|
|
 
AS IT WAS IN THE DAYS OF NOAH – (cf. Genesis 6-9); the second
coming of Christ is compared to "the days of Noah" (v. 37). Though tempted to
equate moral degeneracy of the ancient age with the current age, the comparison is not
about the wickedness of that generation, but rather the normalcy of that generation
with Matthew’s. In this section, there is no striking cosmic signs or mysterious
signs, but simply the daily grind as usual.
TAKEN OR RAPTURED? – It is easy to read rapture into this passage via
modern dispensationalism—that of the two in the field, of the two women grinding
meal, one will be raptured while the other one left behind. According to the NIB
commentator, Matthew has no rapture in his eschatological understanding. The twosomes may
appear alike, but the parousia will disclose that one is saved and the other one is
lost. "The eschaton will make the present hidden reality apparent to all; when
the crucified one is revealed to all, the Son of Man and his persecuted community will be
revealed as the elect people of God. [1]
HILARY OF POITIERS [315-367]– When Christ taught us that no one knows the day
on which the end of time will come, not the angels and not even himself, he removed from
us any need to be concerned about its date.
connections
If Jesus returned at 7:00 pm this Tuesday, what would you be
doing?
As a child, what was your favorite time of day? Day in the week? Season of year?
Specifically, how are you preparing for the Second Coming? How does knowledge of a
second coming impact your behavior?
Over what has God given you stewardship? How would you evaluate the job you’re
doing?
gambits
This lesson could well be compared and supplemented with the Romans 13 lesson.
In a place of unknowing and hiddenness of the coming of Christ, there is a particular hope
and behavior that both writers encourage as believers yearn for the eschaton.
Another thought—present the same kind of tension between the
universal and particular of the second coming that the first lesson holds in tension. Yes,
Jesus is David’s Son in Matthew’s gospel—the particular; but he is also the
son of God—the universal. The lost sheep of the house of Israel is the particular in
Matthew’s gospel, but the children of the heavenly Father is the universal.
Perhaps we could best sum up how the texts—first lesson and gospel—might move
more to the universal. As Douglas Hare says of the latter:
In his whole ministry Jesus has displayed how he understands the Messiah’s role:
he is a spiritual leader who seeks through word and deed to communicate God’s love
for the lost sheep of the house of Israel, but also to help them become children of the
heavenly Father. [2]
_______________________________________________________
[1] The New Interpreter’s Bible VIII (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995), page
446.
[2] Ibid., page 262.
|
|
