of ‘all these things’ of v5&7, in that it was through these events that this was eternally accomplished. But, because of the transition into the Eternal in vv2-3, yet it is still contestable, it can be construed as fulfillment of these words. That these could be the prophetic predictive outcome of the entire previous chapter seems a simple enough conclusion, and thereby its necessary inclusion in the ‘all these things’, being ‘astonishing things’ is not definite, in my mind. Obviously, v5&7 is in some way referring to vv1-4, but there remains, in my mind, opportunity for interpretation.

   And, of course, ‘eutheos’. Perhaps ‘next’ is too much of a reduction, but ‘directly’ would probably be a better fit, comparing all the various usages of it in the New Testament. Again, simply look at the other passages. “Immediately” just doesn’t work with Mark 1:21; 4:5; John 6:21; 3 John 1:14. It also may not be the most semantically correct word to use in some of the healings. The definition of the word certainly includes ‘immediately’, but also includes ‘directly’ and ‘straightway’, which could indicate timing even in English, but does not need to be ‘immediate’. As indicated through the work of Ted Noel, as quoted before, “Louw-Nida goes on to say that [eutheos/euthus] describes, “a point of time immediately subsequent to the previous point of time (the actual interval of time differs appreciably, depending on the nature of the events and the manner in which the sequence is interpreted by the writer).” In other words, “next in sequence,” not “right away.”” That is, right there, the ‘time interval’. That this time interval is employed by the other uses of the word is apparent. The nature of this interval, though, it must be stated, is ‘unknown’, however, by v36. Hence, Jesus said He Himself did not know the time. To clarify the situation, since ‘immediately’ and ‘directly’ could be interchangable in the translation, one could say, ‘Directly but after the tribulation’.. That is, in a straight course from here to there, no side journeys, as direct as possible. Yet, the actual timing of this second event, per v36, is not known, and hence the difficulty in the interval. This is a matter of definition, and while ‘eutheos/euthus’ can be ‘immediately’, it can also be ‘straightway’, ‘directly’, or, sometimes, even ‘next’.

   In his commentary on Mark (Mark: A commentary), M. Eugene Boring makes the following claims:
   Here translating euthys, a word Mark uses more than any other New Testament writer, fourty-two of the fifty-nine New Testament occurances. The adjective means ‘straight’, ‘direct’ [hence the KJV’s “straightway”], the derived adverb thus “directly,” “immediately.” The meaning is oftened weakened to simply “next,” or to a function word with little content (as when “well,” “then,” “so,” and the like are used to introduce an English sentence). Both Matthew and Luke considered Mark to have overused the word, either eliminating it altogether (Luke eliminates all Markan instances) or changing it to the more common eutheos. I have rendered euthys in a variety of ways, depending on the context. The word is probably a remnant of oral style and gives a certain vividness to the narrative, but by no means does it always mean “immediately” (this cannot be the meaning in, e.g. 1:21; 4:5), and it should not be taken to indicate that the Markan Jesus always acted quickly and directly as a “man of action”. [END QUOTE]

   The problem with the third point above is that it is primarily Matthew 24 that establishes the temporal connection between the time of great trouble and the resurrection. That is, the very verse in question is the primary basis for the argument, and therefore, should not be used in its own defense. The only other solid connection between the two temporally, that I am aware of, is the Daniel 12:1-3, noted above. As that is what we have just covered, these are the only two direct indications that the “Tribulation” and the “Resurrection” must be linked in any temporal sense. And, since, it can be demonstrated sufficiently (to myself) that the Daniel 12 does not necessitate this claim, and the whole of the argument of ‘eutheos’ is to illustrate the failure of Matthew 24 to do the same, there is no argument there, unless, of course, there is some other source of connection, speaking of time frame, that requires they be linked. That is, if Daniel 12 is understood in another, legitimate sense, and Matthew 24:29 was never truly implying that in the first place, the argument is effectively eliminated.

   The case for ‘eutheos’ being used to imply what is now a 1900+ year gap is in the nature of the Mt24.34,36 issue, which is also the root of whether the disciples were ‘confused’ or simply not in possession of the knowledge which Jesus Himself said He did not have. Since eutheos can certainly imply some form of an elapse of time, from definition, lexicons, and examples throughout the New Testament, the fact that this ‘period of time’ is particularly is long does not fully disqualify the possibility of this translation, because no one ever knew the timing of the Second event, whatsoever!

   The rebuttal, of course, will come down to your treatment of these two verses. In particular, I would argue that v36 can only refer to the vv29-31 portion, the ‘day known only to the Lord’ of Zechariah 14:7, and that the structure of Mt24:34,36 does explicitly exclude the vv29-31 from the ‘all these things’ of v34. “All of these things will happen within a generation … but that day’s [vv29-31] day and hour is completely unknown.”

   Eutheos provides for the passage of time, so long as it is ‘directly’, or ‘in a straight course’, as in John’s use of it in his 3rd epistle. He hoped to see them ‘soon’, or ‘straigthway’, or ‘directly’, not ‘immediately’. But, even ‘soon’ doesn’t necessarily capture what John was saying. He wants to see them without delay, but it may take a while to get there. He wants to see them as directly as possible, when circumstances and events allow, but even if that takes six months, that is still ‘eutheos’ in this verse. This does come down to a matter of definition, but the definition of the word allows for the use of words which may or may not directly indicate timing. The case for the ‘directly’ is supported by its use in the first place. As I indicated in my paper of seven reasons to divide the discourse, there were certainly two (or three) questions asked, whether there was confusion or not. This, then, is the logical division of the two, and main purpose of the language at this point is to separate the answers to the two questions.

   One must conclude, regardless of the interpretation of ‘eutheos’, that ‘eutheos’ here does indeed differentiate the answers to the two questions, as this is its linguistic purpose in the passage. Whether you contend they happen subsequently, or with little or large gap, the insertion here of “Eutheos” “but after” (de meta) positively divides the first group of events, the subject of the first question, from the second group, vv29-31, regardless of their timing. Even if they are both one after another, this conclusion is evident by the ‘after’ designation, and, this is the rub.

   “After” positively indicates the conclusion of one group, and the beginning of another, and this is confirmed by the opening questions. The grouping of the first elements, then, is under the heading of ‘the tribulation of those days’. The second group, clearly in response to the second question, or the second half of the question, again, regardless of their timing fulfillment, is the v29-31 events.

   But, then, that leaves us with the v36, “that day”. We also saw in v29, that the tribulation “those days” is plural here, and that, v30 is in reference to Zech 14:7, the day (singular) known only to the Lord. So, the v36 ‘that day’, with its most clear referrant, is, again, the v29-31 events, already divided by the Lord’s own words from the rest of the events, regardless of how you interpret Eutheos or when you see the fulfillment.

   This brings us, then, back to Eutheos. v34,36 shows the clear exclusion of whatever ‘that day’ is from the ‘all these things’, and the only thing in question is whether ‘eutheos’ can support a 1,900 or so year gap (starting at 70 AD)… But, once you establish that it can support a gap at all, which the lexicon, dictionaries, and other scriptures establish, and that an equally valid translation is ‘directly’, as in 3 John 14, combined with the fact that v36 already said that the timing of the 2nd event is absolutely and completely ‘unknown’ (except for the “after” from ‘de meta’), the argument against the employment fails. Once any allowance for a gap is established, which it is, the prolonged duration of the apparent gap is permitted on the grounds of the lack of knowledge, stemming from v36. It is not wrong to say ‘directly’, as that is not the same as ‘soon’, and the simple fact that it is still in a ‘direct line from here to there’, as ‘euthus’ would portray is simply a matter of deference to the mind of God. I believe, long or short, things are progressing ‘directly’ since the 70 AD fall to the forseen end, and whether long or short, though the vision tarry, wait for it, for it will surely come to pass.

   The problem is that, even as Mr. Boring noted (above), it is not the ‘exceptional’ cases that prohibit ‘immediately’, but there are several throughout, which, in the words of Ted Noel, indicate a wider semantic range of understanding. As I understand it, there is no indication elsewhere, surrounding Matthew 24:29, which would require the use of ‘immediately’ rather than ‘directly’ or ‘straightway’, and, while ‘immediately’ has probably been sufficient of a translation in most cases, here, a direct substitution from the lexicon appears to give another indication that another meaning is in view. It is not, then, only a few ‘exceptional’ cases where some kind of interval is in view with eutheos, but as Louw-Nida indicates, the “the actual interval of time differs appreciably”.

   So, again, the question is whether the translation would support the direct substitution of one word of translation for another, both out of the dictionary, both out of the lexicon. While “next” may, as Mr. Boring indicated, be a weaking of the word, replacing ‘immediately’ with ‘directly’ certainly would be no gross violation of linguistic principles.

   And, I am unfamiliar with Brant Pitre’s work. I may check it out. But, while many passages may make reference, only the Daniel 12 and the Matthew 24 make any direct ties to them in the intermediate passage of time, that is, temporally, and Daniel 12 only superficially. Matthew 24:29, it seems, then, is the primary justification for such reasoning, and, failing that, I am not aware other scriptural justification of the claim.

   I suppose we could go back and forth on the ‘eutheos’, but since your initial claims that neither dictionaries nor lexicons support it is false, and a direct substitution of one definition for another certainly seems plausible (“immediately” to “directly” or “straightway”), the basis of the objection is undermined. The rest is explained as described.

   I will do my best, in the future, to be as clear and succinct as possible, such as when I am describing Matthew 13. I merely got thinking about various other objections raised by others against Matthew 13 as wholly eschatalogical as a chapter, and got distracted from the main point of the discussion which you were raising.

   Thank-you for your time.

Comments are closed.