The lectionary reading for the Second Sunday before Advent in Year A is 1 Thess 5.1–11.
It forms a pair with last week’s reading; then, Paul explored the hope of Jesus’ return in relation to those who had died, now he considers its significance for those who remain alive.
Paul draws on the metaphors of being awake or asleep, sober or drunk, being children of the day or children of the night. In doing so, he is drawing extensively on the teaching of Jesus—especially in the image of the thief coming unexpectedly in the night—which the Thessalonians are clearly familiar with.
And all in all, Paul is concerned that our hope of Jesus’ return is not a matter for speculation, but of pastoral encouragement.
Notes on the Greek text are included below.
The gospel reading is closely related, being Matthew 25.14-30, the parable of the talents—in which the master returns at an unexpected time!
Written commentary can be found here, and the video discussion here.
1 Thessalonians 5.1–11 — Verse-by-Verse Commentary
Context and structure
The passage pairs with 1 Thess 4.13–18. Each section opens with a new topic (οὐ θέλομεν δὲ ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν in 1 Thess 4.13; περὶ δέ in 1 Thess 5.1) and closes with almost the same command (ὥστε παρακαλεῖτε ἀλλήλους in 1 Thess 4.18; διὸ παρακαλεῖτε ἀλλήλους in 1 Thess 5.11).
- 1 Thess 4.13–18 answers a worry about the dead. Will they lose out at the parousia?
- 1 Thess 5.1–11 answers a worry about the living. Will we be ready, and when will it come?
So the second paragraph does not change the subject. It continues the parousia teaching and turns it from consolation to exhortation. The two are held together by the verbal echoes in 1 Thess 5.10.
The movement of the passage runs like this.
- Timing cannot be known (vv.1–3).
- Your identity means you will not be caught out (vv.4–5).
- So live soberly and watchfully (vv.6–8).
- God’s purpose and Christ’s death are the ground of assurance (vv.9–10).
- Therefore encourage one another (v.11).
5.1
Περὶ δὲ τῶν χρόνων καὶ τῶν καιρῶν, ἀδελφοί, οὐ χρείαν ἔχετε ὑμῖν γράφεσθαι
Textual. The variation here is minor. Some witnesses smooth ἔχετε to ἔχομεν, or γράφεσθαι to γράφειν, probably by assimilation to 1 Thess 4.9. The passive infinitive with ὑμῖν is slightly awkward (“you have no need for [anything] to be written to you”), which explains the tinkering. NA28 and SBLGNT rightly keep it.
Exegetical. περὶ δέ is the formula Paul uses to take up a new topic, often one raised by the recipients (1 Cor 7.1, 25; 1 Cor 8.1; 1 Cor 12.1; 1 Thess 4.9). Here it most likely reflects questions relayed through Timothy’s report (1 Thess 3.6). That does not require a letter from Thessalonica.
χρόνοι καὶ καιροί is a stock pairing, almost a hendiadys, meaning “the times and dates”. Compare Acts 1.7, Dan 2.21 (Theod.) and Wis 8.8. The distinction between χρόνος as duration and καιρός as decisive moment should not be pressed here. James Barr’s warnings about lexical theologising apply. The double expression simply covers the whole question of “when”.
Rhetorical. οὐ χρείαν ἔχετε is praeteritio. Paul says there is no need to write and then writes anyway, as he does in 1 Thess 4.9. It affirms what they already know and introduces correction or reinforcement without implying ignorance. Pastorally, it is a deft way to calm anxiety. The message is that they already have what they need.
5.2
αὐτοὶ γὰρ ἀκριβῶς οἴδατε ὅτι ἡμέρα κυρίου ὡς κλέπτης ἐν νυκτὶ οὕτως ἔρχεται.
Textual. Some later witnesses add the article (ἡ ἡμέρα). The anarthrous ἡμέρα κυρίου is original and reflects the fixed LXX formula for the Day of YHWH.
Exegetical. ἀκριβῶς οἴδατε has an ironic edge. They know precisely that the date cannot be known precisely. Some suggest Paul is picking up a word from the Thessalonians’ own question (“tell us exactly…”). That is possible but cannot be shown.
ἡμέρα κυρίου takes up the prophetic Day of YHWH (Amos 5.18–20; Joel 2.1–2, 31; Zeph 1.14–18). In context, κύριος is Jesus (1 Thess 4.15–17). This is one of the clearest places in Paul where a YHWH text is read christologically without comment. The “day of the Lord” is the parousia of 1 Thess 4.15–17, not a separate event. The flow from 1 Thess 4.18 into 1 Thess 5.1 makes a two-stage scheme very hard to sustain.
The thief image comes from the Jesus tradition (Matt 24.43 // Luke 12.39). It recurs in Rev 3.3; Rev 16.15; 2 Pet 3.10. Paul presents it as something already taught (“you yourselves know”). That is good evidence that the Thessalonians received Jesus’ eschatological sayings in their initial catechesis. The point of the image is unexpectedness, not stealth or menace towards believers. ἐν νυκτί reinforces this, and it also prepares for the night/day contrast that will drive vv.4–8.
ἔρχεται is a futuristic present. With οὕτως, the sense is “that is how it comes”, which gives the statement a proverbial, gnomic tone.
5.3
ὅταν λέγωσιν· Εἰρήνη καὶ ἀσφάλεια, τότε αἰφνίδιος αὐτοῖς ἐφίσταται ὄλεθρος ὥσπερ ἡ ὠδὶν τῇ ἐν γαστρὶ ἐχούσῃ, καὶ οὐ μὴ ἐκφύγωσιν.
Textual. The connective varies. Some witnesses add δέ and others γάρ. The asyndetic ὅταν λέγωσιν is the harder reading and is probably original, since scribes tended to add connectives. There is also orthographic variation between ἐφίσταται and ἐπίσταται.
Exegetical. The third person is significant. “They say” stands against “you” in v.4. The subject is indefinite (“people”), the outsiders who are later called οἱ λοιποί (v.6).
Εἰρήνη καὶ ἀσφάλεια. This is the most debated phrase in the passage. There are two main lines.
- Roman imperial slogan. Koester, Donfried and Weima read it as an echo of pax et securitas, the ideology of Roman order celebrated on coins and inscriptions. Thessalonica was a free city loyal to Rome with a cult of Roma and the benefactors, so the reading fits. On this view Paul is making a pointed critique of imperial claims to deliver peace.
- Prophetic background. Joel White (NTS 2013) argued that the exact pairing is not well attested as a Roman slogan. The stronger background, on this view, is Jer 6.14 (Jer 8.11) and Ezek 13.10, where false prophets cry “peace” when there is none. Here the critique is of complacency, not specifically of empire.
The two lines need not exclude one another. A prophetic idiom would sound with particular force in a Roman colonial city. But the anti-imperial reading should not carry the whole interpretation. ἀσφάλεια is not otherwise Pauline vocabulary, which may suggest a borrowed phrase. It does not settle where the phrase was borrowed from.
αἰφνίδιος … ἐφίσταται … ἐκφύγωσιν. αἰφνίδιος occurs elsewhere in the NT only in Luke 21.34, where it also comes with ἐφίστημι: ἐπιστῇ ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς αἰφνίδιος ἡ ἡμέρα ἐκείνη. Luke 21.36 then speaks of escaping (ἐκφυγεῖν) these things and of watchfulness. Luke 21.34 also warns against drunkenness, which matches 1 Thess 5.7. This cluster is one of the strongest verbal contacts between Paul and the Synoptic apocalyptic tradition. It suggests a shared parenetic tradition, not literary dependence in either direction.
ὄλεθρος means ruin or destruction (compare 2 Thess 1.9, ὄλεθρον αἰώνιον; 1 Cor 5.5). The word itself does not settle questions of annihilation versus ongoing punishment. Its sense is the collapse of everything people relied on.
The birth-pang image carries several overtones together.
- Suddenness. Labour begins without warning.
- Inevitability. Once begun it cannot be stopped, which is why the clause ends with οὐ μὴ ἐκφύγωσιν, emphatic negation with the aorist subjunctive.
- The tradition of “messianic woes” (Isa 13.8; Isa 26.17; Jer 6.24; Mark 13.8).
The image also implies that something is being born. For believers, the image hints at new creation as well as threat.
5.4
ὑμεῖς δέ, ἀδελφοί, οὐκ ἐστὲ ἐν σκότει, ἵνα ἡ ἡμέρα ὑμᾶς ὡς κλέπτης καταλάβῃ·
Textual. This is the most interesting variant in the passage. A, B and the Bohairic read κλέπτας, the accusative plural, giving “so that the day should overtake you like thieves”. Westcott and Hort printed this reading. The NA/UBS committee (Metzger) kept κλέπτης. Their reasons were that κλέπτας looks like assimilation to the nearby ὑμᾶς and that it confuses the image established in v.2, where the day is the thief.
That is the majority judgment, and probably correct. But the external support for κλέπτας is strong. It also gives a coherent, more pointed sense, in which the day exposes people caught in the dark, as thieves are caught out by daylight. Lightfoot found the plural attractive. This is a genuine case where the “harder reading” principle cuts both ways.
Exegetical. ὑμεῖς δέ is emphatic and marks a sharp contrast with v.3. The ἵνα is consecutive rather than final, meaning “with the result that”. Being in darkness would result in being surprised.
καταλαμβάνω means “overtake” or “seize”. The same light/darkness wordplay appears in John 1.5. The key move is that Paul reworks the thief image. The day will still come suddenly; believers do not know the date any better than anyone else. What differs is that they will not be caught out. Readiness, not foreknowledge, is the difference.
5.5
πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς υἱοὶ φωτός ἐστε καὶ υἱοὶ ἡμέρας. οὐκ ἐσμὲν νυκτὸς οὐδὲ σκότους·
Textual. Some witnesses drop γάρ, and some harmonise the persons (ἐστε/ἐσμέν). Neither change alters the sense.
Exegetical. υἱοὶ φωτός is a Semitic idiom of belonging or character. Compare Luke 16.8; John 12.36; Eph 5.8, and especially the Qumran “sons of light” and “sons of darkness” (1QS 1.9–10; 1QM). The parallel shows a shared Jewish apocalyptic dualism. It does not show dependence. Unlike Qumran, Paul does not use the dualism to fix group boundaries by predestined lot. He uses it to exhort.
υἱοὶ ἡμέρας is unique in the NT and is the theological heart of the verse. They are children of the day, the day of the Lord just mentioned. They belong to the very day that will come on others as a thief. This is proleptic eschatology. The future day has already defined them. Their identity is drawn from the future, not from the present age.
πάντες matters pastorally. Paul does not divide the congregation into the ready and the unready. Every one of them belongs to the light.
The shift of person from ἐστε to ἐσμέν is deliberate. Paul moves from affirmation (“you are”) to solidarity (“we are not”), and that prepares for the hortatory first-person plurals that follow. The apostle places himself under the same exhortation.
5.6
ἄρα οὖν μὴ καθεύδωμεν ὡς οἱ λοιποί, ἀλλὰ γρηγορῶμεν καὶ νήφωμεν.
Textual. Western witnesses read ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποί, a natural expansion with no change in sense.
Exegetical. ἄρα οὖν is a characteristically Pauline double inferential particle (Rom 5.18; Rom 7.3; Rom 8.12; Gal 6.10). It moves from indicative to imperative. Because you are of the day, live as day people.
The three hortatory subjunctives are a triad.
- μὴ καθεύδωμεν. καθεύδω is used here morally, for spiritual torpor. This matters for v.10, because in 1 Thess 4.13–15 Paul used κοιμάομαι for death, and here he switches to καθεύδω for moral sleep. The distinction seems deliberate, and that makes the return of καθεύδω in v.10 a real crux.
- γρηγορῶμεν. Alertness. Again this is Jesus vocabulary (Mark 13.34–37; Matt 24.42; Matt 25.13).
- νήφωμεν. Sobriety, both literal and in the sense of clear-headedness (compare 1 Pet 1.13; 1 Pet 4.7; 1 Pet 5.8). Calm, not frenzy.
οἱ λοιποί echoes 1 Thess 4.13 (οἱ λοιποὶ οἱ μὴ ἔχοντες ἐλπίδα). The same group that grieves without hope also sleeps without watchfulness. Hopelessness and complacency are two faces of one condition.
5.7
οἱ γὰρ καθεύδοντες νυκτὸς καθεύδουσιν, καὶ οἱ μεθυσκόμενοι νυκτὸς μεθύουσιν·
Exegetical. On its face this is a commonplace. People sleep and get drunk at night. νυκτός is a genitive of time (“by night”). The variation between μεθύσκομαι and μεθύω is stylistic.
The literal observation becomes a metaphor. Night behaviour belongs to night people. The closest parallel is Rom 13.11–14. There Paul says the night is far gone and the day near, calls his readers to put off the works of darkness and put on the armour of light, and warns against carousing and drunkenness. He then says “put on the Lord Jesus Christ”. Romans looks like a developed form of the same parenetic pattern, and Luke 21.34 belongs to the same cluster.
Some (Jewett, Donfried) see a reference to nocturnal cultic revelry in Thessalonica, in the cults of Dionysus or Cabirus. The idea is interesting but speculative. The verse works perfectly well as general moral observation.
5.8
ἡμεῖς δὲ ἡμέρας ὄντες νήφωμεν, ἐνδυσάμενοι θώρακα πίστεως καὶ ἀγάπης καὶ περικεφαλαίαν ἐλπίδα σωτηρίας·
Exegetical. ἡμέρας ὄντες is a causal participle (“since we belong to the day”). It restates v.5 as the ground of the exhortation.
ἐνδυσάμενοι is an aorist participle. It can be read as antecedent (“having put on”) or as attendant circumstance (“putting on”). Either way, putting on the armour is the way sobriety is lived out.
The armour comes from Isa 59.17 LXX: ἐνεδύσατο δικαιοσύνην ὡς θώρακα καὶ περιέθετο περικεφαλαίαν σωτηρίου ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς. Wis 5.17–20 develops it further. In Isaiah, God puts on the armour to bring judgment and salvation. Here believers wear it. They share in the divine victory, not as warriors but as those kept by it. Eph 6.14–17 later expands the image considerably.
Two details deserve note.
- The armour is entirely defensive. There is breastplate and helmet but no sword (contrast Eph 6.17). The setting is watchfulness, not attack.
- The triad of faith, love and hope (compare 1 Thess 1.3; 1 Cor 13.13) is redistributed. Faith and love share the breastplate, and hope gets the helmet on its own, in emphatic final position. This is pointed. In 1 Thess 3.6 Timothy reported their faith and love, with no mention of hope. The trouble of 1 Thess 4.13 was grief “as those who have no hope”. Paul arms them precisely where they are vulnerable.
ἐλπίδα σωτηρίας is in apposition to περικεφαλαίαν, so the helmet is the hope of salvation. σωτηρία is future and eschatological here, deliverance at the day. That sets up v.9.
5.9
ὅτι οὐκ ἔθετο ἡμᾶς ὁ θεὸς εἰς ὀργὴν ἀλλὰ εἰς περιποίησιν σωτηρίας διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,
Textual. A minority of witnesses lack Χριστοῦ. The longer reading is well supported, and the variation affects nothing material.
Exegetical. ὅτι is causal, giving the ground of the hope just named. Hope is not optimism. It rests on God’s prior purpose.
ἔθετο is the middle of τίθημι with εἰς, meaning “appoint, destine for” (compare 1 Thess 3.3, κείμεθα; 1 Pet 2.8; Acts 13.47). God’s purpose is stated negatively and positively.
ὀργή is the eschatological wrath of 1 Thess 1.10 (τῆς ὀργῆς τῆς ἐρχομένης) and 1 Thess 2.16. It is final judgment, the counterpart of ὄλεθρος in v.3, not historical tribulation.
περιποίησις is ambiguous.
- Active, “obtaining” or “acquiring” salvation (most EVV). The sense is that God appointed us to gain salvation.
- Passive or possessive, “possession”, as in Eph 1.14 (εἰς ἀπολύτρωσιν τῆς περιποιήσεως), 1 Pet 2.9 (λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν) and Mal 3.17 LXX. The sense would be that God appointed us to be his own possession, which consists in salvation.
The active sense suits the genitive σωτηρίας better. But the passive resonates with the covenant language of Israel as God’s possession, which Paul applies to Gentile believers elsewhere in the letter (1 Thess 1.4, εἰδότες … τὴν ἐκλογὴν ὑμῶν). The ambiguity holds human appropriation and divine initiative together, and διὰ τοῦ κυρίου keeps the agency firmly christological.
Hermeneutical. Pretribulationist readings take this verse as a promise that believers will be exempt from a coming tribulation period, removed by the “rapture” of 1 Thess 4.17. The reading has to import a distinction the text does not make. ὀργή in this letter is the final wrath of the day of the Lord, set against eschatological σωτηρία. And the ὀργή from which believers are delivered is the same day whose coming is described in vv.2–3. The text promises deliverance from wrath, not removal from history. The letter assumes believers will suffer affliction (1 Thess 3.3–4).
Theological. The predestinarian language here is corporate and pastoral, not speculative. Its function is assurance. It answers the question “Are we safe?”, not “Who is chosen?”.
5.10
τοῦ ἀποθανόντος περὶ ἡμῶν, ἵνα εἴτε γρηγορῶμεν εἴτε καθεύδωμεν ἅμα σὺν αὐτῷ ζήσωμεν.
Textual.
- περί / ὑπέρ. ℵ* B 33 read περὶ ἡμῶν, and NA28 and SBLGNT print περί. ὑπέρ (ℵ² A D F G and the majority) is the usual Pauline preposition in atonement formulae and is probably a scribal correction to the familiar idiom. In Hellenistic Greek the two prepositions overlap heavily in this sense, so nothing theological hangs on it. It is a nice case of scribes standardising Paul.
- ζήσωμεν / ζῶμεν. Some witnesses read the present ζῶμεν, which would give “that we may live” as an ongoing state rather than the aorist’s “come to live”. The aorist is better attested and fits the eschatological horizon.
Exegetical. This is the letter’s only explicit statement of the atoning significance of Christ’s death. 1 Thess 4.14 says only that “Jesus died and rose”. It is brief and formulaic, and probably traditional. It shows that Paul could assume a shared kerygma, and that his eschatology is grounded in the cross, not only in the resurrection.
The crux is εἴτε γρηγορῶμεν εἴτε καθεύδωμεν.
- Alive or dead is the majority view. The clause returns to the anxiety of 1 Thess 4.13–18. Whether we are alive or dead at the parousia, we shall live with him. Support comes from the echo ἅμα σὺν αὐτῷ, which picks up 1 Thess 4.17 (ἅμα σὺν αὐτοῖς … σὺν κυρίῳ). It also draws on the use of καθεύδω for death elsewhere (Dan 12.2 LXX; Mark 5.39; Ps 87.6 LXX), and on the closing of the inclusio across 1 Thess 4.13–5.11.
- Watchful or morally slack is a minority view (notably T. R. Edgar, JETS 1979). Its point is that γρηγορέω and καθεύδω were just used in v.6 in the moral sense. Reading them the same way gives the sense that even believers who fail to watch will still be saved, because Christ died for them. This is an assurance reading with large pastoral implications.
The minority view has a point on lexical grounds. Paul did deliberately use κοιμάομαι for death in ch.4 and καθεύδω for moral sleep in v.6. But it struggles with the logic of the paragraph. Paul has just urged watchfulness on the ground of identity, and it would be odd for him to say at once that it makes no difference. The better reading is that Paul intentionally reuses the vocabulary of v.6 with a turn of meaning. The words that described ethical alertness now name the two possible states at the parousia. The wordplay folds the two worries of the Thessalonians, the dead and the readiness of the living, into one answer. Christ died for us, so neither death nor the timing of the day can separate us from him.
Grammar. εἴτε with the subjunctive is unusual, as εἴτε normally takes the indicative. It is best explained as attraction to the governing ἵνα clause.
ζήσωμεν is probably ingressive, “come to life” or “enter life”. With ἅμα σὺν αὐτῷ, the goal of salvation is defined relationally, as life with Christ, which is exactly the climax of 1 Thess 4.17. This is the theological centre of the whole of 1 Thess 4.13–5.11.
5.11
Διὸ παρακαλεῖτε ἀλλήλους καὶ οἰκοδομεῖτε εἷς τὸν ἕνα, καθὼς καὶ ποιεῖτε.
Exegetical. Διό draws the conclusion of the whole section. παρακαλεῖτε ἀλλήλους repeats 1 Thess 4.18 almost exactly, closing the pair of paragraphs. παρακαλέω carries both “encourage” and “exhort”, and the passage has done both.
οἰκοδομεῖτε introduces building language. It is a Pauline favourite (1 Cor 8.1; 1 Cor 14.3–5, 26; Rom 14.19) and arguably appears here for the first time in his extant letters. εἷς τὸν ἕνα is an unusual equivalent of ἀλλήλους, perhaps Semitic in flavour (compare 1 Cor 4.6). It is more individualising, suggesting “each one the other”.
καθὼς καὶ ποιεῖτε is affirmation, a feature of the letter’s pastoral tone (compare 1 Thess 4.1, 10). Paul encourages what is already happening and does not rebuke its absence.
Theological. The goal of eschatological teaching is mutual upbuilding, not calculation. The congregation does not wait for the day by speculation but by caring for one another in the meantime.
Wider hermeneutical issues
1. Relation to 2 Thessalonians 2. Here the day comes suddenly, without warning. In 2 Thess 2.1–12 certain events must come first, namely the rebellion and the man of lawlessness. The tension feeds the authenticity debate. But the two are not strictly contradictory. Sudden arrival for the complacent is compatible with discernible precursors for the watchful, and the same combination is found in the Synoptic discourse (Mark 13.28–37). The emphasis does differ, and that needs explaining whatever one decides about authorship.
2. Paul and the Jesus tradition. Between them, vv.2–8 contain the thief, suddenness, the impossibility of escape, watchfulness, the warning against drunkenness, and birth pangs. Read alongside Luke 21.34–36 and Matt 24.42–44, this is among the best evidence that Paul knew and passed on Jesus’ eschatological teaching. It may also bear on what he means by “a word of the Lord” in 1 Thess 4.15.
3. Already and not yet. Believers are “of the day” now (v.5), but salvation remains a hope (v.8) to be obtained (v.9). The ethic of vv.6–8 lives in that tension. Identity is secured by the future, and conduct is shaped by it.
4. Imperial critique. If v.3 does target Roman propaganda, the passage subverts the empire’s claim to deliver peace and security. That is a fruitful line for preaching, but its exegetical basis is debated and it should be held lightly.
5. Date-setting and rapture schemes. The passage is a standing rebuke to date-setting, since the “when” is set aside in v.1. It also tells against two-stage parousia schemes, because the day of the Lord in v.2 is the same event as the coming of 1 Thess 4.15–17.
Pastoral and theological threads
- Assurance and exhortation together. Paul never sets them against each other. The indicative (you are of the day; God appointed you for salvation; Christ died for you) grounds the imperative (be sober; watch; encourage). The crux in v.10, whatever reading one takes, shows that the security of believers rests finally on Christ’s death and not on their vigilance.
- Hope as the vulnerable point. By isolating hope as the helmet, Paul suggests that what is threatened under pressure is often not faith or love but the ability to expect a future. That is pastorally recognisable in many congregations.
- Sobriety, not fear. νήφω describes clarity, not anxiety. The passage moves people away from both complacency (v.3) and panic (v.1, there is no need to know the date).
- The dead and the living together. ἅμα σὺν αὐτῷ ζήσωμεν brings the bereaved community back to the consolation of 1 Thess 4.17. The church’s future is shared, with the departed included.
- Eschatology lived out in community. The section ends not in private readiness but in mutual upbuilding. Watching for the day is something the church does together.
- The cross as ground of hope. The single atonement statement in the letter appears exactly where assurance is needed most.
Lectionary note. In the Common Worship Year A lectionary, 1 Thess 5.1–11 is the epistle for the Second Sunday before Advent, which falls on 15 November 2026. It is set alongside Zeph 1.7, 12–18 and Matt 25.14–30. The pairing invites preaching on three themes. Zephaniah’s “day of the Lord” is the OT root of v.2. Zephaniah’s complacent people who “say in their hearts, ‘The Lord will not do good, nor will he do harm'” (Zeph 1.12) mirror those who say “peace and security” in v.3. And the parable of the talents shows what watchful, sober living looks like as faithful work in the interval before the master returns.
On the subject of Jesus’s return then l get the impression that the early Christians expected this to happen relatively soon. Yet 2000 years on, we are still waiting . I know this question has been asked many times before, and may be an inappropriate one and lots of standard answers get trotted out, but why this length of time?
Is there a fundamental reason as to why God often operates over very long time spans as people are born, live and die?
Jesus himself said that the end would not come before the gospel had been preached to all the peoples of the world. I can only presume that confusion in the very early church was because these words had not yet been written down and circulated by Matthew (24:14) and Mark (13:10).
Good question Chris. But I am not sure that your impression (widely held) is actually supported by the texts.
And for all of us, Jesus comes soon—if not within our life, then at our life’s end.
I guess that’s another way of looking at it. It does seem to me though, that in history, God is silent over long time spans and then all of a sudden, events happen very rapidly in a much shorter time interval.
Something to do with the expression ‘in the fullness of time’.
Whatever ‘fullness’ may mean…
You can make the argument that the Thessalonians though Jesus’s return might happen soon. But I think St Paul disabusing them of that expectation in his second letter to them. In 2 Thessalonians 2 he explains (apparently not for the first time) that there is a lot that will happen first (revealing the ‘man of lawlessness’ etc.). And that bout of rebellion and blasphemy contrasts with 1 Thessalonians 5 arguing that destruction will come when everyone thinks they’ve got peace and security.
Why this length of time? Why not? What is two thousand years or more to the eternal? I worry that the enthusiasm for the end times misunderstands God, and has in mind a Noah-esque situation where God is itching to destroy the world he hates, and we’re puzzled he hasn’t done it yet. But we’re in the age of Jesus, where God declares that he loves the world, that he wishes everyone could be gathered to him as a hen gathers her chicks (Matthew 23). Is it all such a surprise for a God who delighted in His creation?
Rather than holding a dogmatic view on our Lord’s Return;
I find it helpful to read widely, one tool that I find very useful is to search for Critiques which often throw up caveats, of sometimes
assumptions, or whenever there is a strong polemic with marshalled big hitter acolytes.
Does that not leave me confused?
On the contrary, constantly I “love His appearing.”
How and when doesn’t matter as long as He is there.
One interesting critique I came across was –
John Anthony Dunne’s @ thetwocities.com
“Amillennialism: Rethinking and Critiquing My Eschatology
After Five Years”
On a different tack I read-
https://puritanboard.com/threads/amillennialism-and-antichrist.91429/
Is the Pope still the Antichrist? Or is their view the Antichrist primarily as a recurring spiritual pattern and opposition to Christ throughout the present church age, rather than exclusively a single futuristic world leader.? Shalom.
Obviously one should read widely, but after doing so you should EITHER reach a conclusion OR say you still aren’t sure. Both are honest positions. I’m not clear what you mean by a dogmatic view.
The movement of the passage runs like this. Timing cannot be known (vv.1–3).
I would ask: not known by whom? Jesus gave enough signs that believers should look for, in the Olivet discourse. It is the unbelieving world that will have no idea. Believers may look for those signs, and it is also obvious that he will be back to fulfil Tabernacles, in the autumn in Jerusalem. Of the three major major festivals for which all able-bodied adult males were to make pilgimage to Jerusalem, this is the only one not yet to have received fulfilment in Christ, after Passover/Crucifixion and Weeks/Pentecost. This is the harvest festival, moreover.
‘ Jesus gave enough signs that believers should look for, in the Olivet discourse.’
The signs in the Olivet Discourse all come before Matt 24.34, when he says ‘Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.’
So those are signs for the first century, and not for his parousia.
No, the gospel was not preached to all peoples (Matt 24:14) by AD70.
Then Jesus must have been wrong in Matt 24.34, and C S Lewis was right.
Or, Ian, your understanding of the passage is wrong.
Can you confirm you believe that:
* Matt 24:14 refers to all peoples around the globe?
* The gospel had not reached the Japanese or the Australian aborigines by AD70?
* The words of Jesus as reported by Matthew are inerrant?
If so, what are the implications for your understanding of the Olivet discourse?
Anthony – in Romans 1:5, Paul uses similar language but instead of ‘nations’ per your translation of Matt, ‘amongst all the Gentiles’ is used. In context he is referring to his own calling and apostleship, so it seems to me he is simply referring to his ministry ‘amongst all the Gentiles’ not ‘all the nations’ of the world (globe). I would therefore argue this understanding could very well apply to Jesus’ words in Matt. Given that Paul, and other apostles, preached ‘amongst all the Gentiles’ for decades, it is quite conceivable this is what Jesus is predicting. Perhaps the emphasis is on the Gentile world as He knew the Jewish people would largely reject the Gospel. The Gentile world at that time (ie largely Roman).
Peter,
Happy to discuss – although it’s Ian’s response that I crave. The other time Jesus says something similar is at the end of Matthew’s gospel, where he gives the Great Commission to make disciples in all nations.
It is very Westocentric of us to assert that these verses means only those nations within the Roman Empire. The Jews were acutely aware of the Parthian Empire where lay Babylon, for instance. The Greek world in which they were embedded knew that Alexander got farther east than that, to a tributary of the Indus river from which India takes its name. And this is the era in which trade routes to China were permanently established; see Barry Cunliffe’s book “By Steppe, Desert and Ocean: The birth of Eurasia”. I read this book with increasing awe at the author’s depth and breadth of knowledge.
There are other ways in which the passage can be taken. To quote from one commentator (who was considered a great intellect and scholar):
‘Consider the words ‘this generation’ in 34. If this means the people then living, then the prophecy must refer to the judgment of AD 70. But the word ‘generation’ can refer to a race or family of people. And the extraordinary truth about the Jews is that they have persisted as a race down the centuries amid the disappearance of empires and dynasties, amid untold persecution and suffering. Why? Because God chose them as His peculiar people, and even when they resisted the purpose of their election and in their rejection of Him they are made to bear witness to His purposes, albeit in a negative way. And no power
can ever destroy the people that He wills to remain in existence. What, then, can the budding of the fig tree signify? That after the long winter of affliction and persecution and suffering the signs of spring are to be seen (cf Song of Solomon 2:4ff). Well, one thinks of the movement of the Jews in our own time. After nineteen centuries, the Jews are returned to Palestine. Is not this the budding of the fig tree? This is why the present
tension in the Mid le East is fraught with such incomparable significance from the spiritual point of view. This is one of the ‘signs of the times’, signs that God is about to act in history.’
I don’t agree with the comment – I do agree that *if* it refers to people living then the ‘all these things’ refers to the *judgement* of AD 70.
By dogmatic I mean the accepted meaning of “there is only one Point of view acceptable
Who says that having read all available
views I have to “make a choice” ? of one
of the current views ?
Christ’s kingdom is predicated upon
“entering into Rest” I can leave the details to Him . Shalom. Peace and Blessings.
I didn’t say you have to make a choice. I said that if you don’t then “I don’t know” is a perfectly acceptable alternative – but keep thinking.
until one’s head hurts.
Push through the pain!
Matthew 24:34 states: “Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.” This verse is part of the Olivet Discourse, where Jesus answers his disciples’ questions about the destruction of the temple and the signs of the end of the age.
Does this help ? :-
Because Jesus uses the phrase “this generation,” theologians and readers generally interpret its meaning through three primary lenses:
1. The Preterist View (Fulfilled in AD 70)
• The Meaning: “This generation” refers strictly to the contemporaries living at the time Jesus spoke.
• The Fulfillment: Proponents of this view argue that “all these things” refers to the terrifying events leading up to the Roman siege and the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in AD 70. A biblical “generation” is typically about 40 years, which aligns perfectly with the time frame between Jesus’s crucifixion (c. AD 30–33) and the fall of Jerusalem.
2. The Futurist View (The End-Times Generation)
• The Meaning: “This generation” refers to the future generation that is alive to see the final end-time signs.
• The Fulfillment: This interpretation emphasises Jesus’s parable of the fig tree just a few verses prior (Matthew 24:32–33). It argues that once the final labour pains of tribulations, cosmic signs, and the rise of the Antichrist begin, that specific generation will not pass away before the rapid climax of Christ’s Second Coming takes place.
3. The Double-Fulfillment / Dual View
• The Meaning: Jesus was answering two distinct questions wrapped into one: the immediate fate of Jerusalem and the ultimate end of the world.
• The Fulfillment: In this view, the prophecy has layers. The immediate generation experienced a literal, historical foreshadowing via the horrors of AD 70. However, that event serves as a historical blueprint for a final, global fulfillment experienced by a future generation.
Alternative Greek Interpretations
Scholars also look deeply at the original Greek text to parse the exact intention behind the wording:
• The Race/Nation Theory: While the Greek word genea usually means contemporaries, a minority view suggests it could translated as genos, meaning the Jewish race or nation. Under this view, Jesus is promising that the Jewish people will be preserved and will not pass away despite intense global persecution before the end comes.
• The Spiritual Generation: On platforms like Stack Exchange, some users note that genea could imply a “class of people,” meaning the generation of faithful Christians (the elect) who will endure and preserve Jesus’s words through any tribulation.
Ultimately, the core takeaway of Matthew 24:34 is an absolute guarantee of certainty. By following it up with “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” (v. 35), Jesus seals the timetable with a cosmic oath that His words are entirely dependable, regardless of how history unfolds.
it depends on which preterist view youre referring to. The partial-preterist typically believes verses up to v35 refer to that generation and therefore those events occurred by AD70. But v36 onwards refers to Jesus’ final return. Full preterists believe all of it was fulfilled in the 1st century, including a new heaven etc. I find the full view bizarre.
You write as though one’s presuppositions can change the meaning of words.
It is not being ‘partial preterist’ which leads one to see the change in v 36. It is paying attention to what the text says.
Ian, I was simply showing the difference in views, which are typically labelled as full or partial preterist. Each would no doubt argue they are paying attention to the text, just as you do.
‘• The Meaning: “This generation” refers to the future generation that is alive to see the final end-time signs.’
That is not an interpretation. That is wrong. When Jesus is speaking, ‘this’ refers to the people in front of him. Words are not plastic.
It is an interpretation, and arguably the best one. To assert that ‘this’ refers to the people in front of Jesus is also an interpretation. One can begin with that assumption and from it argue that all the foregoing events – false messiahs, wars, international wars, famines, earthquakes, being persecuted (‘hated’) by all nations, false prophets, the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom to all nations, the erection of an idolatrous statue on the Temple mount, a further period of false messiahs and false prophets but this time performing great signs and wonders, meteors/asteroids falling from heaven, the appearance of the sign of the Son of Man in heaven, the gathering of the elect from the four corners of the earth – happened before the generation alive when he was alive died out; or conversely one can begin from the historical fact that all these things did not happen within the 40-80 years or so following his death and therefore ‘this generation’ must refer to a generation far in the future, the one that was to see the cursed fig tree recover from its withering and put forth leaves.
The fig tree is the Jewish nation. ‘This generation’ refers to the one that saw the nation re-established in the land of Israel. The ‘beginning of the birth pangs’ is over. We are now approaching the birth pangs proper.
‘To assert that ‘this’ refers to the people in front of Jesus is also an interpretation.’
Not really. It is actually what the word means. Jesus is speaking to a particular group of people; ‘this’ refers to them. You cannot claim otherwise without lifting the text from its context and ignoring what the word means.
‘performing great signs and wonders, meteors/asteroids falling from heaven, the appearance of the sign of the Son of Man in heaven, the gathering of the elect from the four corners of the earth – happened before the generation alive when he was alive died out; or conversely one can begin from the historical fact that all these things did not happen within the 40-80 years…’
Except that Peter uses exactly the same cosmic language to explain what is happening at Pentecost. ‘This is that about which the prophet Joel wrote.’
And according to Rev 7.9 we are all gather from every nation before the throne of the lamb.
So, yes, it has all happened. Jesus was right.
though Ian if you believe Colin Humphries’ dating, then there was a literal darkening during the crucifixion and a blood moon during the time. As he said in his book, in quoting Joel perhaps Peter was reminding people of what they had recently witnessed, seeing it as literally fulfilled.
Ian,
It is not legitimate argumentation to say “I have the true meaning and you only have an interpretation”. To keep things constructive, you and Steven should contend for your own understandings (a better word than ‘interpretations’) and against the understanding of the other.
Peter,
Humphreys’ timing cannot match Matthew 12:40.
So you’re saying that Peter was just being hyperbolic, and likewise Jesus was being hyperbolic; his warnings are not to be taken literally. And then you conclude: ‘So, yes, it has all happened. Jesus was right.’ I don’t find the logic satisfying.
Matt 24 and Acts 2 need to be each understood in relation to their own contexts. The context of Matt 24 is the introductory question: When will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age? To which Jesus gives a straight answer. Even now we have not yet reached the end of the age. The context of Acts 2 is: ‘They were all filled with the Holy Spirit.’ Peter says these people are not drunk, and goes on to explain the prophetic significance (Acts 2:17-18). Joel is speaking about what will happen before the great and terrible day of the Lord. It had all yet to happen, but quoting Joel was relevant because Pentecost was a foreshadowing of that future time. Jesus refers to it when he says “this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come”.
Peter continues quoting Joel (where he refers to wonders in the heavens above, signs on the earth below immediately before the great day of Joel 2:1, 11, 31, 3:14 and Rev 6:17, 16:14) in order to get to, for him, the punch line: “everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
‘• The Race/Nation Theory: While the Greek word genea usually means contemporaries, a minority view suggests it could translated as genos, meaning the Jewish race or nation. ‘
That is not a plausible reading of the term. ‘Genos’ is a different term from ‘genea’, which never means a race.
I am really enjoying the new in-depth approach, with the detailed comments on the text. As a non-conformist the lectionary reading are of little immediate relevance but I always read these with great interest and benefit and sometimes return to them when I am preaching on the passage in question.
One small nit-picking point (believe me, although the editor in me still lives on, I don’t check all the details; I was just interested in digging a little on this one) is that in v 10 both my print copy and my Logos copy of NA28 have ὑπὲρ in the text and περί in the apparatus. Am I missing something?
Glad you appreciate them! Ooh, I will have a look at that!
I’ve checked and you are right. I have looked in my UBS 6, and it doesn’t even bother with a note in the apparatus. There is no comment by NET or in Houghton’s textual commentary.
I think the reason is that both are common, the evidence is balanced, and there is little semantic difference.
But thanks for spotting!
Thanks Anthony
My thinking is “Rest in the Lord and wait
patiently for Him”, >Psalm 37:7 > Psalm 62:5 .
> Psalm 46:10 . Shalom.
Yes Peter, there are a few weird lenses out there,
best not to make a spectacle of ourselves .
Whilst 1 Thessalonians 4 was dealing with a very alien concern that we don’t really understand (fretting that the dead are forever cut off from salvation), 1 Thessalonians 5 is much more familiar territory: when does the world end? The answer St Paul gives – it’ll be like a thief in the night, you won’t see it coming – is a sort of 1st century “keep calm and carry on” message. And St Paul himself says in 1 Corinthians 13 that he only sees through a glass darkly, so why should we expect to see the signs?
But that probably isn’t the most important section, even though it directly answers the question of the Thessalonians. If Jesus’s coming is “like a thief in the night”, does that mean we’re currently in the night and how should we act? If it’s ‘nighttime’ St Paul posits two possibilities – go to sleep or party and get drunk. But we are to do neither, because we are “children of light” who therefore ought to stay awake and sober. What might that mean? St Paul has already used sleep as a metaphor for dead. So I think he’s trying to tell us that just because we’re confident in Jesus’s return that’s not an excuse to lay down and play dead (the end is nigh so why bother?), nor is it an excuse to go wild (the end of coming, so get your kicks in whilst you still can). That’s not who we are. We are active (awake) and sober (echoes of fruits of the spirit with patience, gentleness, self-control etc.?), and that’s not because we’ll punished if we’re not. God isn’t telling us to behave ourselves or be smited. Its the other way around. We’re awake and sober because we are children of the day not the night: we are responding to God’s love, not fearful of his destruction. Love others because we are loved. Build each other up, don’t tear each down.