From: Apocalyptic
and History: Matthew 24 Return to Home
By Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2013
[Page 97]
CHAPTER TWO:
-- Part Two --
THE FALL OF
(Matthew 24:1-15; Mark 13:1-14a; Luke
21:5-20)
Part Two includes:
8. Persecution
of Jesus' Disciples (Matthew 24:9; Mark 13:9, 11; Luke
9. Apostasy to be Common (Matthew 24:10a)
10. Believers to Betray Each Other (Matthew
24:10b; Mark
Luke
21:16-19)
11.
Believers to Hate Each other (Matthew 24:10c; Mark 13:13a; Luke
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
15 Appearance of the "Desolating Sacrilege" (Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14a;
Luke 21:20)
8. PERSECUTION OF JESUS’ DISCIPLES (Matthew
24:9; Mark 13:9, 11;
Luke 21:12-15)
Mark and Luke develop the imagery of
persecution at considerably greater length than Matthew so it would be useful
to note all three passages together,
[Page 98]
“Then they will deliver
you up to tribulation, and put you to death;
and you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake.” (Matthew)
“But take heed to yourselves; for they will
deliver you up to councils;
and you will be beaten in synagogues; and you will stand before governors
and kings for my sake, to bear testimony before them.” “And when they
bring you to trial and deliver you up, do not be anxious beforehand what you
are to say; but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you
who
speak, but the Holy Spirit.” (Mark)
But before all this they
will lay their hands on you and persecute you,
delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought
before kings and governors for my name’s sake. This will be a time for you
to bear testimony. Settle it
therefore in your minds, not to meditate
beforehand how to answer; for I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which
none of your adversaries will be able to withstand or contradict.” (Luke)
The
adversity spoken of in Matthew falls into three categories, the broader area of
"tribulation" (i.e., serious emotional, physical, or financial
injury), "death" (either by courts of law or through extra-judicial,
"lynch law" proceedings), and "hated by all nations," which
was the psychological seedbed of the other injustices. By referring to "all nations,"
Jesus stresses the fact that there would be no ethnic or national boundaries to
these negative anti-disciple attitudes.
Although Jesus was speaking as a Jew to His fellow Jews, the adversities
would be common when His disciples made their way into other localities and
cultures.
The expression “deliver you up to”
implies organized action rather than random violence. It most naturally suggests judicial
action, such as that which the apostles faced in the book of Acts when
delivered up to the Sanhedrin. The
terminology would also fit the Roman world in light of the fact that, except
for occasional bouts of officially initiated persecution, accusations were normally lodged by private individuals before the
government. By the lodging of charges by
one’s enemies, one was “delivered up” to the power of the state for trial on
grounds of [Page 99] being an illegal monotheist. As likely as not, this was most often
accompanied by the physical delivering up of the individual in order to
assure their presence at trial. Paul’s
abuse at
Grievous as it was to be on the
receiving end, there is a certain inherent “logic” in persecution when it
targets a small and socially despised religious movement: by its very lack of following and the social
classes that dominate it, how could it possibly be approved by God? These “common sense” biases are backed up by
the fact that the wisest and brightest of the world want nothing to do with
such a movement.[1] Of course, the first represents prejudices
pure and simple while the last is intellectual arrogance, yet when they come
together they provide a potent combination to justify the repression of a
disliked spiritual minority.
Though the danger of death is not
explicitly mentioned in either Mark or Luke’s recounting--though it does get
introduced shortly afterwards in a different context--the element of
intimidation involved in the idea of “tribulation” (Matthew 24:9) is brought
out at length: both mention being hauled
before the judicial councils meeting in synagogues.[2] “Any town with a (Jewish) population of 120
or more was entitled to such a council.”[3] Luke does not mention what could happen
there, but Mark mentions how one might be “beaten.” Even without this happening, the very fact of
being compelled to appear before a hostile ecclestical
judicial body would be intimidating. And
those who were ethnic Jews would be potentially subject to such institutions in
any town where the Jewish community’s self-governing religious rights were
officially recognized. The vulnerability
would be the greatest in the period prior to the fall of
Furthermore, they would have to
stand before powerful Roman rulers (“governors
and kings”)[4] and
answer for their faith. Although death
would--by its very nature--be a potential danger, Mark’s account stresses the
tremendous pressure on the individual Jesus believer: “do not be anxious.” Although one would most naturally think in
terms of pressure to repudiate one’s faith in order to avoid [Page
100] death or a repetition in the future, the admonition is explicitly
connected with deciding “beforehand what you are to say” to defend yourself
(Mark 13:10). This carries with it the
idea found in Luke
In spite of the danger in which they
stood, both Mark and Luke's recountings point out
that this will simultaneously provide an opportunity to defend one’s
convictions. Comfort is provided to the apostolic
listeners by telling them that the necessary guidance would be provided them so
that they might speak the right words under the circumstances. Mark describes this ability as being provided
by “the Holy Spirit” (
Mark leaves out any reference to how
effective the oration would be, but attributing it to “the Holy Spirit” would
require the deduction that the result would be both expressive of the truth
desired to be conveyed and impressive as well.
This implicit thought is brought out in Luke
“Tribulation:”
Ill-treatment in General
Old Testament precedent. The Suffering Servant of Isaiah is often
spoken of in such concrete, individualistic terms that it is hard to avoid the
conclusion that a specific future individual is in mind in many or all of the
references (49:7; 52:13-15; 53:1-10, for example). In Christian terms, of course, this would be
Jesus of
[Page 101] In
certain other passages of the Torah and the prophets, it is less clear whether
we have cases of direct Messianic prediction (with a secondary application to
all human beings) or references to the human species in general (with a
secondary application to the Messiah as the personification of the perfect
servant of the Lord). In the
In a similar vein, Psalms 2:1-2
speaks of how "kings" and "rulers take counsel together against
the Lord and his anointed." The
"anointed" would again be Jesus (in Messianic terms), but in the
broader spiritual sense could be applied to all God had "anointed" to
serve Him, i.e., all the individual men and women constituting the people of
God.
Other texts clearly refer to the
faithful servant of Yahweh in general.
In Psalm 69:1-8 is found a strong word picture of an individual enduring
unjust oppression. Though certain
phrases are accurate verbal descriptions of the sufferings Jesus underwent,
other parts of the chapter make plain that the text is concerned with
contemporary description rather than future prediction. (For example, the charge made against the
Psalmist in verse 4, is one never made against Jesus.) Describing his agony of heart over the turmoil
he was undergoing, the Psalmist proclaims his innocence,
Save me, O God! For the waters have come up
to my neck. I sink in
deep mire, where there is no foothold; I have come into deep waters, and
the
flood sweeps over me. I am weary with
my crying; my throat is parched. My
eyes grow dim with waiting for my God.
More in number than the
hairs of my head are those who hate me
without cause; mighty are those who would destroy me, those who attack me
with lies. What I did not steal must
I now restore? O God, thou knowest
my
folly; the wrongs I have done are not hidden from thee. Let not those who
hope in thee be put to shame through me, O Lord God of hosts; let not those
who seek thee be brought to dishonor through me, O God of
for thy sake that I have borne reproach, that shame has covered my
face. I
have become a stranger to my brethren, an alien to my mother's sons.
[Page 102]
The cause of the oppression is
explicitly stated to be loyalty to God (verses 6-7). It was not a case of irreconcilable
personalities. It was not a case of
provocation. It was a case where an
individual attempting to live uprightly came face to face with individuals who
were angered and outraged by the very efforts to live by a high moral
standard. Indeed, his very efforts to
beseech God for relief became the excuse for mockery and the songs of drunkards
(verses 9-12).
First century occurrence of such
phenomena. The exact
nature of the “tribulation” is not spelled out, presumably because it could
take a variety of forms. When it took
the form verbal intimidation, sometimes to the perpetuators themselves it might
not be fully clear exactly what were the consequences they
were threatening. The Sanhedrin,
for example, was so frustrated at one point with the apostles that they merely
ordered them to stop preaching (Acts
Other texts also leave the exact
nature of the retribution “hanging” ominously in the air. We read of the possibility of individuals
being physically “bound” and taken to another city for trial (Acts 9:1-2). The punishments that could be inflicted were
so severe that believers were “afraid” of those involved in the repressive
steps (Acts
Specific punishments are also
known. In the book of Acts we also read
of imprisonment by both Jews (Acts 4:1-3;
“Put You to Death”
Old Testament precedent. Psalms
109:20-25 speaks of those who would scorn a faithful individual and use that
person's weakness as an opportunity to plot even murder,
May this be the reward
of my accusers from the Lord, of those who
speak evil
against my life! But thou, O God my
Lord, deal on my behalf for
thy name's sake; because thy steadfast love is good, deliver me! For I am
poor and needy, and my heart is stricken with me. I am gone, like a shadow
at evening; I am shaken off like a locust. My knees are weak through fasting;
my body has become gaunt. I am an
object of scorn to my accusers; when
they see me, they wag their heads.
First century occurrence of such phenomena.
Not
all oppression had to end in death, but it easily could in a spiritually
dangerous period when public anger was great.
Hence we read of Stephen being stoned to death by his outraged listeners
(Acts
In a broader imperial context,
Nero’s major local pogrom against Christians in
On a local level, unsanctioned mob
action could endanger believers. Hence
at Iconium we read of how both Gentiles and Jews were
so angered by Paul and Barnabas’s preaching work that they attempted “to molest
them and to stone them” (Acts 14:5). To avoid the danger, the fled the city (verses 6-7). At
“Hated by All Nations”
Old Testament precedent. Just as first century Christians would be
hated, earlier Jews had collectively faced similar contempt. In Zechariah 8:13 there is both a blunt acknowledgment of this
reality and a plea that it not
discourage them, "And as you have been a byword of cursing among the
nations, O house of Judah and house of Israel, so will I save you and you shall
be a blessing. Fear not, but let your
hands be strong."
Though the restoration of
First century occurrence of such
phenomena. Although one can theoretically do violence to
another and even murder them without “hatred” existing, in the real world such
rarely occurs. Hence the existence of
tribulation and death presumes--by their very existence--a major degree of rage
and venom. This is illustrated by the
Sanhedrin in
The expression “by all nations” has
given cause for objection to the interpretation of a first century fulfillment
of Matthew 24. H. L. Ellison, for
example, writes that the text “clearly looks beyond A.D. 70 unless we take the
desperate step of making ‘nations’ an insertion by Matthew.”[7] The examples we have earlier cited concerning
the mistreatment of the apostles argue that he is incorrect. Though, admittedly, they only cover a handful
of cities, their geographic range and ethnic diversity are great. In short, they are fairly representative
of the kind of treatment--good, mediocre, and outright repressive--that first
century believers might encounter.
Furthermore, the New Testament
narratives accept the inevitability of persecution as a given. Jesus warned His listeners that if people
persecuted Him, they would surely persecute His followers as well (John
So natural was hostility from the
world--Palestinian or Roman, Jewish or Gentile--that John writes,
“Do not wonder, brethren that the world hates you” (1 John
The universal contempt for
Christianity is documented from both New Testament and contemporary pagan
sources. In Acts 28:22 we find these
words in [Page 106] the mouths of certain Jews who (so far) were
committed neither to nor against Christianity, “But we desire to hear from you
[Paul] what your views are; for with regard to this sect we know that everywhere
it is spoken against.” This is highly
useful evidence, for it comes from Roman Jews, individuals who would know the
attitude not only of their fellow kinsmen but that of the surrounding culture
as well. From a pagan source, Tacitus writes that Nero blamed the fire that destroyed so
much of
Up to here we are on firm
ground. Yet there is one further piece
of evidence which, if it be authentic, indicates that the intense
anti-Christian bias of the Gentile world was often shared by the highest levels
of the Roman government. As. F. F.
Bruce sums up the evidence,[9]
According to Josephus,
when the
Roman soldiery, Titus was dismayed and tried to save it. This was no doubt
what Titus later wished to be believed.
But a historical fragment preserved
by Sulpicius Severus
(sometimes, but doubtfully, thought to be taken from a
part of Tacitus’ Histories which has long
since been lost) describes a council
of war at which the fate of the
Romans would be charged with vandalism if they destroyed so magnificent
a
structure, “but others, including Titus himself, expressed the opinion that the
temple should most certainly be demolished, in order that the Jewish and
Christian religions might be the more completely wiped out; for
although
these religions were mutually hostile, they nevertheless shared the same
origin; the Christians were an off-shoot of the Jews, and if the root were
destroyed the stock would quickly perish.”
That Roman officials recognized the
existence of the Christian community is clear (if nothing else, from Tacitus’ account of the anti-believer pogrom under Nero),
but whether they recognized this clear a distinction between the two
groups [Page 107] by 70 A.D. is a different matter. It was in the interest of the Christians to
perpetuate the strong Jewish roots of the original membership to protect themselves since this was the only legal form of
monotheism. On the other hand, it was
in their interest by this date, if not sooner, to clearly distinguish
themselves from their ethnic roots lest ethnic war in
The case for the genuineness of the
fragment is enhanced by the fact that it certainly recognizes both the
similarity and divergences from Judaism.
Furthermore, for Titus to have been convinced that the destruction of
the temple would have been a devastating blow against Christianity argues that
it was still--not quite--fully distinct.
It may also argue that the ethnic Jewish segment of the church,
especially in
Such factors argue in favor of the
credibility of the account. On a
subjective level, however, the specific way it is expressed makes one
suspicious that the original form may have been verbally “strengthened” by Sulpicius Severus to make the
point even stronger. At the very least,
the extract reflects a mentality we would expect among the Roman leadership due
to the documentation available from the other sources we have examined.
9. APOSTASY TO BE COMMON (Matthew 24:10a)
In Matthew 24:10 Jesus warns, “And
then many will fall away, and betray one another, and hate one another.” Each of these three phenomena
(apostasy/betrayal/hatred) are deserving of separate treatment. The numerical proportion of apostates is
referred to as “many,” which is a literal reading of the Greek.[10] One could use this fact to argue that there
is no proportion implied,[11] yet
[Page 108] the very expression forces the mind in the direction of maximizing the
percentage rather than minimizing it. A
minimization would certainly be a kinder and gentler interpretation of the
steadfastness of early Christians under the stress of the Great Revolt, but the
lack of contemporary data prohibits us from being confident as to which
approach more accurately reflects the actual situation.
Jesus conspicuously does not assert
that the danger will be exclusively the problem of the spiritually weak. Indeed, the severity pictured of societal
rejection that is pictured in verse 9 argues that even the strongest might find
faith rocked or even destroyed by the stresses of the day.[12]
Old Testament precedent. The Old Testament also warned of the danger
of falling away from the true God of
Apostasy is pictured in Jeremiah
17:5 as the "heart turn[ing] away from the
Lord." Ezekiel 18 stresses--at
length--that acceptability to God does not rest with what our parents did but
with what we ourselves do. Neither their
piety nor their corruption is our responsibility; neither raises or lowers our
own status in God's eyes. Furthermore,
even if one thoroughly departs from Yahweh, the conscious decision to correct
one's lifestyle restores one to acceptability (verses 21-23, 27-28).
Ezekiel 33:10-20 emphasizes the same
message, that positive change is still feasible while warning that departure
from the truth is equally possible. Even
superficial righteousness is no full assurance of acceptability. The prophet warns of that subtle corruption
of the heart that causes one to calculate that some specific evil can safely be
overlooked because one is, overall, of such sterling moral character (verse
13).
Hence the Jewish listeners who heard
Jesus were fully aware that spiritual [Page 109] steadfastness
was not guaranteed. That, rather, hinged
upon one's own conduct and behavior.
First century occurrence of such
phenomena. Apostasy is referred to in several of the New
Testament epistles as both a real danger (2 Peter 2:9-10) and one that had
actually occurred (2 Timothy 4:10; 2 Peter 2:15; Jude, verse 4). No connection is ever made between the
apostasies that had occurred and the persecution or adversity Christians
suffered because of their faith. Such a
connection would be a most natural one, however, in light of the circumstances
under which they lived.
On the other hand if apparent
non-apostates could seek harm on the apostles, one would expect even fewer
inhibitions among those who had left the faith behind. In 2 Timothy
Olshausen
denies the idea of a first century reference in Matthew 24:10 in two ways. First, he asserts that the persecutions of
that century were not as violent as the persecution predicted by verses 10-12.[13] According to the data we have already
examined, the trials of the era were indeed quite rigorous--periodically
at least and in certain locations. For
example, when Nero came down hard on the Christians in his capital, Tacitus refers to how “an immense multitude was convicted”
for their discipleship.[14]
Second, Olshausen
asserts that more recent persecutions have been more severe than those in the
first century. He cites in particular
that of the first French [Page 110]
Revolution when Christianity was
legally abolished.[15] If he had lived in our era, he would surely
have cited as well the bitter anti-religious persecutions of Adolph Hitler and
Joseph Stalin.
The fatal flaw in the reasoning is
that Jesus does not claim that what His first century followers faced would be
the worst persecution that ever would rain down on the head of
believers. Jesus only stresses the
horrible severity of it; not whether it would be lesser or greater than distant
future generations might encounter. Only
in regard to the fall of
10. BELIEVERS TO BETRAY EACH OTHER (Matthew 24:10b; Mark
Luke 21:16-19)
Mark and Luke both paint an event
starker picture than in Matthew of the degree pervasiveness of rage over the
new faith that would be widespread in their world. In Matthew the emphasis is on the fact
of betrayal; in Mark, the grim addition is that this will occur even within the
family circle. Luke takes it even
further by noting that the danger could come from even a broader array of
sources--“parents and brothers and kinsmen and friends.” Instead of protecting each other, even there there will be the threat of death. The psychological pain would be intensified
because these were the ones we would most naturally trust--the ones we would
think least capable of committing such a serious and dangerous act against us.[16]
The same intensification is found in
regard to hatred as well. In Matthew the
emphasis is again on the broad picture of Christians being hated (presumably by
those who have fallen away, in particular); in Mark and Luke it is made even
more emphatic by the warning that believers would be “hated by all.” (In a strict chronological sense, since Mark
is usually regarded as having been written prior to Matthew, Matthew’s account
“generalizes” and “softens” the brutal realism found in Mark.)
[Page 111] Luke
adds a word of reassurance from Jesus that is not found in the other two
accounts, “But not a hair of your head will perish. By your endurance you will gain your lives” (
One wonders how these words sounded
when Jesus spoke them. He had spoken
previously of how certain of the phenomena mentioned in this section and, for
that matter, other sections of the current message, would find a reflection in
what was left of His own life: there
would be a betrayal by a “brother” and “friend,” trial before Jewish and Roman
authorities, heavenly phenomena at His death, and even ultimately death would
do Him no permanent harm because of the resurrection.[18] It does not take a great imagination to
suspect that at least the passing thought went through His mind of how like His
own future some of theirs would be.
Old Testament precedent. We can approach this in different ways. First of all, by looking at it from the standpoint
that the church will inevitably reflect society and whatever warts society has
will be reflected within the community of believers as well. Societies, of course, have often been
besieged by bitter internal divisions that resulted in the abuse of its own
people. Betrayal of others was a
phenomena referred to in the prophets as afflicting both Israelite and outside
societies. We read of the latter in
Isaiah 19:1-4, where strife between the ethnic kinsmen of
[Page 112] Zechariah
8:9-12 refers to similar internal divisiveness among Jews of a former
generation. Here again, the divisiveness
is described as an expression of God's wrath upon their chronic
rebelliousness. This does not mean that
God somehow compelled them to act in bitter, anti-social ways. Rather, He utilized their fundamental moral
weaknesses and caused them to bear the bitter results of their own
behavior. They sowed the seed of
division and God assured that they reaped its full consequences.
Micah presents a picture of a
society in which all the fundamental family and political ties have been destroyed. This permitted not merely betrayal but any
and all other types of injustice as well,
The godly man has
perished from the earth, and there is none upright
among men; they all lie in wait for blood, and each hunts his brother with a
net. Their hands are upon what is
evil, to do it diligently; the prince and the
judge ask for a bribe, and the great man utters the evil desire of his soul;
thus they weave it together.
The best of them is like
a brier, the most upright of them a thorn
hedge. The day of their watchmen, of
their punishment, has come; now their
confusion is at hand. Put no trust in a
neighbor, have no confidence in a
friend; guard the doors of your mouth from her who lies in your bosom; for
the son treats the father with contempt, the daughter rises up against her
mother, the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; a man's enemies are
the men of his own house. But as for
me, I will look to the Lord, I will wait
for the God of my salvation; my God will hear me. (Micah 7:2-7)
The difference between the situation
described in Matthew 24 and such texts as these is that society's general moral
state is not discussed--only how it affects Christians. Yet if a society targets its own members for
injury, there would certainly be no intellectual or emotional impediments
against targeting believers in particular!
Indeed, by virtue of living a more restrained lifestyle, they would
become natural targets because of their very nonconformity. Hence it would be a [Page 113] natural
leap from betraying and mistreating one's fellow citizens to betraying and
abusing those who are even more different due to their dissenting religious and
ethical convictions. In this revulsion
lies the root of the outbursts of anti-Christian persecution that occurred in
the first century (Matthew 24:9).
Reflecting the biases and limitations of their culture, Christians would
tend to carry with them into the church the same inclination toward rooting out
dissent at any price.
Secondly, to approach the matter
from a slightly different angle, not only does the church reflect the society,
it itself a mini-society. It represented
a cross-section of the world as it was and carried with it the weaknesses and
temptations existing in the broader society.
Hence it would not be surprising that in some places a specific
congregation’s moral strength might be weak indeed and the membership locked in
a perpetual civil war. Consider Paul’s
description in First Corinthians of the conditions in the church of that city. If one were to superimpose vigorous external
repression on an intensely divided group, such as pictured there, it would be
easy to imagine some of the members utilizing the situation to settle old
scores. Even in places lacking such open
schisms, popular resentments might break open concealed fault lines between
Christians that had not been noticeable in less tense times.
Sadly, in the religious society of
the past there was precedent for oppression of the faithful by the nonobedient majority.
We read in the Torah and the historical chronicles of the Old Testament
of repeated cases of how true prophets were treated with scorn, rejection, and
even bodily assault. It was almost a
truism that the dedicated prophet would encounter mistreatment at the hands of
his theoretical cobelievers. Jesus referred to how common it had been for
the prophets to be killed by such people (Luke
[Page 114] First century
occurrence of such phenomena.
We have already quoted Tacitus concerning how
large a number of
Christians who suffered under Nero. But how did his police authorities obtain
their names? Tacitus
informs us that “an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon
their information, an immense multitude was convicted. . . .”[19] “Upon their information” implies that those
first arrested betrayed the identity of their fellow believers. Are we to believe that such weakness was
found only among Christians in
Furthermore, the evidence from
twentieth century military and political history proves that severe pressure
causes many to betray their convictions.
Even highly motivated individuals have different levels of self-control;
what will not faze one will entirely crack up another. Should we expect men and women to react any
differently when faced with brutality because of their religion rather than
their nationalism?
What made the situation more
dangerous for first century church members was that not all the potential
betrayers and enemies were external ones.
Any form of communal living (marriage, lodge, church, business) creates
points of annoyance and even resentment.
A certain number of people simply do not get along. A certain number of people will take
advantage of others and avenge real or imagined wrongs when given the
opportunity. Hence the betrayal might
even be by a respected “faithful” Christian who takes the opportunity to settle
a personal grudge.[20]
Some have suggested the possibility
that the text, “in the circumstances of nationalist unrest [refers] to those
outside the community regarding believers as traitors.”[21] This likely occurred as well, but is not what
the passage has under consideration. The
text identifies those who “betray” and “hate” as those who “fall away,” i.e.,
the betraying and hating will be done by apostate Christians, not local
nationalists.
Another unlikely suggestion is that
the text “may refer . . . to divisions with the community” rather than to
actions by outright apostates.[22] In a period of schism coreligionists may
indeed “hate” each other, but do they often “betray” each other into the hands
of a persecuting authority, as this text indicates they would? It [Page 115] would
be far too dangerous a strategy, for if the suspicion got back to the betrayed
can there be any doubt whose name(s) they might
reveal in retaliation? Under severe
persecution one can easily enough conceptualize that individuals might buckle
and betray others, but as a result of internal church division it seems very
unlikely. Certainly those Tacitus referred to betrayed because they themselves had
already been arrested and were under pressure rather than because they were out
to even old scores and stood in no immediate personal danger.
11. BELIEVERS
TO HATE EACH OTHER (Matthew 24:10; Mark 13:13a;
Luke 21:16-19)
Old Testament precedent. The Psalmist repeatedly bewails the
undeserved hatred he was forced to endure.
He speaks of “how many are my foes, and with what violent hatred they
hate me” (Psalms 25:19). As he
discovered, with some people one doesn’t actually have to do anything to
be hatred. One merely has to exist. Sadly there are those “who hate me without
cause” (Psalms 35:19).
The line between hatred and related
phenomena such as jealousy, envy, and malice is very thin. When we speak of Joseph being sold into
Egyptian captivity (Genesis 37) we usually think in terms of it being done out
of “jealousy” but were not his brothers’
actions so severe that it virtually amounted to loathing as well? In other cases also, when such related
attitudes are involved we might well ponder whether these two verged on, or
crossed the line over, into overt hatred as well.
First century occurrence of such
phenomena. The New
Testament epistles condemn hatred (Galatians
[Page 116] By
its very nature, once hatred becomes deeply imbedded it is extremely easy to
strike out at others. Matthew 24:10 does
not make clear whether the betrayal results from the hatred or is the rationalization
of the betrayal. In actual practice
hatred could lead to apostasy and betrayal; the opposite scenario could also
occur, individuals feeling overpowered by a hostile environment could apostasize and then emotionally justify their reversal by
contempt for their (ex) fellow believers.
The person restores his or her own “self-respect” by thinking as basely
of the betrayed and his motives as humanly possible and by attributing to him
the “real” blame for the ill fate that has overwhelmed him.
The potential for this is clearly
implied in the New Testament epistles.
The intense divisiveness of the factions depicted in First Corinthians
could easily have dissolved beyond rivalry and resentment into such hate. Diotrephes (as
described in Third John) so desired to dominate the local congregation, what
would his likely attitude have been toward those who refused to submit?
The traditionalist movement that
desired to maintain Christianity as a sect of Judaism (rather than accepting
believing Gentiles as uncircumcised but spiritual pars) had such deep-rooted
anger against Paul that it would be but one step to something even worse.[23] Philippians 1:15-17 refers to those who
wish “to afflict me in my imprisonment.”
Once that mind-frame is embraced the potential for evil is virtually
unlimited.
12. FALSE PROPHETS (Matthew
24:11)
Of this danger Jesus tells His
apostles, “And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray” (Matthew
24:11). In the Old Testament, “prophet”
carried the various ideas of speaking on behalf of God, of being authoritative
as such a spokesperson, providing moral and ethical teaching, predicting the
future, and of being a miracle worker.
We find similar usages of the term in the New Testament [Page
117] as well.[24] In Matthew 7:21-23 the individual who
prophesies is described as a person who could also claim to cast out demons and
perform supernatural wonders. Miracle
working is ascribed to sages in the Old Testament as well, but not as a uniform
pattern. (Neither in
the New Testament for that matter.)
In Matthew 10:40-41 the usage
implied is more along the essence of the nature of a
Old Testament prophet. Here the
reception given a prophet is paralleled with that giving an apostle; the theme
in common is presumably that both are to be regarded as spokesmen of God. (Jesus goes on to comment that the reception
of any righteous person is parallel to receiving Jesus Himself.)[25] Hence false prophets here should be
considered as a broad term that could include several different phenomena, from
teaching to prediction to claimed miracle working.
Old Testament precedent. False prophets (i.e., those who refused to
worship only Yahweh, who refused to conform their
message to his will, or who openly advocated the worship of other gods) were a
recurring problem in
In the earlier period such was not
the case. Their polytheism, however, did
not have to take the form of an overt rejection of their Judaism. It was quite possible for a person to be an ecumenicalist, worshipping at the Jewish altar when
appropriate but regularly attending various pagan rites as well. Likewise a false prophet might fall in either
category.
Jeremiah 23:23-32 contains a stern
rebuke to the polytheistic prophets of that era. Some of their tales sprang from their own
misguided desires (verse 26), while others were
knowingly lifted from the predictions of others (verse 30). Lamentations
If the origin of their words
was within themselves or the writings and orations of their contemporaries, the
purpose (in part) was to undermine monotheistic Judaism, while building
up the confidence of their own religious substitute. Sometimes this took the form of a war of
nerves. Nehemiah was faced [Page
118] with the message of such individuals, whose words were intended to
undermine his self-confidence (Nehemiah
Others were not as
stouthearted. In 1 Kings 13 we read of
an elderly "prophet" (verse 11) who had no scruples against
proclaiming as revelation a message that he had not received (verses
18-19). As a result, the young prophet
who had come to rebuke the pagan altar at
Since the older man went out of his
way to both find and mislead him, however (verses 11-14), it is far more likely
that he was one of the ecumenical Judeo-pagan prophets in favor of the
Although it is easy enough to
recognize that an individual might be either a true or a false prophet, how
does one determine which category he falls within? In a specific case (rather than mere abstract
theory), how can a man or a woman tell the difference between the two? The very fact that a person admitted that he
was a prophet serving a different god than that of Israel, was prima facie evidence
that his message was unreliable and to be rejected (Deuteronomy 18:20). Linked with this test is that of the
fulfillment of his predictions (verses 21-22)--implying that a false prophet
would find that his predictions would fail to materialize.
What is not stated in Deuteronomy 18
is how long one was to wait for the fulfillment before one ceased to recognize
his claims.[26] Here, however, we are most [Page
119] likely intended to think of terms of datable predictions, things
that were to occur (or not occur) by a specific point announced in
advance. (The contemporary equivalent
would be the multitude of false predictions of the date of Jesus’ second
coming.)
The true prophet needed to do more
than just an apparent worshipper of Yahweh.
The message had to be in conformity with the existing written revelation
as well. Even supposed miracles could
not vindicate such departures from the Divine norm,
If a prophet arises
among you, or a dreamer of dreams, and gives you
a sign or a wonder, and the sign of wonder which he tells you comes to
pass,
and if he says, "Let us go after other gods," which you have not
known, "and
let us serve them," you shall not listen to the words of that prophet
or to that
dreamer of dreams; for the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether
you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your
soul. You
shall walk after the Lord your God and fear him, and keep his command-
ments and obey his voice, and you shall serve
him and cleave to him.
(Deuteronomy 13:1-4)
The apostle Paul speaks in similar
terms. Here it is the gospel he had
proclaimed that is authoritative regardless of even alleged miracles that
individuals might work in support of rival religious systems (Galatians 1:6-9).
Of particular relevance in the
context of the grim prediction of the future found in Matthew 24, is the fact
that false prophets normally took the exact opposite approach: they spoke an upbeat, positive message of
Israel triumphant over foes (Jeremiah 14:13-16). Unfortunately, when the future was grim these
predictions would not change the reality and they would perish at the hands of
the sword and famine that they had insisted would not disturb the land. The priest-prophet Pashur
is cited as one specific such individual (Jeremiah 20:1-6).
Zechariah 13:1-6 speaks of a day
when prophecy would utterly vanish. This
is often interpreted as a reference to the ending of false prophecy, but the
text itself [Page 120] seems to be speaking in terms of honest men
and women who have come to discover that their gift has vanished. Be that as it may, the reader of Jesus'
warning would have been fully aware of how the Torah and prophets had spoken of
false prophets in the past. Their
challenge would be to avoid making the same mistake of their foreparents in falling for such distorted messages
First century occurrence of such
phenomena. False
prophets appeared within the Christian community.[27] The psychological imbalance that produces
such behavior as false prophesying is one that can afflict the imbalanced and
unstable even among the most orthodox.
But this is hardly likely to have been the only source that attracted
believers in Jesus since the Palestinian ones lived among orthodox Jewish
communities that were still seeking a politico-religious Messiah. Since one’s religious commitment rarely fully
shakes off one’s cultural past and heritage (nor, in the bulk of cases should
it), it is inherently likely that they might be tempted by one or more of the
dynamic nationalist prophets that came their way.
As to the spiritually unbalanced
whose lack of stability (or conscious intent?) resulted in religious claims of
authority that bore no ground in reality, the New Testament explicitly
indicates the frequency with which they occurred. John directly speaks in terms of their large
numbers within the believing community, “Beloved, do not believe every spirit,
but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false
prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1).
In addition there are implicit
indications of the presence of false prophets in the description of false
teachers found in various New Testament epistles--certainly in the broader
sense of forthtellers (rather than foretellers)
of the Divine will.[28]
Such false pretenders also existed
in contemporary Judaism. Two of them are
referred to in both the New Testament and Josephus as well. One was Theudas the
magician. Gamaliel
refers to him (quoted by Luke in Acts
[Page 121] A
Roman tribune quoted in Acts
Felix’s reign as governor was
characterized by the appearance of a number of such individuals. In
Of the entire reign of Felix,
Josephus makes plain that such false prophets had risen
in substantial number under prior rulers as well. The historian notes that “the country was again
[our emphasis, rw] filled with robbers and imposters,
who deluded the multitude.”[34]
During the siege of
“Lead Many Astray”
Once again we lack explicit data
referring to this occurring. On the
other hand, it would not be surprising if it did. After all, Jesus did not assert that “most”
believers would make this mistake. He
merely asserts that “many” would. “Many”
is an assertion that it would be common, but it is not an assertion of
the proportion of believers involved--either large or small.
[Page 122]
13. DIMINISHED RELIGIOUS FERVOR (Matt 24:12)
It would be a time of moral
unconcern, “And because wickedness is multiplied, most men’s love will grow
cold.” Standing by itself, this
statement could be applied to either believers or the general citizenry in the
part of the world in which the events would occur. Although both are likely a faithful
representations of the historical period, Jesus specifically has in mind the
danger to His disciples (verse 13). What
is not clear is whether the danger will be to believers because most of their
people have fallen into this trap or because most of surrounding society
will be pushing them in a similar direction.
The text does not require love to
have become “frozen,” merely “cold”--i.e., dramatically weakened and
diminished.[36] There might still be a veneer of religious
or moral commitment--the text could refer to either or both--but the flaming
heart that keeps it glowing and vibrant has been toned down to where its very
survival may be in doubt. The prevailing
wickedness threatens to destroy it entirely.[37]
The Problem:
“Wickedness”
The term means “general immorality
and license.”[38] It means “literally ‘absence of law’ or
‘violation of law.’ It describes the
total anarchy which rages where no norm is any longer respected.”[39] There are two aspects to the concept: one is violating God’s will; the other is
ignoring it, acting without authority, endorsement, or approval. The first ignores the prohibitions of the
divine will; the second ignores God’s silence, that there is no encouragement
from God to act in the first place. A
person no longer cares; he just does what he or she wants to do and lays
aside all other considerations. It’s
done because it “feels” good, “looks” good, or can be somehow rationalized as
contributing to a desirable “good.”
This anomia
(the Greek word utilized) is rebuked not only here but in other texts as
well. Being religious does not justify
it (Matthew
Both forms of the phenomena existed
in the Old Testament era as well. The
condemnation of overt violations of the Torah is abundant throughout the
“major” and “minor” prophets. Easier to
overlook are the references to acting not so much in defiance as out of no
concern as to the provisions of the Torah.
In Judges 17:6 we read that, “In those days there was no king in
When Proverbs speaks of keeping the
commandment within one’s heart (4:20-21), the implication is that one can drift
into unconcern about such matters and no longer take it into consideration in
making one’s life choices. Proverbs 16:2
implies the folly of such an approach.
Since “all the ways of a man are pure in his own eyes,” unless one is
operating from conscious moral guidelines there is nothing to impede a person
from doing what he wants to do, whenever he wants to do it, and to whoever he
wants to do it.
Finally, the religious leadership in
the days of Ezekiel is pictured as acting in such a manner as if they had no
care at all as to whether something was right or wrong (Ezekiel 22:26). From these varied examples we can see that
the “who cares” mentality was common in the past and Jesus is warning of it being
a temptation yet against in the future.
The Proportion:
“Most”
Old Testament precedent. Many texts of the Old Covenant, speaking of
the popularity of idolatry, would seem to imply that the strong majority of the
population was refusing to practice strict monotheism. In the days of Elijah they were so few and
scattered that the prophet was convinced that the cause of Yahweh [Page
124] was hopeless (1 Kings
First century occurrence of such
phenomena. Not only would the fervor of “love” dramatically decrease, it would
be a widespread phenomena:
"most" would fall prey to it (Matthew 24:12). Is Jesus speaking of the fellowship of
disciples or of the broader Jewish community in
There is no explicit piece of
evidence which we can cite either in favor of this phenomena either within
either the church or the citizenry of geographic
For the sad fact is that in a period
of intense societal pressure (famine, war, threatened war, religious deception
publicly exposed as false), the disillusionment can affect virtually
everyone. The human psyche is extremely
flexible, but at some point it throws its hands up in despair and becomes
incapable of dealing with further stress.
Confidence ebbs; optimism vanishes; and the accepted truisms for which
one has labored and sacrificed for years can easily become less important and
virtually ignored.
This does not make the phenomena
right, but it does indicate that the reaction is a quite human one that can
affect anyone regardless of religious belief.
Since Jews were far more likely to be deeply drawn to the independence
movements of the day (due to the belief in an yet unarrived Messiah), one would anticipate it affecting them
the most. On the other hand, at least
elements of these movements would entice some Christians and everyone lived in
potential danger from the consequences of insurrection.
[Page 125]
The Result:
Diminished Religious Fervor
(“Men’s love will grow cold”)
Old Testament precedent. In its Biblical usage “love” can refer to
one’s fervency toward God or one’s fellow man.
Of the former, religious enthusiasm runs in cycles. It reaches a peak, declines, stabilizes,
increases, peaks—and then starts over again.
The heights will vary; the lows will vary; the length of time for each
period will vary. The only certainty is
that things will not indefinitely stay the same.
The Old Testament was well aware of
periods when Jehovah sparked no fear in the heart and the moral restraints of
the Torah impeded all too few from excess and destruction. Jeremiah 9:3 speaks of one such era as one
when, “They bend their tongue like a bow; falsehood and not truth has grown
strong in the land; for they proceed from evil to evil, and they do not know
me, says the Lord.” Hosea depicts the
popular lack of commitment through an allusion to nature, “What shall I do with
you, O Ephraim? What shall I do with
you, O Judah? Your
love is like a morning cloud, like the dew that goes early away” (6:4).
“Love” of one’s fellow human being
also had its highs and lows. The Psalms
and Proverbs bear abundant witness to the willingness of individuals to abuse,
misuse, and take advantage of their fellow citizens.
First century occurrence of such
phenomena. The need to maintain love is a well-known
major theme of First John, implying an acute recognition that it could
evaporate. A loss of love is explicitly
referred to in the mini-epistle to
ADOMINITION: ENDURE
REGARDLESS!
(Matthew 24:13; Mark 13:13b)
[Page 126]
Although many would give up hope,
Jesus implores His disciples not to let the despair of others rub off on them. He insists that, "He who endures to the
end will be saved" (Matthew 24:13).
Somehow, from somewhere, they must summon up the internal resources to
persevere when others are convinced there is no hope.
Many of the Psalms are efforts by
the authors to summon up such internal reserves of strength when the future
looks grim and bitter. In a historical
context, we find King Asa facing discouragement from
contemporary warfare (2 Chronicles 15:5-6).
A prophet urged him not to give up, "But you, take courage! Do not let your hands be weak, for your work
shall be rewarded" (verse 7).
First century occurrence of such
phenomena. Although
some interpret “the end” under discussion to be “the end” of
If “the end” refers to the
destruction of
Not only is the admonition that one
must be faithful to God a natural outgrowth of the Old Testament stress on
abiding fidelity throughout one’s life, it best fits the immediate
context. This is indicated by reading
verses 12 and 13 together (our emphasis added), “And because wickedness is
multiplied, most men’s love will grow cold.
But he who endures to the end will be saved.” In other words, the
individual whose love endures to the end. The contrast is between those (the majority)
who shed that love and that faithful minority who retain it.
[Page 127]
14. WORLDWIDE PREACHING OF GOSPEL (Matthew 24:14;
Mark
The “Great Commission” that ends
this gospel account (Matthew 28:18-20) is foreshadowed in the prediction of
Mark
What was the scope of “the world”
here and in Matthew 28:18-20? Although
we today think in terms of the “world” as everyplace on this globe (will a
future generation think in terms of a “civilized world” encompassing every
planet bearing human immigrants?), the concept may well have been subject to
considerable variation in the first century itself. The “world” would tend to be the part known
of or of importance to the speaker.[45] Regardless of which specific meaning the
early church put upon the expression, the New Testament narratives interpret
the phenomena of “world-wide” preaching as having been accomplished in the
first century itself (see below).
The question has risen as to whether
the reference to “nations” means the Gentile nations as distinct from the
Jewish nation or whether both were encompassed by the term.[46] In favor of the former is that it is the more
typically Biblical use of the word “nations;” in favor of the latter is the
natural broadness of the term “all” and the fact that though a great many
Palestinian Jews had already heard the message of Jesus--either from Him
personally or via His disciples--it is inherently probable that many had still
not done so.
[Page 128] Another
question concerns the immediate (in contrast to the ultimate) interpretation
the disciples likely placed upon the prediction and its implicit commandment to
preach. Being Jews and since Jesus had
explicitly enjoined a Jews-only ministry during His preaching years (Matthew
10:5-7), it would have been natural for the apostles to interpret this as only
a command to preach the kingdom gospel to fellow Jews scattered throughout the
world. Certainly this was the
interpretation placed upon the Great Commission of Matthew 28:18-20 and its
demand for a world-wide preaching. This
can be seen from the fact that it was not until the conversion of Cornelius
that the door was open to the preaching of the apostolic message to the
Gentiles. Even that did not stir the
on-going turmoil made explicit by the apostle Paul refusing to bind circumcision
and traditional rites of the Torah upon Gentiles; many who were willing to
accept Gentile converts were unwilling to go this far.[47]
Some have interpreted this
prediction as an invention by Matthew to explain why the end of the world/age
had not occurred: even though
Old Testament precedent. Jonah's
preaching mission to
On the other hand, Jews were
widespread in the centuries before Jesus--for merchant-trade reasons not to
mention the misfortune of exile after defeat in war. To the extent that they were practicing
monotheists, there was an implicit testimony in their religious and
moral lifestyle that was inescapable to those they interacted with. Some would look with anger upon these
"strange" people, while others would [Page 129] be
attracted by their "eccentric" religious practice. Either way, they would be a living testimony
to monotheism as a theological alternative in a world with hundreds of
religious options.
Isaiah 9:1-2 speaks of an
enlightenment that would come to the Gentile areas of
Although geographically,
Isaiah 42:5-9 speaks of an era when
there would be a "light of the nations" and not to
Note the two key words “you” and
“covenant.” In other words he will be
“the means through which people will come into a covenant relation with the
Lord.”[53] J. Alec Motyer
effectively stresses how the various terms used in these verses interlock to
portray the radical transformation that is the result of this servant’s
outreach to the Gentiles, “Within the all-embracing concept of ‘covenant’ there
is the ‘light’ of truth, the healing of personal disabilities (exemplified in
opening blind ‘eyes’), the end of restrictions imposed by others (bringing out
‘captives’) and the transformation of circumstances (‘darkness’).”[54]
[Page 130] Who
is this “I”? It has been interpreted
collectively as of all
In words of encouragement to the
prophet himself, God speaks of how the prophet would be a "light to the
nations" (Isaiah 49:5-7).[57] In some manner or in some form the prophet
would be a teacher, an enlightener, even to those outside his ethnic/national
community.
Isaiah 51 seems to speak of a new
system of direct application to the Gentiles, "Listen to me, my people,
and give ear to me, my nation; for a law will go forth from me,
and my justice for a light to the peoples" (verse 4). Since the alien nations are traditionally
pictured in the Torah and prophets as lacking knowledge of the God of
This text, however, seems to assume
a more active role in shedding of the “light” upon “the peoples” when it
uses the expression of how “a law will go forth from me, and my justice
for a light to the peoples.” It speaks
as if the spreading of this “light” were to be a conscious
effort--proselytizing or the equivalent.
The concept of a “law” going forth
gives every verbal indication of being the conceptual equivalent of the new
covenant predicted in Jeremiah 31:31-34.
In Hebrews 8:8-13 this text is applied to the gospel message that early
Christians were sharing in the communities where they resided. Indeed, if any “law” were to go forth,
at any time, how else could it do so without the conscious communicating of it
with others?
[Page 131] Isaiah
60 speaks of how the various nations would come to gain spiritual light, “For
behold, darkness shall cover the earth, and thick darkness the peoples; but the
Lord will arise upon you, and his glory will be seen upon you, and nations
shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your rising"
(verses 2-3).
“Nations” would suggest the spread
over a wide geographic region, one that crossed multiple political boundaries. “Kings” are mentioned in particular as
accepting the Divine “light” in order “to show that not merely the common
people but even those of high rank” responded in a receptive manner.[58] It may also be because leaders follow as
well as lead; they may encourage their citizens in a certain direction; on the
other hand, the astute ruler may embrace a policy because the people are
already receptive. Either or both might
also be the case in this text; the passage does not inform us.
Here the imagery is rather different
than in the preceding examples. Instead
of the light being sent to the nations, the light is so inherently attractive
that the outsiders would themselves initiate the reconciliation by coming to
it. The truth would be so appealing that
it would exert a pull without explicit efforts at conversion. On an individual (wife/husband) basis that
concept is developed in 1 Peter 3:1-2.
First century occurrence of such
phenomena. A substantial number of commentators deny a first
century intended frame of reference, primarily upon the basis that the wording
must be interpreted in the sense that the twentieth century puts on the
expression “the whole world.”[59] Of course, the normal practice and the
proper one--barring unusual factors--is to either interpret the terminology in
the sense that its original hearers understood it, or, at least, compatible
with their understanding. (The latter
would be the case when other texts indicate Jesus had an immediate intent, but
was laying the groundwork for a broader understanding when His disciples could
grasp the full logical impact of His language.)
In both senses, it would be “the
world” in the sense of the
Regardless of the specific
definition placed upon the expression “the whole world,” it is clear that the
New Testament writers regarded it as fully accomplished within the era of
its writing, that is, prior to the fall of
Other texts are even less demanding
of an interpretative gloss. Colossians
1:5-6 refers to how the gospel was bearing fruit “in the whole world.” Verse 23 goes even further in asserting (in
clearly hyperbolic language) that the gospel had “been preached to every
creature under heaven.” Romans 10:14-18
quotes as precedent for that the fact that “not all [have] heeded the gospel”
the fact that Isaiah had written of how “their voice has gone out to all the
earth and their words to the ends of the world.”
Indeed, even before the apostles
began any mission to the nations, the groundwork was laid to accomplish the
goal of “universal” preaching of the gospel.
At the first Pentecost after the resurrection, we read of how “there
were dwelling in
“As a Testimony to All Nations”
There is no claim of universal
conversion, only of universal opportunity.[60] The determining factor will be their
individual response.[61] Since the New Testament presents both threats
and promises--hinging upon disobedience or obedience--then the idea is that the
testimony is “God’s will to save them, if they receive it, and of their doom,
if they do not.”[62] Another way of expressing the same idea is
that, “The witness would be for or against them according to the use made of
this opportunity.”[63]
[Page 133] Implicit
in this is a plea that the church remain upbeat and
optimistic no matter how trying the external circumstances might become. “This statement anticipates the great
commission in 28:20 and implies that the church is not to circle the wagons
until the danger passes but is to engage in active mission. In spite of the trauma, the community’s
responsibility to love and to proclaim the gospel of the kingdom remains in
force.”[64]
“Then the End will Come”
Three interpretations have been
suggested: It refers to “the end” of
15. APPEARANCE OF THE "DESOLATING SACRILEGE" (Matthew
24:15; Mark 13:14a; Luke
Jesus next points
to a terrible outrage that would occur in the then future. The wording of the description, however,
dramatically shifts between Matthew/Mark and Luke,
[Page 134]
“So when you see the
desolating sacrilege spoken of by the prophet \
Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand).” (Matthew)
“But when you see the
desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to
be (let the reader understand). . . .” (Mark)
“But
when you see
its desolation has come near.”
(Luke)
The word “prophet” in connection
with Daniel context does not refer to which section of the Old Testament the
book fell within (i.e., Law/prophets/writings) but the fact that Daniel is
accepted as having a prophetic gift that permitted him to see future events. The description refers to function
rather than location.[65]
The Greek, translated here into
English as a “desolating sacrilege,” is the Septuagint wording found in Daniel
Matthew specified where the
“desolating sacrilege” was mentioned in the Old Testament while Mark omits that
information. Writing to an individual
unacquainted with the Jewish sacred writings (Luke 1:3-4), however, the
reference to “desolating sacrilege” would make no sense because the recipient, Theophilus, would have no reason to be acquainted with the
text. Therefore Luke does what both Matthew and Mark urge-- “let the
reader understand” -- by explaining what the reference means, that is,
to an invading army circling
[Page 135] Old Testament
precedent. Instead of
building upon a conceptual foundation from several different texts or broad
principles, this one is built firmly upon Daniel’s prophecy of “weeks,”
And after the sixty-two
weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off, and
shall have nothing; and the people of the prince who is to come shall
destroy
the city and the sanctuary. Its end
shall come with a flood, and to the end
there shall be war; desolations are decreed.
And he shall make a strong
covenant with many for one week; and for half of the week he shall cause
sacrifice and offering to cease; and upon the wing of abominations shall come
one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the
desolator.
(Daniel 9:26-27)
In Daniel 11:11 the length of the pollution
is referred to, “And from the time that the continual burnt offering is taken
away, and the abomination that makes desolate is set up, there shall be a
thousand two hundred and ninety days.”
In several other places in the book of
Daniel itself other references to the same or a similar phenomena. In Daniel 8:13 the question is raised of,
“For how long is the vision concerning the continual burnt offering, the
transgression that makes desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary and
host to be trampled under foot?”
In more concrete language the event
is described in Daniel 11:31, “Forces from him shall appear and profane the
temple and fortress, and shall take away the continual burnt offering. And they shall set up the abomination that
makes desolate.” The responsible ruler
will do all this out of personal egoism,
And the king shall do
according to his will; he shall exalt himself and
magnify
himself above every god, and shall speak astonishing things against
the God of gods. He shall prosper
till the indignation is accomplished; for
what is determined shall be done. He
shall give no heed to the gods of his
fathers, or to the one beloved by women; he shall not give heed to any other
god, for he shall magnify himself above all” (Daniel
[Page 136]
In spite of their obscurity, the
texts do permit at least a few safe assertions:
(1) the tragedy will be inflicted by a ruler; (2) the motivating factor
will be personal ego; (3) it will be accomplished through the ruler’s military
forces; (4) something will be erected-- presumably to be worshipped; (5) the
sacrifices for the God of Israel will cease.
Daniel’s prediction has been applied to
events even future to our own era.[67] Regardless of the meaning in Daniel, the
framework of interpretation provided in Matthew 24 argues that the phrase was applied
to the fall of
First century occurrence of such
phenomena. Laying aside the interpretation that it
refers to events at the end of the world,[68] we
must seek an explanation within the context of the fall of
During Caligula’s rule (37-41 A.D.),
his egomania led him to order to be installed within the
The next event that comes to mind at
the hands of an external foe is the Great Revolt. In this context, the reference to
“desolating” naturally leads to the belief that the text is making a broad
allusion to the vast destruction inflicted by the Roman army in conquering
Others see a more specific reference
here to the ensigns of the Roman army.[72] Since these were worshipped by the
soldiers, when erected near or within Jerusalem [Page 137] they
would be “abominable”; since the army that bore the banners inflicted
“desolation” on all that withstood them, that term
would also apply. This approach has been
criticized on the ground that “the Roman eagles” were already in
In rebuttal, it could be argued that
in Jesus’ day they were in Jerusalem as occupiers, while in A.D. 70 they
were there as destroyers, desolators of both city and countryside. After the fall of the temple the standards
were brought into the holy temple compound itself and sacrifice was given to the
image of Caesar they bore.[74] This was truly unique and so inflammatory it
had never been attempted previously.
Another approach is to interpret the
text as a reference to the imperial cult in
Another approach is to apply the
text to a specific individual. The
reading in Mark
In terms of other New Testament
texts, the mysterious Man of Sin in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 comes to mind but
that does nothing to attach a name to the description. Benjamin W. Bacon, for example, argues that
one or more of the gospel writers considered the “Antichrist” figure of this
text to have been in the writer’s mind as the intended abomination of
desolation. This would certainly provide
the [Page 138] kind of ominousness suggested![78] Paul does mention that this individual
“takes his seat in the
The Emperor might also be described
as present through the intermediary of his soldiers when they stood in the
temple where he (and it) had no business being.[79] In a literal sense, it could be “Titus, the
Roman general who stood in the Holy of Holies when the temple was finally
captured. . . .”[80] In a broader sense it could be the
accompanying army, to which the stricken temple would have been an object of
curiosity.[81] In such cases it would be a literal “he”
involved.
Although there was plenty of blame
to be applied to the polytheist outsider, the monotheist defenders of the land
were also guilty of serious excess as well.
Hence the expression could be interpreted as referring to the
sacrilegious activities of the Jewish zealots when they controlled the
city--and the temple in particular.[82] They were an “abomination” in that their
conduct defiled the temple and the holiness of the city; their continued
resistance guaranteed destruction or “desolation” by the Roman foe.
These rebel forces turned the temple
into a fortress. They even polluted its
sanctity by bringing within it the wounded bodies of those fallen in combat for
their side.[83] They appointed their own high priest,
thereby defiling the “holy of holies” whenever such illegitimate pretenders
entered it.[84] He was so inappropriate and inadequate that
he has been dismissed as merely “a clown.”[85]
They even stooped to murdering Zacharias in the middle of the temple.[86] Later both priests and those who came to
sacrifice were killed in the crossfire between competing factions.[87] They even utilized the food and supplies
set aside strictly for priestly use[88] and melted down the holy objects used in the
worship of the temple.[89]
[Page 139] C.
VanderWaal argues that the behavior of the militant
revolutionaries in
Stanley
D. Toussaint argues against the zealot interpretation because “no idolatry” was
involved in their behavior.[92] That implies too rigid and narrow a
definition of how defilement had to have occurred. Others contend that the reference to
“standing” in the temple argues for something more specific than the broader
excesses of the Zealots and that objection seems far more well founded.[93]
An examination of the other
recounting of the same reference indicates that Jesus had two ideas in
mind. The first was an object. In Mark
The second was the Roman armies
themselves and their destructiveness.
In
Luke 21:20-21
the warning is, “But when you see
“In the
Some limit this to the
This approach has the virtue of
assuming that
Oddly, some attempt to apply the
prediction to the church itself. For
example, although Daniel Patte concedes that the
desolating sacrilege applies to the destruction of the temple he contends that
it applies at least equally “to the profanation of the community of the
disciples (the new ‘holy place’).”[96] The fact that the catastrophe is one that
can be escaped by physical flight (24:16-18) argues that the text cannot refer
to some internal degradation of the church’s moral character. That obviously could not be escaped by
physical flight.
Patte concedes
that his approach does carry the idea of a flight from the corrupted
church but does not suggest what the idea would have meant in actual practice.[97] He may have in mind that the church would
have so lost its basic character that physical flight was justified even if all
the other members remained behind. But
that would be far more of a flight from fellow members rather than from
a defiled church.
“Let the Reader Understand”
Some believe this to be a marginal
note that has crept into the text.[98] Certainly this is preferable to the theory
that it alludes to an earlier written source utilized by either Mark or
Matthew--or both.[99] That is an allusion one would not [Page
141] normally “catch.” So far as the
text goes, at least in Matthew, the reference to “Daniel” would provide a
seeming cue as to what the reader is to understand when he reads, i.e.,
the true meaning of Daniel.[100] Yet the remark is also found in Mark where
the name “Daniel” is omitted. In that
context one would immediately think of the book current being read, “Understand
what I have written!” (This is a
meaning not impossible in Matthew, too, for that matter.)
Certainly this was not a statement
addressed to Jesus’ listeners. That is
excluded by the use of the word “reader;” listeners would have been described
as “listeners” or those who “heard” Him.
Why the silence? There was always a point beyond which it was
not politically prudent to be but so blunt.
This reality could easily have been in mind in Mark and Matthew.[101] Indeed, the admonition would also fit if the
meaning of the warning had been the subject of oral preaching. The writers might have desired
readers/listeners to recall it, without the danger of putting it into explicit
words where less friendly hands might utilize it against the community of
believers. On the other hand, if this
were the motivating factor why is Luke so much more explicit?
The plea to “understand” assumes
that the conduct would be so brazen that the reader could readily grasp what was
being referred to if he were educated in Christianity or Judaism (the reference
to a desolating sacrilege being to Daniel).
The text combines vivid condemnation with the avoidance of going across
that line where the government might feel compelled to strike out in
retaliation for the criticism. One was
on extremely “thin ice” when one bluntly criticized the Roman government or its
army. At least a fig leaf of discretion
might well have been regarded as imperative.
In the context of Daniel’s original
prediction it is made clear that his readers would not understand the
events he predicted. The meaning of
those words would remain “sealed until the time of the end” (Daniel 12:9). The “wicked” would be unable to “understand;
but those who are wise shall understand” (Daniel
Yet there is admittedly a strange
ominous sound in the words if one meditates upon them long enough. C. S. Mann argues that “there is an air of
hidden meaning here, almost of menace, as though a clue had to be hidden from
the prying eyes of outsiders.”[102] But this may just as easily come from an
exegete’s constant search to seek out a “deeper” truth: sometimes there isn’t anything more intended
than the obvious.
[1]Pasquier Quesnel, The
Gospels: with Moral Reflections on Each
Verse (New York: Anson D. F.
Randolph, 1855; 1867 edition) 1:295.
[2]This approach seems better than to
distinguish between the punishments of council and synagogue as in Robert H.
Gundry, Mark: A
Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1993), 739.
[3]C. S. Mann, Mark, in the Anchor
Bible series (Garden City, New York:
Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1986), 516.
[4]The
word “kings” includes rulers of a lower rank as well: R. A. Cole, The Gospel According to St.
Mark, in the Tyndale New Testament
commentary series (Grand Rapids, Michigan:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1961),
200; S. D. F. Salmond, St. Mark, in the Century
Bible commentary series (Edinburgh:
T. C. & E. C. Jack, Limited, 1922), 354.
[6]Joyce G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah,
Malachi, in the Tyndale Old Testament
Commentaries series (London: Tyndale Press, 1972), 153, stresses this active role of the
Jewish people and refers to verse 20, but does not explicitly develop the
Jewish “missionary” theme apparently implied by verses 20-23. In her discussion of these verses (155-156),
she omits any reference to a distinctly Jewish element in producing the spiritual
changes. Likewise, on verse 13 Carol L.
Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1-8, in the Anchor Bible
series (Garden City, New York: Doubleday
& Company, Inc., 1987), 424, refer to its “universalistic” tone but makes
no mention either there or in the discussion of verses 20-23 (437-442) of a
specifically Jewish role in producing the result. Hinckley G. Mitchell, “Haggai and Zechariah,”
in
[7]Ellison, 167.
[8]Annals XV:44. Cf. the remarks of Donald R. Dudley, The
World of Tacitus (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1968), 165, on
this text of Tacitus.
[9]F. F. Bruce, New Testament History
(Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday &
Company, Inc., 1971), 383.
[Page 144] [10]Craig S. Keener, Matthew, in the IVP
New Testament Commentary series (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press,
1997), 346.
[11]Blomberg, 355.
[12]Montague, 263.
[13]Olshausen, 234.
[14]Annals XV:44.
[15]Olshausen, 234.
[16]Bock, 338.
[17]Cf. Luke T. Johnson, 323; Joel B. Green, The
Gospel of Luke, in the New International Commentary on the New Testament
series (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997), 738; Robert E.
Obach and Albert Kirk, A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke
(Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist
Press, 1986), 213.
[18]See Barnwell, 231-232. At greater length also see R. H. Lightfoot, The
Gospel Message of St. Mark (Oford: Clarendon Press, 1950), 48-55.
[19]Annals XV:44.
[20]Montague, 264.
[21]W. F. Albright, W. F., and C. S. Mann, Matthew,
Volume 26 of The Anchor Bible
(Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday
& Company, Inc., 1971), 292.
[23]Alford, New Testament for English
Readers, 164, believes it clearly crossed the line.
[24]J. Andrew Overman,
Matthew’s Gospel and Formative Judaism: The Social World of the Matthean Community (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 117 and note 129 (of
same page), sees an ambiguity in the use of the term because the specific
connotation may shift from passage to passage.
Actually the same is true in the Old Testament as well.
[25]Ibid., 117, argues that this is in a
context of “missionary activity,” which this author finds hard to find; on the
other hand, it makes imminent sense as one logical application of the
text.
[26]This question is raised in the context of a
discussion of why Jeremiah was not executed for predicting the destruction of
Jerusalem by Gerald L. Keown, Pamela J. Scalise, and Thomas G. Smothers, Jeremiah 26-52,
Volume 27 in the Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas, Texas: Word Books, 1995) 26-27.
[27]It interpreted in exclusively Christian
terms by such commentators as Saldarini, 53, 104,
115, and Smith, 284. It has been
specifically interpreted as applying to the Judaizing
faction that wished to retain the faith as a Messianic cult within the confines
of the traditional practices of Judaism, by Alford, New Testament for
English Readers, 164. To apply it
as equivalent to the false Christs of verse 5 (Owen,
311) seems inherently unlikely.
[28]McGarvey, 205-206.
[30]Antiquities XX:8:6.
[31]Wars II:13:5.
[32]Wars II:13:4.
[33]Antiquities XX:8:6.
[34]Antiquities XX:8:5.
[35]Wars VI:5:2.
[36]Owen, 311.
[37]Newman and Stine, 737.
[38]A. Lukyn
Williams, Saint Matthew, Volume 15 of The Pulpit Commentary
(Reprint, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1961), 433.
[39]Suzanne de Dietrich, Matthew,
translated by Donald G. Miller. Volume 16 of The Layman’s Bible Commentary (Richmond,
Virginia: John Knox Press, 1961),
123-124.
[40]Alford, Greek New Testament, 83.
[41]McGarvey, 206.
[42]A temporal interpretation is adopted by
Alford, New Testament for English Readers, 164.
[44]Sherman E. Johnson, Matthew-Mark,
Volume Seven of The Interpreter’s Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1951), 546.
[45]On this potentially shifting usage, see
Henry Cowles, 211.
[46]Floyd V. Filson, A
Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, in the Black’s New
Testament Commentaries series (London:
Adam & Charles Black, 1960), 253.
[47]Gundry, Matthew, 481, points out
that this was the root objection to Gentile prosetlyization,
not a mission to Gentiles in and of itself.
[48]Overman, Church and Community in
Crisis, 333.
[49]S. H. Widyapranawa,
A Commenty on the Book of Isaiah
1-39: The Lord Is Savior:
Faith in National Crisis, in the International Theological Commentary
series (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990), 51.
[50]John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1-39, in the New International
Commentary on the Old Testament series.
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: William
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986), 242-243. This is a replacement volume for Edward J.
Young’s earlier work on Isaiah (see below).
[51]For some useful remarks on the meaning of
the word “covenant” in this context, see R. N. Whybray,
Isaiah 40-66, in the New Century Bible series (Greenwood, South
Carolina: Attic Press, Inc., 1975) 75.
[Page 148] [52]Edward J. Young, The
Book of Isaiah. Volume Three: Chapters 40-66, in the New
International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1972), 119-120, examines the pros and cons of the two
views, coming down on the side of the second choice. Whybray, 75,
concurs in this conclusion on the basis of an analogy with Isaiah 51:4. Others who concur in this reading of Isaiah
45:6 include J. Alec Motyer, The Prophecy of
Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary
(Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 322, and James D. Smart, History
and Theology in Second Isaiah: A
Commentary on Isaiah 35, 40-66 (London:
Epworth Press, MCMLXV), 85.
George A. F. Knight, Isaiah 40-55:
Servant Theology, Revised Edition, in the International
Theological Commentary series (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1984), 48, scrambles the rhetoric and seems to advocate both
views. His clearest remarks, however,
indicate that his basic instincts go with making a distinction between the two
phrases. Hence he has “a light to the
nations” as meaning, “A People with whom God has made covenant for the good of
the nations” (48).
[53]Motyer, 322.
Claus Westermann, Isaiah 40-66: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969), regards the meaning as “no more than
conjecture.” Hence he argues that, in a
very broad sense, it “mean[s] that the person addressed is destined to become a
tool or means whereby God effects something on others”
(322). In this passage, that “something”
is explicitly labeled as being the “covenant.”
Hence the proper understanding requires that the role of God’s covenant
play a central role in the interpretation.
[54]Motyer, 322.
[55]Smart, 85.
[Page 149] [56]John D. W. Watts, Isaiah 34-66, in
the Word Biblical Commentary series (Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1987) 119. In Isaiah 49:5-7, he also adopts a
“political” reading, suggesting that in that text the light is Darius (187).
[57]Whybray, 139, applies the reference to “me” in the
text to Isaiah personally. Steven Scherrer A Commentary on the Book of Isaiah: Isaiah as Sacred Scripture (Maryknoll, New York:
Jerome Publications, 1993), 120, suggests the propriety of applying it
to anyone who conveys the redemptive message to the world--
[58]Young, Isaiah . . . Chapters 40-66,
445.
[59]Olshausen, 234, and John P. Lange, Matthew,
Third Edition, translated by Philip Schaff (New
York: Charles Scribner & Company,
1865), 424.
[60]Keener, 346.
[61]Montague, 264.
[62]Thomas Adam, Posthumous Works (
[63]Williams, 434.
[64]
[65]Eduard Schweizer, The
Good News According to Matthew, translated by David E. Green (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1975), 452, however, believes that the
reference is to Daniel’s place among the prophets in the Septuagint version,
which is different from Daniel’s traditional placement in the Hebrew among the
“writings.”
[67]Michael Kalafian,
The Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks of the Book of Daniel (Lanham,
Maryland: University Press of America,
1991), provides a concise summary of representative interpretations of the
broader context: from the premillennial standpoint, 99-100; from the amillennial view, 137-141, cf. 218-221; from the “higher
critical” standpoint, 184-186. For
interpretive options also see the concise summary of John J. Collins, Daniel, in the
series Hermeneia--A Critical and Historical
Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, 1993), 357-358.
[68]This approach was upheld by Olshausen, for example (237).
[69]For example, Richard B.
Gardner (345). Some see in the 168 B.C. incident the root of
a play on words that underlies the expression.
George R. Beasley-Murray, Preaching the Gospel from the Gospels, Revised Edition
(Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson
Publishers, 1996), 152, notes that “[t]he author of 1 Maccabees
calls [the erecting of Antiochus’ idol] ‘the abomination of desolation’ (
[70]Montague, 266.
[71]For various forms of this interpretation
see Boles, 463, Ellison, 167, Foster,
138, Gardner, 345, McGarvey and Pendleton, 628,
Riley, 41 Adam Clarke, Commentary:
Matthew to Acts (Reprint, New
York: Abingdon Press, [n.d.]), 229, , Kilgallen, Luke, 248; and Henry J. Ripley, The Four Gospels with Notes, Twelfth Edition
(Boston: Gould and Lincoln, 1869),
1:197. A.
[Page 151] [72]Cowles, 212, Owen, 312, and John A. Bengel, Gnomon of the New Testament, translated by
James Bandinel and Andrew R. Fausset,
revised and edited by Andrew R. Fausset
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, MDCCCLIX)
1:312. Herman C. Waetjen,
A Reordering of Power: A Socio-Political Reading of Mark’s
Gospel (
[73]Alford, Greek Testament, 237, in
rejecting what he calls the view of “the principal commentators” of his
day. Cf. Stanley D. Toussaint, Behold the
King: A Study of Matthew (Portland, Oregon: Multnomah Press, 1980), 274.
[74]As Toussaint, 274, himself
concedes.
[75]de Deitrich, 125.
[76]
[77]Ibid., concedes that this may be the case.
[78]Benjamin W. Bacon, The
Gospel of Mark: Its Composition and Date
(New Haven: Yale University Press,
1925), 130-131. Cf.
[79]H. A. Guy, The Gospel of Mark (New
York: St. Martin’s Press, 1968), 159.
[80]Donald H. Juel, Mark,
in the Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament series (Minneapolis,
Minnesota: Augsburg, 1990),
179-180.
[82]Robert G. Hamerton-Kelly,
The Gospel and the Sacred: Poetics of
Violence in Mark (Minneapolis, Minnesota:
Fortress Press, 1994), 38, believes both the zealots and the
Romans are being described.
[83]Wars IV:
[84]Wars IV:3:6.
[85]Montague, 267. The
term is also used by Martin, 78.
[86]Wars IV:5:5.
[87]Wars V:1:3.
[88]Wars V:1:2.
[89]Wars V:13:6.
[90] VanderWaal,
49-50.
[91]Keener, 348-349.
[92]Toussaint, 274.
[93]Gundry, Matthew, 482.
[94]For approaches see Lange, 425.
[96]Patte, 338.
[97]Ibid., 338-339.
[98]Alford, New Testament for English
Readers, 165.
[99]Mentioned by Mann, 516,
without affirming or denying.
[100]Robert M. Fowler, Let the Reader
Understand: Reader-Response Criticism
and the Gospel of Mark (Minneapolis, Minnnesota: Fortress Press, 1991), 84, argues that it is
an implicit plea for the correct interpretation of Daniel. See this source also
for interesting comments on identifying “who” the reader is considered to be.
[101]Myers, Strong Man, 335.
[102]Mann, 522. He
parallels it with Revelation