Parables of Watchfulness

Before writing our post The X-Factor in the Olivet Discourse, I knew of no writer who describes the Olivet Discourse as a chiasmus. While preparing for our last post, I rejoiced to read the following by John F. Hart: “From a literary point of view, Matthew structures these as a chiasm. It is well known that Matthew brings order and precision to his Gospel. Chiastic structures in Matthew are quite common and are fully appropriate in light of his precision.”¹ He provides an outline for Matthew 24:3–44 that resembles the one in our post to a remarkable degree.

Hart did not include the outermost “exhortation” couplet in his chiasmus, but his validation of my overall approach encourages me to make a further observation: the exhortations not only form part of the overall chiasmus, the second one—in Matthew 24:37–25:46—is itself a chiasmus.

This chiasmus-within-a-chiasmus contains Jesus’ warnings related to the destruction of the Temple and the people who rejected Christ as its replacement. It takes the following shape:

A. Judgment event (distant past): Noah and the flood (Matthew 24:37–42)

B. Interim parable: the goodman and his servants (Matthew 24:43–51)

C. Entrance parable: the bridegroom and the ten virgins (Matthew 25:1–13)

B.* Interim parable: the lord and the servants (Matthew 25:14–30)

A.* Judgment event (distant future): the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:31–46)

All five warnings involve judgment. None of them contain the word “to judge,” but judgment permeates each of them. The Greek word used most often for “judgment” (krinō) means to “separate, put asunder, distinguish.”² It occurs, for example, in a statement Jesus made on his last journey to Jerusalem,³ just before giving the Olivet Discourse: “Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging (krinō) the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matthew 19:28). All five warnings at the end of the Olivet Discourse paint a picture of division among people.

Two of the warnings—the outermost couplet—refer to judgment divisions far removed from the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. We saw in our last post how Jesus used the flood of Noah’s time to warn of soon-coming events connected with the destruction of the Temple (Matthew 24:37–42). God would “take” many Jews in Jesus’ generation to destruction. He would “leave behind” a few to live in the Messianic age. This would resemble what happened in Noah’s day.

The Lord will conclude his Olivet Discourse with a reference to a judgment in that generation’s distant future (Matthew 25:31–46). The application will be similar to the flood judgment. We consider that judgment in our next post (D.V.).

Between these two distant judgments, Jesus gave three parables of warning. Two deal with God’s judgment of his servants during the interim between the Olivet Discourse and the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. These judgments both deal with how the servants used the time allotted them during the interim. The central parable about ten virgins emphasizes entrance into the kingdom.

This post contains a few comments on each of these three parables. Of necessity, we must omit much interesting material. Our goal here is to show how inmillennialism understands these warnings in relation to the subject of the Olivet Discourse, the destruction of the Temple, and the judgment of Israel.

The Goodman and His Servants

Inmillennialism understands this parable of “The Goodman and His Servants” to refer to Israel during Jesus’ generation. As is true in most cases, we can make secondary applications of this parable to other times and situations. Jesus’ primary focus, however, is to the specific circumstances that existed during the “last days” (Hebrews 1:2) of the Mosaic age. Several observations show the truthfulness of this assertion.

First, the similarity of this parable to “The Parable of the Tenants” (Matthew 21:33–46, ESV) shows the two deal with the same subject. Jesus spoke the “Tenant” parable earlier on the same day he gave the Olivet Discourse.⁴ There, too, a person responsible for a house comes to judge the actions of his servants. Jesus interprets the parable: it shows the judgment of the apostate Jews in his generation. God would take the kingdom from them and give it to another nation (Matthew 21:43).

The unbelieving Jews understood the parable: “And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them” (Matthew 21:45; emphasis added). They were “the servants” and they pronounced their own verdict: “He [i.e., the house master] will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons” (Matthew 21:41).

A few hours later that day—Tuesday of Passion Week—Jesus made the timeframe of his parables clear: “Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation” (Matthew 23:36). This, in turn, served as a segue into the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24 and 25).

There is no reason to believe Jesus changed subjects in our current parable (Matthew 24:43–51). That day he spoke multiple times of the devastating judgment about to fall on apostate Israel for their persecution of God’s prophets and rejection of his Son. God would require their blood of that generation.

A few hours earlier he had spoken a parable that resembled this one. Without question, the earlier parable pertained to the Jews of Jesus’ day. This implies, almost to the point of certainty, that Jesus is also speaking about the same events in the parable of “The Goodman and His Servants.”

Second, in our current parable, Jesus mentions the coming (erchomai) of the Son of Man (Matthew 24:44). There appears to be no reason to see this as different from the event Jesus mentioned earlier: “they shall see the Son of man coming (erchomai) in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” (Matthew 24:30). Jesus included this “coming” in “all these things” that would occur in his generation (Matthew 24:34).

The possibility that Jesus would use the same language to describe two separate events in the same context seems remote. Nothing in the text shows that “coming” in the two statements—verses 30 and 44—refers to different events. The “coming” statements are identical; both refer to the judgment coming of the Lord against Jerusalem, the Temple, and people of Israel in that generation.

Third, the Old Testament often refers to the Temple (or tabernacle) as the “house of God” (Matthew 24:43). For example, God told Israel that “the first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring into the house of the LORD thy God” (Exodus 23:19; emphasis added. See also Exodus 34:26; Deuteronomy 23:18; 26:13; et al.).

Only Israelites were God’s house servants. They alone bore responsibility for the welfare of God’s house. This parable applies to them: they had been unfaithful as servants. Placing this parable in a discourse about the destruction of the Temple (Matthew 24:1–3)—God’s house for which they bore responsibility—is entirely fitting. They had turned God’s house of prayer into a den of thieves (Matthew 21:13).

Fourth, Jesus applies to this parable the same uncertain timestamp he established earlier (Matthew 24:36). He said, “Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come” (Matthew 24:42; emphasis added); “Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh” (Matthew 24:44; emphasis added); and “The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of” (Matthew 24:50; emphasis added). The events of which Jesus spoke would occur in that generation, but men would not know the day or hour. That the timeframe remains unchanged suggests the events of the parable are identical to those Jesus described above.

With this understanding, the “faithful and wise servant” (Matthew 24:45) in this parable represents those in Israel who had faith in Jesus as the Messiah. During the interim between the Olivet Discourse and the destruction of the Temple in AD 70, they worshiped and served God in spirit and truth (John 4:23–24), worship that would characterize the Messianic age. The goodman would make them rulers in his house during the parousia (presence) of Christ.

The Bridegroom and the Ten Virgins

I have a poignant memory associated with the parable of “The Bridegroom and the Ten Virgins” (Matthew 25:1-13). It comes from a Bible conference in a distant city. The conference hosts invited me and another minister, whom I had never met, to speak on topics of our choosing.

My plan was to preach through the book of Hebrews from an “inmillennial” perspective. (That label did not exist at the time.) I intended to talk about some of the insights into this book my newfound view of prophecy had provided. For example, I looked forward to teaching that “the last days” in Hebrews 1:2 refers to the end of the Mosaic age, not the end of history.

The other brother preached the first message of the conference. To my surprise, he began preaching through the Olivet Discourse using a strong dispensational approach. My wife, who knew what I planned to preach, leaned toward me and whispered, “this ought to be interesting.”

It was. The conference proceeded without open eschatological conflict, a cause for thankfulness. I enjoyed getting to know the people there, including my dispensationalist brother. His love for Christ was obvious and refreshing.

One particular interpretation he offered, however, gave me a shock. In his opinion, all ten of the virgins in Jesus’ parable represented Christians! His argument went something like this: all the women were “virgins.” This represents a purity only saved people possess. Unbelievers cannot be “virgins” in God’s sight.

Further, all ten virgins had lamps—lights God had given them. Oil, a symbol of the Holy Spirit, filled (or had filled) the lamps of each. Only Christians have such lamps and oil. All ten were, therefore, saved individuals.

By some reasoning process that escapes me at the moment, this brother said the ten virgins represent Jewish Christians that will live at the time Jesus establishes his future millennial kingdom. The virgins lacking oil for their lamps represent believing Jews who will go to heaven, but not enter the millennial kingdom age.

An inmillennialist would interpret this passage in a different manner. He would agree with my fellow conference speaker on one vital point—all ten virgins represent Israelites. Let us establish this by comparing Scripture with Scripture (cf. 1 Corinthians 2:13).

The Old Testament prophets often used the term “virgin” to refer to Israelites in covenant relationship with God. Jeremiah provides one example among many. During the time of God’s judgment against the first Temple, he said: “The ways of Zion do mourn, because none come to the solemn feasts: all her gates are desolate: her priests sigh, her virgins are afflicted, and she is in bitterness” and “the virgins of Jerusalem hang down their heads to the ground” (Lamentations 1:4; 2:10; emphasis added).

Jeremiah also used the word “virgin” to describe Jews who would enjoy future new covenant blessings. He records the words of God: “Again I will build thee, and thou shalt be built, O virgin of Israel: thou shalt again be adorned with thy tabrets, and shalt go forth in the dances of them that make merry” (Jeremiah 31:4).

Jeremiah applied “virgin” imagery to both Israel under God’s judgment and to Israel under the new covenant in Christ. Jesus used “virgin” imagery in the same way. God would shut the foolish “virgins” in Israel—those who rejected Christ—out of the kingdom he was establishing. He would also welcome the wise “virgins” in Israel—those who believed in Jesus—into the Messianic kingdom.

One aspect of the Greek tenses in this passage reinforces this conclusion. When the foolish virgins say “our lamps are gone out” (Matthew 25:8), they use a present tense verb: “our lamps are going out” (ESV). “The sputtering, flickering, smoking wicks were a sad revelation”⁵ to them.

This fits well in the inmillennial understanding of the Olivet Discourse. The “virgins” represent Israel as they possessed the Mosaic covenant blessings—symbolized by light and oil.

Those blessings would soon come to an end for those Israelites outside of Christ. Their oil was running low and their light was about to go out. The fall of the Temple would complete the process and end their covenant relationship with God.

The only Jewish “virgins” who would enter the kingdom were those who were also in Christ. These wise “virgins” had renewed resources: New Testament light and Holy Spirit oil. They, along with a host of Gentiles, would serve as the light of the world in the Messianic age (Matthew 5:14). God would give them the oil of the Holy Spirit (cp. 1 John 2:20).

The time-stamp in this parable shows its unity with what Jesus had already said in the Olivet Discourse. Jesus used the same uncertain timeframe for when this division among the virgins would occur: “Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh” (Matthew 25:13; emphasis added). This is almost identical to the second part of his time answer: “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only” (Matthew 24:36). This parable deals with events in the same timeframe.

The previous parable emphasized the behavior of Israel during the time between the Olivet Discourse and the destruction of the Temple. This one focuses on entrance into the kingdom itself: “they that were ready went in” to the kingdom (Matthew 25:10). This serves as the centerpiece—the main focal point—of Matthew’s chiasmus of warning parables. The following parable returns to the interim and maintains the symmetry of the passage.

The Lord and the Servants

Our analysis of “The Lord and the Servants” parable (Matthew 25:14–30) will be brief. The above discussion goes far toward showing how it applies to the generation living in Jesus’ day.

Jesus described the “coming” of the lord of this parable: “Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming (erchomai) I should have received mine own with usury” (Matthew 25:27). This matches well the “coming” Jesus had mentioned earlier: “they shall see the Son of man coming (erchomai) in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” (Matthew 24:30). This parable agrees with the one about “The Goodman and His Servants” (Matthew 24:43-51): both illustrate the “coming” of the Son of Man in judgment in that generation (Matthew 24:34).

Some commentators stress that the lord in this parable returns “after a long time” (Matthew 25:19). Therefore, they say, this parable cannot pertain to Jesus’ generation. This is problematic because, in the parable, the time is long but still within the lifetime of the servants. “Long” here can fit within the generation of Matthew 24:34. There is no need, at least in inmillennialism, to force this parable out of its Olivet Discourse setting.

N. T. Wright provides helpful insights into this parable. He also summarizes its relationship to the other parables in the Olivet Discourse:

In Matthew, the other parables in chapter 25 are focused, not on the personal return of Jesus after a long interval in which the church is left behind, but on the great judgment which is coming very soon upon Jerusalem and her current leaders, and which signals the vindication of Jesus and his people as the true Israel. There is, of course, a time-lag to be undergone, but it is not the one normally imagined. It is not the gap between Jesus’ going away and his personal return (the ‘coming of the son of man’ in the literalistic, non-Danielic sense); it is the time-lag, envisaged in Matthew 24, between the ministry of Jesus and the destruction of Jerusalem. This time-lag will be a period in which, in Jesus’ absence, his followers will be open prey to the deceit of false Messiahs, and will face a period of great suffering before their vindication dawns.⁶

Moses (and other Old Testament prophets) called Israel God’s “servants”: “Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever” (Exodus 32:13; emphasis added).

Jesus final parable describes a division in God’s Mosaic-age servants. Some would use the blessings God had given and prosper in the Messianic age. Others would hide their blessings “in the earth” (Matthew 25:25) and remain unproductive. These would perish.

Conclusion

The three parables in Matthew 24:43–25:30 each depict a division soon to occur in Israel. Jesus divided the nation into two subgroups. The first comprised those who belonged only to Israel after the flesh (1 Corinthians 10:18). The second subgroup contained those who belonged to Israel after the flesh and were disciples of Christ.

The Lord described the first subgroup as an “evil servant” (first parable, Matthew 24:48), as foolish virgins (second parable, Matthew 25:2), and as a “wicked and slothful servant” (third parable, Matthew 25:26).

The following images describe the second subgroup in Israel: “a faithful and wise servant” (first parable, Matthew 24:45), wise virgins (second parable, Matthew 25:2), and “good and faithful servants” (third parable, Matthew 25:21).

These parables describe Israel in Jesus’ generation. They were servants in God’s house, virgins in God’s family, and administrators of God’s blessings during the Mosaic age. God cursed some of them but blessed others in the events surrounding the Temple’s fall.

The attempted application of these parables to some other situation results in awkward interpretations. A situation where God will curse some of his true house servants, virgins, and administrators will never again exist. A unique situation existed in Jesus’ generation. The separation between the two groups within Israel is finished. Inmillennialism accounts for this uniqueness with ease.

Another separation not limited to Israel will occur in that generation’s distant future. That will be the subject of our next post (D.V.).

1. John F. Hart, “Should Pretribulationists Reconsider the Rapture in Matthew 24:36–44? Part 1 of 3,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 20:39(Autumn 2007), 53. Hart uses an alternate spelling of chiasmus.
2. Henry George Liddell et al., A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 996.
3. A. T. Robertson, A Harmony of the Gospels for Students of the Life of Christ (New York: Harper, 1922), 139, 144.
4. Robertson, A Harmony of the Gospels, 160.
5. Archibald Thomas Robertson, “The Gospel According to Matthew,” in Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman, 1933), 1:197.
6. N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 636.