First Sunday
in Advent
Matthew 24:36-44
Exegetical Notes by Brian
Stoffregen
Note #14217 from BRIAN STOFFREGEN to GOSPEL NOTES FOR NEXT SUNDAY:
1st Sunday in Advent A: Matthew 24:36-44 exegetical notes
AN ALTERNATIVE TEXT/APPROACH
Richard Jensen in _Preaching Matthew's Gospel: A Narrative Approach_
suggests an alternative text/approach to Advent preaching from
Matthew. Although I won't comment on the alternative text, I share
some of his thoughts for your considerations.
First of all, if we approach Matthew as a narrative, the assigned text
comes about 9/10th of the way through the book. As Jensen says, "One
would certainly not begin to read a novel in Chapter 24.... The verses
for this week's assigned text from Matthew, 24, therefore, come to us
totally out of context." [p. 209]
In contrast, he suggests beginning our year of Matthew with the
beginning of Matthew: 1:1-17 -- the genealogy. (I wonder why this text
isn't assigned any Sunday in the Revised Common Lectionary <g> ).
Jensen notes: "He [Matthew] begins his story in a very surprising way
by including women in his genealogy. Women don't belong in Jewish
genealogies! Most certainly Gentile women don't belong in Jewish
genealogies. What are these women doing in the opening verses of
Matthew's story? Clearly they are a sign that the central figure of
Matthew's story, Jesus of Nazareth, brings salvation (1:21-23) to all
the people of the earth." (p. 210)
In another chapter, Jensen talks more about these women:
Genealogies of old did not include women. What are these women of
old doing in a list like this? And such women! Tamar (Genesis 38),
Rahab (Joshua 2, 6), Ruth (Book of Ruth), and Bathsheba (2 Samuel
11-12). Most of them are Gentiles! Three of these women have been
involved in scandalous behavior: incest, prostitution, and adultery.
Four women. Four Sundays in Advent. This would make a great Advent
_mission_ series. Yes, mission. God's grace clearly includes persons
such as these. God's grace clearly includes sinners like you and me.
Matthew sees these women as playing a crucial role in God's movement
from promise to fulfillment. [pp. 32-33
Then, he quotes from Robert Smith (_Matthew_):
...these women may be related not so much to Abraham at the
beginning of the story as to Mary at its climax. Mary of whom Jesus
was born (v. 16) is a fifth woman in the genealogy. God's sovereign
and surprising use of these four ancient women foreshadowed the
astonishing use of Mary (v. 20) in the fullness of time. All these
women are signs that God has intervened and will do so yet again.
History is wide open to God's fresh initiatives. [p. 33 in Smith's
book]
BACK TO THE ASSIGNED TEXT -- THE CONTEXT
NOTE: Different translation may include v. 36 in the preceding
paragraph (NJB) or with that which follows (NRSV, NIV, TEV).
This text is part of the fifth discourse in Matthew (24:1-25:46),
which centers on the coming of the Son of Man. The "end time" coming
is the theme for the 1st Sunday in Advent for all three years, thus
tying it in with the preceding Last Sunday of the Year and its Christ
the King theme.
Warren Carter (_Matthew and the Margins: A Sociopolitical and
Religious Reading_) writes about these chapters:
E. Käsemann has argued that the basic question of apocalyptic
material is, "To whom does the sovereignty of the world belong?"
Chapters 24-25 are an unequivocal assertion of God's ownership,
God's right to determine cosmic destiny. Judgment falls on those who
do not acknowledge god's sovereignty. Rome's empire, or any empire,
is not ultimate. Eternal Rome is not the future. cf. 4 Ezra
11:37-46). It is mortal (24:28) and subject to God's empire.
This critique of Rome gains some force because of the material's
proximity to the struggle of 66-70. Rome's victory and destruction
of Jerusalem suggest invincible power. But chapters 24-25
contextualize this power in God's purposes, thereby revealing it to
be limited and under judgment (see 22:7). Moreover, as U. Mauser has
argued, the frequent references to false prophets and messiahs
(24:5, 11, 23-26) show that the chapter rejects the way of violence
adopted by those who took up arms as the means of trying to throw
off Roman oppression. While the goal of liberation was commendable,
the means was not. Armed revolution is a false way, just as passive
compliance was rejected previously in the gospel (see 5:38-42;
17:24-27). Ultimately God will bring the promised salvation through
Jesus' return and the establishment of God's empire (so 1:21). In
the meantime, the Matthean community is to live its alternative,
countercultural existence of active, subversive, nonviolent
resistance in the sure hope of God's coming triumph. [p. 468]
This section of Matthew begins with foretelling the destruction of the
temple, (which had happened by Matthew's time) and a two-part question
from the disciples: "Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the
sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" (24:3).
Answers to the question: "What signs?" are given in 24:4-35. Answers
to the question: "When?" are given in 24:36-25:46.
WHEN? ONLY GOD KNOWS & A VARIANT READING
Simply stated, the answer to "when" is, "Only God knows" (24:36). The
majority of ancient authorities omit "nor the Son" from this verse,
although "the best representatives of the Alexandrian, the Western,
and the Caesarean types of text contain the phrase." [_A Textual
Commentary on the Greek New Testament_, Bruce M. Metzger]. While I
don't usually dwell too much on variant readings, this one may have
some sermon possibilities.
Douglas R. A. Hare (_Matthew_, from the Interpretation series) says
about this verse:
Since the emergence of the docetist heresy at the end of the first
century there have always been Christians who have had difficulty
believing that Jesus was fully human (it is probably for this reason
that many ancient manuscripts of Matthew omit the phrase "nor the
Son'; see the KJV). They have reasoned that when the Second Person
of the Trinity came to live among us he must have retained his
supernatural knowledge and power. He was not moved by ordinary human
emotions and was incapable of anxiety because he knew the outcome of
all future events. The Nicene and Chalcedonian creeds attempt to
correct this misconception by insisting that Jesus was fully human
as well as fully divine, that is, his divinity does not compromise
his humanity at any point whatsoever. He was a genuine human being
like us, or his death on the cross was a cruelly deceptive sham. The
gospel testimony provides strong support for this view: Jesus did
not know all things. [page 282]
To state that Jesus, even though he was God, had limited knowledge,
may be a necessary corrective to the thinking of some people about
Jesus.
A second reason for highlighting this verse is that any who claim to
know the time of Jesus' return are false messiahs and false prophets
(24:23-24). There were such people in Jesus' day (according to
Josephus) and also in ours.
NEED TO BE READY AT ALL TIMES
Our text is made up of five different sayings found in various places
in other gospels, which strongly suggests that Matthew (or an earlier
redactor) compiled the sayings as we have them:
v. 36: Only the Father knows // Mk 13:32
vv. 37-39: Like the days of Noah // Lk 17:26-27
vv. 40-41: Taken or left // Lk 17:34-35
v. 42: Watching for the Lord's return // Mk 13:35
vv. 43-44: Homeowner and burglar // Lk 12:39-40
In contrast to the terrible and great signs of the end that no one
could miss -- and without God's help believers could not endure
(24:22), our text indicates that the time of the end will be quite
peaceful and normal. People will: be eating and drinking, marrying and
giving in marriage, and working at home or business. In the
everyday-ness of this life, it might be easy to forget about the
"coming of the Son of Man."
In contrast to the long, commercial buildup and advertising about the
shopping days until Christmas, our text clearly indicates that we do
not know when the day and hour of the Coming. Perhaps a reference
could be made back to the Garden of Eden -- the humans sin by trying
to know more than God intended them to know.
"Knowing" (and "not knowing") is a theme in our text. Three different
"knowing" words are used: _oida_ -- 24:36, 42, 43, cf. 25:13;
_ginosko_ -- 24:39, 43; cf. 24:32-33, 24:50; _dokeo_ -- 24:44. In the
paragraph just before our text -- the lesson of the fig tree (vv.
32-35) -- from the signs we can "know" that summer is near and that
"he" (or "it") is near. However, if neither angels nor Jesus know
"that day and hour" then certainly we won't know it either. It can be
stated that most of the "signs" of the end have always been with us:
false messiahs, wars and rumors of war, persecution of believers,
darkened sun and moon (eclipses?), falling stars. I also note that
Jesus' statement about the temple in 24:2: "Truly I tell you, not one
stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down" had
happened by the time Matthew was written. The temple had been
destroyed in 70 AD. This suggests that even though we don't know
exactly when the end will come, the signs of its coming are happening
right now. We need to live knowing that the end is always near.
At the same time, we are asked to believe and trust God without
knowing exactly when the Son of Man will come; thus the time to stay
awake or keep watch (24:42, 43) is at all times. _gregoreo_ in the
first instance is a present imperative -- "continue to keep watch". In
the second instance it is an aorist -- when you know the exact time,
you need only be awake at that moment. The aorist is also used in
26:40 when Jesus discovers that his disciples couldn't "stay awake"
for even an hour. Every other time this word is used in Matthew it is
a present tense, imperative (24:43; 25:13; 26:38, 41).
It is perhaps ironic that we read about the command to "stay awake" as
our nights are getting longer and colder -- and the comfort of a long
sleep in a warm bed becomes more attractive. As I will illustrate
later, a major point of these text has to do with one's priorities.
Parousia is a Greek word that literally means "being (_ousia_) +
"beside" (_para_). It can refer to the state of "being present" or the
process of "becoming present" = "coming" or "arriving". It has become
a technical term in English to refer to the (second) "coming" of
Christ. However, it is not used frequently in scriptures (24 times).
Matthew is the only gospel that uses the word. All of them are in this
chapter.
"your coming" (24:3)
"coming of the Son of Man" (24:27, 37, 39).
Since all of these verses have parallels in the synoptics, it would
seem that "parousia" is a word that Matthew added to the accounts.
Perhaps it had become a technical term in Matthew's community.
Carter (_Matthew and the Margins_) writes more about Matthew's use of
this word "parousia" (Latin _adventus_):
The term denotes presence (Jdt 10:18; Josephus JW 4.345), but more
importantly it has military (2 Macc 8:12; 15:21), political, and
religious significance. It denotes the arrival of a king (Polybius,
His 18.48.4), or emperor, governor, military commander (Josephus,
Vita, 90-91), or other important official in a city or town (3 Macc
3:17; the _adventus_ coins of Nero and Hadrian; see 21:1-11). The
arrival was often preceded by a special payment in tax or goods to
cover expenses. The welcoming ceremony indicated submission to the
official's power. In religious traditions, it refers to the
appearing of a god or of God (to Elisha, Josephus, Ant 9.55),
including God's "coming" to establish God's reign at the end of the
age (Dan 7:13). With this term, the gospel establishes Jesus' future
coming as an event that asserts God's supreme authority (cf. 28:18),
an event of life and blessing for those who welcome him but of
condemnation and death for those who do not. Again the gospel
employs imperial images to present the final establishment of God's
empire. [pp. 469-470, emphasis in original]
In contrast to Matthew's technical use, it has various uses in Paul.
It refers to the coming of Jesus (1C 15:23; 1Th 2:19; 3:13; 4:15;
5:23; 2Th 2:1; 2:8). It also refers to the coming of other people (1C
16:17; 2C 7:6, 7; 10:10; Phl 1:26; 2:12) and even of the "Lawless One"
(2Th 2:9).
The other occurrences refer to the coming of Jesus (Ja 5:7, 8; 2P
1:16; 3:4; 1J 2:28) or to the "day of God" (2P 3:12). [NOTE: the term
does not occur in Revelation!]
The phrase "Son of Man" is only used by Matthew in terms of the
"parousia". The others use some or all of the following names/titles:
"Lord Jesus Christ".
With either title, we need to keep in mind that the "Coming One" is
one who has come and who continues to come to us in our gatherings
around Word and Sacrament. The Bible never uses the phrase "*second*
coming." For those whom Jesus is a part of their lives now, I don't
think the "coming" will be a surprise. He already comes into their
lives now.
I used the theme once on this text: "God Doesn't Make Appointments!" I
don't know about other clergy, but I struggle with the question of
making appointments or not when calling on people. Do I "warn" them
I'm coming or just show up? Do I make sure they will be home or take
my chances -- and perhaps waste some valuable time? Beyond myself:
Should the evangelism or stewardship committees call before "arriving"
or not? My point was to indicate that among good friends (and some
relatives), unexpected visits are expected. We are glad to see them,
no matter how messed up the house or our hair might be. We make time
to visit. Uninvited sales people don't receive the same welcome.
Making an appointment or not often depends on the relationship I
already have (or don't have) with the people. Some additional
illustrations from that sermon based on some exegetical work:
Even though we don't know when the coming will be, the fact that there
will be the coming is vitally important for our lives right now. Even
though the people in Noah's day didn't know about the coming of the
judgment, it still came. This text is not so concerned with describing
the future as it is a call for repentance and discipleship and
readiness right now. The text asks the question: what or who is most
important to you now?
In the illustration from Noah, the great sin of the people was not
gross immorality or flagrant idolatry; but just too much emphasis on
the normal cares and necessities of life. They were concerned about
eating and drinking . . . so are we -- especially during Thanksgiving
and Christmas and New Year. Our concern about eating and drinking
usually increases as we prepare and eat these great feasts.
They were concerned about weddings . . . so are we. A wedding is
usually the most important day in a person's life. Months can be spent
planning that perfect day.
There is something more important than your feasts or your weddings:
the Son of Man could come. God might show up without an appointment.
He could arrive unexpectedly. What would you tell him? "Go away, I'm
busy getting this meal ready. We've got guests coming tonight." "Don't
bother me now, it's my wedding day. I've got a million details to take
care of." The question of the text is: what or who is most important
to you now?
The next illustration in our text is not about a so-called rapture,
where some people will disappear or are taken up into the air to meet
a descending Christ. The story does talk about one being taken and one
being left; but that word for "taken" (_paralambanomai_) doesn't mean
"to go up" or "to meet", but "to go along with". It is used in the
Transfiguration story: "Jesus *took with* him Peter and James and John
his brother." It is used in the section on church discipline. If
someone has sinned against you, you are to go to him and tell him his
fault. If he does not listen, *take* one or two others *along with*
you.
It isn't a special word or a magical word about floating up in the
air. It is much more like the fishermen or tax collector answering
Jesus' call to follow me -- come along with me -- let's walk down the
road together.
What are the people doing when this "taking" or "leaving" occurs? They
are at the place of employment. They are busy at work. My guess is
that the man working in the field is "left", because he couldn't leave
his important work. My guess is that the woman working in the mill is
"left", because she couldn't leave her important work.
Work is important. You need to provide food and shelter for yourself
and your family; but there is something more important than your work:
the Son of Man could come. God might show up without an appointment.
He could arrive unexpectedly. What would you tell him if you were busy
at work? "Don't bother me now; I've got work to do. Come back during
my break, then we can visit. Make an appointment with my secretary."
Who or what is most important to you?
You don't know when a thief might break into your house, so you
prepare for him at all times. You lock your doors and windows. You
leave a light on when you're gone. You insure your possessions. You do
things now because a thief could come at some unknown time. He won't
make an appointment.
How do you prepare for the unexpected coming of the Son of Man? Who is
it that you readily let into your house without an appointment? I
don't think you open your doors wide to an unexpected stranger. You
welcome in a friend. Who is it that you'll let interrupt your busy
work schedule? It's not some pushy salesman who shows up unannounced.
You welcome a friend. If a friend calls long distance, even during an
important meal, you'll talk to them. If it's a stranger or a computer
trying to sell you something, you hang up.
While we often wonder how we can keep Christmas centered on Christ
amid all the commercialization, we perhaps need to stress even more
the need to keep one's daily life centered on Christ amid all the
other demands placed on us by work, family, and self. When Christ
comes, he will need to be the most important thing in our lives.
Carter (_Matthew and the Margins_) raises an interesting question
concerning the "taking".
Presumably one is ready or alert for the Son of Man's coming by not
being distracted by reports of false prophets, wars, famines, or
earthquakes, by remaining a faithful follower/disciple/believer
through persecution and mission work, by fleeing, by seeing the sign
in heaven. Is the righteous taken or is the unrighteous taken and
consigned to hell? It is not at all certain. In favor of the latter
is 13:40-42, 49-50; but in favor of the former is (1) 24:31, in
which the angels gather the elect; (2) the verb *take* in 2:13, 14,
20, 21, which indicates salvation from danger (note that Jesus is
the subject of the verb *takes* and disciples its object in 20:17;
26:37); (3) in 24:37-39 those who go in the ark are saved while
those who are left are not; (4) the verb *left* indicates judgment
in 23:38 and 24:2. [p. 480]
Although I think that the arguments in favor of salvation for those
being taken, it could raise a few eyebrows, especially with the
"rapture" people, to suggest that those who are taken are being
gathered for a fiery judgment.
WHAT SERVANTS SHOULD BE DOING
Matthew 24:45-51 should be studied with our verses, and since it is
not part of the RCL, a preacher may include it in the lection.
In this story, we have an example of proper and improper waiting.
Presumable, disciples of Jesus want to be "faithful and wise" (v. 45)
and not "wicked" (v. 48) servants of God.
Carter (_Matthew and the Margins_) writes:
The slave, with management skills, has faithfully carried out his
master's instructions to ensure the welfare of his fellow slaves
(20:26-27). He is ready for his master's coming by being faithful to
these instructions. Ensuring that people have access to adequate
*food* has been an important theme through the gospel (6:25-34;
10:10-15 [response to mission]; 12:1-8 [sabbath]; 14:13-21;
15:32-39; 16:5-12; 24:7; 25:31-46). On *master* as an image for
Jesus in eschatological contexts, see 7:21-22; 24:42. To be
alert/ready/prepared for his coming (24:3, 36-43) is to be obedient
to the divine will, which means actions that strengthen the
community of disciples. [p. 482]
In contrast to this faithful and wise servant, the wicked servant is
primarily concerned with his power (shown by beating others) and his
own food and drink. (Eating and drinking with drunks suggests
overeating and overdrinking -- that he is more concerned with
consuming the food than distributing it -- more concerned with himself
than with others.)
Carter suggests from the punishment suffered by the wicked servant at
the end that "[t]he gospel seeks to bully its audience into faithful,
alert living." [p. 483]
As congregations may be looking at their budgets, we might ask, "How
are we being faithful and wise in caring for others while waiting for
Christ's return?"
Brian Stoffregen
Faith Lutheran Church, 2215 S 8th Ave, Yuma, AZ 85364
e-mail: brian.stoffregen@gmail.com
from GOSPEL_NOTES_FOR_NEXT_SUNDAY.topic@ecunet.org