Has God known the hour and day of the day of the second coming from all eternity (Matthew 24:36)?

J. Hathaway

- 7 minutes read - 1296 words

In LDS culture, Matthew 24:36 is quoted as witnessing that God knows the exact moment of His second coming. Without the surrounding verses, it is powerful in its statement of God’s knowledge of the future. Jesus says, ‘But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.’

Two analogies wrap verse 36 about nature and seasons that strongly implies a relational view of the timing of the second coming instead of a stopwatch or Japanese train arrival view. Before discussing the hour of his coming, Jesus says, ‘Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when you shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.’ to help us understand that even mortals can discern approximately when the second coming happens. Hence, God can use all His knowledge of the past and the people in the present to see this moment as well. The parable of the fig tree is saying as much. A fig tree does not drop fruit in a vacuum. It does not drop fruit according to a stopwatch. It drops fruit in response to the surroundings. It acts in concert with the sun, the rain, and the winds.

Then just after verse 36, Jesus brings up Noah and the floods. Another example that is dependent on the weather’s interaction with the people on the planet. To this point, Jesus has shown that he can control both the weather (Mark 4:37-40)1 and the trees (Mark 11:13-14, 20-21)2 when he speaks. However, both examples were much more relational. He controlled the waters in response to his disciples’ faith and appeared to be releasing the elements from a possession rather than controlling them1. He cursed the tree as a parable describing the upcoming loss of the temple as a result of the children of God’s acts2.

We see Matthew 24:36 wrapped by two analogies that explain how God makes the final timing decision, but not until the seasons (man’s agency) has necessitated the response. Interestingly, there are many references to Matthew 24:36 in LDS writings, but few to none make any comment about God knowing the exact hour. Even Bruce R. McConkie’s detailed commentary on the Gospels is silent on God’s knowledge of the time of the second coming (see pages 664-667). They all explain that we will know the season if we are attentive but are quiet on the last four words of verse 36.3

Greg Boyd on his Reknew webiste provides an insightful way to see Matthew 24. The nuance is between ‘fixed future omniscience’ and ‘general future’ knowledge. He can guide and protect us with ‘general future’ knowledge as the scriptures testify.

Other scholars, however, argue that at least part of the passage refers to the very end of world history. Even if this latter group of scholars are right, we are reading too much into the passage if we suppose that it demonstrates that the future is exhaustively settled. Jesus prophesied that there will be wars (vs. 6), false messiahs (vs. 5, 24), famines and earthquakes (vs. 7) and persecutions (vs. 9). This simply means that the general features of how the world will end are settled and that God knows them as such. Given that the omniscient Lord knows perfectly the evil hearts of people and of fallen angels, and given that he knows that Satan and the kingdom of darkness are going to make one last all out effort to destroy God’s plan, as many other New Testament passages make clear, it should come as no surprise that God can accurately predict the turmoil the world will be in when history finally comes to a close.

Matthew 24:36 is an excellent example of how God’s, man’s, and His people’s agency all interact. I see this verse explaining that God’s children create the times and the seasons. We have the agency to bring the times of the second coming to fruition. God clearly knows the seasons (general futures) of our combined actions. But He is dependent on us to act to bring about the conditions. While we have the agency and power to work with Him to create those conditions, we do not have the agency to bring Christ back to earth. God’s agency dictates this moment. No man can make God return; God decides. However, his meekness and respect for His relationship with His children will let us make His paths straight4 so that He can finally decide the hour to enter.

  1. In The Gospel according to Mark, Julie Smith explains how Jesus was potentially performing an exorcism of the sea, which changes the context of this example. Jesus would instead be granting the sea its agency instead of controlling it. “4:39 And he arose, and rebuked the wind: “Rebuke” is the same word used in 1:25, where it referred to expelling demons; thus, some details in this story suggest that it is an exorcism of the sea.and said unto the sea, Peace, be still: The word translated as “be still” is the same word that Jesus uses to command the demon to “hold thy peace” in 1:25. In both contexts, the command is joined to a rebuke. This parallel contributes to the exorcism motif.’ ↩︎ ↩︎

  2. In The Gospel according to Mark Julie Smith explains that the story of the fig tree should be seen as a parable and that how it sandwiches the story of the purging of the temple is meant to open the disciples’ mind to just as difficult a concept as God being with His people without His people having a temple. Once again, a relational story showing Jesus responding to the actions and faith of God’s children. ‘His pronouncement on the tree is likely less a curse than a prophetic announcement of the fruitlessness of Israel. The note that it was not the season for figs in a sense absolves the leadership: figs were simply not something that they could have been expected to provide at this time. There might be a wisp of Atonement theology here, as the fruitfulness that Jesus desires to see is something that no human can be expected to provide.’ and ‘By returning to the story of the fig tree after the temple action, Mark creates a sandwich that suggests that the story of the fig tree and the story of Jesus’ actions in the temple should be used to interpret each other. Because the barren, fruitless tree is an HB symbol of destruction and judgment for evil (see Hosea 9:16], it suggests that the temple action should also be viewed as an enacted prophecy of destruction, not of cleansing. Further, Jesus quoted from Jeremiah 7:11 during the temple action; Jeremiah 8:13 refers to barren fig trees and thus links these passages together, especially since the Jeremiah text shows the Lord wanting to gather figs when there are none to be found. Readers have puzzled over the relationship between Jesus’ reaction and Peter’s statement—how is it that faith and prayer relate to the withered fig tree? The association between the withered fig tree and the promised destruction of the temple (which is implicit in Jesus’ action at the temple) makes sense of Jesus’ statement: in the ancient world, gods are linked to temples, which meant that the destruction of the temple came perilously close to suggesting the destruction of God. With this response, Jesus severs the link between the temple and God by showing how it is possible for them to have faith in God even without a temple.’ ↩︎ ↩︎

  3. https://scriptures.byu.edu/#::c08c1836 ↩︎

  4. D&C 133:17 and Alma 7:19 both use this interesting phrasing about us straightening the paths of God. ↩︎

comments powered by Disqus