What Is The Meaning Of “Idols” In 1 John 5:21?

By Benjamin L. Merkle

[Benjamin L. Merkle is Associate Professor of New Testament and Greek, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, North Carolina.]

John ended his first epistle by stating, “Little children, guard yourselves from idols” (Τεκνία, φυλάξατε ἑαυτὰ ἀπὸ τῶν εἰδώλων, 1 John 5:21). This ending has long been a source of confusion and debate. To some, it is so unexpected that the phrase is judged to be “linguistically non-Johannine.”[1] Others simply note that the verse is “introduced abruptly” and forms “the abrupt ending of the letter.”[2] John’s last verse is somewhat unexpected for several reasons: (a) there is no connecting particle or conjunction, (b) there is a shift from the indicative mood in verse 20 to the imperative mood (φυλάξατε),[3] (c) the terms φυλάσσω and εἰδώλον are not used elsewhere in 1 John, and (d) the epistle has no formal doxology or concluding farewell. Of these four reasons the use of the term “idols” (εἰδώλων) is perhaps the most difficult to explain.

Why did John end his letter in this way? Were his readers prone to idolatry? If this issue was so important, why did he wait until the end of the letter to mention it? The thesis of this article is that the ending of John’s letter reiterates and emphasizes the main point of his letter and does not introduce a new thought. In support of this view this article considers the purpose of John’s letter, the meaning of the term “idols,” and how John’s understanding of idols relates to the entire letter.

The Purpose Of 1 John

First John was written to give assurance to believers: “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life” (5:13). But the assurance John offered is like a two-edged sword. By explaining the difference between those who are believers and those who are not, he gave assurance to the former and exposed the latter. As Kruse comments, “The author’s purpose was to bolster the assurance of his readers by the double strategy of showing the secessionists’ claims to be false and showing his readers that they are in the truth.”[4] Thus John’s purpose was both pastoral and polemical.[5] He was writing to encourage believers and to warn them about the dangers of following the teachings of those who have left their community (2:19).

Many commentators affirm that, although the structure of 1 John is sometimes difficult to outline,[6] three major tests cycle through the letter. For example, while noting that “the structure of 1 John is disputed,” Carson and Moo also state, “Virtually all sides agree that John lays down three tests: (1) true believers must believe that Jesus truly is the Christ come in the flesh, and this belief must work itself out in (2) righteousness and (3) love.”[7] This basic structure can be traced at least as far back as Robert Law’s commentary The Tests of Life: A Study of the First Epistle of St. John. Law outlined three cycles, each of which includes three tests: the tests of righteousness, love, and belief.[8] Stott has a similar scheme, noting the tests of obedience (the moral test), love (the social test), and belief (the doctrinal test).[9]

In the first cycle (1:5-2:28)[10] the first test involves righteousness: a Christian lives a godly life (1:5-2:6).

If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin (1:6-7).

By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked (2:3-6).

The second test involves love: a Christian loves others (2:7-17).

The one who says he is in the Light and yet hates his brother is in the darkness until now. The one who loves his brother abides in the Light and there is no cause for stumbling in him. But the one who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going because the darkness has blinded his eyes (2:9-11).

Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world. The world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever (2:15-17).

The third test involves belief: a Christian believes that Jesus has come in the flesh (2:18-28).

Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also (2:22-23).

These three tests form the main message of John’s first epistle. In an effort to assure true believers, John presented these tests by which his readers can know that they have eternal life (5:13).[11]

New Testament letters are not written haphazardly; instead they demonstrate a unity of thought and cohesion of structure.[12] Therefore the best interpretation of the final words of John’s letter is one that relates this verse to the purpose and structure of the body of the letter. Griffith rightly notes, “The problem with other approaches to understanding 1 John is that they treat 5.21 virtually as if it were an afterthought.”[13] He also asserts that the last verse occurs “at arguably the most significant point of the letter.”[14] It seems unlikely that John would conclude this important letter with an admonition unrelated to the rest of the letter. Thus “the conclusion actually deals with major issues that have previously arisen in the letter.”[15]

The Meaning Of “Idols”

Raymond Brown lists ten possible interpretations of the term “idols” (εἰδώλων):[16] (1) Plato’s designation of the “unreal” objects of the senses, (2) the images of pagan deities, (3) an abbreviated description of food offered to idols (εἰδωλόθυτα), (4) a compromise with paganism, (5) the mystery religions and their practices, (6) Gnostic ideologies or philosophies, (7) Jewish worship in the Jerusalem temple, (8) various sins, (9) anything that takes the place of God, (10) secession from the community or apostasy. A problem with this list, however, is that many of the views are not defended by scholars today. For example views 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7 do not seem to be defended in modern scholarship.

Griffith groups the various views in four main categories:[17]

Conceptual interpretations. This refers to views that regard “idols” as primarily a mental construct, existing only in the mind (e.g., false teachings, false beliefs, or false gods). This is the view of most modern-day scholars.[18]

Socio-historical interpretations. This refers to literal images that were found in pagan temples or shrines in the Greco-Roman world. Two subcategories are under this main heading: (a) Confession before authorities (i.e., publicly renouncing Christ by worshiping or making an offering to an idol).[19] For example Edwards interprets the entire epistle in the context of martyrdom. He suggests that Christians were sometimes forced to worship idols, thus renouncing or abandoning their faith. John is therefore writing to encourage his readers to be willing to die (as martyrs) for their faith. Those who do not confess that Jesus is the Christ are those “who had failed the trial of martyrdom.”[20] (b) Return or accommodations to paganism. This view advocates a voluntary embrace of paganism.[21]

Metaphorical interpretations. This view includes those who interpret “idols” as sin[22] or apostasy.[23]

A literary interpretation. Hills argues that the ending of 1 John is a literary device linking the ending of the letter to the beginning (i.e., 1:1-3). He therefore maintains that 1:1-3 and 5:20-21 form a thematic inclusio. In particular he argues that the beginning of 1 John shares vocabulary with certain Old Testament passages such as Isaiah 40-48 that present a strong idol polemic. Thus John was using the language of the Septuagint to urge his readers to maintain their identity and remain faithful to their confession.[24] Griffith calls his view a “rhetorical interpretation,”[25] because the author of 1 John “is inspired by the idol polemic of the LXX.”[26] He maintains that 1 John should not be read in the context of Greek thought that influenced believers to deny that Jesus had a physical body. Rather, he argues that it represents a “continuing debate between Jews and Jewish Christians over whether Jesus was the Messiah.”[27] Thus John was using the well-known idol polemic of the Septuagint (somewhat paradoxically) to strengthen Jewish identity and cohesion. Essentially the author of 1 John was saying, “Jewish people must reject idols. Jesus Christ is the only true God. Therefore to go back to Judaism and thereby forsake Jesus is essentially idolatry.”

Instead of examining each view individually, all the views can be considered under two headings: a literal meaning, or a figurative, metaphorical, or conceptual meaning.

The literal meaning—that the word “idols” refers to a physical image of a pagan deity—is the minority view but has been gaining popularity for at least two reasons. First, the term εἰδώλον normally refers to a physical idol in the Septuagint and the New Testament. In the Septuagint εἰδώλον occurs ninety-three times, translating fifteen different Hebrew terms. In every occurrence it denotes pagan images and the deities they represent (including Exod. 20:4 and Deut. 5:8, which occur in the context of the second commandment). Similarly in the New Testament the ten other occurrences of the term refer to a physical idol.[28] Therefore it is natural to assume that in 1 John 5:21 εἰδώλον is used in its normal sense in referring to physical idols.

A second reason many believe εἰδώλον refers to a physical image is that idol worship was extremely common in the Roman Empire during the first century. According to church tradition the apostle John wrote his gospel from Ephesus and probably died there as well.[29] Evidence also suggests that John wrote his epistles from Ephesus. This location is significant because as is known from Acts 19:24-25 Ephesus was the home of the temple of Artemis (Diana). Silversmiths there made silver shrines to Artemis that brought a great amount of wealth (vv. 24-25). One of the silversmiths, Demetrius, is recorded as saying that Artemis was worshiped by “all of Asia and the world” (v. 27). In such a context it should not be surprising if John ended his letter with an admonition not to worship idols. Knowing that this was always a temptation for either those who came from such a background or for those who might be forced to worship idols, such a warning fits the historical context.[30]

Although a literal interpretation is possible, it does not seem to be the best option. A metaphorical or figurative meaning is to be preferred for several reasons. First, the term εἰδώλον has a broader semantic range than a physical idol in the wider Greek usage. The term can mean “shade,” “ghost,” “phantom,” or “copy.”[31] Though it occurs with the meaning of “idol,”[32] this usage is rare in a Greek context. Second, although εἰδώλον is not normally used to refer to a metaphorical idol in the New Testament, it is necessary to investigate not only the term, but also cognate terms (or even the concept).[33] For example the term εἰδωλολάτρης is used at least once in a metaphorical sense. In Ephesians 5:5 Paul wrote, “For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater [εἰδωλολάτρης], has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.” In this verse Paul broadened the concept of idolatry to include more than just worshiping a physical image. An idolater, he wrote, is someone who is covetous or greedy. Another example is in Colossians 3:5, where Paul used the related word εἰδωλολατρία: “Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry [εἰδωλολατρία].”[34] Here the noun “greed” is equated with the noun “idolatry.”[35] These examples are exceptions to the normal usage of the terms. Εἰδωλολάτρης is used six other times in the New Testament, all referring to someone who is a worshiper of a physical idol (1 Cor. 5:10-11; 6:9; 10:7; Rev. 21:8; 22:5). Εἰδωλολατρία is used three other times in the New Testament, all referring to the sin of physical idolatry (1 Cor. 10:14; Gal. 5:20; 1 Pet. 4:3). Although the term εἰδώλον normally refers to a physical idol, it is entirely possible that it is used in a figurative or metaphorical sense similar to the uses of εἰδωλολάτρης and εἰδωλολατρία. Thus “unlike the LXX, the New Testament works with a concept of idolatry (eidololatria), which opens the way for metaphorical applications.”[36] This widening of the concept of idolatry would have been understood by the time 1 John was written.

A third, and perhaps the most significant, reason is that the literal meaning of εἰδώλον does not fit the context of John’s letter.[37] Nowhere in this letter has John been discussing literal idols or idolatry.[38] It would seem odd for John to spend his entire letter speaking about crucial issues his audience desperately needed to hear, and then for his very last words to be an unrelated warning about falling into idolatry. This is the reason many if not most commentators opt for the metaphorical meaning.[39] For example Smalley states, “It would represent an abrupt change of thought if John had introduced the word in [the literal sense] at the very end of his letter.”[40] Likewise Marshall writes, “Nowhere in the letter has John spoken of the danger of worship of the material images and false gods whose cults flourished in the world of his readers.”[41] He concludes, “It would be surprising if John were to introduce this theme so suddenly at the end of his Epistle.”[42]

The reference to idols at the end of John’s epistle is not totally unexpected, however. In the previous verse John identified Jesus Christ as the true God: “And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life” (5:20).[43] Verse 21, then, forms an antithesis to this verse.[44] Because Jesus Christ is the true God, believers must avoid worshiping anything or anyone that is a false god. As Griffith comments, “1 Jn 5.21 is no mere afterthought. It provides an antithetical note, characteristic of the epistle’s form of thought throughout, while at the same time extending the ideas introduced in 5.20.”[45]

“Idols” In 1 John

Viewing John’s warning against idolatry as a fitting conclusion to the heart of his letter means that “idols” must have a metaphorical interpretation, referring to items that have been emphasized throughout his instructions. What had John been emphasizing? As noted earlier, the main structure and theme of 1 John can be found in the three tests of belief, righteousness, and love. John’s meaning of idolatry, then, relates directly to failing these three tests.

The test that is perhaps the most emphasized in 1 John is the test of belief (the doctrinal test). That is, a Christian must believe that Jesus has come in the flesh. Apparently some false teachers were claiming that Jesus did not possess a physical body or that Jesus was not really the Messiah; they denied that “Jesus Christ has come in the flesh” (4:2; cf. 2 John 1:7). John therefore began his letter by emphasizing Jesus’ humanity, noting that the apostles heard, saw, and even touched Him with their own hands (1 John 1:1-3). Anyone who denies that Jesus is the Messiah is a “liar” and an “antichrist” (2:22). In emphasizing Jesus’ humanity John also stated that Jesus “came by water and blood . . . not by the water only but by the water and the blood” (5:6, ESV). Many commentators agree that this difficult verse is most likely an apologetic against the teachings of the false teachers.[46] Jesus was the Messiah not only at His baptism (the “water”) but also at His death (the “blood”).[47] Jesus had a physical body that actually experienced death on the cross.

At the end of his letter John again stressed the true nature of Jesus: “He is the true God and eternal life” (5:20, ESV). If one does not embrace the apostolic teaching about Jesus but embraces another Jesus, he is in danger of worshiping an idol. If someone says he is a Christian (a disciple of Jesus) and yet does not affirm the apostolic teaching about the person of Jesus (in John’s setting, that Jesus has come in the flesh), he is guilty of worshiping an idol. It is an idol because it is a false god, a man-made Jesus. Akin rightly notes that John “would have in mind the ‘idols’ of the heretical teachers who speak about a Jesus who is less than God. John is very disturbed by the false teachers that the god they proclaim is not merely less than perfect or close to what he holds but is altogether an idol. That is, their god is not real but [is] the god of men’s imaginations.”[48] In this sense, then, when John wrote, “Guard yourselves from idols,” he was saying, “Guard yourselves from worshiping a Jesus that is different from the Jesus you have learned about from the apostolic tradition. Any other Jesus is nothing more than an idol.”

A second test John gave is the test of righteousness (the moral test). That is, a Christian must live a godly life. John is abundantly clear on this issue: “If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth” (1:6). To claim to be a Christian and yet live like the rest of the world is to be a liar. Such a person is following a false religion. Again John wrote, “The one who says, ‘I have come to know Him,’ and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (2:4). A Christian cannot merely claim to know God and not follow God’s Word. Other verses that are related to this theme are these: “No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him” (3:6). “The one who practices sin is of the devil” (3:8). “No one who is born of God practices sin” (3:9). “Anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God” (3:10).

In this sense, then, when John admonished, “Guard yourselves from idols,” he was saying, “Guard yourselves from worshiping a false god that allows you to claim to be a true worshiper but still live in sin. It is idolatry to claim to worship God and yet walk in unrighteousness.”

A third test John offered is the test of love (the social test). That is, a Christian must love others. According to John, “The one who says he is in the Light and yet hates his brother is in the darkness until now” (2:9). A mere profession of faith without the accompanying virtue of love is an empty claim and thus a false god. Later John asserted that whoever “does not love his brother” is not of God (3:10). Loving others, especially loving other believers, is an essential characteristic of saving faith and true religion. Again this theme is found throughout John’s epistle:

Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him (3:15).

But whoever has the world’s goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him? Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth (3:17-18).

If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from Him, that the one who loves God should love his brother also (4:20-21).

In this sense, then, when John wrote, “Guard yourselves from idols,” he was saying, “Guard yourselves from worshiping a false god that allows you to claim to be a true worshiper but still not love others. It is idolatry to claim to love or worship God and not demonstrate love to other believers.”[49]

Conclusion

The New Testament letters were written for specific purposes and specific audiences and possess cohesion and unity. Therefore when John ended his first epistle with an admonition to avoid idols, those words should be interpreted in the context of the entire epistle and not merely as introducing a new thought. If such is the case, then one should look to the rest of the letter to see what would classify as idolatry. In his letter John sought to give believers assurance and at the same time expose those who are not true believers. He achieved this by offering three cycles of three tests: the tests of belief, righteousness, and love. Thus what John was emphasizing at the close of his letter is that those who claim to be Christians but do not believe the truth concerning Jesus, do not live a righteous life in obeying God’s commands, and do not love others are in danger of idol worship. This is an idol because they have created a religion that is false. This is a religion that man has created and not that of the apostolic faith. This is nothing short of idolatry. To embrace a form of Christianity that allows one to deny the truth about Jesus, not live a godly life, or not love others, is to create an idol—and that is something all Christians must constantly guard against.

Notes

1. See, for example, W. G. Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament, rev. ed., trans. Howard Clark Kee (Nashville: Abingdon, 1975), 440.
2. I. Howard Marshall, The Epistles of John, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 255. Robert W. Yarbrough similarly states, “The mention of ‘idols’ is abrupt” (1-3 John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008], 322). Wilhelm Thüsing comments, “This particular concluding sentence is surely almost entirely unexpected” (The Three Epistles of St. John [New York, Herder & Herder, 1971], 102). D. Moody Smith states, “The last word (v. 21) is brief and puzzling. Nothing in the letter prepares us for the final warning about idols” except verse 20 (First, Second, and Third John [Louisville: John Knox, 1991], 137).
3. Ending a letter with an imperative is not uncommon. For examples see Terry Griffith, Keep Yourselves from Idols: A New Look at 1 John, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series (London: Sheffield Academic, 2002), 58.
4. Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 27. D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo likewise note, “John finds he must reassure the faithful and explain in straightforward terms the differences between the two groups and thereby give them grounds for their own assurance and confidence before God (1 John 5:13) at a time when they were being made to feel inferior and spiritually threatened” (An Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd ed. [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005], 678).
5. Some scholars maintain that because 1 John is pastoral and not polemical, there is no need to identify a group of heretics and their beliefs (e.g., Judith M. Lieu, “‘Authority to Become Children of God’: A Study of 1 John,” Novum Testamentum 23 [1981]: 210-28).
6. Yarbrough declares, “There is no agreement on the organization of 1 John” (1-3 John, 21).
7. Carson and Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 699-70.
8. Robert Law, The Tests of Life: A Study of the First Epistle of St. John (Edinburgh: Clark, 1909), 1-24. He writes that these three “are the connecting themes that bind together the whole structure of the Epistle” (ibid., 6).
9. John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John, rev. ed., Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1988), 61.
10. The other cycles are 2:29-4:6 and 4:7-5:21.
11. Other commentators say that 1 John provides tests of fellowship with God, not tests of salvation. See, for example, Zane C. Hodges, “1 John,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1983; reprint, Colorado Springs: Cook, 1996), 881; idem, The Epistles of John (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 34; and J. Dwight Pentecost, The Joy of Fellowship (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971).
12. Although there is no consensus about the organizational structure of 1 John, Kruse overstates the issue when he comments that his analysis of 1 John “does not seek to trace any developing argument through the letter because there isn’t one” (Letters of John, 32). And Marshall maintains that 1 John cannot be “divided into large sections on a logical basis” (Epistles of John, 26). Rudolf Schnackenburg is correct in noting that the author “does not merely sail along without any particular plan” (The Johannine Epistles: Introduction and Commentary, trans. Reginald Fuller and Ilse Fuller [New York: Crossroad, 1992], 12-13). Similarly Andreas J. Köstenberger, L. Scott Kellum, and Charles Quarles note that “given the clear structure of John’s Gospel and Revelation, as well as the careful nuances displayed within the various paragraphs, it seems unlikely that the author had no plan in mind when writing the letter” (The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament [Nashville: B&H, 2009], 798). Regarding the structure of 1 John see L. Scott Kellum, “On the Semantic Structure of 1 John: A Modest Proposal,” Faith and Mission 23 (2008): 34-82; R. Longacre, “Towards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the Greek Text,” in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis, ed. D. A. Black (Nashville: B&H, 1992), 271-86.
13. Griffith, Keep Yourselves from Idols, 89.
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid.
16. Raymond Brown, The Epistles of John, Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1982), 627-29. Brown notes that these views “are not necessarily exclusive of one another, and some commentators advocate several” (ibid., 627). Brown himself favors the tenth view.
17. Griffith, Keep Yourselves from Idols, 14-27. For a summary of Griffith’s position see his “‘Little Children, Keep Yourselves from Idols’ (1 John 5:21),” Tyndale Bulletin 48 (1997): 187-90.
18. For example Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, New American Commentary (Nashville: B&H, 2001), 215-16; A. E. Brooke, The Johannine Epistles, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: Clark, 1912), 154; Rudolf Bultmann, The Johannine Epistles, trans. R. Philip O’Hara with Lane C. McGaughy and Robert W. Funk, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973), 90; J. L. Houlden, The Johannine Epistles, Black New Testament Commentary (London: Black, 1973; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988), 138; Marshall, The Epistles of John, 255-56; Stephen S. Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, 1984), 309-10; Kenneth Grayston, “The Johannine Epistles,” in New Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 148; Stott, The Letters of John, 198-99; Kruse, The Letters of John, 202; Smith, First, Second, and Third John, 137; M. M. Thompson, 1-3 John, IVP New Testament Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992), 148; and Georg Strecker, The Johannine Letters, trans. Linda M. Maloney, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 214.
19. So Klaus Wengst, Der erste, zweite und dritte Brief des Johannes, Ökumenischer Taschenbuchkommentar zum Neuen Testament 16 (Gütersloher: Mohr, 1978), 224-26; and M. J. Edwards, “Martyrdom and the First Epistle of John,” Novum Testamentum (1989): 164-71.
20. Edwards, “Martyrdom and the First Epistle of John,” 166.
21. C. H. Dodd, The Johannine Epistles, Moffatt New Testament Commentary (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1946), 141; and A. Plummer, The Epistles of S. John (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1894), 129; Adolf von Schlatter, Die Briefe und die Offenbarung des Johannes, Erläuterungen zum Neuen Testament (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1950), 111-12. Dodd also notes, “By idols he means not only images of the gods, but all false or counterfeit notions of God such as lead to the perversion of religion against which he has written” (The Johannine Epistles, 141).
22. Wolfgang Nauck, Die Tradition und der Charakter des ersten Johannesbriefes, Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der deutschen Orientgesellschaft (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1957), 136-38; J. C. O’Neill, The Puzzle of 1 John: A New Examination of Its Origins (London: SPCK, 1966), 63-64; Schnackenburg, The Johannine Epistles, 263-64; and Thüsing, The Three Epistles of St. John, 102.
23. Brown, The Epistles of John, 628-29, 633.
24. Julian Hills, “‘Little children, keep yourselves from idols’: 1 John 5:21 Reconsidered,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 51 (1989): 285-310.
25. Griffith, Keep Yourselves from Idols, 206.
26. Ibid., 208.
27. Ibid., 1.
28. Acts 7:41; 15:20; Romans 2:22; 1 Corinthians 8:4, 7; 10:19; 12:2; 2 Corinthians 6:16; 1 Thessalonians 1:9; and Revelation 9:20.
29. Irenaeus wrote, “John the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia” (Against Heresies, 3.1.1). Irenaeus also wrote that John was at Ephesus “remaining among them permanently until the time of Trajan” (Against Heresies, 3.3.4; cf. 2.22.5; see also Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.23.1-4). See Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, xxxii, 309; Kruse, The Letters of John, 27-28; Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, 27; Yarbrough, 1-3 John, 17; Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, rev. ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990), 896; Carson and Moo, Introduction to the New Testament, 675-76; and Köstenberger, Kellum, and Quarles, The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown, 791.
30. Plummer noted, “There is no need to seek far-fetched figurative explanations of ‘the idols’ when the literal meaning lies close at hand, is suggested by the context, and is in harmony with the known circumstances of the time.” He asked if it was reasonable to look for a figurative meaning “when every street through which his readers walked, and every heathen house they visited, swarmed with idols in the literal sense: above all when it was its magnificent temples and groves and seductive idolatrous rites which constituted some of the chief attractions at Ephesus” (The Epistles of S. John, 129).
31. F. Büchsel, “εἰδώλον,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1964), 375-80. J. N. Suggit even interprets εἰδώλων as “phantom” or “ghost” in the context of 1 John (“1 John 5:21: ΤΕΚΝΙΑ, ΦΥΛΑΞΑΤΕ ΕΑΥΤΑ ΑΠΟ ΤΩΝ ΕΙΔΩΛΩΝ,” Journal of Theological Studies 36 [1985]: 386-90).
32. See Polybius, Histories 30.25.13-15.
33. Law explains, “It is true . . . that elsewhere in the N.T. εἰδώλον is invariably used in the literal sense. That, however, is no reason why it should not here express a more comprehensive idea, provided that this would be intelligible by those to whom the Epistle was addressed” (The Tests of Life, 414).
34. See also Ezekiel 14:4, which speaks of one who sets up “idols in his heart.” In the Qumran literature “idolatry” and “sin” are used interchangeably (cf. 1QS 2:11, 17; 4:5; 1QH 4:15; 4QFlor 1:17; CD 20:9). See also Matthew 6:24; Romans 16:18; and Philippians 3:19 for similar ideas without the use of the word “idols.”
35. For an excellent discussion of the relationship between covetousness or greed and idolatry see Brian S. Rosner, Greed as Idolatry: The Origin and Meaning of a Pauline Metaphor (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007). He says that the statement “greed is idolatry” means the following: “Tohave a strong desire to acquire and keep for yourself more and more money and material things is an attack on God’s exclusive rights to human love and devotion, trust and confidence, and service and obedience” (ibid., 173). He identifies these words as a Jewish metaphor and demonstrates how the two concepts are closely related. He writes, “To equate greed with idolatry is a powerful means of condemning greed, since idolatry was the most serious of sins, being the distinguishing mark of those who do not know God (the gentiles), which elicited the most disdainful polemic, prompted the most extreme measures of avoidance, and evoked an expectation of frightening judgment from God who demands exclusive worship and tolerates no rivals. It is in effect to charge that the greedy do not belong in the church” (ibid., 172).
36. Griffith, Keep Yourselves from Idols, 54. He maintains, however, that the literal use is so common, that “unless there is a specific qualifier” the word refers “to idols and their cult” (52). Thus “with regard to 1 Jn 5.21, there are no indicators whatever in the context to suggest that eidola refer to anything other than idols simpliciter” (ibid., 56).
37. For example Bultmann opts for the figurative meaning of idols as “false teaching” because “this warning runs through the whole letter” (The Johannine Epistles, 90). What Bultmann does not note, however, is that there is not just one warning (test) that runs through the letter (i.e., the test of belief), but three warnings or tests.
38. Judith M. Lieu maintains that “nothing in the letter prepares us for a concern with the temptation to revert to paganism” (The Theology of the Johannine Epistles [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991], 57).
39. See scholars cited in footnotes 18, 22, and 23.
40. Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 309.
41. Marshall, The Epistles of John, 255.
42. Ibid.
43. That Jesus Christ is the antecedent of “the true God” is affirmed by most commentators (e.g., Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, 214-15; Brown, The Epistles of John, 625-26; Bultmann, The Johannine Epistles, 90; Marshall, The Epistles of John, 254-55; Schnackenburg, The Johannine Epistles, 263; Strecker, Johannine Letters, 212; and Thompson, 1-3 John, 147). Some commentators say the antecedent of “the true God” is the Father (Brooke, The Johannine Epistles, 152-53; Law, The Tests of Life, 412-13; and Stott, The Letters of John, 197-98). Others are more noncommittal (e.g., Kruse, TheLetters of John, 199-200; Plummer, The Epistles of S. John, 128; Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 308; and Yarbrough, 1-3 John, 319-20).
44. So Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, 214; Kruse, The Letters of John, 200; and Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 309.
45. Griffith, Keep Yourselves from Idols, 61.
46. Dodd writes, “This implies that someone taught that Christ came by water but not by blood” (The Johannine Epistles, 130). See also Smith, First, Second, and Third John, 123.
47. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, 196-97; Brooke, The Johannine Epistles, 133-24; Bultmann, The Johannine Epistles, 79-80; Dodd, The Johannine Epistles, 130; Marshall, The Epistles of John, 231-35; Plummer, The Epistles of S. John, 113-14; Schnackenburg, The Johannine Epistles, 232-33; Smith, First, Second, and Third John, 123-24; Stott, TheLetters of John, 180-81; Strecker, The Johannine Letters, 182-83; and Yarbrough, 1-3 John, 282-83.
48. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, 216.
49. An objection could be raised as to why John used the plural “idols” instead of the singular, since he was essentially warning his readers to avoid worshiping a false concept of the true God, not warning them to avoid worshiping a plethora of literal idols. Three responses can be offered. First, each person can be guilty of creating his own version of the true God. In this case the plural refers not to one person worshiping several idols but to each person creating his own personal idol. Second John used plural forms to address his readers (Τεκνία, φυλάξατε ἑαυτὰ). Thus the plural “idols” makes sense with a plural subject. Third, εἰδώλον is normally found in the plural; so it is possible that this was a matter of style.

Preterism and “This Generation”

By Lawrence A. DeBruyn

[Lawrence A. DeBruyn is Senior Pastor, Franklin Avenue Baptist Church, Indianapolis, Indiana.]

In Jesus’ fig-tree parable He said, “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” (Matt. 24:34; cf. Mark 13:30 and Luke 21:32). Bible students differ on the meaning of the independent statement, “this generation will not pass away,” and the modifying phrase, “until all these things take place.”

The Preterist View

Preterism is the eschatological system that teaches that most (moderate, or partial preterism), if not all (extreme, or plenary preterism), of Jesus’ predictions in the Olivet Discourse were fulfilled at the time of Jerusalem’s desolation and the temple’s destruction in A.D. 70.[1] Assuming that a generation is thirty or forty years in length, preterists contend that either in whole or in part, the events Jesus predicted occurred within the lifetime of those who were Jesus’ contemporaries (i.e., within “this generation”).[2] One preterist notes, “Not only was something significant about to happen, it was to happen in their lifetime.”[3]

The Futurist View

On the other hand futurists believe that the Olivet Discourse describes the progress of this evil age until the “parousia-end”[4] (Matt. 24:29-31). Futurism allows for the indefinite postponement of events—the “abomination of desolation” (v. 15), the “tribulation” (vv. 21-28), and Jesus’ second coming (v. 30)—leading up to the end of the age and the judgment of earth’s inhabitants (24:50-51; 25:30, 46). Preterists believe that those events either in part or the whole already occurred circa A.D. 70. So the question is, Did Jesus teach that the tribulation would occur and that He would return before some of those who heard His predictions died, or do those predictions await future fulfillment?

This article argues that the exegetical data of the Gospels do not support preterism’s contention that “this generation” establishes a time frame within which all of the Olivet Discourse would take place. Neither the Lord nor Matthew meant that “this generation” is a temporal straightjacket into which all aspects of the Discourse were fitted for fulfillment. Instead the Scriptures assert that there will be an undetermined and indefinite hiatus before “all these things” are fulfilled.

The Olivet Discourse

Jerusalem Rejected Jesus

Jesus predicted that desolation would befall Jerusalem because of the nation’s resistance to His messianic ministry. Jerusalem’s rejection of Jesus paralleled the manner in which Israel had refused God’s prophets in previous generations (Heb. 11:32-38).

To understand Jesus’ curse on Jerusalem in Matthew 23:34-36 one must look at the Chronicles text to which the Lord alluded when He cursed the city. “The Lord, the God of their fathers, sent word to them again and again by messengers, because He had compassion on His people and on His dwelling place; but they continually mocked the messengers of God, despised His words and scoffed at His prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose against His people, until there was no remedy” (2 Chron. 36:15-16).

In denouncing Jerusalem Jesus assessed His generation to be in line with preceding ones described by the chronicler. When the city’s resistance to Jesus reached its zenith, there was no divine recourse other than judgment (Dan. 9:26). Jesus therefore pronounced judgment on His generation, a generation that stood in solidarity with the rebels of previous generations (Matt. 23:29-36).

Jesus Censured Jerusalem

When the Jewish leaders rejected Jesus as a prophet of God, Jesus pronounced “woes” on the nation and its leaders (Matt. 21:42-43; 23:1-36). Concluding His censure of Jerusalem, Jesus predicted that the city would be devastated (23:38). But He also forecast a day when Jerusalem would sincerely say to Him, “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!” (v. 39; cf. 21:9).

After leaving the temple precinct and pausing on the Mount of Olives overlooking Mount Zion, the disciples questioned Jesus about Jerusalem’s coming destruction, pointing out the massive and magnificent temple complex under construction. The Jews thought the temple would last forever. Countering that assumption, Jesus reaffirmed, “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down” (24:2).

The first prediction befell Jerusalem and her environs in A.D. 70. The world awaits fulfillment of the day when Jerusalem will finally welcome the One “who comes in the name of the Lord.”

Interpretive Issues

Jesus’ two predictions—of the coming desolation of the city and then of the future day when Jerusalem will welcome Jesus—aroused the disciples’ curiosity.[5] Therefore they asked two questions: “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” (Matt. 24:3). Thinking that the desolation of Jerusalem and the eschatological end comprised one event, they asked the questions together.[6]

The grammar indicates that they asked two questions. First, they asked “when” the temple would be destroyed; second, they asked, “what” would be the sign of the end.[7]

Some interpreters mix Jesus’ predictions about Jerusalem’s destruction and Jesus’ second coming.[8] Carson observes that “the Fall of Jerusalem and the return of the Son of Man . . . appear to be so tightly intertwined that it is impossible to separate them.”[9] If this is the case, then one must decide whether Jesus’ predictions refer to the destruction of Jerusalem and/or the end of this age. Such an approach, however, confounds the disciples’ questions.

The disciples’ assumption that Jerusalem’s destruction and the eschatological end would occur close to each other should not determine the sermon’s interpretation. The Lord answered the disciples’ questions directly,[10] but He did not address the “when” of the disciples’ question. Matthew’s account does not place the different events together. Though Jesus predicted the desolation of Jerusalem (23:36; 24:2), He commented no further on the temple’s impending destruction in His extended answer about the progress of the age to the end (24:4-41).

Three times Jesus mentioned “the end” (24:6, 13-14), and in verse 14 He associated His “coming” with it (cf. references to His coming in vv. 27, 30, 37, 39, 42, 44; 25:31).[11] Yet why did He not mention the stones again?

Perhaps that is because Matthew viewed Jesus’ prediction of Jerusalem’s destruction as a fait accompli and separate from the end-time events.[12] Despite the disciples’ curiosity Jesus’ prediction of Jerusalem’s desolation needed no further explanation.[13] Making a terse and final notice of judgment was not uncommon for Jesus, especially when declaring it on a people or a place (e.g., 12:38-45). Therefore in Matthew’s account of the Lord’s answer to the disciples, Jesus’ mention of “all these things” (24:34) need not include the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.[14]

Sermon Summary

Signs Of The Age

In His sermon Jesus first predicted signs common to this age—the appearance of false Christs, wars, famines, earthquakes, pestilence, persecution, worldwide preaching of the gospel (Matt. 24:6-14a). He called these “the beginning of birth pangs” (v. 8). These recurrent birth pains should not alarm Christians. Believers should not allow “doomsday” prophets and antichrists—who use the occasion of disasters to attract a following—to deceive them.[15] Continuing disasters indicate that Jesus has not yet returned and God’s kingdom has not been fully realized (Isa. 11:6-9). Yet these recurrent “birth pangs” indicate that the present age remains “pregnant” with the promise of the Lord’s return.

In a parallel passage Luke recorded Jesus as having said, “When you hear of wars and disturbances, do not be terrified; for these things must take place first, but the end does not follow immediately” (Luke 21:9). Luke’s use of “first” (πρῶτον) “makes the time sequence clear. There may be chaos, but God is not surprised. There may be chaos, but the end is not near. Jesus said that even when these events are present, the end does not follow immediately (εὐθέως).”[16]

Signs Of The End

Jesus then predicted exceptional signs of the end—the “abomination of desolation,” unprecedented tribulation, continuing deception, cosmic disturbances (Matt. 24:14b-31).

The Rest Of The Sermon

In the rest of the sermon Jesus certified His predictions, exhorted His disciples to service and watchfulness, and described the judgment on earth’s inhabitants (24:32-25:46). Jesus also stated that the time of the end is known only by His Father (24:36).

Is Futurism Untenable?

Assuming the Olivet Discourse provides a unified account of the course of this age to the end, questions can be asked of that sermon about the futurist (postponement) position as opposed to a preterist (nonpostponement) view. J. Stuart Russell (1816-1895), a preterist, once stated, “The events specified in [Jesus’] prediction would assuredly come to pass before the existing generation had wholly passed away.”[17] Then he dogmatically asserted, “This is the only interpretation which the words will bear.”[18]

Is this true? Or does the sermon challenge such confidence? Answers are found in lexical, grammatical, contextual, theological, and historical data in Matthew’s record.

The Lexical Data [19]

The word “generation” (γενεά) is used in a number of ways. They are “1. those exhibiting common characteristics or interests, race, kind . . . 2. the sum total of those born at [or living at] the same time, expanded to include all those living at a given time . . . generation, contemporaries . . . 3. the time of a generation, age . . . ‘a period of time.’ ”[20]

“Generation” As “Race”

Some futurists say “generation” means “race.” They say that ethnic Jews will persevere through the age until the fulfillment of “all these things.” “If that meaning is tenable, then Jesus says that the nation . . . would not lose its identity before the end of the world. A practical application would be that the very existence of this nation before our eyes, even though in the main it is dispersed all over the world, would remind us of the eschatological discourse of Jesus and of the coming of Judgment Day.”[21]

Thus despite the Jews’ rebellion against the Messiah, the devastating judgment and dispersion that befell them in A.D. 70, and the opposition and the anti-Semitism that has continued throughout world history, the Jewish people will survive “until all these things take place” (Matt. 24:34-35; cf. Jer. 31:35-36; 33:25-36).[22]

“Generation” As “Those Alive At The Same Time”

Preterists assert that “generation” means the sum total of those born at about the same time.[23] Preterists say that when the word “generation” is coupled with the demonstrative pronoun “this,” it designates a time frame within which the events of the Olivet Discourse, including Jesus’ second coming, must have occurred.[24] In their view a thirty-to-forty-year countdown to the “end” began when Jesus uttered His prediction in Matthew 24:34. For this reason preterists advocate an early date for the writing of the Book of Revelation (i.e., before A.D. 70), and they define Jesus’ return as a “judgment coming” on the Jewish nation in the first century.[25]

Admittedly “this generation” does carry a sense of urgency for the city of Jerusalem. Students of Bible prophecy agree that A.D. 70 fulfilled Jesus’ prediction of Jerusalem’s desolation (Matt. 23:38; 24:2). But after that, agreement between preterists and futurists ends. While Jesus could have returned before His contemporaries died, history indicates He did not, unless the Second Coming is defined as something other than personal and physical (cf. Acts 1:11).

Ironically some futurists agree with preterists that “this generation” has a static meaning in estimating the time of the end.[26] But in doing so, they too deny the imminency of Jesus’ return.[27]

“Generation” As “Age”

The third category of meaning for generation—that of “age” emerging into “a period of time”—allows for an expanding temporal meaning for the term (see Luke 16:8).

“Generation” As A “Type Of Rebellious People”

Lövestam holds to a dynamic meaning for “this generation,” a meaning rooted “in the Old Testament/early Jewish world of ideas.”[28] He states that Jesus “used this term about those to whom he addressed his message and in the midst of whom he did his mighty works, but who repulsed and rejected him.”[29] Likewise Thomas notes that “this generation” is “a qualitative expression without chronological or temporal connotations.”[30] When combined with censorious adjectives, “generation” is pejorative.[31]

Lövestam notes that “this genea” is not “a special, isolated expression of time, the extent of which can be fixed in terms of years and decades.”[32] Such understanding is evident where Jesus linked that “generation” to the slaughter of all the “righteous” from Abel to Zechariah (Matt. 23:35-36). Jesus accused His contemporaries: “So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those [τῶν] who murdered the prophets” (v. 31, italics added). The Lord told them that even though they were removed by centuries of time from those murderers, they were guilty of those crimes (“whom you murdered,” v. 35). About the unity of guilt incurred by those who murdered the prophets, Morris notes that the designation “implies the solidarity of the race through the years.”[33] Likewise Johnson concludes, “The predominant use for ‘this generation’ (γενεά) in Luke [and presumably in Matthew] is evil and resistant to the prophet. . . . The statement . . . is less directly temporal than it might at first appear.”[34] Rieske concludes that “this generation” is best understood as referring to “an evil spiritual family” who “throughout time . . . killed God’s messengers.”[35] In contrast to the chronological assertion by preterists that “generation” designates Jesus’ Jewish contemporaries, lexically and contextually “generation” can possess an expanded range of meanings.

What Does “This Generation” Mean?

Though reputable scholars understand “this generation” as referring to “people alive at the same time,” the dictionary meaning of “generation,” even in combination with the demonstrative “this,” does not demand it. In fact various meanings of the word may interface, giving “generation” a multifaceted and dynamic meaning.

It may be better to understand “this generation” as a pejorative designation employed by Jesus to point to the continued Jewish resistance against Him as God’s Messiah, a concerted rebellion that commenced during the Old Testament era, continued during the Lord’s earthly ministry, and will be consummated when the end arrives (cf. Dan. 9:24). For the duration of the interadvent age Israel will continue to be “a disobedient and obstinate people” (Rom. 10:21). The nation will persist in rebellion against Messiah Jesus “until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in” (11:25). Thus “this generation” refers not to a particular time in which people live, but rather to a perennial type of rebellious and ungodly people. This understanding finds support from the historical context from which Jesus drew the term (see Matt. 23:34-36).

The Grammatical Data

Russell wrote that if Jesus intended to give a “prophetic glance into the ages of a distant futurity . . . we should expect to find some hint or intimation of the fact; some well-defined line between the immediate future and the indefinitely remote.”[36] However, though ignored by preterists, evidence exists in Matthew 24:34 and its context that places the fulfillment of “all these things” in the indefinite future.

The Verbs

The verbs in Matthew 24:34–“pass away” and “take place”—show the time frame Jesus intended. But preterists overlook these verbs and focus only on the noun “generation” (γενεά) with its demonstrative pronoun “this” (αὕτη). Verbs communicate time, and the tense (aorist) and mood (subjunctive) of the verbs do not indicate a definite time period within which “all things” must have taken place.

The Tense Of The Verbs

Mounce notes that the aorist tense of “take place” (γένηται) may be an ingressive aorist. If so, the meaning would be that “before the generation alive at that time had died, all the things described in connection with the end will have started to take place.”[37] If this is so, then the ingressive sense complements a futurist understanding of the Olivet Discourse. Beginning with Jesus’ resurrection and ascension, this present age—characterized by a “beginning” of birth pangs (Matt. 24:4-13)—continues to be pregnant with the prospect of Christ’s return.

Regarding the certainty of His prophecy’s fulfillment Jesus explained, “Heaven and earth will pass away [future tense, indicative mood], but My words will not pass away [aorist tense, subjunctive mood]” (v. 35). Two things may be noted in this statement. First, Jesus envisioned a definite time when the created order will end.[38] Second, He said His prophecy will coexist with and beyond the created order. By linking the fulfillment of “all these things” to the continuing order of creation, Marshall observes that the parallelism stresses “the certainty of the End rather than . . . limiting the date of the end.”[39] This explanation by Jesus helps clarify the sense of the tense in verse 34.

If Matthew had understood Jesus to have specified a definite time (A.D. 70) for the fulfillment of “all these things” (v. 34), he might have employed the future rather than the aorist tense. But he did not. As recorded by Matthew, Jesus’ assertion reads as a promise in the midst of His prophecy.[40] Jesus predicted (future tense) a definite consummation of the created order (v. 35), but He promised (aorist tense)[41] an indefinite continuance of “this generation” until the fulfillment of “all these things” (v. 34). If Jesus had intended His words to be applicable only to the generation alive at that time, Matthew would have recorded the assertion—“this generation will not pass away”—in the future tense and indicative mood.

The Mood Of The Verbs

The subjunctive mood of the verbs “pass away” (παρέλθῃ) and “take place” (γένηται) indicates that the time in which Jesus’ predictions will be fulfilled is uncertain. As Mounce states, “A verb in the subjunctive has no time significance.”[42] And Wallace notes, “In general, the subjunctive can be said to represent the verbal action (or state) as uncertain but probable.”[43]

In Matthew 24:34-35 three verbs are in the subjunctive mood, and one is in the indicative mood. First, Jesus predicted, “This generation will not pass away” (παρέλθῃ, subjunctive mood, v. 34a). Next He promised, “Until all these things take place” (γένηται, subjunctive mood, v. 34b). Then He predicted, “Heaven and earth will pass away” (παρελεύσεται, indicative mood, v. 35a). Then He said, “But My words will not pass away” (παρέλθωσιν, subjunctive mood, v. 35b).[44]

The subjunctive mood indicates that Matthew considered the fulfillment of Jesus’ three promises to be “open-ended.” If Matthew had understood that Jesus meant that “all these things” were to be fulfilled within a period of time, he might have employed the indicative mood, thereby making the time frame definite. But he did not.[45]

Also the verb παρέρχομαι (“pass away”) occurs three times in verses 34 and 35 and links what Jesus stated in verse 34 to what He stated in verse 35. Alford observed, “The continued use of παρέρχομαι in vv. 34, 35, should have saved the Commentators from the blunder of imagining that the then living generation was meant, seeing that the prophecy is by the next verse carried on to the end of all things.”[46]

Jesus stated in verse 36 that He did not know the day or hour of His return; this was known only by the Father. How then can one say that Jesus’ assertion—that He was coming within a generation—was definite when in the immediate context He denied knowledge of the time?[47] Preterism places Jesus in the awkward position of contradicting Himself, for in one breath He allegedly claimed to know the time of His coming (i.e., within a generation) while in the next He denied knowledge of His return. The indefinite mood also complements the point that “this generation” refers to a perennial people—“to the wicked people of all time, those before the Messiah and those after.”[48]

Jesus’ confessed ignorance of the day and hour of His coming (v. 36) and the subjunctive mood mark the timing of the fulfillment as open-ended.

The Preposition “Until”

The word “until” (ἕως ἂν) is another piece of evidence that marks the fulfillment of “all these things” as indefinite.[49] The particle ἂν implies “vagueness and uncertainty,” especially when “used with the subjunctive and optative moods, which affirm things with varying degrees of uncertainty.”[50] In the seventeen occurrences of ἕως ἂν in the Gospels, the time period can be either short or long. It can refer to a period as brief as a stay in a person’s home (e.g., Mark 6:10) or as long as an age (e.g., Luke 20:43). In every instance ἕως ἂν shows that the length of time is vague.

Concluding the pronouncement of “woes” on the Jewish leaders and the prediction of Jerusalem’s coming desolation, Jesus told the city not to expect to see Him again “until [ἕως ἂν] you say [εἴπητε, subjunctive mood], ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’ ” (Matt. 23:39). The preposition and the verb’s subjunctive mood suggest that between Jerusalem’s desolation (v. 38) and the city’s change of heart toward Jesus (v. 39) an undetermined period of time will elapse.[51] This grammatical feature indicates that the desolation of Jerusalem and the blessing of that city on the Messiah were disparate events separated by an indefinite period. Evidently the welcome Jesus envisioned was to be postponed, and Matthew’s use of “until” allows for it. As Edersheim observed, “Between the desolation of the House [sic] and their welcome to Him, would intervene a period of indefinite length, during which they would not see Him again.”[52]

With the hiatus between the desolation of Jerusalem and that city’s welcoming of the Son of Man, an undetermined period would separate His Jewish contemporaries from the fulfillment of “all things.” The preposition “until” in 23:39 shows that the period between “this generation” and the fulfillment of “all these things” (v. 36) is open and indefinite. When combined with the verb’s subjunctive mood, the subordinate clause might be translated, “until whenever these things come to be.”[53] This understanding harmonizes with the doctrine of futurism (24:36, 42-44; 25:13, 19).

According to preterism the fulfillment of most if not all “these things” is definite and closed. But the grammatical factors—the preposition ἕως ἂν (23:39; 24:34), the aorist tense, the subjunctive mood of the verbs παρέλθῃ and γένηται—and Jesus’ follow-up statement that He did not know the “day or the hour” (24:36) show that the time frame is indefinite, open, and the events unfulfilled. Neither the verbs nor the preposition substantiate the preterist dogma that “this generation” means a period of time of thirty or forty years.

The Pronouns

Preterists claim that the frequent occurrence of the pronoun “you” in the Olivet Discourse supports the meaning they assign to “this generation.”[54] Yet the second-person pronoun is not the only designation Jesus employed in His prophecy. For example He mentioned “those” (οἱ, Matt. 24:16; ταῖς, v. 19), “many” (24:5 [twice], 10, 11 [twice]), “his” (vv. 17-18), and “one another” (24:10 [twice]).[55] By His use of varying pronouns and designations, Jesus distinguished the disciples He immediately addressed from others on whom the predicted events would eventually fall. One example in His sermon is telling.

In Matthew 24:30 Jesus said, “And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory” (italics added). Why did Jesus say “they [not ‘you’] will see the Son of Man coming”? Because He distanced His disciples from those who would witness the eschatological end. The timing of His return will be as unknown to them as it was to Him.

Preterist Gentry acknowledges a gap between the tribulation and the Second Advent when he distinguishes between “this generation” (v. 34) and “that day” (v. 36). He reasons, “The coming tribulation . . . was to come upon ‘this generation’ and was to be foreshadowed by certain signs. . . . But the Second Advent was to be at ‘that’ far day and hour.”[56] Based on a contrast between “this” and “that” Gentry separates the time between the tribulation and the Second Coming.[57] Futurists, it seems, are not the only ones who teach postponement! The contention is not over whether events are delayed, but over which events are delayed. Preterists like Gentry espouse a “two comings” theory—one in A.D. 70 and the other at the end of this age.

Yet the prophetic scenario Gentry devises—that the tribulation and the personal and physical Second Advent are now separated by two thousand years—contradicts Jesus’ statement that His return will follow the tribulation without delay: “Immediately [Εὐθέως] after the tribulation of those days . . . they will see the Son of Man coming” (vv. 29-30).[58]

The Lord’s change of pronouns from “you” to “those” in verses 15-16 implies a relevance of His words and warnings to people beyond the generation He immediately addressed.[59] As with the aorist tense and the subjunctive mood of the verbs, and the preposition “until,” these differing pronouns show that the time for the fulfillment of Jesus’ predictions is yet future.

A Rhetorical Device

Shank contends that Jesus addressed the apostles “not merely as individuals, but as representatives of the entire body of the faithful from that time until the end of the age and the return of Jesus.”[60] Shank finds precedent for the manner in which Jesus spoke to His generation in the way in which Moses addressed his generation (Deut. 4:25-31). Before the Conquest Moses predicted Israel’s future dispersion and restoration. Though the predicted events would not happen to the nation until centuries later, Moses, a true prophet, spoke to his generation (“you”) as if the dispersion would happen to them.

Just as Moses addressed his generation in continuity with future generations, so Jesus addressed His murderers in solidarity with past generations. In answer to their claim that they would not have killed God’s prophets if they had lived in past generations, Jesus accused the Pharisees of murdering Zechariah (“whom you murdered,” Matt. 23:35). Obviously, then, the pronoun “you” and its variations can assume a transgenerational meaning.

Jesus’ interweaving of various designations—“you,” “many,” “one another,” “most people’s,” “the one,” “whoever,” “those,” and “those days”—suggests that the fulfillment of the predicted events was indefinite.

The Contextual Data

“This Generation” And The Created Order

Jesus linked the duration of His predictions (i.e., “all these things,” Matt. 24:34) to the created order (v. 35). In contrast to “heaven and earth,” which will “pass away,” Jesus’ prophetic words “shall not pass away.” This fact links the duration of Jesus’ prophecies to an age, not decades.

If Jesus had meant to say that His predictions were on a fast track to be fulfilled within thirty or forty years, why did He certify that His predictions would run contemporaneously with the created order of heaven and earth? Jesus intended His promises in the Olivet Discourse to be coextensive with the created order “until” (whenever, εὐθέως) the end comes.[61] When that time comes, the created order will become chaotic (v. 29). The fact that Jesus employed the analogy of the created order to certify His predictions indicates that He viewed the possibility for the fulfillment of “all these things” to be beyond any immediate temporal constraints.

Parables For The Age

In His parables Jesus implied there was to be a time gap before the coming eschatological judgment. In the parable of the evil slave, the servant thought, “My master is not coming for a long time” (24:48). Jesus enjoined the ten virgins to watch and prepare “while the bridegroom was delaying” (25:5). In the parable of the talents Jesus encouraged faithful working, because “after a long time” His servants would be called into account (v. 19). The emphasis on delay in these parables is consistent with the indefiniteness Jesus communicated about the time of His return. To restrict the application of these parables to a few decades in the first century does injustice to the parables.

The Theological Data

Though moderate preterism allows for a future physical presence of Christ on the earth, radical preterism does not.[62] Radical preterists do not anticipate a future advent of Jesus because they hold that Jesus returned spiritually in the first century. And what was imminent and immediate to Jesus’ generation then cannot be imminent and impending to generations today. However, the prospect of the Lord’s imminent return should ever remain a stimulus to holy living and service until He comes (1 John 3:2-3).[63] Many New Testament passages anticipate the personal and physical coming of Jesus Christ.[64] In other words just as Jesus was historically and corporeally present on earth in the past, He is physically present in heaven now, and one day He will be present on earth again (Acts 1:11). If the Second Coming means anything at all, it means that.

The Historical Data

The Lord’s predictions extend beyond the world of the first century. References to catastrophic global and cosmic events dominate the Olivet Discourse, and from the moment Jesus gave this discourse some of the predictions needed time to develop. As Carson observed, “Jesus’ warnings presuppose that a substantial period of time will elapse before the end comes. It takes time for nation to rise against nation, and it takes time for the gospel to be preached in the whole world.”[65] These events require more time than a few decades.

Jesus explained that His coming would be sudden, like that of a thief (24:42-44). In another context Jesus affirmed that He is “coming as a thief” (Rev. 16:15). To avoid detection when they commit thievery, robbers do not give advance notice of when they will arrive. They enter and then escape as quickly from the scene of the crime as they can. In light of the fact that thieves do not “advertise” their coming, France remarks, “It is astonishing that some Christians can still attempt to work out the date of the parousia!”[66]

If Jesus returned in the first century, His thievery metaphor presents a problem for preterism. The solar system remains intact; history is ongoing; the world is still looking for evidence that Jesus has returned (Matt. 24:29-31; 2 Pet. 3:3-4); the judgment of the end has not come (Matt. 25:31-46); and God has not yet become “all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28).

If Jesus returned in the first century, history has no record or evidence of the event. The preterist view that Jesus returned in judgment in A.D. 70 contradicts the Lord’s testimony that on His return “all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory” (Matt. 24:30; cf. Rev. 1:7).

Conclusion

The atheist Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) stumbled over Jesus’ “this generation” prediction. Russell viewed Jesus as a failed prophet because He did not return during the life span of His Jewish contemporaries.[67]

Attempting to vindicate Jesus’ words in the face of skepticism like that of Russell’s, preterism offers the view that everything or almost everything predicted by Jesus was fulfilled when Jerusalem was desolated.[68] But as seen, the lexical, grammatical, and contextual factors do not indicate that “this generation” specifies a fulfillment in A.D. 70.

J. C. Ryle (1816-1900) stated that he found the subject of the Second Coming to be “an entirely different subject” from that of Jerusalem’s destruction.[69] And so it is.

Jesus set no timetable for His return. He plainly stated that “of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone” (Matt. 24:36). “You do not know which day your Lord is coming” (v. 42). “Be on the alert then, for you do not know the day nor the hour” (25:13). When Jesus’ disciples later pressed Him about when He would restore the kingdom to Israel, He said, “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority” (Acts 1:7).

Although some preterists (and also some futurists), claim to know the time of Jesus’ return, this is knowledge that even the Lord denied He possessed. As to the establishment of His earthly kingdom Jesus left the timing of it indefinite and unknown. Preterism’s error is that it closes what Jesus and the Synoptic writers left open. Consistent futurism does not need to configure a time for Jesus’ return. As the New Testament often affirms, Jesus may come anytime (e.g., Matt. 16:27; 24:44, 47; Luke 12:40; John 14:3; Acts 1:11; Phil. 3:20; 1 Thess. 4:16; 5:2; Titus 2:13; 2 Pet. 3:10; Rev. 1:7; 16:15).

Notes

1. R. C. Sproul distinguishes between “radical preterism” (all New Testament prophecies have been realized) and “moderate preterism” (many but not all New Testament prophecies have been realized) (The Last Days according to Jesus [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998], 24).
2. The interpretation of Matthew 24:34 relates to several other texts foundational to preterism including Revelation 1:1, 3, 19; 3:10; 22:6-7, 10, 12, 20.
3. John Noē, Beyond the End Times: The Rest of the Greatest Story Ever Told (Bradford, PA: Preterist Resources, 1999), 111. Kenneth Gentry states, “This statement of Christ [in Matt. 24:34] is indisputably clear—and absolutely demanding of a first-century fulfillment of the events in the preceding verses, including the Great Tribulation (v. 21)” (see Thomas Ice and Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., The Great Tribulation: Past or Future? [Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999], 26-27). Sproul adds, “The central thesis of . . . all preterists is that the New Testament’s time-frame references with respect to the Parousia point to a fulfillment within the lifetime of at least some of Jesus’ disciples” (The Last Days according to Jesus, 25).
4. The word “parousia” (παρουσία) means “presence,” that is, the personal and physical presence of Jesus Christ when He returns to the earth (Matt. 24:27, 37, 39). “The end” (τὸ τέλος) designates the eschatological “end” associated with Jesus’ coming (vv. 6, 14).
5. Mark 13:3 states that the questioners were Peter, James, John, and Andrew.
6. C. E. B. Cranfield notes that the disciples thought “the destruction of the Temple would be part of a complex of events leading to the End” (The Gospel according to St. Mark [New York: Cambridge University Press, 1959], 393). A. B. Bruce also saw that “the questioners took for granted that all three things went together; destruction of the temple, advent of the Son of Man, end of the current age” (“The Gospels according to Matthew, Mark and Luke,” in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicole [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970], 1:289). John Calvin wrote that the disciples thought of “the coming of Christ and the end of the world with the overthrow of the temple as inseparable events” (A Harmony of the Gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke, trans. A. W. Morrison, ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972], 1:75).
7. One article governs “coming” and “end” (τῆς σῆς παρουσίας καὶ συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος). The second question can therefore be translated, “What will be the sign of Your coming and end of the age?” Craig L. Blomberg states, “By not repeating the definite article (‘the’) before ‘end of the age,’ Matthew’s rendering of Jesus’ words is most likely linking the coming of Christ and the end of the age together as one event (Granville Sharp’s rule)” (Matthew [Nashville: Broadman, 1992], 353). By inserting the article “the” before “end of the age,” several English versions (KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, and NRSV) are not acknowledging Sharp’s rule.
8. Though Luke mentioned the destruction of Jerusalem (Luke 21:20-24), this emphasis is not in Matthew and Mark.
9. D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 8:491. J. Stuart Russell concurs. He wrote, “So intermingled, however, are the allusions—now to Jerusalem and now to the world at large; now to Israel and now to the human race; now to events close at hand and now to events indefinitely remote;—that to distinguish and allocate the several references and topics, is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible” (TheParousia [1887; new ed., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983], 55).
10. The Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24-25 is one sermon. However, a break exists at the end of Matthew 24:14, with verses 4-14 describing the general course of the age and verses 15-31 introducing the events of the tribulation and Jesus’ return. This division is supported by Matthew’s use of the adverb “then” (τότε) in the final clause of verse 14 (“then the end will come”). Τότε is “a correlative adv[erb] of time” that introduces “that which follows in time” (Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., rev. and ed. Frederick W. Danker [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000], 1012.
11. “The end” is used in two ways. First, in English “the end” can communicate the terminus ad quem to which faithfulness and perseverance by Jesus’ disciples is encouraged. In this instance forms of the Greek word τέλος without the article are employed (e.g., Matt. 10:22; 24:13; Mark 13:13; John 13:1). Second, “the end” can refer to end-time events. In this case the Gospels use variants of τέλος with the definite article (τῆς συντελείας in Matt. 13:40, 49; 24:3; 28:20; and τὸ τέλος in 24:6, 13-14; Mark 13:7; Luke 21:9). In Matthew 24:13 Jesus exhorted believers to live faithfully to “the end” (τέλος without the article). And in verse 14 He announced that “the end” (το τέλος) will follow the worldwide preaching of the gospel. Based on the recurrence of the same English word in these two verses, readers might mistakenly presume that the disciples would live to observe the eschatological end. As R. T. France writes, “To the end does not necessarily point to the apocalyptic consummation (as though those who have lived earlier cannot be saved!), but is a standard phrase for ‘right through it’ (it lacks the article, which would be needed, as in vv. 6 and 14, to refer to ‘the End’).” Regarding Matthew 10:23 France concludes, “The whole verse is repeated from 10:22, where it clearly related to the contemporary situation of the mission to Israel, not to ‘the close of the age’ ” (Matthew [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985], 339).
12. In Matthew 23:36 Jesus announced, “Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.” The verb “will come” (ἥξει) can refer to coming divine judgment, and “has the force of a perfect” (J. Schneider, “hēkø [to come],” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, abridged in one volume by Geoffrey W. Bromiley [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985], 306). A perfect tense indicates “the present state of affairs resulting from past action” (Maximilian Zerwick, Biblical Greek [Rome: Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici, 1963], 96). This promised judgment on Jerusalem guarantees the coming judgment in the end times (Matt. 24:50-25:46).
13. Luke mentioned the “desolation” of Jerusalem, but in the context of ongoing Gentile supremacy “until [ἄχρι οὗ] the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled” (Luke 21:24). The desolation (i.e., trampling under foot by Gentiles) of Jerusalem is ongoing, thereby indicating that the present age is still in “the times of the Gentiles.” Those times commenced when Babylon conquered Jerusalem in 586 B.C., they continued during the Roman occupation of the Holy Land at the time of Christ, and they will culminate at the Lord’s return. The Roman devastation of Jerusalem marked no terminus ad quem for the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse prophecy. Instead the Roman destruction of Jerusalem affirmed the ongoing Gentile dominance over Jerusalem during the interadvent age. As it relates to God’s prophetic plan, the preposition/pronoun “until” (ἄχρι οὗ) denotes that the Gentile domination of Jerusalem can last for hundreds if not thousands of years (for this inference of ἄχρι οὗ see Acts 7:18; Rom. 11:25; 1 Cor. 11:26; 15:25; Gal. 3:19; Heb. 3:13; and Rev. 2:25). This further contradicts the preterist notion that everything Jesus predicted in the Olivet Discourse demanded an immediate fulfillment.
14. “Lk. frames his discourse to bear mainly on the destruction of Jerusalem.” But as recorded by Mark and Matthew, “the discourse . . . speaks neither of temple nor city being destroyed” (Alan Hugh McNeile, The Gospel according to St. Matthew [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1915], 343-44). Regarding Jesus’ answer, H. Wayne House and Thomas D. Ice observe, “The first question is answered in Luke 21:20-24, since Luke is the one who specializes in the events pertaining to A.D. 70. Luke records Jesus’ warning about the soon-to-come destruction of Jerusalem—the days of vengeance. The second and third questions [combined by one article; see n. 7] are answered in Matthew 24” (Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse? [Portland, OR: Multnomah, 1988], 293-94).
15. As John F. Walvoord noted, Matthew 24:5-14 does not necessarily record signs of the end. He said this passage “deals with events which are not signs of the end, but only signs of progress. . . . History,” he wrote, “clearly supports the view that all of these things have in large measure characterized [and continue to characterize] the entire age” (“Christ’s Olivet Discourse on the Time of the End,” Bibliotheca Sacra 128 [July–September 1971]: 208-9). Alfred Plummer also wrote that Matthew 24:4-14 describes “events which must precede the End” (TheGospel according to St. Matthew, reprint [Minneapolis: James Family Christian, n.d.], 330).
16. See Darrell L. Bock, Luke, Volume 2: 9:51-24:53, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 1666.
17. Russell, TheParousia, 87 (italics his).
18. Ibid.
19. Hank Hanegraaff writes that “ ‘this generation’ appears with surprising regularity in the Gospels, and it always applies to Jesus’ contemporaries” (The Apocalypse Code [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2007], 77, italics added).
20. Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 191-92 (italics theirs).
21. William F. Arndt, The Gospel according to St. Luke (St. Louis: Concordia, 1956), 426. Though Lutheran, Arndt provides a dispensational meaning of “this generation.”
22. A textual note in the NIV of Matthew 24:34 suggests that “generation” may be translated “race.”
23. In the present Western culture an equivalent meaning would be “the Baby Boomer” generation or “Gen-X.”
24. “Jesus clearly says that ‘all these things’ will occur before ‘this generation’ passes away” (Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion [Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1992], 162, italics his).
25. The early dating of Revelation (i.e., during Nero’s reign, A.D. 54-68) contradicts the traditional dating of the book as written in the reign of the Roman Emperor Domitian (A.D. 81-96). Assuming the early date, Gentry writes that “it would seem certain that the theme of Revelation deals with Christ’s Judgment-Coming upon the generation of those Jews who crucified Him” (Before Jerusalem Fell [Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989], 131, italics his). However, it is difficult to see how the A.D. 70 generation of Jews would have welcomed a so-called “coming” that devastated them.
26. Thomas Ice points out the inconsistency of futurists who attempt to date prophetic events. Such date setting is the method of historicism, not futurism (“Back to the Future: Keeping the Future in the Future,” in When the Trumpet Sounds, ed. Thomas Ice and Timothy Demy [Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1995], 19).
27. Futurist Hal Lindsey identified Israel’s reconstitution as a nation in May 1948 as the fulfillment of Jesus’ fig-tree parable and the signal event from which to calculate the time of the end (i.e., within a “generation,” Matt. 24:34). But since six decades of time have elapsed since May 1948, Lindsey’s failed interpretation is obvious (Hal Lindsey with C. C. Carlson, The Late Great Planet Earth [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970], 53-54). Tim LaHaye also places himself in the same corner. Saying that a generation extends for one hundred years, he calculated that the Second Coming will occur between the years 2031 and 2050 (Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, Are We Living in the End Times? [Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1999], 60).
28. Evald Lövestam, Jesus and “This Generation” (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1995), 8. Lövestam finds perspective for the meaning of γενεά from the Hebrew word for generation, דּוֹר. Robert L. Thomas notes that “generation” refers to “a kind of people Jesus encountered at his first advent and also to the same kind of people who rebelled against God’s leadership throughout the Old Testament” (“The Place of Imminence in Recent Eschatological Systems,” in Looking into the Future, ed. David W. Baker [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001], 204). Another noted, “The use of ‘generation’ by Jesus expresses his comprehensive purpose: he aims at the whole people and is conscious of their solidarity in sin” (F. Büchsel, et al., “geneav [descent],” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, abridged ed., 114).
29. Lövestam, Jesus and “This Generation,” 102.
30. Thomas, “The Place of Imminence in Recent Eschatological Systems,” 204.
31. Regarding its frequent occurrence in the Gospels Henry Alford notes that γενεά has a “pregnant meaning, implying that the character of one generation stamps itself upon the race” (The Greek Testament, rev. Everett F. Harrison [Chicago: Moody, 1968], 1:244, italics his).
32. Lövestam, Jesus and “This Generation,” 85.
33. Leon Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 612.
34. Luke Timothy Johnson, The Gospel of Luke (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1991), 328.
35. Susan M. Rieske, “What Is the Meaning of ‘This Generation’ in Matthew 23:36?” Bibliotheca Sacra 165 (April–June 2008): 225 (italics hers).
36. Russell, The Parousia, 60.
37. Robert H. Mounce, Matthew (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 228 (italics his).
38. Daniel B. Wallace states that the indicative mood “is the mood of assertion, or presentation of certainty” (Greek Grammar beyond the Basics [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996], 448 [italics his]). In Matthew 23:36 the future indicative is employed. Jesus said, “Truly I say to you, all these things shall come [ἥξει, i.e., ‘be present’] upon this generation” (cf. 24:14). This is not the same verb, tense, or mood as in Matthew 24:34.
39. I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 780.
40. The construction consists of an emphatic double negative (οὐ μὴ) plus the aorist subjunctive. Of this combination Wallace notes that “while οὐ + the indicative denies a certainty, οὐ μη + the subjunctive denies a potentiality” (Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 468, italics his).
41. Buist Fanning states that the aorist tense “presents an occurrence in summary, viewed as a whole from the outside, without regard for the internal make-up of the occurrence” (Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek [Oxford: Clarendon, 1990], 97, italics his).
42. William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 281, italics his. The subjunctive “indicates what may take place” (James A. Brooks and Carlton L. Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek [Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1979], 107, italics added).
43. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 461 (italics his). He also notes that “the subjunctive is frequently used after a temporal adverb (or improper preposition) meaning until” (ibid., 479, italics his). See also Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek, 400-401.
44. In parallel passages the verb παρέρχομαι occurs in the future indicative (Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33).
45. In announcing in Matthew 23:26 the judgment that was to befall Jerusalem, the verb is in the future tense and the indicative mood: “Truly I say to you, all these things will come [ἥξει] upon this generation.” This places the time of Jerusalem’s coming judgment as future-definite. This contrasts with the use of the aorist tense and subjunctive mood in 24:34 (παρέλθῃ), which marks the fulfillment as future-indefinite. This verbal contrast suggests that Jesus did not view the coming destruction of Jerusalem (23:36) as concomitant with the fulfillment of “all these things” (24:34). The former was to be “coming-definite,” and the latter was to be “coming-indefinite.” With the exception of a single instance in the Synoptic Gospels (Luke 11:50), the future tense and the indicative mood are employed to indicate coming judgment on the Jews who were contemporary with Jesus. If the Synoptic writers had intended that Jesus’ contemporaries would witness the end times, they might have written the verbs “pass away” and “take place” in the future tense and indicative mood. But they did not. The Gospel writers employed the aorist tense and subjunctive mood (παρέλθῃ . . . γένηται) when projecting the coming end times (Matt. 24:34).
46. Alford, The Greek Testament, 1:245.
47. Preterists argue that in verse 36 Jesus denied knowing the “day and hour” of His return, but that He knew He would return in that “generation.” Robert L. Thomas argues that any ignorance of the lesser assumes ignorance of the greater. “The day or the hour includes references to the week, month, year, and period of years that include the day and hour” (“A Classical Dispensationalist View of Revelation,” in Four Views on the Book of Revelation, ed. C. Marvin Pate [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998], 228).
48. Rieske, “What Is the Meaning of ‘This Generation’ in Matthew 23:36?” 226 (italics hers).
49. This combination of preposition and particle (ἕως ἂν) occurs twenty times in the Greek New Testament (Matt. 2:13; 5:18 [twice], 26; 10:11, 23; 12:20; 16:28; 22:44; 23:39; 24:34; Mark 6:10; 9:1; 12:36; Luke 9:27; 20:43; 21:32; Acts 2:35; 1 Cor. 4:5; Heb. 1:3). In every instance the words indicate a temporal hiatus.
50. H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Toronto: Macmillan, 1955), pars. 228, 259-60. Preterists say the time period is closed. However, the particle ἂν marks it as open (i.e., “whenever”). Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich state, “In temporal clauses ἄν is found w[ith] the subjunct[ive] when an event is to be described which can and will occur, but whose occurrence cannot yet be assumed w[ith] certainty” (AGreek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 57). Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida note that ἄν is a marker “of the possibility of any number of occurrences of some event—‘ever’ (wherever, whatever, whoever, however)” (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains [New York: United Bible Societies, 1989], 1:669). According to preterism the period for the fulfillment of all things is past. But the particle ἄν (“whenever”) makes it yet future.
51. When used with the aorist tense and subjunctive mood, ἕως denotes “that the commencement of an event is dependant on circumstances” (Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, AGreek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 222-23). What is the circumstance surrounding Jerusalem’s sighting of Jesus again? Obviously the Son of Man’s coming again and the city’s blessing of Him. This prophecy of Jesus remains unfulfilled.
52. Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah: New Updated Edition (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993), 773.
53. Mark varies from Matthew and Luke by using μέχρις ου instead of ἕως ἂν. I. Howard Marshall comments, “The thrust of the saying may be either that the End is sure to come before the passing away of this generation (i.e. the date is limited) or that the End is sure to come as this generation will continue to exist, or that this generation can be sure that the last events have begun and will be brought to a consummation. The last of these three possibilities gives the best sense” (The Gospel of Luke [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978], 780). When combined with verbs in the subjunctive mood, the indefiniteness communicated by the particle ἂν eliminates the preterist option Marshall mentions first.
54. For example Hanegraaff writes, “Little wonder then that all who read Christ’s Olivet Discourse—whether skeptic or seeker—immediately presume that when Jesus uses the pronoun you, he is directly and obviously addressing a first century audience. When someone attempts to convince them otherwise, their baloney detectors should immediately register full” (Hanegraaff, The Apocalypse Code, 86). See also Dave Hunt v. Gary DeMar, “Debate: Are We Living in the Last Days?” CD050 (compact disc) (Bend, OR: The Berean Call, 2002). The pronoun “you” occurs eigh-teen times in Matthew 24:4-44.
55. Other designations occur numerous times in Matthew 24. They include “those,” “they,” and “the elect.”
56. Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, 162-63.
57. To protect the accuracy of the Lord’s prediction that He would come within a generation Gentry argues that Matthew 24:30 describes “not a physical, visible coming, but a judgment-coming upon Jerusalem” (The Great Tribulation, 60). Yet he also holds “to a future, glorious, public, physical return of Christ that will conclude temporal history” (ibid., 198). In common with dispensationalists Gentry espouses a “two-comings-of-Jesus” eschatology, something many Reformed theologians oppose.
58. The adverb εὐθέως means “at once, immediatelyMt 4:20, 22; 8:3; 13:5; 14:31” (Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, AGreek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 320, italics theirs).
59. Preterists accuse futurists of rendering Jesus’ words irrelevant to the generation He addressed. They claim that only their interpretation makes the sermon relevant to Jesus’ generation. But this criticism cuts both ways. If “all these things” were fulfilled in that generation, then what is the relevance of the entire sermon to believers today?
60. Robert Shank, Until the Coming of Messiah and His Kingdom (Springfield, MO: Westcott, 1982), 367-68.
61. Noē, a preterist, proposes that believers are already in the new creation (2 Pet. 3:10-13). He states, “The world is never, I repeat never-ever, going to end. We live in a never-ending world” (Beyond the End Times, 45, 63). But he makes this assertion in spite of Isaiah’s statement that “the earth will wear out like a garment” (Isa. 51:6). If people are already living in the new heavens and the new earth, Jesus’ prophetic words in Matthew 24:35 are now obsolete.
62. Noē, Beyond the End Times, 125-29.
63. Imminency means that the Lord’s coming is impending, that is, it is likely to occur at any moment.
64. Passages highlighting Jesus’ return include 1 Corinthians 1:7; 4:5; 15:51-52; 16:22; Philippians 3:20; 4:5; 1 Thessalonians 1:10; 2 Thessalonians 3:10-12; Titus 2:13; James 5:7-9; 1 John 2:28; and Revelation 3:11; 22:7, 12, 17, 20.
65. D. A. Carson, God with Us (Ventura, CA: Regal, 1985), 141 (italics his).
66. France, Matthew, 349. France’s criticism is applicable to preterists as well as some futurists.
67. Bertrand Russell wrote that some of Jesus’ statements “do not seem to be very wise. For one thing, He certainly thought that His Second Coming would occur in clouds of glory before the death of all the people who were living at that time” (Why I Am Not a Christian [New York: Simon & Schuster, 1957], 16).
68. Sproul, The Last Days according to Jesus, 12-13; and Hanegraaff, Apocalypse Code, 75-76.
69. J. C. Ryle, The True Christian (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978), 203.

The Unspeakable Things That Happened In Unit 731

The Untold African Slave Revolt Against Their Arab Masters: The Zanj Reb...

The US Government Hid This About The Vietnam War (Warning* Mature Audien...

Bizarre Government Documents Reveal America's Darkest Secrets

These Documents Expose MI6's MOST Horrifying Secrets

This Genocide Was Too Evil To Comprehend (Warning* Mature Audiences Only)

Exposing The Diabolical Atrocities Of Francisco Franco Of Spain

BIGGEST American War Crime Cover-Up Of The Vietnam War (Warning* Mature ...

Here's Why England Was HATED By The Irish People

A Day In The Life Of A Slave On An African Slave Ship

These Documents Expose Mossad's MOST Horrifying Secrets

The Unspeakable Things That Happened In The Armenian Genocide

Exposing North Korea's Diabolical Atrocities

The Unspeakable Things Pope Sixtus IV Did During His Reign

What China DOESN'T Want You To Know About Its Past

The Unspeakable Things The Bolsheviks Did During Their Reign

The Unspeakable Things That Happened To Christians In Japan

Assyrian Genocide: A Fate Worse Than Death

Ishmael’s Assassination Of Gedaliah: Echoes Of The Saul-David Story In Jeremiah 40:7–41:18

By Gary E. Yates

[Gary E. Yates is Associate Professor of Old Testament at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary in Lynchburg, Va.]

When one reads the book of Jeremiah, it might appear as if the account of Ishmael ben Nethaniah’s assassination of Gedaliah, the governor of Judah, in Jer 40–41 is nothing more than a tragic footnote or addendum to the story of the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians. Both Ishmael and Gedaliah are rather minor figures in the history of ancient Israel who appear only briefly on the pages of the Hebrew Bible.[1] Nevertheless, the narrator of Jer 40–41 provides a much more detailed record of the events surrounding Ishmael and Gedaliah than the parallel account in 2 Kgs 25:22–26.[2] In addition, the narrator in Jeremiah infuses these characters with theological significance beyond their apparent importance by engaging in a form of intertextuality in which Ishmael’s murder of Gedaliah represents a reversal of the earlier and more famous story of the conflict between Saul and David.[3] The purpose of this article is to develop the intertextual connections between the story of Gedaliah/Ishmael and the earlier accounts of Saul/ David and to demonstrate how the narrative in Jer 40–41 stands as part of the larger rhetorical emphasis in the book of Jeremiah on the rejection of the historical house of David.[4]

In this intertextual reading of the conflict between Gedaliah and Ishmael, Gedaliah emerges as a Saul-figure who replaces the Davidic scion as the divinely appointed leader. Ishmael is of royal blood (מורע מלוכה, 41:1) and thus naturally represents the David-figure in the story. However, the irony behind the narrator’s allusions to Saul and David is that Gedaliah more closely resembles David, while Ishmael as a member of the house of David acts in the manner of King Saul by attempting to use violence to subvert a divinely sanctioned change in leadership.

I. Ishmael and Gedaliah: The Collapse of the House of David

The collapse of the house of David in the book of Jeremiah culminates with the character of Ishmael ben Nethaniah. Ishmael continues the pattern of Davidic disobedience reflected in Judah’s final four rulers: Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah.[5] As Applegate explains, the actions of Ishmael in the assassination of Gedaliah “complete the picture of the House of David’s inimical opposition to Yahweh’s purposes in both Babylonian supremacy and Judean restoration.”[6]

The result of this persistent royal disobedience, accompanied by the rebellion of the nation at large (cf 37:1–2), is that Yahweh has decreed the temporary subjugation of Judah to Babylon and the removal of the Davidic ruler from the throne. In fact, the book of Jeremiah engages in some of the most shocking rhetoric in all of the Hebrew Bible to present the full force of this theopolitical perspective, suggesting that Babylon has replaced Jerusalem as the city of shalom (cf. 29:4–7, 16–19) and that Nebuchadnezzar has replaced the Davidic king as Yahweh’s divinely appointed ruler and “servant” (עבר) (cf. 25:9; 27:6; 43:10).[7] Stulman explains concerning this viewpoint in Jeremiah, “As Yahweh’s servant or vassal, Nebuchadnezzar cannot be opposed. Non-compliance to his decrees is denounced as false and viewed as direct insubordination.”[8] This arrangement is temporary (cf. 25:11; 27:7; 50–51), and Nebuchadnezzar only retains this status as long as he serves as the instrument of Yahweh’s wrath against sinful Judah (cf 21:2, 4, 7; 25:9, 11, 12; 27:6, 8, 12). Nevertheless, any attempt on the part of Judah to circumvent this subjugation through political or military maneuvering will only serve to bring the nation under further divine judgment (cf. 27:12–15; 34:1–7; 37:6–10; 38:2–3, 17–23).

It appears that Ishmael’s assassination of Gedaliah is precisely an attempt to overturn this divine decree of subjugation and to restore the old order of Davidic rule over Judah.[9] The murder of Gedaliah is not only a senseless act of violence but also represents an attack on the divinely appointed leadership of Judah in that: (1) Gedaliah is appointed by Nebuchadnezzar (cf. 40:5, 7, 11; 41:2, 10); and (2) Nebuchadnezzar is Yahweh’s “servant” (עבר).[10] In terms of Saul-David intertextuality it is now a member of the family of David who acts the part of Saul and carries out an attack on the Lord’s appointed ruler. It is now the house of David that is rejected and replaced by other leadership.

As noted above, Gedaliah’s leadership in the aftermath of the fall of Jerusalem enjoys the divine sanction that had belonged to the house of David. Additionally, there is a harmony between the prophet Jeremiah and Gedaliah that did not exist between the prophet and the final kings in the line of David. Gedaliah espouses the same “serve Babylon that it may go well for you” ideology (cf. 40:9) found in the preaching of Jeremiah (cf 27:12; 42:10–12).[11] The Babylonians entrust the prophet Jeremiah to Gedaliah’s care (39:14), and the patronyms of Gedaliah (ben Ahikam ben Shaphan) (39:14; 40:7–8) reveal that Gedaliah is a member of the family of Shaphan that supports and protects Jeremiah at several critical moments during his ministry (cf. 26:24; 29:3; 36:10–14).[12]

Conditions in the land under Gedaliah’s leadership are also described in largely favorable terms. Gedaliah offers words of comfort and reassurance, with the call to “settle” (ישׁב) and the promise that things will “go well” (יטב) for the people of the land (40:8–9), seeming to anticipate in some form the blessings of secure settlement and prosperity promised in the portrayal of Israel’s future restoration in Jer 30–33.[13] The Judeans who have been scattered to foreign lands by the Babylonian assault return because of their confidence in Gedaliah (40:11–12). Their “return” (שׁוב, 40:12) foreshadows the ultimate “return” (שׁוב) promised by the prophet.[14] The future era of restoration will include agricultural bounty (cf. 31:5, 12–13), and under Gedaliah, the people enjoy “an abundance of wine and summer fruit” (40:10, 12).[15]

This hyperbolic language with reference to conditions in the aftermath of exile signifies that Gedaliah has replaced David as the divinely approved leader. Judeans return to the homeland from Moab, Ammon, and Edom to place themselves under the authority of Gedaliah, the very places that David himself had subjected in expanding Israel’s territory and establishing a fledgling empire (cf. 2 Sam 8–10). In Jeremiah’s oracles concerning Israel’s future salvation, the blessings of “return/restoration” (שׁוב) are associated with a new David (cf 23:5–6; 30:8–9; 33:15–16), but in the immediate aftermath of the exile, the incipient enjoyment of the blessings of restoration is realized under the leadership of Gedaliah.

The positive tone of the story disappears with the intrusion of the Davidic figure, Ishmael ben Nethaniah. Ishmael is among the returning Judean army officers scattered by the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem who gather around Gedaliah subsequent to his appointment (40:7–8). Ishmael presents himself to Gedaliah, in much the same way that David himself originally served in the house of Saul(cf. 1 Sam 16:1–13).[16] Ishmael is first mentioned as part of a potential conspiracy against Gedaliah in 40:14–15, and then, almost as if revealing a clandestine secret, the narrator eventually discloses in 41:1 that Ishmael is a member of the royal family[17] The battle lines are drawn between Ishmael, from the house of David, and Gedaliah, who serves as a representative of the new order under the hegemony of Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians.

II. Ishmael and Gedaliah: The Overturning of the Story of Saul and David

The first direct connection with the Saul-David story in Jer 40–41 is the fact that Gedaliah is appointed to rule over Judah at Mizpah (40:7–10), which also served as the locale for Saul’s anointing as Israel’s first king (cf. 1 Sam 10:17–27).[18] In addition, the foreign ruler who helps to inspire Ishmael’s conspiracy against Gedaliah is Baalis, the king of the Ammonites (41:14), and Ishmael eventually flees to the land of Ammon when recognizing the futility of further resistance against the Babylonians (41:15).[19] David himself had close ties with Ammon during the early part of his reign.[20] The alliance of Ishmael and Baalis against Gedaliah recalls the original alliance of David and the king of Ammon against the house of Saul. Saul’s defeat of the Ammonites was also his first important military victory (cf 1 Sam 11:1–11).

Events are lining up in exactly the same manner as the original power struggle between Saul and David. However, in the conflict of Jer 40–41, it is Gedaliah who refuses to kill, while the Davidic figure, Ishmael, embraces the very forms of violence that David eschewed in his original conflict with Saul. When warned of Ishmael’s conspiracy against him, Gedaliah refuses the opportunity to strike first and put his enemy to death, just as David did when he had the opportunity to kill Saul (40:15–16; cf. 1 Sam 24:1–15; 26:1–16). Gedaliah refuses to act even though Johanan offers to strike down his enemy, just as Abishai had offered to finish off Saul for David (1 Sam 26:8).

Ishmael and his men kill Gedaliah in an especially treacherous manner by gaining his confidence through a shared meal and then slaying him at the table (41:3–5).[21] In addition to murdering Gedaliah, Ishmael also kills the garrison of Babylonian soldiers and “all the Jews” with Gedaliah at Mizpah (41:3).[22] Holladay comments on the serious breach of the ancient Near Eastern ethic of hospitality reflected in the brutal murder of Gedaliah by noting that “a host is bound to entertain and protect his guest (cf. Gen 19:1–3; Judg 19:15), and by the same token the guest is under the benevolent protection of his host.”[23] Saul had similarly planned to kill David, who was a guest at his table, and then angrily tried to kill his son Jonathan when he learned that Jonathan had assisted David’s escape (1 Sam 20, esp. vv. 1, 24–32).[24]

David separated himself from any such actions of deceit and treachery against the house of Saul.[25] When David’s officer Joab murders Abner after pretending to desire a private conference with him, David calls for divine vengeance against Joab (2 Sam 3:22–30). When the sons of Rimmon kill and behead Ishbosheth while he lies sleeping in his bed, David has them executed (2 Sam 4:1–12). By killing Gedaliah, Ishmael reveals himself to be like Saul and unlike David in his presumptuous willingness to perform violence against God’s appointed ruler.[26] Ironically, Ishmael, unlike Saul, succeeds in killing Yahweh’s chosen leader but is ultimately unable to reverse Yahweh’s decree concerning the subjugation of the house of David.

Ishmael’s killing spree continues with the murder of seventy Israelite pilgrims coming from the north to Jerusalem for worship (41:1–9), which recalls Saul’s impious behavior in slaughtering the eighty-five priests of Yahweh at Nob (cf 1 Sam 22:17–23). Ishmael’s treacherous and deceptive nature is again evident as he gains the confidence of the worshippers by promising to lead them to Gedaliah (which he will!) and by sharing in their acts of mourning (41:6).[27] While the text is silent concerning the motives behind Ishmael’s murder of the pilgrims, the most plausible explanation is that Ishmael viewed the worshippers as loyal to Gedaliah.[28]

The culmination to the conflict between Gedaliah and Ishmael in Jer 40–41 also bears resemblance to the conclusion of the Saul-David story, with the reversal of the original event again being the emphasis of the narrator. Ishmael’s last desperate act involves the taking of Judean hostages at Mizpah, including the king’s daughters left behind in the land, perhaps in order to guarantee safe passage as he makes his way to refuge among the Ammonites (41:10). In the narrative of Samuel, the last recorded event before the account of the death of Saul and his sons involves the kidnapping of the wives and children of David and his men by the Amalekites (1 Sam 30:1–31). David and his men heroically overtake the Amalekites and recover their loved ones and possessions. However, in the Jeremiah narrative, it is now a member of the house of David who has become the kidnapper stealing the daughters of David. Johanan, the military officer who replaces Gedaliah in the struggle against Ishmael, is the one who becomes the rescuer, while Ishmael must flee in defeat and disgrace (41:11–15).

The site of the confrontation between Ishmael and Johanan—the pool of Gibeon—recalls yet another event near the end of the conflict between the houses of David and Saul. Following the death of Saul and his sons, an especially bloody episode occurs when Abner and Joab agree to have twelve supporters of David engage in hand-to-hand combat with twelve men of Saul. The end result is that all twenty-four men are killed at the pool of Gibeon (cf 2 Sam 2:8–16). In Jer 41, the pool of Gibeon, rather than a place of bloodshed, becomes a place of deliverance as Johanan and his men are able to rescue the hostages taken by Ishmael. In 2 Samuel, the stand-off at the pool of Gibeon is immediately followed by the defeat of Saul’s forces by David’s troops (2 Sam 2:17). It is Saul’s men, led by Abner, who must flee (2 Sam 2:29), because it is the house of David that is in ascendancy, while the house of Saul is in decline (2 Sam 3:1). The roles are reversed following the confrontation at the pool of Gibeon in Jer 41. There is now defeat for the house of David as Ishmael’s final act is flight to the Ammonites (41:15).

There are ultimately no victors in the triumph between Ishmael-Gedaliah/ Johanan narrated in Jer 40–41, a sad fact highlighted by the mention of two geographical locations—Bethlehem and Geruth Kimham—in 41:17, which also provide connection to the original story of David. Bethlehem is the hometown of David, the place of origin for the Davidic dynasty (1 Sam 16:1–13; cf Mic 5:2). The exact location of Geruth Kimham is unknown, but the name Kimham (כמהס) appears in the narrative recounting of David’s return to Israel to assume the throne after the rebellion of Absalom (cf. 2 Sam 19:37–40). Kimham is the name of a Davidic loyalist who crosses the Jordan River with David as he returns to the land, and the town Geruth Kimham most likely belonged to the portion of land given to Kimham as reward for his faithfulness to David.[29] Thus, in 2 Samuel, the name Kimham refers to a time of restoration when David returns to Jerusalem after the rise of a pretender to the throne. Ishmael has already fled the land, and there is no such victory for the house of David in the context of Jer 41. Geruth Kimham is further a point of departure for Johanan and his party as they also prepare to leave the land of Judah for Egypt (41:16–18; cf. 42:7–18; 43:1–7), bringing about a reversal of not only the story of David but also of the Exodus, Yahweh’s great act of redemption that had enabled Israel to take possession of the Promised Land.

III. Conclusion

The echoing of the Saul-David story in the account of Ishmael’s assassination of Gedaliah in Jer 40–41 highlights the irony in the reversal of fortunes for the house of David. It is as if Saul is now replacing David, and the blessings and promises associated with David’s rule over Israel are erased and forfeited as there is no longer a Davidic ruler on the throne. Just as David was Yahweh’s instrument to accomplish God’s rejection of the house of Saul, Gedaliah serves as God’s instrument in demonstrating his condemnation of the house of David.

These allusions to the Saul-David conflict serve to validate in part the divine judgment against the house of David in the book of Jeremiah. The house of David embodied in the figure of Ishmael reflects the same insubordination toward Yahweh and violent obsession with retaining power that had earlier necessitated the removal of the house of Saul from the privileged position of leadership.

The connection of Gedaliah and Ishmael to Saul and David also accentuates the covenantal crisis created by the removal of the Davidic ruler from the throne. The narrator in Jer 40–41 suggests that the houseof David experiences the same divine rejection that was the fate of the house of Saul (cf. 1 Sam 13:13–14; 15:1, 23, 26; 28:17), a startling and disturbing notion in light of Yahweh’s original promise to David that this very thing would never happen (cf. 2 Sam 7:15–16; Ps 89:30–37). The Saul-David intertextuality adds to the shock value of the story of Gedaliah and Ishmael and magnifies the national import of this episode. The book of Jeremiah ultimately resolves the crisis created by the apparent failure of the promises of the Davidic covenant by projecting a radical discontinuity between the present and the future for the house of David. Yahweh’s promises to the house of David remain in effect, but the new David promised for Israel’s future (cf. 23:5–6; 30:8–9, 18–21; 33:14–26) can only emerge after the complete dismantling of the historical house of David and the formation of a new covenant with Israel in which Yahweh will transform the nation so that both people and king will walk in his ways (cf. 31:31–34; 32:36–41). The account of Ishmael and Gedaliah is the sad final episode in this story of dismantling.

Notes

1. The assassination of Gedaliah, though, was of such import to the post-exilic community that it was commemorated as one of the fast days connected with national laments for the fall of Jerusalem (cf Zech 7:5; 8:19). See Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press), 504 n. 13. For seal and inscriptional evidence related to the characters of Gedaliah and Ishmael, see Bob Becking, “Inscribed Seals As Evidence for Biblical Israel? Jeremiah 40:7–41:15par example,” in Can a ‘History of Israel’ Be Written? (ed. Lester L. Grabbe; JSOTSup 245; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 65–83; and J. Andrew Dearman, “My Servants the Scribes: Composition and Context in Jeremiah 36, ” JBL 109 (1990): 412-13.
2. Gerald L. Keown, Pamela J. Scalise, and Thomas G. Smothers note that similarities between the two passages indicate that the shorter account in Kings “probably does provide the content source” for the Jeremiah narrative (Jeremiah 26–52 [WBC 27; Dallas: Word, 1995], 234). In several places, the wording of the two accounts is almost identical (cf. Jer 40:5 and 2 Kgs 25:22; Jer 40:7–10 and2 Kgs 25:23–24; Jer 41:1–3 and 2 Kgs 25:25; Jer 41:10 and 2 Kgs 25:26). However, the expanded nature of the narrative in Jer 40–41 demonstrates the independence of this account. Christopher R. Seitz also notes concerning Jer 40:7–41:18 that the “authenticity” of this narrative “on strictly literary grounds is generally upheld” (Theology in Conflict: Reactions to the Exile in the Book of Jeremiah [BZAW 176; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1989], 274). Scholars have long noted the “Deuteronomic” influence on the prose sections of the book of Jeremiah. See, for example, W Thiel, Die deuteronomistiche Redaktion von Jeremia 26–45 (WMANT 52; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1981). Concerning these Deuteronomic features in Jeremiah, Carolyn J. Sharp notes that one must ask, “[Does] the Jeremianic prose reflect originally Jeremianic material that has been thoroughly worked over by later Dtr traditionalists, or does it reflect material that was preserved and shaped by Jeremiah traditionalists who betray some familiarity with Dtr terminology and ideas?” (Prophecy and Ideology in Jeremiah: Struggles for Authority in the Deutero Jeremianic Prose [OTS; New York: T&T Clark, 2003], 6). The most plausible explanation of the relationship between the book of Jeremiah and the Deuteronomistic History is that the two works have had a mutual influence on each other. See Henri Cazelles, “Jeremiah and Deuteronomy,” in A Prophet to the Nations: Essays in Jeremiah Studies (ed. Leo G. Purdue and Brian W Kovacs; trans. L. G. Perdue; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1984), 89–111. The term “Deuteronomic” appears to describe accurately the general provenance of the Jeremianic prose tradition, though this terminology is not used in this study to imply discontinuity between the poetic and prose materials in the book of Jeremiah or to ignore the features that specifically distinguish the message of Jeremiah from that of the Deuteronomistic History For discussion of these unique features in the Jeremiah tradition, see J. G. McConville, Judgment and Promise: An Interpretation of the Book of Jeremiah (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1993).
3. In the field of literary criticism, the term intertextuality is used in diverse ways but refers in this study to the attempt to discover how a biblical text echoes, alludes to, or references other biblical texts and to explain the semantic and rhetorical significance behind these inner-biblical connections. As much as is possible, there is an attempt in this study to determine how the narrator in Jer 40–41 has referenced the story of David and Saul. For discussion of the various forms of inner-biblical allusions and exegesis found within the OT, see Esther Menn, “Inner-Biblical Exegesis in the Tanak,” in A History of Biblical Interpretation, Vol. 1: The Ancient Period (ed. Alan J. Hauser and Duane F Watson; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 55–79; Benjamin D. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998), 6–31; and Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 2–43. Richard B. Hays contrasts the “production-oriented” approach to intertextuality that is reflected in this study to a “text-oriented perspective,” in which the interpreter compares two or more texts that have no direct historical linkage (“Intertextuality: A Catchall Category or a Specific Methodology?” [paper presented at the annual meeting of the SBL, San Antonio, Tex., 21 November 2004]). In the “text-oriented” approach, the reader’s primary function is to create new meaning(s) for the text rather than to discern the meaning of the original writer. As an example of “text-oriented” intertextuality Hays cites Michael J. Gilmour’s recent Tangled Up in the Bible: Bob Dylan and Scripture (New York: Continuum, 2004).
4. This intertextual reading of chs. 40–43 is supported by the fact that earlier studies on the narrative materials in Jer 26–45 have recognized the use of other allusions to events/figures in OT history as part of a sustained rhetoric against the house of David. In ch. 26, Jehoiakim is compared unfavorably to Hezekiah and Josiah (cf 26:17–23). In addition, Jer 36 contains an implied comparison between Jehoiakim and Josiah that becomes evident when this chapter is read in light of 2 Kgs 22, another text dealing with a royal response to a previously unknown scroll claiming to be the word of Yahweh that warns of coming judgment. See Charles D. Isbell, “II Kings 22:3–23:24 and Jeremiah 36: A Stylistic Comparison,” JSOT8 (1978): 33-45. The interaction between Jeremiah and Zedekiah in chs. 27–29 and 37–39 appears to recall the earlier dialogue between Isaiah and Hezekiah during the Assyrian crisis more than a hundred years earlier. This intertextual connection condemns Zedekiah’s lack of faith and explains why Judah did not experience a last-minute deliverance from the Babylonian army like the one experienced during the reign of Hezekiah. See further A. R. Pete Diamond, “Portraying Prophecy: Of Doublets, Variants and Analogies in the Narrative Representation of Jeremiah’s Oracles—Reconstructing the Hermeneutics of Prophecy,” JSOT57 (1993): 113-14. The likelihood of allusion to the story of Saul and David in Jer 40–41 is also increased by the Deuteronomic provenance of the books of Samuel and Jeremiah (see n. 2 above). The negative re-casting of the Saul-David story in the narrative of Ishmael’s assassination of Gedaliah in Jeremiah recalls explicitly negative assessments of kingship and the house of David within the Deuteronomistic History that undermine the persistent royal David-Zion ideology (cf. 1 Sam 8:10–18; 1 Kgs 11:1–13; 2 Kgs 21:1–16).
5. In both Jer 17:19–27 and 22:1–5, the prophet delivers an “either-or” message that explicitly hinges the continued rule of the Davidic kings and the security of Jerusalem on royal obedience to the laws of Yahweh. Jer 21:11–23:6 contains a series of judgment oracles against Judah’s final rulers that is framed by general warnings/indictments against the house of David at large. For narratives recounting individual episodes of royal disobedience, cf. Jer 26, 36 (Jehoiakim); 34:8–22; 37:1–38:24 (Zedekiah).
6. J. Applegate, The Fall of Zedekiah: Redactional Debate in the Book of Jeremiah, Part 1, VT48 (1998): 142.
7. For these aspects of the message of Jeremiah, see John Hill, Friend or Foe? T he Figure of Babylon in the Book of Jeremiah MT(Biblical Interpretation Series 40; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1999), 145–57; and Jonathan P. Sisson, ‘Jeremiah and the Jerusalem Conception of Peace,” JBL 105 (1986): 429-42. Hill (Friend or Foe, 106–11) notes that the designation “servant” (עבר) for Nebuchadnezzar equates the Babylonian ruler with David (cf. 2 Sam 3:18; 7:5, 8).
8. Louis Stulman, Insiders and Outsiders in the Book of Jeremiah: Shifts in Symbolic Arrangements,” JSOT66 (1995): 53-54.
9. F. B. Huey lists several possible reasons for Ishmael s attack on Gedaliah: (1) hatred of Gedaliah as a traitor; (2) jealousy over Gedaliah’s appointment; (3) vengeance against Nebuchadnezzar for his brutal attacks on Zedekiah’s family; (4) attempt to undermine Babylonian authority in Judah; (5) aspirations to restore an independent Jewish nation; and (6) payment from Baalis, the Ammonite king (Jeremiah, Lamentations [NAC; Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1993], 352). See also Seitz, Theology in Conflict, 275.
10. There is some debate concerning the status of Judah and Gedaliah following the fall of Jerusalem. It appears unlikely that the Babylonians actually established a provincial government in the land of Judah or even had consistent bureaucratic policies toward the various nation-states in the Levant. Thus, it is possible that Judah remained a vassal kingdom under Babylon and that Gedaliah (and later Zerubbabel) was actually viewed as a “king” rather than a governor, either by the Babylonians and/or the remnant of Judeans remaining in the land. The Hebrew term for “governor” does not appear in the text of 2 Kgs 25:22–24 or Jer 40–41 with reference to Gedaliah, and the מלך in 41:1 and 41:10 may refer to Gedaliah, rather than Zedekiah. If Gedaliah is recognized as a king, it makes Ishmael’s opposition all the more understandable. For further discussion, see David Vanderhooft, “Babylonian Strategies of Imperial Control in the West,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period (ed. Oded Lipschits and Joseph Blenkinsopp; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 235–62; Iain Provan, V Philips Long, and Tremper Longman III, A Biblical History of Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2003), 383 n. 28; H. G. M. Williamson, “Exile and After: Historical Study” in The Face of Old Testament Studies: A Survey of Contemporary Approaches (ed. David W Baker and Bill T.Arnold; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 253; Peter R.Ackroyd, The Chronicler in His Age (JSOTSup 101; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 91–92; and J. Maxwell Miller and John H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 421–24. For discussion of the larger issue of the nature and extent of the Babylonian exile and a response to the minimalist view that the Babylonian exile and return is a fictional reconstruction of the Persian or Hellenistic period (the “Myth of the Empty Land” view), see B. Oded, “Where is the ‘Myth of the Empty Land’ To Be Found? History versus Myth,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period, 55–74.
11. The prophet Jeremiah is absent in 40:7–41:18 for the only time in the narrative material in Jer 26–45. Regardless of the compositional reasons behind the prophet’s absence, the literary effect is that Gedaliah stands in the role of the prophet as “the alter ego of Jeremiah,” even proclaiming a “fear not” message resembling the prophetic salvation oracle. See Douglas R. Jones, Jeremiah (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 469. Note how the words of the prophet are also placed in the mouth of the pagan commander Nebuzaradan in 40:2–3.
12. For the relationship between Jeremiah and the family of Shaphan, see Miller and Hayes, A History of Israel and Judah, 423, and Dearman, “My Servants the Scribes,” 408–14.
13. Note the verb ישׁב in 31:24; 32:27 (and the conceptual idea in 30:10; 31:40; 33:16), and the verb שוב in 32:40–43; 33:9 with reference to the restoration. John Goldingay captures this nuance of the narrative when he states that conditions under Gedaliah “may have seemed like a new beginning, almost the new beginning that Jeremiah had promised” (Old Testament Theology, Vol. 1: Israel’s Gospel [Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2003], 699).
14. Note the framing references in chs. 30–33 to the “restoring of the fortunes” (שׁוב שׁכות) in 30:3 and 33:26. 31:8–10 also contains the promise of “return” (שׁוב) from the “ends of the earth,” and the Judeans return to Gedaliah from various points of exile.
15. This positive portrayal of events in the land under Gedaliah is all the more surprising in light of the message of the prophet Jeremiah that the ultimate hope of restoration lies with the exiles in Babylon (cf. Jer 24, 29). Seitz attempts to resolve this tension by pointing to different redactional levels (Theology in Conflict, 205–91). However, it is more significant to realize that the final form of Jeremiah MT is stressing a potential blessing that is forfeited by persistent disobedience to the word of Yahweh. Continued refusal to “submit to Babylon” (cf. 40:9; 42:10; 43:7) results in continued divine discipline for the people of Judah.
16. Ishmael is explicitly identified as one of Gedaliah’s officers (רכהמלך) if מלך in 41:1 is a reference to Gedaliah. See n. 10 above. If not, it still appears that Ishmael is an officer inherited from Zedekiah by Gedaliah.
17. Terence E. Fretheim, Jeremiah (Smith & Helwys Bible Commentary; Macon, Ga.: Smith & Helwys, 2002), 539.
18. Miller and Hayes suggest that Mizpah was chosen as the center of the government because of the destruction of Jerusalem and the earlier prominence of Mizpah as a cult center (A History of Ancient Israel and Judah, 423–24). Mizpah most likely remained the capital of Judah until Nehemiah’s re fortification of Jerusalem ca. 445 b.C.e. For further discussion of the political, commercial, and cultic significance of Mizpah (Tell en-Nasbeh) in the Babylonian period, see Jeffrey S. Zorn, “Tell en-Nasbeh and the Problem of the Material Culture of the Sixth Century,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period, 413–47; and Ephraim Stern, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, Vol. 2: The Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Periods (732–332 B.c.e) (ABRL; New York: Doubleday 2001), 321–23.
19. Huey suggests that Baalis may have wished to carry on the anti-Babylonian plot of 594 b.C.e., may have held a personal grudge against Gedaliah, or may have had territorial designs that included annexing parts of Judah into his kingdom (Jeremiah, Lamentations, 352). For discussion of the discovery of a seal bearing the name of Baalis, see L. G. Herr, “The Servant of Baalis,” BA 48 (1985): 169-72.
20. 2 Sam 10:1–2 mentions “the kindness of the Ammonites to David.” P. K. McCarter interprets this phrase as referring to Nahash of Ammon offering support to David during the time of his long power struggle with the house of Saul (II Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary [AB 9; Garden City N.Y: Doubleday and Co., 1984], 270, 273–74). Nahash likely supported Saul’s rival as a means of diminishing the power of the Israelite king.
21. The assassination of Gedaliah could have occurred in Sept/Oct 587 b.C.e. shortly after the fall of Jerusalem, a year or two later, or even as late as 582 b.C.e. in connection with another campaign of Nebuchadnezzar into Syria-Palestine and a third deportation from Jersualem (cf. 52:30). For a survey of the options, see Keown et al, Jeremiah 26–52, 241. The events that transpire under Gedaliah in 40:7–16 would seem to suggest the passage of at least one year.
22. The phrase “all the Jews” (כל־רוהוריס) refers to either a specific military contingent or administrative staff with Gedaliah or is a hyperbolic statement designed to heighten the scope of Ishmael’s violence (cf. the reference to survivors from Mizpah in 41:10).
23. William L. Holladay Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 26–52 (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989), 296. For the ancient Near Eastern ethic of hospitality see also Victor H. Matthews and Donald C. Benjamin, Social World of Ancient Israel, 1250-587 B.C.E. (Peabody Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993), 82–95.
24. Contrast David’s loyalty to the house of Saul in allowing Mephibosheth to eat at the king’s table (cf. 2 Sam 9:1, 3, 7).
25. For a critical assessment of David’s character, which asserts David’s complicity in the demise of the house of Saul, see Baruch Halpern, David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001).
26. For Saul’s relentless desire to kill David because of his recognition that God was with David, cf. 1 Sam 18:11–12; 19:9–16; 20:30–31. For the contrasting attitude of David, cf. 1 Sam 24:1–13; 26:5–12.
27. Beyond the connection to Saul, Ishmael’s violent behavior in this episode invites comparison with the brutal and ruthless rulers of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, particularly Jehu in his over-zealous extermination of the house of Ahab. Jones comments, “Ishmael is. .. shown to act in the spirit of Jehu and to carry the same judgment” (Jeremiah, 471–72). Jehu kills 42 Judean princes at the “well” (בור) of Beth Eked (2 Kgs 10:14), while Ishmael employs a “well” (בור) as the receptacle for the corpses left behind in his killing spree (41:7–9). Jehu slaughters 70 royal princes of Israel (2 Kgs 10:6–9), just as Ishmael murders the 70 pilgrims from the north (41:4–8). Ishmael deceives and gains the confidence of the pilgrims from the north by feigning participation in their rites of mourning not unlike the way in which Jehu gains the confidence of the priests of Baal as a means of putting them to death (cf. 2 Kgs 10:18–27). As with the comparison of Ishmael to Saul, the Ishmael-Jehu connection places Ishmael in association with a ruling family that stands under a sentence of divine judgment (cf. Hos 1:4–5) without the promise of an enduring dynasty that is given to the house of David. For the election of the house of David over the apostate kings of the northern kingdom of Israel, cf. 1 Kgs 14:8–16; 15:34; 16:25–26, 30–33; 22:52–53; 2 Kgs 13:10–11; 15:9, 24, 28. Ishmael’s association by character with the house of Saul/Jehu overrides his association by kinship with the house of David.
28. Seitz, Theology in Conflict, 275.
29. See Steven G. Dempster, “Chimham,” ABD 1:909.