From: Apocalyptic
and History: Matthew 24 Return to Home
By Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2013
WHERE APOCALYPTIC AND HISTORY MERGE:
A HISTORIAN’S PERSPECTIVE ON MATTHEW 24 AND ITS PARALLELS
IN LIGHT OF OLD
TESTAMENT PRECEDENT
AND
FIRST CENTURY HISTORY
(1998)
By
Roland H. Worth, Jr.
Copyright © 2013 by author
Reproduction of this book for non-profit
circulation by any electronic or print media means is hereby freely granted at
no cost—provided the text is not altered in any manner.
If accompanied by additional,
supplemental material—in agreement or disagreement—it must be clearly and
visibly distinguishable from the original text.
Table of Contents
Introductions to E-book Edition
Original Introduction
CHAPTER ONE:
THE CHRONOLOGY OF FULFILLMENT INTENDED BY THE TEXT
Test Case: The Chronological Unity of Matthew 24:4-34
Internal
Evidence that A Different Set of Events is Described
Beginning
in Matthew 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33
A First
Century Interpretation of Matthew 24:434 (and Its Parallel Section in
Mark and Luke) Demanded by the Text Itself
Arguments
against this Textual Division of Subject Matter
Other
Proposed Divisions of the Text between the Two Subject Matters
Discussion
of the Fall of Jerusalem Ends in Matthew 24:14/Mark 13:13
Discussion
of the Fall of Jerusalem Ends in Matthew 24:25/Mark 13:23
Discussion of the Fall of Jerusalem Ends in Matthew 24:28/Mark 13:23/
Luke
21:24
Discussion
of the Fall of Jerusalem Ends in Matthew 24:42/Mark 13:33/
Luke
21:34
Alternate
Scenario One: The Entire Chapter was
Intended as a Picture
of
First Century Events
Alternate Scenario Two: The Entire Chapter Refers to The “Second
Coming” of Christ Rather than
the Fall of Jerusalem
Alternate
Scenario Three: The Two Themes are
Jumbled Together
CHAPTER TWO: THE
FALL OF JERUSALEM DESCRIBED
(Matthew 24:1-15; Mark 13:1-14a; Luke 21:5-20)
The Questions of the Disciples (Matthew 24:1-3; Mark 13:1-4; Luke
21:5-7)
Warning:
The Danger of Deception (Matthew 24:4; Mark 13:5; Luke 21:8a)
1. False Messiahs (Matthew 24:5; Mark 13:6;
Luke 21:8b)
2. War (Matthew 24:6-7a; Mark 13:7-8a; Luke
21:9-10)
3. Rumors of War (Matthew 24:6-7a; Mark
13:7-8a)
4. Famines (Matthew 24:7b; Mark 13:8b; Luke
8:11a)
5. Earthquakes (Matthew 24:7c; Mark 13:8b; Luke
8:11b)
6. Pestilence (Luke 21:11c)
7. Frightening and heavenly phenomena (Luke
21:11d)
Warning:
This Would Not Be All! (Matthew 24:8a; Mark 13:8c)
Chapter Two/Part Two Begins Here:
8. Persecution of Jesus' Disciples (Matthew
24:9; Mark 13:9, 11; Luke 21:12-15)
9. Apostasy to be Common (Matthew 24:10a)
10. Believers to Betray Each Other (Matthew
24:10b; Mark 13:12;
Luke
21:16-19)
11.
Believers to Hate Each other (Matthew 24:10c; Mark 13:13a; Luke 21:16-19)
12. Many False Prophets (Matthew 24:11)
13.
Diminished Religious Fervor (Matthew 24:12)
Admonition: Endure Regardless! (Matthew 24:13; Mark
13:13b)
14.
Worldwide Preaching of Gospel (Matthew 24:14; Mark 13:10)
15
Appearance of the "Desolating Sacrilege" (Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14a;
Luke
21:20)
CHAPTER THREE:
THE NEEDED BELIEVER RESPONSE TO THE FALL OF
JERUSALEM
(Matthew 24:16-20;
Mark 13:14b-18; Luke 21:21-23a)
1. Flee to the Mountains (Matthew 24:16; Mark
13:14b; Luke 21:21a)
2. Don't Waste Time in the Hour of Crisis
(Matthew 24:17-18; Mark 13:15-16;
Luke
21:21b)
3. Impediments to successful flight (Matthew
24:19-20; Mark 13:17-18;
Luke
21:23a)
A.
Having Children (Matthew 24:19; Mark 13:17; Luke 21:23a)
B.
Winter (Matthew 24:20; Mark 13:18)
C.
Sabbath (Matthew 24:20)
CHAPTER FOUR:
OTHER TROUBLES OF THE ERA
(Matthew 24:21-26; Mark 13:19-23; Luke 21:23b-24)
1. Unprecedented Nature of the Catastrophe
(Matthew 24:21-22;
Mark 13:19-20; Luke
21:23b-24)
A.
Unprecedented Destruction
B. Degree of Destruction Would Never Be Repeated
C. Total Annihilation Would Be a Realistic
Danger
D. Divine Intervention Would Cut Short the
Duration
2. False Claimers to be Messiah and Prophet
(Matthew 24:23-26; Mark 13:21-23)
A. The Rumor of Such Individuals Would
Definitely Exist (Matthew 24:23;
Mark
13:21)
B. They Would Even Be Able to Work
Pseudo-Miracles (Matthew 24:24a;
Mark
13:22a)
C. The Danger of Successful Deception Was
Present (Matthew 24:24b;
Mark
13:22b)
D. Since They Were Forewarned They Were to
Reject Such Claims
(Matthew 24:25-26; Mark
13:23)
CHAPTER FIVE:
INTERPRETING THE DISASTER FROM A BELIEVER VIEWPOINT
(Matthew 24:27-33; Mark 13:24-29; Luke 21:25-31)
1. The Disaster to Be a "Coming" of
Jesus (Matthew 24:27)
2. The Disaster to be a Gathering of Eagles
(Matthew 24:28)
3. The Disaster to Tear Apart the Visible Cosmos
(Matthew 24:29;
Mark
13:24-25; Luke 21:25a)
4. The Disaster to Cause World-Wide Mourning
(Matthew 24:30; Mark 13:26;
Luke
21:25b-27)
5. Believers to be Rescued Due to Angels
(Matthew 24:31; Mark 13:27;
Luke
21:28)
6. Signs of the Catastrophe to be Obvious
(Matthew 24:32-33; Mark 13:28-29;
Luke
21:29-31)
CHAPTER SIX:
TRANSITION:
FROM NEAR FUTURE TO INDEFINITE FUTURE
(Matthew 24:34-36; Mark 24:30-32; Luke 21:32-33)
1. Previously Described Events in the Short Term Future/the Then-Living
Generation (Matthew 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32)
2. In Contrast, the Date of the Ultimate Passing
Away of the Visible World is
Unknowable (Matthew 24:35-36; Mark 13:31-31; Luke 21:33)
CHAPTER SEVEN:
THE GREATER COMING THAT WAS POST FALL OF JERUSALEM
(Matthew 24:37-44; Mark 13:33-37; Luke 21:34-36)
1. World to Be Unprepared As in Noah's Day
(Matthew 24:37-39)
2. Many to be Found Unacceptable (Matthew
24:40-41)
3. The Lesson for Believers: Be Ready!
(Matthew
24:42-44; Mark 13:33; 37; Luke 21:34-36
A.
The Illustration in Matthew: the
Unwarned Householder
(Matthew
24:42-44)
B.
The illustrtation in Mark: The
Leading Servant who Becomes Blind to
His
Responsibilities Due to the Passage of Time (Mark 13:33-37)
C.
The Illustration in Luke: The
Perpetual Danger of Individual Human
Weakness
undermining Preparation (Luke 21:34-36)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[Page 5]
2013:
Introduction Update
This version of my study is dated
2003 in my files—prepared with the hope of ultimately posting it on the
internet--and was written somewhere about 1998, since it was circulating to
publishers the following year (see “Original Intended E-book Introduction,”
below). I have chosen to distribute it
in the current form rather than update it since at its current 73,000 words it
is at a nice, “readable” length. Long
enough for detail, but not long enough that it might “overwhelm” most readers.
Not that I
have any problem with “king size” books in and of themselves: my updated 1 Corinthians commentary
mushroomed—chapter 15 alone growing to 162,000 words! Yet there is a time and place for everything
and it seems most prudent to go with what is already completed. And, yes, I do want to come back to
the subject. Certain aspects deserve a
reconsideration.
For one thing,
it’s 15 years after this version was completed, which itself was probably 25
years after the original articles appeared in the Gospel Guardian. Later reading, study and thought nearly
always modifies what one originally wrote, if by nothing more than giving
greater depth to the analysis.
That does not,
however, mean that I suspect that the fundamental conclusions are likely to
alter—only that discipleship is, at heart, a process of ever being willing to
learn more. Also in the current form I
am convinced it can be of considerable value to many no matter what—if
any—modifications come later.
And, to be
blunt, at my age (70) and health one can never be too sure just how much life
is left and it would seem a shame to leave this material uncirculated
due to a misjudgment on that matter. To
be brutally candid, that concern was the decisive one in presenting the
material at this time.
I have found
by experience that normal footnoting usually results in a visually weird
appearance with the limited technical knowledge I have of computer
matters. There are too many of them to
substitute “on line” footnoting of some type, so I must beg your indulgence for
this visual lapse.
[Page 6]
Roland
H. Worth, Jr.
November,
2013
Original Intended
E-book Introduction (2003)
There are many things that try the
spirit of authors: publishers who never
respond to a manuscript they have accepted for review (my personal record is
three years—two different manuscripts, each at a different publisher!), publishers
who don’t respond to query letters at all, publishers who provide such vague
descriptions of the type of book they are interested in that anything (and
nothing!) could fit it, and the list goes on and on.
One of the most frustrating is to
have a good book and the editor agrees with you but he is forced to conclude
that they simply do not see how the firm can publish your work. The following work is of that type.
A letter to me dated April 19, 1999
summed up one editor’s evaluation of it, “It is excellently written and is a
superb treatment of possibilities of meaning in the text and your own positions
are clearly put forth. But it is
absolutely a scholar’s book with line by line textual analysis and multiple
scholarly opinions weighed against one another for probability and crossreferenced to other units of the text and their
various possibilities. Moreover, it is a
serious attempt to get behind the text to the intention of the authors and
editors and their situation and to unlock the historical or non-historical
likelihood of Jesus’ own intentions in his apocalyptic preaching. . . . But we are not doing this level of intricacy
any more. I am sorry to have to inform
you of this, but hope there will be other books and projects in the future.”
By the time I finally gave up, I had
submitted either manuscript samples or query letters summarizing the contents
and purposes to twenty-one places. My
file of correspondence related to the study measures about an inch in
thickness.
Rather than continue down this
futile path of seeking a conventional publisher—and the best prospects have
definitely been surveyed—I have decided to provide the book in an “e-book
edition” for free distribution to any who might find its subject matter
useful.
The question arose of whether to
“update” the text, but it is already of book length and I decided to simply
leave it as it has been shared with publishers in the past. Except for a second check of the spelling and
the addition of this additional introduction this is the book exactly as others
have had access to it. Although I must
confess a very heavy bias toward traditional print publishing, undoubtedly
e-books will ultimately become dominant.
Hopefully in such a context, this study will provide a usefulness for
the interpreter of Matthew 24 and its parallels.
Roland
H. Worth, Jr.
[Page 7]
Introduction
This book is written out of two very
different motives that happen to coincide in an analysis of the same chapter of
the New Testament.
Ironically, the less important (and
more transitory) deserves discussion first:
The end of the millennium has passed.
The end did not occur. Whatever
hardships individuals faced did not topple civilization. All the misuse of Matthew 24 and its
parallels had proved wrong. Again.
Of course it will only be
temporary. It won’t take more than a
decade or two but it will all be on us again.
There seems to be something (inherent?) in the human psyche that grasps
for a wrapping of the world as we know it and the replacement with something
better. (Perhaps the conscience’s
unwilling acknowledge of human sinfulness and societal failure?) So the fact of the most recent and glaring
failing will not silence for long the prophets of doom.
Outbursts of paranoia and
world-endedness have periodically dominated much of western religious
thinking. Secular religionists will
still dream of a dramatic world-wide shift in global morality and
priorities. Those who seek their salvation
in the stars, will still speak of overt alien intervention. To those within the “Christian heritage,” the
possible relationship of the turn of the millennium will revolve around the
age-old question of the ending of the world.
Inevitably Matthew 24 and its parallels in Mark 13 and Luke 21 will be
drawn into it and become a pivotal “scriptural basis” for believing that the
return of Jesus will be at that time.
Those of pre-millennial bend will speak of it as the time that Christ
will rule from Jerusalem; those of differing understanding will speak of the
cosmos being removed; yet others will think of terms of a Judeo-Christian
rebirth of spirituality spreading throughout the world.
Hence a study of these texts within
their original intention can serve as a useful corrective to the reams
(tons!) of misleading propaganda and outright distortions to which this text
will be put in the next few years. We
have summed the entire subject up under the book’s title Where Apocalyptic
and History Merge, since a failure to recognize this in Matthew 24 and its
parallels creates the massive abuse. The
blunt fact is that, at a minimum, the bulk of the text was intended to speak of
the fall of Jerusalem. The descriptions
not only verbally “fit” that period, but the chronology Matthew presents Jesus
as giving itself argues that this was His original purpose.
In each account most of the events
are described as to happen in “this generation” (Matthew 24:34; Mark 13:30;
Luke 21:32). In contrast the emphasis
is shifted in the remainder to events that even Jesus Himself can not provide
the “day and hour” for (Matthew 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33). This strongly argues that the Speaker has a
different type of event in mind than was being described in the first
two-thirds of the chapter.
[Page 8] In
our own chronological short term it is important for individuals to be aware
that there is nothing in the text that requires the millennium-end-of-the-world
interpretation. How long will it take to
recover from the embarrassment caused by the false prophets of 2000 doom who
claimed to teach on the basis of “clear Biblical teaching?” For too many, faith was needlessly
weakened. To avoid this needless
situation this book has been researched.
The second reason this volume is
being written involves a purpose that will remain of value decades after the
“beginning of the millennium madness” has become part of the new century’s
popular folklore: The need to
recognize Jesus’ apocalyptic message as walking firmly within the tradition of
the Torah and the prophets of the Old Testament. In my earlier work, The Sermon on the
Mount: Its Old Testament Roots, I
dealt with a chapter of Matthew that has been widely regarded as in direct
contradiction with the Old Testament.
Indeed, even those who began the discussion of the text with the claim
that Jesus was intending to be consistent nearly always landed up conceding a
contradiction between the two on one or more elements discussed in Matthew
5.
It would be inherently useful for
other aspects of the tight linkage of concept, terminology, and doctrine between
the gospel accounts and the Old Testament to be presented to the reading
public. For one thing it removes the
needless “confrontational” approach that is often the basis of interpreting the
relationship of the two testaments. It
seeks for areas of unity and continuation, for points of shared emphasis and
content. Yes, there are
differences but when we recognize the profound similarities we are in a
position to appreciate the existence of both elements of continuity and
discontinuity.
The latter is explicit only in the
epistles of the New Testament, though Jesus’ doctrine and practice sometimes go
to the edge of that which was Torah-permissible. In other cases, the Jesus message as we have
it in the gospels implies that He had additional thoughts that He had not yet
shared with the disciples.
When we think of a linkage between
the testaments in regard to the apocalyptic, he book of Revelation immediately
comes to mind. The Apocalypse is
certainly worthy of more attention in this regard than it has sometimes been
given--especially in regard to the fascinating conceptual links found in that
book’s bitterly contested chapter twenty and in the mini-epistles to the seven
churches of Asia. Yet the usage of the
Torah and prophets is significant in the writings of Paul and, even more so, of
Jesus during His ministry.
Hence the purpose here is to
continue our studies to Jesus’ personal teachings, as the synoptic gospels
record them. The image of Jesus has gone
through periodic cycles among scholars; in some decades, He has been a moral
ethicist; in others he was an apocalyptic thinker. In reality, He was both--and far more.
These attempts to rigidly classify
Jesus within extremely narrow interests leave the impression that He was an enthusiast,
obsessed with a single theme, and is utilized as a convenient tool for
questioning the historical reliability of His teaching on subjects not touching
on His supposed “central” message. These
efforts have too often reduced Jesus from a man of varied and wide-spread
interests into a simple creature with a one-dimensional obsession to which all
other matters are purely marginal. If
this approach rarely works for any significant historical leader of today why
should we expect it to work for the Nazarene?
[Page 9] Hence
we will be studying Jesus as a messenger of Old Testament apocalyptic, not in
an effort to reduce His teaching to an interest in one narrow theme but to
develop a better understanding of one of the key areas of His
concern. The emphasis is especially
justified since our own lack of Old Testament grounding usually causes us to
miss most of His conceptual allusions.
Hence our purpose is two-fold. First, to present a well-reasoned and
carefully documented explanation of the text that avoids the excesses of
fantastic speculation that are constantly at hand. (And no matter how often proved wrong,
“recycled” with a new set of “fulfilling events” a decade or so later.) Hence we hope to provide a responsible
alternative to the interpretive excesses already thriving and bound to
increase.
Just as importantly, we wish to
“flesh out” the teaching of Jesus. We
have already documented that He was walking firmly within the Torah-prophetic
tradition in some of His most controversial teaching in the Sermon on the
Mount. Here we will demonstrate that He
did the same in His apocalyptic message and utilize Matthew 24 and its parallel
retellings as the basis for our demonstration.
Our purpose is not some vain piling up of scripture texts, but to
demonstrate that the least Old Testament acquainted reader will be able to
grasp the extent and importance of this usage.
With Jesus it was not an occasional or sporadic usage; it lies at the
very heart of His way of thinking.
The part of the apocalyptic
discourse preserved in Mark breaks off at the end of a chapter and the break in
Luke 21:37 is equally clear cut. In
Matthew we find a much longer discussion that takes up all of chapters 24 and
25. Beginning in Matthew 24:43, we have
a shift into clearly parabolic material.
We have included only the first of these because it is a mini-parable of
only one verse, and this and the following one reinforces the theme of
watchfulness and alertness explicitly reinforces a recurring point in the
preceding chapter. The following
parables are of an extended nature and would be more appropriate in a different
type of discussion than this one. Here
we put the emphasis on the part of text that is best illustrated by then
contemporary history. The extended parables
would better fit in a context of strict exegesis, where such specific
contemporary illustrations are much more limited or non-existent.
For the purposes of our discussion
we will take the terms “the parousia,” “the second coming of Christ,” and “the
end of the world/age” as referring to the same event--all in distinction from
the fall of Jerusalem. “The end of the
world” is often rendered “age” in newer versions. So our own usage will use both “world” and
“age” to describe the event.
Even so, in response to the
apostles’ questions, Matthew 24:35 does, indeed, speak of “heaven and earth”
and how they “will pass away” and contrasts that with the abiding existence of
Jesus’ teaching. That does not have
to require the interpretation of a destruction of the visible cosmos, but it is
a reasonable and a natural one and that of older, traditional
interpretation. Especially when it is
introduced in contrast to the vast earthly calamities connected with the fall of
Jerusalem, something far more critical than the greatest of earthly alterations
of government and social system seems required.
It is also the approach I personally accept.
[Page 10] One
final question must be touched upon before we begin and that is the interpretation
of apocalyptic. When Biblical passages
are written which sound as if they were intended to be taken literally,
one should be very cautious indeed in insisting upon any other approach. But apocalyptic cries out for a figurative
and symbolic approach to interpretation.
To impose upon its language a “literalism”--when all it is demanding is
“realism”--does not do justice to the text.
Apocalyptic is designed to convey the message of Divine power active in
the world today. Not in some crude,
literalistic sense, but as an expression of the reality that actually underlies
the transitory manifestations of change, conflict, and revolution.
If we must use the term “literal” in
regard to apocalyptic at all, it is “literal” upon the emotional level; it
literally describes the emotional and psychological impact of the events being
described. It is “literal” in that it
accurately depicts massive devastation that exceeds all normal human experience
and which can not be done justice without such hyperbole. It expresses the truth not of the
photographer but of the painter. It
expresses the truth not of the reporter who “neutrally” chronicles the events
of the hour, but of the historian presenting its true impact and significance.
Hence we will interpret apocalyptic
in down-to-earth terms, as efforts to convey the emotional impact of truths and
realities that “literalism” can not fully convey. In doing this we will repeatedly cite event
after event that reasonably and meaningfully fulfills the thrust of the images
being presented. We do this not in order
to avoid the intent of such language, but to fulfill its underlying intent and
purpose.
Hence this volume will hopefully
prove itself useful for both the individual seeking a responsible,
down-to-earth interpretation of Jesus’ apocalyptic and for those seeking to see
how He walks within the doctrinal, conceptual, and even terminological steps of
the prophets who came before Him.
*
Some two decades ago, I prepared a
series of nine long articles on the interpretation of Matthew 24. These appeared in a small religious
publication sadly long defunct; hence the material would be virtually
inaccessible. This volume massively
revises, consolidates, and recasts the earlier study while taking it into Mark
and Luke and expanding it with new interpretive approaches I was not aware of
at the time of my original work. The Old
Testament precedent for Jesus’ apocalyptic rhetoric was only marginally
discussed in the earlier study while here it is a major subject of emphasis.
Unless otherwise indicated, the
translation utilized is the same as that of the original study, the Revised
Standard Version of the Bible.
Occasional quotations come from the New Revised Standard Version and the
New American Bible and are noted as such when they occur. When less than a full verse is cited it is
divided into “a” and “b” parts (if cited in two sections) or “a,” “b,” and “c”
(if three). This is to point the reader
to which section of a given verse is being referred to.
[Page 11]
CHAPTER ONE:
THE CHRONOLOGY OF FULFILLMENT INTENDED BY
THE TEXT
The appropriate place to begin our
study is with an examination of those indications in the text of the time frame
in which the events described were to be fulfilled. A substantial number of the phenomena described
could fit virtually any era.
Hence the need to start with the passage itself to discover those
internal indications of the period that the text itself points to.
Test Case: the
Chronological Unity of Matthew 24:4-34
The chapter begins with a
presentation of Jesus’ startling prediction that the temple would be destroyed
and the apostles’ questions in response (verses 1-3). Verses 4-34 form the next unit of the
text. It discusses what the passage
describes as “the beginning of the sufferings.”
Verses 9-14 discuss the “tribulation” that engulfed the early
church. These subsections are clearly
linked chronologically by the word “then:”
“Then they will deliver you. . . .” If we say, “I went to the hardware store; then
I went to the grocery store,” we link the two together as subsequent to each
other and--normally--tightly linked together as one coming quickly after the
other.
Verses 15-28 discuss the “desolating
sacrilege” and the even greater tribulation that erupts. This unit of thought is linked to the
preceding verses by the word “so:” “So
when you see. . . .” When we make the
statement, “I was robbed, so I called the police,” we present the two
actions as linked together; again, normally, in a first tightly linked time
relationship. When we find the word used
in verse 15, it [Page 12] is therefore natural to consider it as
linking the subsections concerning the “desolating sacrilege” (verses 15-28)
and that of the earlier “tribulation” of Christians found in verses 9-14.
Verses 29-34 deal with a “coming” of
Christ that occurs after the tribulation of the previous verses has begun. The tight time linkage is clearly presented
by the very first word in verse 29, “immediately:” “immediately after the tribulation of
those days. . .” The linkage of Verses
15-28 and 9-14 is implicit; the connection of verses 29-34 with what precedes
it, however, is explicit.
Similar verbal linkages can be
duplicated in both Luke and Mark[1].
Internal Evidence that A Different Set of Events
is Described
Beginning in
Matthew 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33
1.
The imminence of the fulfillment could be seen by the observant in the
bulk of the chapter, “So also, when you see all these things, you know
that He is near, at the very gates” (Matthew 24:33 and its parallels in Mark
13:29; Luke 21:31). This is not true of
the events described in the remainder of what is predicted, “Therefore you also
must be ready; for the Son of man is coming at an hour you do not expect”
(Matthew 24:44) Although not spelled out
in explicit terms, the same point is the clear premise of the demand for
perpetual alertness found in Mark and Luke as well.
2.
The first section of the text is loaded with “specificity;” the
remainder paints the events only with the broadest of verbal strokes. We read of wars, famines, etc. in Matthew
24:4-34 and its Markian and Lukian
parallels; in the remaining verses there is a lack of warning signs to
prepare people. “As were the days of
Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of man. . . . They did not know until the flood came
and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of man” (Matthew
24:37, 39). The same lack of warning
signs is the clear lesson of Mark and Luke though different illustrations are
utilized.
[Page 13] 3. The period depicted in Matthew 24:4-34 (and
parallels) is one of distress and danger.
We read of danger by persecution, famine, and war. In contrast Matthew 24:35-44 presents a period
of peace and tranquility. “As were the
days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of man. For as in those days before the flood they
were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage until the day when
Noah entered the ark” (Matthew 24:37-38).
In the illustrations found in Mark and Luke there is also no hint of
external crisis or pressure. Everything
gives every indication of moving along blissfully as in the past.
4.
Although events in multiple locations are referred to in the first half
of the text, the second half only speaks in “universal” terms.
War (implied: in various locations) is referred to (Matthew
24:6-7a; Mark 13:7-8a; Luke 18:9-10), but these are mere preliminaries to the
verses’ central thrust, the catastrophe of the fall of Jerusalem (Matthew
24:15-28 and parallels). Only one
explicitly “universal” reference is found and that is in regard to the gospel
being “preached throughout the whole world” (Matthew 24:14; Mark 13:10 with
minor differences; omitted entirely by Luke).
In contrast, the entire argument of the second division of the text hinges
upon its applicability in all places: be
watchful, wakeful, ready, i.e., at all places and at all times. The reference to the “universal” flood in
Noah’s day (Matthew 24:39) only makes clear-cut this “universality.”
5.
The imminent fulfillment of verses 4-34 (and parallels) is declared by
the text, “Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all
these things take place” (Matthew 24:34 and parallels). This is the very reverse of the situation
that follows afterwards. “But of that
day and hour no one knows” (Matthew 24:36 and parallels). “The Son of man is coming at an hour you do
not expect,” again making explicit the theme conveyed in the other gospels
(Matthew 24:44).
A First Century Interpretation of Matthew 24:4-34
(and Its Parallel Section in Mark and Luke)
Demanded by the Text Itself
[Page 14] There
are at least three additional major indications that Jesus intended His
listeners to be looking for events of the then current century.
1.
There is the constant use of “you” in the text, which would lead His
listeners to anticipate they would still be alive when the events occurred (to
cite only Matthew 24: verses 2 (twice),
4, 6, 9 (twice), 15, 20, 23, 25, 26, 33).
Although such language can be used in an accommodative sense, the
repeated stress on the element makes it far more probable that it was intended
in a “literal” sense of those listening to Him.
2.
Three times in the section Jesus makes it even more emphatic that the
“you” who would see the events consisted of the individuals then hearing His
words.
Again, to cite only Matthew: In verse 25, He says, “Lo, I have told you
beforehand.” The linkage of the two
words “you” and “beforehand” indicate that His listeners would see the
predicted events. Otherwise how could it
be of benefit to “you” to hear dire prophecies of coming disaster? Someone else, perhaps; but benefit them--it
is hard to see how.
Verse 33 speaks of you, “when you
see all these things, you know that He is near at the very gates.” Hence all the events were to be within the
same time frame; they would not be scattered centuries apart. How could this be interpreted by the
listeners except as affirmation that some of them would, indeed, live throughout
the entire period when these events occurred?
Finally, there is the text in
Matthew 24:34 where Jesus affirms, “Truly, I say to you, this generation
will not pass away till all these things take place.” Again, the time frame is specified as one
generation and the impression left on His listeners that it was their
generation.
3.
The events were to occur while there was still a “holy place” in
Judea. The abomination of desolation was
to be in a “holy place” (Matthew 24:15 and parallels) and since there follows
the injunction that when this occurs “let those who are in Judea flee” (Matthew
24:16 and parallels), it is only right to conclude that the “holy place” itself
must be in Palestine. There has been no
genuine “holy place”--a temple set up in conformity with the teaching of the
Torah and prophets--since the Jerusalem Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70. Hence the events of Matthew 24:4-34 and the
parallel sections in Mark and Luke must have occurred by this event at the
latest.
[Page 15]
Arguments against this Textual Division
of Subject Matter
Perhaps the strongest argument
against dividing the text where we do comes from Luke--not the parallel account
found in Luke 24, but quite a bit earlier, in chapter 17.
Within the confines of a shorter discussion, Luke 17:22-37 poses the
same problem as Matthew 24: does it
completely refer to the second coming of Jesus at the end of the world, does it
all refer to the fall of Jerusalem, or does it intermingle the two references? Few hold out for a conscious shifting from
one subject to another.[2] Most commentators refer it to an end-time
setting.[3]
The reference to not entering one’s
home makes perfect sense in Matthew 24 since the point was to flee promptly and
swiftly and not let even the dearest possession get in one’s way. In its alleged end time setting in Luke
17:31, however, one must resort to considerable verbal ingenuity to turn this
into a teaching relevant to the second coming--in which such an action would
serve no purpose. The difficulty has
been explicitly referred to by some exegetes tackling this text[4] and
various scenarios laid out in an effort to deal with the problem.[5]
On balance, it seems far more likely
to have in mind the fall of Jerusalem.
It begins with the remark that the day will come when the disciples will
wish to see “one of the days of the Son of man” (17:22) and warns that they
should not allow this desire to cause their falling for the claims of false Christs that would arise (17:23). In Matthew the appearance
of such imitators was a sign preceding the destruction of the city (Matthew
24:5) The Lukian
discussion ends with the reference (17:37) utilized by Matthew to describe
Jerusalem’s capture by the “eagle/vultures” of the Roman army (Matthew
24:28). Beginning and ending in this
manner, and with no obvious marks of transition within, it is most reasonable
to interpret the entire text as a reference to the fall of the Jewish
capital.
If one accepts this analysis, it can
be effectively argued that the events of the alleged end-time in Matthew
24:35-44 are also attributed to the fall of Jerusalem in [Page 16] Luke
17. There are similarities and omissions
between Matthew 25:35-44 and the Lukian text and
these need to be noted in detail in order to fairly evaluate the argument. (For conciseness we will cite only Matthew 24
and not the parallel accounts. Hence all
references to “Luke” will be to chapter 17.)
In Luke we have Jesus referring to
the precedent of Noah for the people of the era of the fall of Jerusalem being
oblivious of the approaching destruction (Luke 17:26-27), an idea found in the
end time part of Matthew, according to our suggested division of the text
(24:37-39). In Luke, the similar
obliviousness of Sodom in the days of Noah is thrown in (Luke 17:28-29), which
is omitted in Matthew 24.
In Luke’s account Jesus next urges
the individual on the housetop not to return into the house and the person in
the field not to “turn back” (17:31). In
Matthew 24:17 this statement comes in the context of fleeing Jerusalem.
In Luke we next find an admonition
not to imitate Lot’s wife (17:32), the allusion probably being that if we look
back in anxiety upon the worldly possessions about to be destroyed we will
forfeit our “salvation” from the disaster as surely as Lot’s longing had
destroyed her. This is followed by the
principle that seeking to save our life may cause us to lose it while the one
who loses it can, indeed, discovering that the result is “preserv[ing] it” (17:33).
None of this is in Matthew 24.
In Luke we next read of two sleeping
in one bed, one being taken and one being left (Luke 17:34). This is missing in Matthew 24. The following allusion to two women and how
one will be taken and one left (Luke 17:35) does find a Matthewean
parallel (24:41). There, however, it is
found after (verse 40) a reference to two men being in the field and how their
fates vary just as it did with the women.
The two men reference is found in some ancient manuscripts and
translated as Luke 17:36, but some translations do not regard as sufficiently
documented in the Lukian context to include in the
text.
Finally there is the introduction of
the eagle/vulture image circling a carcass (Luke 17:37), as the capstone of the
description of the final coming. In
Matthew 24 this appears in verse 28, a part of the text we have attributed to
the description of the fall of Jerusalem.
[Page 17] Hence
we have end of the world references in Matthew appearing in a fall of Jerusalem
context in Luke. Since it is inherently
improbable that Luke’s short account is intended to jump back and forth from
one of these subjects to the other, it is argued that it makes far better sense
that all of Matthew’s accounting also refers to the fall of Jerusalem.[6]
At the most this would argue that
similar imagery could be used of both events. The fact that the language is utilized of
end-time phenomena in Luke does not require that the mere use of the same
language requires that interpretation in Matthew 24. If that were true then context would be an
irrelevancy.
Jesus was the equivalent of a
preacher and a preacher utilizes the same imagery time and again but often in
very different contexts. Jesus did the
same--note, for example, the similarities yet differences between the parables
of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30) and the pounds (Luke 19:11-27). He uses the same basic concept but adapts it
to bring out different points. Likewise
in His description of the fall of Jerusalem and the end times, Jesus utilizes
verbal pictures that may fit one or both events--but the context must be
consulted to determine which event is in His mind. And the context in Matthew 24 makes a
clear-cut distinction between end-of-Jerusalem and end-time events.
Those who interpret the text as
referring to a single event must not only explain why the textual division we
have suggested is inadequate, but also explain the substantial evidence that
can be introduced in its favor. Some
specific words and phrases that seem contradictory to such approaches will be examined
in detail in the body of the text.
Specifically we have in mind how one attempts to reconcile words like
“immediately” and “this generation” with competing interpretive scenarios.
Here, however, would be the most
appropriate place to examine a much broader issue--how one can explain the two different
atmospheres that we have suggested exist:
in the first part of the chapter, the concern and the foreboding with
calamities aplenty that led to the fall of Jerusalem and in the last section of
the chapter the blasé unconcern leading to the second coming. This tension between the [Page 18] period
of calamity in the first section of the chapter and the apparent tranquil
environment beginning in verse 37[7] must
be reconciled if the entire chapter discusses either the Fall of Jerusalem or
the ultimate end.
Other Proposed Divisions
of the Text between the Two Subject Matters
Discussion of the Fall of Jerusalem Ends in Matthew
24:14/Mark 13:13
Not everyone who sees two subjects being
discussed in the chapter places the division point between the two themes where
I have.[8] Hence it would be useful to examine other
approaches and evaluate their strengths and weaknesses. The most varied scenarios are offered in
regard to Matthew. The equivalent
dividing point in the other two recountings is provided for reader convenience
in comparing the “workability” of a given scenario from one gospel to
another. In our initial alternative,
Luke lacks a record of this part of the prediction and therefore commentators
can not use it as a construction post in marking out a division of the
text.
William G. Thompson views Matthew
24:4-14 as describing events related to “the unsuccessful Jewish revolt against
Rome (A.D. 66-70).”[9] Verses 14-31 shift to the period of “great
tribulation” that finally culminates in the “second coming.”[10] Verses 32-35 are intended to provide
“assurance” that the coming will be “soon”[11]
while 24:36-25:30 is an “exhortation to vigilance” until that event occurs.[12] There are serious difficulties here: the reference to the “desolating sacrilege”
in verse 15 makes best sense in relationship to the fall of Jerusalem as does
the accompanying admonitions to promptly flee for one’s life (verses 16-18) and
that the casualties would be massive (verse 21-22). Interestingly, Herman C. Waetjen flips this
chronology over, making the temple-specific text begin at verse 15![13] In a Markian context, Earle McMillan appears
receptive at a division at Mark 13:13/Matthew 24:14, although conceding that
the later verses may refer to a repetition of similar phenomena at a different
point in world history.[14]
[Page 19]
Discussion of the Fall of Jerusalem Ends in Matthew 24:25/
Mark 13:23
J. Enoch Powell has Matthew 24:5-25
(with the exception of verse 14) describing the fall of Jerusalem and events
leading to it.[15] Verse 26 serves merely as a lead in to the
second section of the chapter, which properly begins in verse 27 and describes
the “supernatural” phenomena accompanying the parousia.[16] Against this approach lies the fact that
the catastrophic heavenly-earthly events depicted in verses 29-30 represent
typical Old Testament rhetoric to describe a revolution in earthly
politico-religious affairs. As such it
would ably fit the fall of Jerusalem as well.
Luke lacks a parallel text to
study. A few individuals find the
parallel that exists in Mark an attractive thematic dividing point.[17]
Discussion of the Fall of Jerusalem Ends in Matthew
24:28/Mark 13:23/Luke 21:24
Matthew 24:28 lacks a verbal
parallel in either Mark or Luke. On the other
hand, what comes next in Matthew--a reference to the light from the heavenly
bodies being lost is found in Mark 13:24.
An apparent allusion to the same idea (though considerably toned down
from the dramatic language in the other two texts) is found in Luke
21:25a. Hence, within a framework of
Matthew, the breaking points for the two parallel accounts would be Mark 13:23
and Luke 21:24.
Some commentators clearly make the
end of the age the subject discussed beginning in Matthew 24:29.[18] This is done by an appeal to Luke 21:27,
where the heavenly phenomena are presented as a reference to Jesus allegedly
personally coming (“they shall see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power
and great glory”). Others seem to imply
this textual division without explicitly embracing it.[19]
The rhetoric utilized beginning in
Matthew 24:29 is certainly far more globe-encompassing (at least in verbal
impact) than that which preceded it and that fits very nicely with this
approach. On the other hand verse 29
begins with the word [Page 20] “immediately” which, barring strong textual
evidence or argumentation, makes one anticipate something that chronologically
occurs in very short order. In other
words, within the time frame of the events leading up to the destruction of
Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
When approached within strictly a Lukian
framework, the division at this point is a common belief.[20]
Discussion of the Fall of Jerusalem Ends in Matthew 24:42/
Mark 13:33/Luke 21:34
John J. Owen views all the
non-parabolic material Matthew 24 (including verse 42, which he considers
separate from the parable that follows) as referring to the fall of Jerusalem,
but the parabolic material that comes afterwards as describing the ultimate end
of the cosmos.[21] Verses 37-41, however, seem just as
applicable to the latter subject as the text that begins in verse 42. There seems nothing really tangible to base a
textual argument upon.
Alternate Scenario One:
The Entire Chapter was Intended
as a Picture of First Century Events
From one standpoint, an author has
done his duty when he has clearly presented the rationale for his or her
interpretation and then proceeds to apply it to the specific text under
consideration. Although this is an acceptable
(and in many cases perhaps even a desirable) approach, so many different
scenarios have been presented to “explain” the time frame of Matthew 24, that a
different tack seems useful to those who do not have the resources to
personally study the alternatives in detail.
Hence we will present in greater detail than we otherwise would a
variety of the approaches that are taken and the reasoning behind them.
[Page 21] We
begin with the one that would be my own preferred alternative if I were to opt
for a different approach than the one I am advocating. Although we have outlined the reasons for
our preference for dividing the chapter into two sections, a credible case can
certainly be made that the entire chapter is describing the fall of
Jerusalem. This is, however, a very
minority opinion.[22]
Typically, the view is not worked
out as to its details. Proponents are
divided into two camps. There are those
who consider the text genuine prophecy and opt for this time frame because
events clearly occurred that are comparable.
Others take this approach because they consider the text as written out
of whole cloth: it matches because the
pseudo-prophecy was written after the event to match it.[23]
The back-reading analysis is
certainly nothing new, but the form it takes with certain commentators leaves
one rather perplexed. On the one hand,
they concede that the first part of the chapter describes phenomena that
occurred in the Sixties; when we get to the apocalyptic rhetoric of heavenly
phenomena and the text that continues afterwards, the actual events echoed are
alleged to have been those connected with Jesus’ crucifixion and triumph over
death through the resurrection--events that occurred decades earlier.[24] This reversal of the actual course of events
is odd, to say the least.
One key argument for this first century only
approach is that the apostles were
not
anticipating the end of the world by their question concerning “the close of
the age” (Matthew 24:3). This may well
be true. In favor of this approach is
the fact that the end of the age/return of Jesus would naturally be identified
by the apostles with the destruction of the temple. By their standards what catastrophe could
possibly be greater? Hence their
questions (whether regarded as two or three) would be alternative ways of
referring to the same conjoined events--one to its tragic aspects (the
destruction of the house of God) and the second to its positive (the triumph of
Jesus). Even if so, this does not
necessarily mean that Jesus answered them in accordance with their assumption
that only one event is under discussion.[25] Indeed, the shift from this generation events
to the indefinite future in Matthew 24:34-36 (and parallels) argues that Jesus
is providing a verbal clue to His listeners that a dual/two-event discussion is
His intent, regardless of what may have been behind their original
inquiry.
[Page 22] Unless
one theorized that the earth would last forever, one was forced to a conclusion
of some kind of ultimate termination of the visible cosmos. Furthermore, Jewish Messianic kingdom
speculation differed as to the length of the Messiah’s kingdom-rule,
with few if any holding that there would literally never be an end for it. But once one conceded there would be
an end what could possibly come next?
Would the cosmos have any further reason for its existence? Hence any limitation of the length of
the Messiah’s reign would seemingly compel some type of end-world concept as
well.
Hence it is quite reasonable to
believe that the apostles at least vaguely held such a conviction. Yet they were so thoroughly wrapped up in
their hope that Jesus would be the Messiah, that one would be startled if they
were consciously seeking information about anything beyond His kingdom reign. Hence their reference to “the close of the
age”, the “sign of your coming” and “when will this be” may well allude to the
destruction of the Temple. To them the
destruction of that respected center of worship could represent nothing short
of the end of the age and a sign of supernatural “coming” in judgment.
From the standpoint of the apostles’
intent the argument is a good one. But
what of the intent of Jesus?
Jesus was a master teacher and repeatedly shifted discussions to the
matters He wished to emphasize. Based
upon our prior analysis of the divisions of the text, the way Matthew and the
other synoptics record His argument, argues that Jesus did have such a
division in mind, whether the apostles did or not.
The mind-frame of the apostles can
also be interpreted in a one-subject framework --one that had no room for His
leaving the earth at all. This approach
tackles the issue from the standpoint of the second return of Christ and
stresses the unlikelihood that the apostles would be raising the question. The most extensive argumentation that I have
been able to obtain on behalf of the Jerusalem-only scenario comes from a study
published electronically by Sam Dawson.
He points to the fact that in the events immediately prior to the Sermon
of Matthew 24-25, the apostles clearly indicated either unwillingness to accept
the possibility of Jesus’ [Page 23]
death or flat out rejected even
its possibility.[26] For that matter, that attitude continued as
well after the two chapter sermon recorded by Matthew.[27] With such a frame of mind how could they
possibly have been inquiring about the second coming when they didn’t want to
accept even an initial leaving?
Once again we must point to the
reality that Jesus felt quite free to respond to any and all of the apostles’
questions in the way that would most benefit them--even when it flew in the
face of their existing convictions. When
the apostles were disagreeing as to who was the greatest among them, Jesus
never did answer their implied question.
Rather he shifted the issue to one that would be of spiritual benefit to
them: spiritual “superiority” is
exclusively based upon spiritual service rather than formal church
position. (Mark 9:33-35) In Matthew 24, the apostles asked questions
that they may very likely have been intended to raise one or more essentially
overlapping issues, but Jesus used the opportunity to point to truths they were
not yet ready to accept for it would have required them to accept the reality
of His soon-to-come death.
Another possible argument for the
one-theme scenario is that the second half is also presented as if directly
applicable to the then living apostles.
In verse 44 Jesus is quoted as concluding a parable on spiritual
alertness with the plea, “Therefore you also must be ready; for the Son of man
is coming at an hour you do not expect.”
We have introduced the emphasis of the “you” references as an indication
of first century reference. Would the
usage here not argue that the second section of the chapter also refers to that
event?
One could respond that this is the
sole usage in the section, while the usage is repeatedly given in the first
section. In addition, other verbal
expressions intensify the expectation of prompt fulfillment and none of these
“time prompts” are found in the section beginning in Matthew 24:35. Furthermore the discussion continues in the
following chapter and there we find a strong textual hint that the first
generation of believers might not be alive when Jesus returned: in the parable of the talents we read of a
“long time” passing before the lord (= Jesus) returns (Matthew 25:19).
[Page 24] A third one-theme argument
can be based upon the rhetoric is that of some being left and some being taken
(Matthew 24:40-41). This is compatible
with an end-time scenario (i.e., of God “taking” the redeemed to heaven), but
seems more natural in a this-worldly format.
In the context of the fall of Jerusalem this might fit the erratic
process of prisoner taking, in which some individuals would be seized and
others (just as potentially vulnerable) passed by.
On the other side of the coin, there
are definite arguments against the one theme interpretation. To begin with, there is the “universal”
reference that underlies the section: the
argument from the universal precedent of Noah (verses 37-39). The fall of Jerusalem certainly did
have a “universal” impact. Was there a
Jew on the face of the then known earth, who would not have felt shock and (in
the vast bulk of cases) sorrow and dismay?
Furthermore, there was even an
impact upon the dominant Gentile community.
For them it was the ultimate “comeuppance” of an ethnic community they
despised and hated. For them it was the
removal of an on-going “flash-point” of rebellion. (So it would have seemed; in reality about
fifty years later, a second massive revolt broke out in the same
location.) The fall of Jerusalem allowed
the annual temple tax to be diverted from a gift to Jerusalem into the coffers
of the government--supposedly for the support of one of its polytheistic
cults. In light of the large amounts
cumulatively involved, one can’t help but suspect that much or most of it
simply financed the government’s own operations.
But are these verses
presented as “universal” in scope? True,
in the scriptural text, the flood “swept them all away,” as Jesus asserts in
verse 39. In contrast, in verses 40-41
the emphasis is upon some being “taken” and some being “left.” In a truly universal context (such as that of
the flood of Noah) “no one” is left.
Hence one could argue that the “universal”
impact is under discussion rather than a universal location. Some senses in which this would be true have
already been examined. It should be
noted however that “universal” could reasonably refer as equivalent to
“everyone under discussion.” If the
Jewish people of Palestine are the subject then the verses could be interpreted
as “universal” in that much more restricted sense. In the favor of this approach is that the
taken/left references make [Page 25]
much more sense than in the
traditional understanding of the return of Jesus. In the latter the whole earth is usually
considered as being brought to an end and “no one” is left rather than an
unknown proportion, as in verses 40-41.
Unfortunately for this approach, there is absolutely nothing in the
second half of the text that explicitly requires a Palestine-only
scenario. The only hints are the ones
left and taken--a step toward proving the point, but, standing alone, very far
from conclusive.
The one theme interpretation faces a
further difficulty in the fact that the punishment of the wicked depicted
better fits events beyond those that could occur in this time-space
continuum. This punishment is described
in verse 51 as “put[ting] him with the hypocrites; there men will weep and
gnash their teeth” (verse 51). Since
this is a punishment for one’s moral failures (verses 49-50) it would not be an
apt description of the fickle fates of war in which one’s pain and anguish have
nothing to do with one’s moral character or lack thereof.
Finally, if the entire chapter is
speaking of the fall of Jerusalem, why does Jesus raise the theme of the ending
of the cosmos (verse 35-36) and then drop it?
Assuming that the entire chapter does
discuss Palestinian events, then one could reasonably argue that Jesus does
pick up that point: in the following
chapter. Indeed Jesus had spoken of the
unknowability of that date. In the
parable of the talents that begins the next chapter (25:1-13), Jesus makes
specific allusion to that same teaching, “Watch therefore, for you know neither
the day nor the hour” (verse 13). The
following parable of the talents (25:14-30) immediately grows out of the
unknowability of that hour, “Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor
the hour. For it will be as when a man
going on a journey called his servants, and entrusted to them his property”
(verses 13-14). Read together, verse 13
sounds like not only the end of the previous parable but also the beginning
of the second one. Finally, all the
remainder of the chapter (25:31-46) is a picture of a judgment of “all the
nations” (verse 32).
Hence one could argue that chapter
24 pictures the more immediate catastrophe of the fall of Jerusalem, while
chapter 25 zeroes in on the second return of Jesus. The problem once again is finding sufficient
evidence in Matthew 24:37-51 [Page 26]
to justify the division of themes
at the chapter dividing point. As I read
it, the available evidence is inadequate.
If it were stronger, this interpretation would make a great deal
of sense and be very appealing, though not without its weak points.
In the most thorough-going
Jerusalem-only approach, chapter 25 is also interpreted as referring to the
fall of the Jewish capital.[28] The end of the previous chapter and the first
large section of chapter 25 presents three parables: that of the faithful and unfaithful servants
(24:45-51); that of the prepared and unprepared virgins (Matthew 25:1-13); and
that of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30).
Each of these involves the elements of watchfulness, preparedness,
alertness--attitudes that Jesus had alluded to in predicting the fall of
Jerusalem: “take heed” (24:4) and
“endure to the end” (24:13) refer to the frame of mind demanded by these parables. Hence one could see how they could allude to
the destruction of Jerusalem rather than to some final judgment, return of
Jesus, or end of the cosmos.
Yet this still seems a “reach.” For example, in the story of the faithful and
unfaithful servants, there is a distinct moral element involved: the unfaithful servant acts to excess and
even abuses those under his authority (24:49).
The coming is “at an hour he does not know” (24:50), but the disaster at
Jerusalem would be preceded by so many warning indications that advance notice would
be available: even if not down to the
hour, then close enough to escape--and this parable deals with an inescapable
judgment. Furthermore, the punishment
inflicted is due to this unethical behavior (24:51). Are we really to believe that the only ones
who died or were taken prisoner at Jerusalem were in that category of
unrestrained extremists?
The story of the prepared and
unprepared maidens waiting for the bridegroom works a bit better in a Jerusalem
context, although not as well as within its traditional interpretation. Here the punishment is exclusion from the
body of celebrators due to their lack of preparation. One could argue that those who needlessly
remained in Jerusalem had not been intellectually or spiritually prepared to
act upon the warning signs that were present for all to see and that their
exclusion [Page 27] from the joy of those who escaped with
their lives was the result. On the other
hand, the escaped disciples were surely more “relieved” than “joyous”--how could
there be much in the way of that in a suffering war-torn landscape? Furthermore, in the case of the fall of the
city, it was the Christians who were told to leave, while in the parable it is
those who leave that are in the deepest trouble. Although one is ill-advised to push too far
the details of a parable, we seem to be dealing here with far more fundamental conceptual
differences that are not so easily dismissed.
Finally, there is the parable of the
talents, in which each servant receives a certain amount of money and is
rewarded upon the return of their master on the basis of how they have utilized
these resources. The one servant in
trouble was the one who had simply hidden the money in the ground and done
nothing with it. But the parable seems
to assume that all are spiritually identical, i.e., all are
Christians. If the fall of Jerusalem
is under consideration then the rejection of their discipleship would seemingly
be equated with their physical suffering and possible death in the siege. This raises the question of whether a
Christian would have been regarded as reprobate (as versus unwise and foolish)
in not fleeing the city. Furthermore,
how does the imagery of making one’s talents grow fit in with fleeing or not
fleeing the city?
Hence these parables can be applied
to Jerusalem only in the broadest and vaguest of senses. They all appear to have in mind something far
removed from that tragedy in ancient Israel; this is true regardless of one’s
view of whether or not that there will be a literal day of final
reckoning. Whatever Jesus is
referring to it seems far removed from what happened in 70 A.D.
The parables are followed by a
portrait of the judgment day of the world before Jesus as Judge (Matthew
25:31-46). Oddly enough, this is sometimes
described as a “parable.” Whether one
accepts the reality of such an ultimately personal judgment or not, the
terminology is certainly inappropriate.
With extremely few if any exceptions the parables of Jesus present
events that either could or had occurred--phenomena that His
listeners had either seen, heard of, or could reasonably imagine
happening. The judgment day scene in
Matthew 25 is totally alien to this usage.
Hence one would be advised to substitute some different terminology to
indicate a non-acceptance of the traditional meaning of the text.[29]
[Page 28] Several
things in the passage make it difficult to see in it a reference to a judgment
upon Jerusalem rather than the human race.
First is the reference to “nations” being at the judgment scene (25:32),
while the fall of Jerusalem primarily impacted the Jews of Palestine. (Of course Roman forces recruited from
various parts of the empire were there too but, in numerical comparison, they
were a minority. Furthermore, one would
conceptually think of them far more as the “judges” of Jerusalem rather than
being “judged at” the fall of Jerusalem.)
Appeal has been made to Josephus referring to the “nations” of Samaria,
Galilee, and geographically adjacent regions.
Hence it is argued that “the land of Israel comprised many nations.”[30] This is reinforced by interpreting the
“nation” rising against nation (Matthew 24:7) as to ones within Palestine.[31]
To this commentator neither argument
appears particularly impressive. The
geographic whole of Jewish Palestine or the shared ethnicity of its numerically
dominant inhabitants are referred to in its gospel usage by the singular
“nation” rather than the plural (Luke 7:5; Luke 23:2; John 11:48, 50, 51, 52;
John 18:35). Hence it seems very unlikely
that Jesus in Matthew 24 is speaking of “nations” (plural) being within
Palestine.
Another difficulty is the
description of the condemned as being sent off “into the eternal fire” (Matthew
25:41). In rebuttal it is argued that in
Jude 7 the “national judgment” judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah is described as
“undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.”[32] Of course if the text is referring to the inhabitants
(rather than the geographic location) it would fit with the traditional
interpretation of eternity carrying both potential rewards and potential
punishment, depending upon faith and behavior in the current life.
The strongest evidence in behalf of
a Jerusalem reference is found in the terms of judgment referred to in the
text: it is not faith in Jesus but
humanitarianism to one’s coreligionists.
To prove that the lack of this was a common fault in the society of that
day Matthew 9:13 and 23:23-24 are appealed to.
The parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10 also targets this lack of
compassion for one’s spiritual brothers and sisters.[33] This
is true as far as it goes. On the other [Page
29] hand, we read in verse 40, “Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one
of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.” Although “brethren” could refer to physical
ethnicity, its dominant New Testament usage is to its spiritual parallel,
believers in Jesus as the Christ. Hence
the standard of judgment is not humanitarianism to one’s fellow Jewish
traditionalist but to Christians in particular.
This seems an odd standard for the outsider to be judged upon! On the other hand, it makes perfect sense,
however, if the judged are believers who are being held accountable on the
basis of behavior toward fellow believers.
To them faith in Jesus is a given and there is no need for it to
be mentioned; their failure comes not in regard to faith but in regard to manifesting
their faith in the proper attitude and conduct toward their own fellow
religionists.
In contrast, even with all the
humanitarianism possible being manifested, it is hard to picture first century
Christians imagining a judgment day scenario in which the lack of faith of
outsiders did not somehow, somewhere enter into the picture if they were the
subject of the discussion. An interesting
argument in opposition to this, however, might be developed from Paul’s
argument in Romans 2:12-16 that outsiders will be judged upon the basis of the
standards they recognize.
As with the other forms of
argumentation, the evidence falls short of convincing that Jesus has just the
fall of Jerusalem in mind throughout the chapter. Even so, the thesis is--to this author, at
least-- the most intriguing and powerful
alternative to my own. For that
reason we have divided so much space to its presentation. For the same reason, in our analysis of the
text we will, in places, present alternative interpretations compatible with
this approach.
Alternate Scenario Two:
The Entire Chapter Refers to the “Second Coming” of Christ
Rather than the Fall of Jerusalem
There tends to be an implicit
tension in the remarks of a number of scholars between this over-all
explanation and their explanation of specific verses. Jack D. Kinsbury, for example, describes the
entire chapter as “eschatological discourse,” [Page 30] while
making repeated allusion to verses as containing reference to first century
events.[34] Anthony J. Saldarini describes (without any
stated verse limitations) that chapter 24 is “speaking of the end of the
world,” while making occasional remarks indicating a Jerusalem context.[35] Some handle the subject overtly by
explicitly conceding that a few Jerusalem references exist though emphasizing
that the over-all context is that of the ultimate end.[36]
Some form of this interpretation is very
common among both scholarly commentators in general[37] and
also those who adopt a specifically premillennial interpretation to explain the
text.[38] In the most extreme form it is explicitly
denied that any of these words of Jesus were originally intended to describe
anything that had occurred in the first century.[39] It is hard to understand how the apostles,
listening to the discourse, would possibly have come to such a conclusion.
There are at least two major textual
difficulties with the end of the cosmos interpretation. The first is in verse 34 where the
fulfillment of the preceding predictions is placed by Jesus as occurring in the
lifetime of some then living. Several explanations
have been suggested for this (see the discussion of that verse), but they seem
theory driven rather than natural or expected meanings of the verse. This does not necessarily prove them wrong
since most explanations of any major subject normally pose difficulties at
least in some areas and are adopted because they are, over-all, the most
convincing. It is our position that the
scenario we suggest best eliminates the need for such interpretative glosses
while more accurately representing the original intent of the text.
Another text hard to fit into the
end of time scenario is that concerning the abomination of desolation
(24:15). Although the exact meaning has
aroused much disagreement (see the discussion of that section), most revolve in
part or whole around the events of the siege of Jerusalem. A satisfactory projection of the text into
the distant future is very hard to accomplish.
Perhaps the best approach to doing so (and in our judgment it still
falls short because there is nothing in the text to hinge it on) is that of Wolfgag
Trilling: if an act of horrible sacrilege
is carried out by a future king “but on a larger scale and in a way which is
significant for all [Page 31] nations--this will be a clear sign of the
last days.”[40] Although it is easy to imagine events in the
history of modern nations (the “killing fields” of Cambodia) and ethnic groups
(the Holocaust inflicted upon World War Two Jews), one finds it hard to imagine
a parallel outrage that would inflict the entire human community of
nations and peoples.
There are two possible unstated
assumptions that would explain this phenomena of a thesis undermined by texts
within the passage. The first is that
Jesus erred in that He thought the world end and the fall of Jerusalem would be
simultaneous. If true this would have
the most profound consequences for the understanding of Jesus’ nature: not only did He make a fundamental error, it
was proved to be such within the lifetime of His disciples.
Although it may be possible to erect
an end of world interpretation of the entire chapter that delinks that event
from the clear references to the fall of Jerusalem, the theological assumptions
of much of modern scholarship in behalf of a fallible Jesus makes it unlikely
to be very widely adopted. Hence it is
not surprising find that many see no difficulty in the fall of Jerusalem being
discussed by Jesus as part of or chronologically close to the end of the world
or age.[41]
The second possibility to explain
the Jerusalem references in an end-time text is that Matthew edited the passage
in a direction not part of Jesus’ original discourse. Although an extensive editorializing by
Matthew is often assumed or asserted by modern commentators, the current text
provides a powerful argument in the opposite direction. Since it is usually thought by such
individuals that Matthew was written after the fall of Jerusalem, why would
he--if he worked from the assumption that it was appropriate to engage in such
massive reworking--not eliminate anything hinting at erroneous prophecy? Since it was clear that the world had not
ended, its exclusion would have been called for. The lack of doing so argues that Matthew was
functioning under a major sense of editorial responsibility for maintaining
loyalty to the original intent, if not always the literal words, of Jesus.
[Page 32]
Alternate Scenario Three:
The Two Themes are Jumbled Together
This approach can take one of four
forms. One might be called the jigsaw
approach: verses are believed scattered
about through the chapter referring to one of the events, interspersed with no
apparent rhyme or reason with verses referring to the other topic. The nineteenth century commentator Albert
Barnes, for example, speaks of how Jesus “intermingl[es] the descriptions of
the destruction of Jerusalem, and of the end of the world; so that it is
sometimes difficult to tell to what particular subject his remarks apply.”[42]
The problem with this approach is
that it makes exegesis virtually impossible:
while one is “certain” that the subject matter is on one theme in a
certain verse, the next one arbitrarily and with no apparent logic shifts to
another, the third and fourth back to the original theme, the fifth jerks out
to the other subject etc. It is hard to
imagine any rational person of any age speaking in such terms, much less Jesus.
The difficulty of ever understanding
the true intent of the text is also a major criticism of the simultaneous
double reference approach. In this
interpretation, in some verses (or sections) short term history is under
discussion while the ultimate parousia is the secondary theme because the same
rhetoric fits both. In other sections
the long term, ultimate fate of the world is the theme with the secondary
reference being to the fall of Jerusalem.
To further complicate exegesis, the dominant/subsidiary emphases
sometimes entirely disappear and only one of the two themes is discussed.[43]
A third type of analysis divides the
text into larger units and then argues that the discussion drifts shifts from
one subject to another depending upon which section one is reading. Robert E. Obach and Albert Kirk, for example,
find in Matthew 24 the end of the world discussed in verses 4-14,[44]
verses 15-22 describing the fall of Jerusalem,[45] and
verses 23-31 describing “the coming of the Son of Man in glory.”[46] Although they distinguish the latter section
from the theme of the first, conceptually they would seem identical and he
concedes an overlap.[47] Verses 32-36 are presented as a parable that
could be discussing either the fall of Jerusalem on [Page 33] the
coming in glory.[48] Verses 37-41 refer to the return of Jesus.[49] Finally, verses 42-44 allude to the coming of
Jesus,[50] a
subject these commentators distinguish from the end of the age/world.
Myron S. Augsburger reconstructs the
interspersed sections this way: the end
of the world (24:3-14);[51] the
fall of Jerusalem (24:15-35);[52]
preparedness for the second coming of Christ (24:36-44).[53] Leon Morris also identifies 24:15-28 as
referring to the fall of Jerusalem[54] and
24:36-44 to the final end.[55] The first section leaves him perplexed: he sees value in the pre-70 interpretation,[56] but
also sees how at least parts could apply to the terminal end.[57]
Shifting from Matthew to a Markian
context, we might examine Ralph Martin’s reconstruction--which has elements of
the large section and jigsaw approaches.
To him Mark 13:5-13 refer to “the immediate situation and experience of
the apostolic church,” 13:14-23 mores on to the period leading up to the
destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, which leads in 13:24-27 to “a more distant
focus” that takes one to the final end.
In 13:28-31 the narrative “keep[s] switching” from one of these periods
to another, as does the final section of 13:32-37.[58]
In the context of Luke, one
commentator sees four broad sections;
verses 5-24 refer to the fate of the temple, 25-28 to refer to the
second coming, verses 29-32 concerning being ready for the fall of Jerusalem,
and 34-36 of similar preparedness for the ultimate end.[59]
But
why should the text jump from one theme to another--and back again--in
these or any other scenario? Assuming
that the text divisions are long enough, it could be that Jesus has laid out
one point at adequate length and desires to turn to another topic that He
regards as needing to be stressed. The
smaller the text divisions, however, the less likely is this possibility.
The other possibility is that the
chapter is an artificial construct, consisting of ideas, thoughts, and
statements delivered by Jesus upon various occasions and put in the current
form by the compiler of the book.[60] Hence any confusion would be Matthew’s
fault, not that of Jesus. Those who hold
to any kind of “high” doctrine of inspiration will not be comfortable with such
an approach. Even those not embracing
such a conviction, might well find such a cut-and-paste reading of Matthew’s
role difficult to accept as well: Are we
really to believe that Jesus never [Page 34] discussed
at length these very subjects? And if He
did, would not the broad outlines be likely to be retained in the memory of His
listeners? In short, it would be
inherently more probable that Matthew worked with large segments of thought or
text rather than the equivalent of isolated verses. Hence although jumping back and forth from
one theme to another might occur, the greater the number proposed, the less
likely is the reconstruction.
Nor is it implausible that all of
this discussion originally came from one sermon. It is identified as occurring in the last
days of Jesus’ life and the events of those days were so traumatic that they
must have deeply scarred themselves upon the memory of the apostles. However vague their memories may have been
concerning earlier events of the ministry, in this section they would
have been intense and lasting. (We lay
aside as a separate subject the matter of the nature and extent of the
inspiration they possessed. The
“stronger” the concept one embraces, the more likely a reliable presentation by
Matthew.)
A fourth view--one that attempts to
bridge the chasm between contemporary and a much latter application of the
text--is that of continuous and repeated fulfillment. In this version, the text describes events
that began to be fulfilled prior to the fall of Jerusalem, but which are
characteristic of the entire span of history till the return of Christ.[61] This approach suffers from the burden of the
various Jerusalem-specific references found in the text. Jesus was quite capable of laying down broad
general principles that would be true wherever and whenever His disciples might
be (Matthew 5-7, for example). The
Jerusalem specificity makes little sense if a broader point was in mind,
especially since it could have easily been made without becoming wrapped up in
this type of local reference.
One of the reasons the various
mixed-frame-of-reference theories is difficult for many religious conservatives
to accept--though far from all--lies in the difficulty of reconciling it with a
belief that God had any meaningful control over the type of record that Mark
and the others composed. Would God leave
it so jumbled? Even from a more liberal
perspective in which inspiration is viewed as the impact on the individual
reading the text rather than as a supernatural guidance on the writer to [Page
35] assure its accuracy and reliability, the admixture is odd and
unexpected: this view assumes that the
writers freely redid the materials they had available to make it fit their own
private religious agenda. If so, why
then did they not clarify the subjects into a more coherent whole?
Some commentators have attempted to
place a positive spin on the intermixture theory and, intentionally or not,
make it more-or-less consistent with one or other of the liberal/conservative
approaches. One commentator, for
example, argues that, “In its application to the lives of the hearers each
event taught a similar truth, and conveyed a similar warning; and therefore a
clearly cut distinction between them was as little needed as an exact statement
of date.”[62] Others speak in terms of the events connected
with the fall of Jerusalem being so overwhelming that they are the only things
in human experience anywhere near comparable to the final end and therefore it
is not inappropriate that the two be blended together.[63] Yet others speak of “a prophetic foreshortening
which links essentially similar and related events to each other.”[64] All this may be true, but if a sound exegesis
allows us to avoid having the problem in the first place--and it is my
contention it does--that would seem to be the far sounder approach to
take.
[Page36]
[1]R. T. France, Divine Government: God’s Kingship in the Gospel of Mark
(London: SPCK, 1990), 78-79 traces in
detail the linguistic linkage that ties together the parallel verses in
Mark. Also see his diagram on page
128.
[2]Two commentaries who come close to such an
approach are John Drury and Edwin Rice.
John Drury, The Gospel of Luke, in the J. B. Phillips New
Testament Commentaries series (New York:
Macmillan Publishing Company, Inc., 1973), 166-167, argues that
Jerusalem references are blended in order to keep the apocalyptic rhetoric
under control. Edwin W. Rice, Rice, Commentary
on the Gospel According to Luke, Sixth Edition (Philadelphia: Union Press, 1900), 244, sees the second
coming as the primary theme but concedes that a secondary reference in one or
more places may be to the destruction of Jerusalem as well.
[3]For example, Robert J. Dean, Luke, Volume 17 of the Layman’s
Bible Book Commentary (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1983),
110-111; David L. Tiede, Luke, in the Augsburg
Commentary on the New Testament series (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing House, 1988), 302-302;
and Michael, Wilcock, The Saviour
of the World: The Message of Luke’s
Gospel, in The Bible Speaks Today series (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1979), 163-164.
Walter L. Liefeld,
“Luke,” in Matthew, Mark, Luke,
Volume 8 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Regency Reference Library/Zondervan
Publishing House, 1984), 996, argues that “Luke 17 is more uniformly
apocalyptic than Luke 21--i.e., no human agency appears here (in contrast to
the besieging armies of 21:20” and, we might add, as is also true in the first
thirty-three verses of Matthew 24.
[4]Hence Craig A. Evans wonders out loud,
“Exactly why there is a prohibition against going into one’s house is not
clear. (Would it be any safer outside?)”
[Craig A. Evans, Luke, in the New International Biblical Commentary
series (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1990), 262. Others point out that the most natural
implication would be that one would avoid going into the house because one
“should flee at once.” On the other hand
“any thought of fleeing is, of course, out of [Page 37] the
question” in a second coming context. (William Hendriksen,
Exposition of the Gospel According to Luke, in the New Testament
Commentary series [Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Baker Book House, 1978], 808).
[5]Evans, 262, deals with the problem as
interpreting it “figuratively in the sense of the need to be mentally and
spiritually prepared.” Hendriksen, 808, notes the difficulty, and interprets it to
mean that one must “wholehearted[ly] surrender to Him
and His word. Such complete devotion
should be placed above all worldly interests.”
As yet another commentator puts it, one must take “flight from worldly
goods” in order to be prepared for Jesus’ return (Wilfrid J.
Harrington, A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke
[Westminster, Md.: Newman Press, 1967],
211).
For related figurative or symbolic
explanations of an instruction that in Matthew seems intended to be taken quite
literally, see Norval Geldenhuys,
Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, in the New International Commentary
on the New Testament series (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1951), 445; Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Luke, Fourth Edition, in the International
Critical Commentary series (Edinburgh:
T. & T. Clark: 1901), 409;
Ray Summers, Commentary on Luke:
Jesus, the Universal Savior
(Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1972), 204. At much greater length Alois
Stoger attempts to provide a rationale but not as
effectively as the much shorter references in the above works. See
his The Gospel According to St. Luke, translated by Benen
Fahy ([n.p.]: Herder and Herder, Inc., 1969; new
edition, New York: Crossroad, 1981), 77-78.
[6]Samuel G. Dawson, “Matthew 24-25,” Chapter
8 of his Denominational Doctrines:
Explained, Examined, Exposed ([N.p.]: .Gospel Themes Press [Electronic book],
1990), [n.p.], argues this point at length. The author kindly provided a copy of the
chapter for my usage. In that version it
lacks specific page numbers.
[7]On the contrast between “ample warnings” in
the first half of the chapter and the tranquillity of
the pre-return era, also see David E. Garland, Reading Matthew: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the
First Gospel, in the Reading the New Testament series (New
York: Crossroad, 1993), 240.
[8]For a summary of older views of divisions
within the text of Mark in particular see Joseph A. Alexander, The Gospel
according to Mark (New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Company, 1858; 1874
reprint), 342-344.
[9]William G. Thompson, Matthew’s
Story: Good News for Uncertain Times (Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1989), 124.
[10]Ibid., 125; cf. 123.
[11]Ibid., 23.
[12]Ibid., 123.
[13] Herman J. Waetjen, The Origin and
Destiny of Humanness: An Interpretation
of the Gospel According to Matthew (San Rafael, California: Crystal Press for Omega Books, 1976). In his view 24:4-14 involves a “summary
warning not to be led astray” (227), while events related to the destruction of
the Temple occupy 24:15-28.
(227-228). 24:29-31 describe the sign
that the parousia and end have arrived, verses 32-36 discuss the “when” of
those events” and verses 37-25:46 present “six analogies” depicting “the style
of life that the eschatological reality demands.” (230).
[Page 39] [14]Earl McMillan, The Gospel According to
Mark, in The Living Word Commentary series (Austin, Texas: Sweet Publishing Company, 1973), 157.
[15]J. Enoch Powell, The Evolution of the Gospel: A New Translation of the First Gospel with
Commentary and Introductory Essay
(New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1994), 185.
[16]Ibid., 188.
[17]A. Irvine Robertson, Lessons on the
Gospel of St. Mark (New York:
Fleming H. Revell Company, 1898), 115.
A division at this point is implied by Christopher Bryan, A Preface
to Mark: Notes on the Gospel in Its
Literary and Cultural Settings (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1993), 111.
[18]H. Leo Boles, A Commentary on the Gospel
According to Matthew (Nashville,
Tennessee: Gospel Advocate Company,1936;
1976 reprint), 469-470.
[19]Donald Senior, The Gospel of Matthew,
in the Interpreting Biblical Texts series (Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 1997) speaks of two basic
issues being discussed: “the fate of the
temple” and “the disciples’ double question . . . about the end time and the
stance the disciple is to take in the face of it” (160). Verses 30-35 are explicitly described as the
Son of Man coming “in triumph at the end of history” (161). Senior quickly adds that this date is
unknowable and cites verses 36-44 (161).
Since two issues are discussed, this would seem to require that verses
3-28 be concerning the fall of Jerusalem, especially when no alternate view is
presented by the author.
[Page 40] [20]Evans, 310; Wilfrid J. Harrington, Luke,
237; Stoger, 158-159; Tiede, 355, 357; Darrell L. Bock, Luke, in the IVP
New Testament Commentary series (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 334; cf 332;
Robert J. Karris, Invitation to Luke:
A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke with Complete Text from the Jerusalem
Bible (Garden City, New York: Image
Books, 1977), 238; C. C. Martindale, The Gospel according to Saint Luke,
in the Stonyhurst Scripture Manuals series (London: Longmans, Green and Company, 1957), 170.
[21]John J. Owen, A Commentary, Critical,
Expository and Practical on the Gospels of Matthew and Mark (New York: Charles Scriber & Company, 1860; 1866
printing), 307, 316. For an extended
discussion see pages 327-328.
[22]For example, C. VanderWaal, 49, 51; A.
Bruce Curry, Jr., Jesus and His Cause, Revised Edition (New York: Association Press, 1926), 96; Ezra P. Gould, A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Mark, in
the International Critical Commentary series (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1896; 1905
reprinting), 241(cf, 240, which makes plain that the analysis goes through
verse 37); Larry W. Hurtado, Mark, in the Good News Commentary
series (San Francisco, California:
Harper & Row, Publishers, 1983), 200; Harold Riley, The First Gospel (Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 1992), 41.
[Pager 41] [23]Ched Myers et al., “Say to This Mountain:” Mark’s Story of Discipleship, edited by
Karen Lattea (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis
Books, 1996), 171, 174, implies this view.
The same assumption is the basis of the strictly first century events
scenario found in Burton L. Mack, A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988),
315-317.
[24]Myers, Mountain, 174; cf. Ched
Myers, Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark’s Story of Jesus (Maryknoll, New
York: Orbis Books, 1988), 343.
[25]Henry Cowles, Matthew and Mark (New York:
D. Appleton & Company, 1881), 209, argues that the alignment of the
tragedy and triumph existed in the apostles’ mind, but that Jesus responds to
both of the questions as if they are distinct.
[26]Dawson, [n.p.]. He points to Matthew 16:21-22, Matthew
20:20-22, and Luke 18:31-34, 19:11.
[27]Dawson, [n.p.], points to John 14:1-3,
16:16-18, John 20:9; Luke 24:21ff.; Acts 1:6ff, to emphasize that even after the
resurrection and their acceptance of its reality that the apostles did not have
any concept of any additional “return” at a later date.
[28]Dawson, [n.p.], notes that he originally
took the parables as ones of Divine judgment.
As he originally saw it, what Jesus does in the formal judgment day
scene is to apply that principle of judgment to the final personal
reckoning. Now he believes that scene is
a reference to the fall of Jerusalem as well.
Beyond a reference to the fact that the parables’ admonition to
“watchfulness” alluded to being prepared for the fall of the city, he presents
no exegesis of the individual parables in this context.
[29]The same difficulty accompanies describing
the story of Lazarus in Hades (Luke 16:19-31).
It is further complicated by the fact that a person’s specific name
(“Lazarus”) is attached to the poor man, a phenomena totally without parallel
in the parables. Whatever the
teaching may be described as, “parable” is certainly an extremely inappropriate
one.
[30]Dawson, [n.p.].
[31]Dawson, [n.p.].
[32]Dawson, [n.p.]. He utilizes a different translation but one
that makes the same point. Dawson argues
that the baptism of fire threatened by John the Baptist in Matthew 3:10-12 also
refers to the destruction of Jerusalem rather than to an eternal destiny after
some yet future judgment.
[33]Dawson, [n.p.].
[34]Jack D. Kingsbury, Matthew, Second Edition/Revised and Enlarged, in the Proclamation
Commentaries series (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Fortress Press, 1986), 18, 55, 58. On the other hand he states that 24:8 refers
to the “present age” (94), 24:9 was occurring in the first century (page 22),
and 24:14 refers to the “ministry to the nations of the post-Easter church”
(page 31; cf. 44, 99).
[Page 43] [35]Anthony J. Saldarini, Matthew’s
Christian-Jewish Community
(Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1994), 53. Indeed, he lumps
together chapters 24 and 25 as jointly discussing that topic (78, 106). He
considers the “end of the world” to also be under discussion in 24:7 (80) and
24:9 (80). He concedes, however, that
24:1-2 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem (41). Since Jesus’ followers were observing the
Sabbath day journey law (24:20; 126), a first century context is required there
as well.
[36]David C. Sim, Apocalyptic Eschatology in
the Gospel of Matthew (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1996), 160, and Wolfgang Trilling, The
Gospel According to St. Matthew, volume 2, translated by Kevin Smyth, in
the series New Testament for Spiritual Reading (New York: Crossroad, 1969 [Britain]; 1981 [United
States]), 184.
[37]John P. Meier, The Vision of Matthew: Christ, Church, and Morality in the First
Gospel (New York: Crossroad, 1979, 1991), 276, 286, 291;
Francis J. Moloney, The Living Voice of the Gospel: The Gospels Today (Mahwah, New
Jersey: Paulist Press, 1986), 134; and
Beda Rigaux, The Testimony of St. Matthew, translated by Paul J. Oligny
(Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press,
1968), 89-90. Cf. William H. Barnwell, Our
Story according to St. Mark (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Winston Press, 1982), 233.
[38]Henry W. Frost, Matthew Twenty-Four and
the Revelation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1924), 15-16; John
MacArthur, Jr., The MacArthur New
Testament Commentary: Matthew 24-28
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1989),
24-64; J. Dwight Pentecost, The Words
and Works of Jesus Christ: A Study of
the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 398, and [Page 44] Howard
F. Vos, Mark: A Study Guide
Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1978), 111-116. A more moderate premillenial approach is
that of John F. Walvoord, Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come (Chicago:
Moody Press, 1974), who concedes that verses 4-14 describe events that
recur until near the second coming (184).
In contrast, verses 15-25 shifts to specific warning signs of the
parousia (185) and verses 26-31 describe the actual second coming (189).
[39]MacArthur, Jr., 63-64.
[40]Wolfgang Trilling, 196.
[41]Cf. Douglas R. A. Hare, Matthew, in
the series Interpretation: A Bible
Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville, Kentucky: John Knox Press, 1993), 274, 281.
[42]Albert Barnes, Notes on the New
Testament, one volume edition.
(reprint, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel
Publications, 1963), page 1133. For a
critique of this extreme approach see Owen, 307.
[43]H. Leo Boles, A Commentary on the Gospel
according to Luke (Nashville, Tennessee: Gospel Advocate Company, 1940;
1974 reprint), for example, argues that verses 10-11 (395) and 25-26 (400) have
a dual application to both Jerusalem and the final end. Verse 12 refers to the pre-A.D. 70 period
exclusively (295) as does “much” (402; our emphasis) of the
chapter.
[Page 45] For
a defense of this approach from the standpoint of the gospel of Matthew see
Henry Alford, The New Testament for English Readers, Third Edition (Boston: Lee and Shepard, Publishers, 1880),
161-162. Alford’s Greek Testament
(also utilized in the research for this book) is designed primarily for those
knowledgeable in Greek. This volume
includes much of the same material (New Testament, page 2) but with
supplemental comments and revisions.
[44]Robert E. Obach and Albert Kirk, A
Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (New York: Paulist Press, 1978), 242..
[45]Ibid., 243.
[46]Ibid., 245.
[47]Ibid.
[49]Ibid., 249.
[50]Ibid., 250.
[51]Myron S. Augsburger, Matthew, in The
Communicator’s Commentary series (Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1982), 269.
[52]Ibid.
He explicitly identifies 24:15-28 (271), by implication, 24:29-31
(272-273); in regard to 24:32-35, he states that this “may” be about that topic
as well (274).
[54]Leon Morris, The Gospel of Matthew,
in the Pillar commentary series (Grand Rapids, Michigan:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1992), 603.
[55]Ibid., 609.
[56]Ibid., 612.
[57]In discussing “all these things,” in verse
8, Morris, 598.
[58]Mark, in the Knox Preaching
Guides series (Atlanta: John Knox
Press, 1981), 76. Another believer in a “jumbled” scenario in Mark is I. H.
Marshall, St. Mark, in the Scripture Union Bible Study Books
series (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1967), 49, and C. Leslie Mitton (adopting the
chronology of Dr. Vincent Taylor), The Gospel According to St. Mark, in
the Epworth Preacher’s Commentaries series (London: Epworth Press, 1957), 101.
[59]Dean, 133.
[60]Frederick Coutts, Editor, The Four Gospels, in The Armoury
Commentary series (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1973), 90. Also available in a U. S. edition under the
title Living in the Word: A
Devotional Commentary on the Four Gospels (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing House, 1974).
[Page 47] [61]Robert H. Smith, Matthew, in the Augsburg
Commentary on the New Testament series (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing House, 1989), 284-285, in
regard to 24:5-28. Of phenomena
described through verse 35 in general (289).
The remainder of the chapter he sees as describing not the external
warning signs but the “happy times” and “normal occupations” being engaged in
prior to the return (290). Frederick D.
Brunner, Matthew, Volume 2: The Churchbook, Matthew 13-28 (Dallas, Texas: Word Publishing, 1990), is convinced that
though the entire chapter describes the end times, verses 15-28 are intended to
picture both that event and the fall of Jerusalem (858).
[64]I. H. Marshall, 49.