From: Apocalyptic
and History: Matthew 24 Return to Home
By Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2013
[Page 195]
CHAPTER FIVE:
INTERPRETING THE DISASTER
FROM A
BELIEVER VIEWPOINT
(Matthew 24:27-33; Mark
13:24-29; Luke 21:25a-31)
1. THE DISASTER TO BE A “COMING” OF JESUS (24:27)
In this context of the fall of
Jerusalem, Matthew quotes Jesus as saying, “For as the lightning comes from the
east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of
man.”
Old Testament precedent.
The expression “Son of man” is used in Daniel of one who comes to Yahweh
and receives “dominion and glory and kingdom.”
As the result “all peoples, nations, and languages” are consigned to be
subject to him (Daniel 7:13-14). His
coming in temporal judgment is not mentioned, but since with authority comes
the right to exercise that authority, such is a reasonable
extrapolation.
Yahweh Himself coming in temporal
judgment is, however, directly asserted in the Old Testament. The widespread warnings that He will punish
the people, [Page 196] communities, and nations who do not heed
His admonitions carry an implicit warning of His “coming in judgment” upon them
to punish their rebelliousness. Others
texts speak in terms of God carrying out that threat. For example, in Isaiah 26:20-21, His people
are warned to “hide yourselves for a little while
until the wrath is past. For behold, the
Lord is coming forth out of His place to punish the inhabitants of the earth
for their iniquity. . . .”
Jeremiah quotes God as warning Egypt
that he “will send and take Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant” and
he “shall come and smite the land of Egypt” on Yahweh’s behalf (Jeremiah
43:10-12). In Ezekiel 30:9 the prophecy
is that “swift messengers shall go forth from me to terrify the unsuspecting
Ethiopians” --unsuspecting of the defeat of their powerful ally of Egypt.
Nor are the people of Israel
exempted from such treatment. Micah has the
warning that “the Lord is coming forth out of His place, and will come down and
tread upon the high places of the earth” (1:3).
This wrath would be poured out upon the entire land and Jerusalem is
mentioned in particular (1:5, 9).
First century occurrence of such
phenomena. In most of
what has previously been described, we are dealing with “objective,”
“concrete,” “observable” phenomena. Here
we pass into the interpretation of the meaning of the phenomena. When Jerusalem falls, Jesus implies, it will
be by My act.
The fact is it fell; the interpretation is that it was due
to Jesus acting as judge. Whether one
accepts the validity of that interpretation, of course, hinges upon one’s
evaluation of Jesus’ life and claims. If
He did what He is recorded as doing--or anything reasonably close to it--it is
a highly credible deduction. On the
other hand, if one denies either of these, it is a mere lucky guess.
A third alternative is that it is a
post-fall editorial invention of the author-compiler Matthew. In addition to the derogatory implication
this carries as to his gullibility or honesty, it requires the invention of
nearly the entire chapter. If it
happened this way, it would not be an honest misunderstanding, it would be
wholesale invention.
[Page 197] Furthermore,
if Jesus entertained any serious prophetic-type or Messianic-style
self-conceptions (and it is hard to see how all of the four gospels’
assertions and inferences of such an attitude could have been manufactured), He
did claim to be a Divinely ordained spokesman
for God. And throughout the Old
Testament, that carried with it the implicit and even explicit threat of the
wrath of God upon those who did not heed their message. Hence, warning of the fall of Jerusalem is
fully in character with the role of an Old Testament prophetic-type
spokesman. It is also in accord with
Jesus’s basic self-conceptions as presented in the gospels as well.
“Lightning”
Those who interpret the text as
referring to the second return of Jesus have quite reasonably interpreted the
verse to refer to the ease of seeing Him when He returns.[1] Common is the view that it refers to all of the human race being able to simultaneously view that
return.[2]
A very literalistic reading of the
passage has raised speculation of a contradiction with other New Testament
assertions: Here the text speaks of a
coming of “universal visibility” while “all the warnings in the gospels [are]
that man must watch and look for the Man’s coming.”[3] This misunderstands the nature of the
“watching” that was enjoined. Christians
“watched” or “looked” not in the sense of seeking out something with the eyes,
but in the sense of internal watchfulness, of constant alertness and
concern for that return. The fear was
not that they might somehow “miss” it, but that they might not be prepared
for it.
In the context of the fall of
Jerusalem, the allusion is almost certainly referring to the unexpectedness of
the fall. No matter how objectively
Jerusalem was in grievous danger and the fall inevitable if the Romans
persisted, on the emotional level the feeling was “it can’t happen.” Because it “shouldn’t,” it “couldn’t.” Because the Romans were the forces of evil,
how could they possibly triumph over the forces defending Torah and
independence? Hence the fall would be perceived
as coming as unexpectedly as an individual is startled by a bolt of
lightning.
[Page 198] As
to it being a coming of Jesus, it would be in the same sense that God is spoken
of in the Old Testament as coming in judgment upon His people. God did not come personally; He came in the
sense that the catastrophe was His judgment decree being carried out through
unknowing human intermediaries. To
expect more of a “coming” Jesus in judgment upon Jerusalem is not
required.
2. THE DISASTER TO BE A GATHERING OF EAGLES
(24:28)
The imagery in Matthew 24:27 was
from nature: lightning flashing across
the sky. It is unexpected and startling
(at least as to exact timing); it can easily be unnerving and frightening. In verse 28 the imagery shifts from the sky
above to the earth below and from phenomena in heaven to death on earth, “Where
the body is, there the eagles will be gathered together.” This may well be a contemporary proverb,[4] cited because of its pictorial relevance to
the point Jesus wished to make.
The word “eagles” is from the Greek
word aetos, which could refer to either “eagles” or “vultures.”[5] Oddly enough (from the modern perspective)
the vulture was classified by ancient writers as a form of vulture.[6] In the Old Testament also, the same Hebrew
word also did double duty to describe both creatures.[7] Since a human body does not normally attract
eagles, but a dead body does attract vultures, the “body” is
almost certainly a carcass and the flying creatures
vultures.
Old Testament precedent.
Great powers are depicted in the Old Testament as if they were eagles;
the best lengthy use of this image is found in Ezekiel 17:1-10 (as interpreted
in verses 11-24). Jeremiah describes an approach of a powerful and dangerous
attacker with such a word picture, “Behold, he comes up like clouds, his
chariots like the whirlwind; his horses are swifter than eagles--woe to us, for
we are ruined!” (Jeremiah 4:13) Just as Jerusalem is the target of the forces
Jesus described, so was the case in Jeremiah’s day. In both cases, it was the result of rebellion
against God’s will as expressed through His spokesmen (verses 16-17).
[Page 199] The
imagery of an assault by eagles was also used to describe the overwhelming and
swift destruction of Moab and it ceasing to exist as a distinct national people
(Jeremiah 48:40-43).
The swiftness of a horse-born army
is compared to the flight of “an eagle swift to devour” (Habakkuk 1:8). “They all come for violence,” he goes on;
“terror of them goes before them. They
gather captives like sand. At kings they
scoff, and of rulers they make sport. They laugh at every fortress, for they heap up earth and take it”
(1:9-10). In short, nothing can
long stand before their march.
In Deuteronomy 28:49 the prototype
conqueror that God threatens to bring upon His disobedient people is pictured
in eagle terms, “The Lord will bring a nation against you from afar, from the
end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flies, a nation whose language you do
not understand.” Because of this enemy
hunger, thirst, nakedness, and slavery would result (verses 48). They would besiege them in “all your towns”
(verse 52), and the starving besieged would resort to cannibalism (verses 53).
If one prefers the rendering of
vultures (and this is the more likely contextual intent), this imagery was also
used to describe the power of those successfully assaulting Israel, “Our
pursuers were swifter than the vultures in the heavens; they chased us on the
mountains, they lay in wait for us in the wilderness” (Lamentations 4:19)
In Hosea a vulture is pictured as
flying not merely over the city of Jerusalem in general but “over the house of
the Lord” in particular (8:1). It is not
because the people have openly repudiated God; the opposite is the case
(8:2). Unfortunately they had not gone
beyond empty words but had “spurned the good” and would be pursued by their
enemies (8:3).
Job 39:27-28 speaks of an “eagle”
who “makes his nest on high” in the “fastness of the rocky crag.” Yet the verses that follow indicate that a
vulture is actually in mind. “Thence he
spies out the prey; his eyes behold it afar off. His young ones suck up blood; and where the
slain are, there is he” (verses 29-30) With the multitude of casualties
produced by major war, the on-going presence of vultures was a grim reality of
life.
[Page 200] First century
occurrence of such phenomena.
Both the imagery of attacking “eagles” and devouring “vultures” fits
well with what Jerusalem faced in 70 A.D.
The eagle was an appropriate description of the Roman forces, “partly
from their strength and fierceness, and partly from the figure of these animals
which was always on their ensigns. . . .”[8]
The vulture description also fit
well with the grim reality of what happened.
By the time the Romans gutted the city it was little more than a dead
carcass and they played the role of vultures burning, looting, and pillaging
the city. The image may be intended as a
reference to the suddenness of their appearance; their ability to show up
wherever a body is left exposed. (John
39:30, cf. verses 26-29 as well, is cited in this context.)[9] Others allude to the inevitability aspect of
the phenomena: dead bodies produce the
appearance of vultures; it is a law of nature.[10] It could also carry the overtone of
openness and visibility: there is no
way a body on the ground is hidden from the scavenger. In a fall of Jerusalem context, this would
mean that not only were the immediate dangers inevitable but that word would
spread far and wide of the disaster.[11]
A less likely, but still credible interpretation, is to find in the allusion to
“vultures/eagles” a reference to “the false Christs and false prophets who
would flock together and prey upon the sufferings and fears of their
countrymen.”[12] To Daniel Patte the eagles are “false
disciples” and the corpse “false Christs.”[13] Although false Christs are warned against in
verses 23-26, the immediately preceding verse (verse 27) concerns a very
different topic, “the coming of the Son of man.” If verse 28 occurred before verse 27,
the approach would be far more convincing.
Some rather strange interpretations
of the “vultures/eagles” and the “body” have been suggested. Among the Church Fathers it was not uncommon
to find the body being that of Jesus and the vultures being Christians
participating in nourishing from His body.[14] This view has been embraced by some in the
modern era as well.[15] To this writer, it is psychologically
repugnant to picture Christ as [Page 201] alluding to His disciples as “vultures.” Technically, conceivable,
but still rather incongruous that He would be urging His disciples to imitate
the role of the scavengers of the sky.
Even more unexpected is the view of
the “body” as Jesus calling, by His presence, all human beings (the “vultures”)
to gather together to their place of judgment.[16] In reality, vultures do the
“judging” (destruction), not the carcass.
Others adopt both this view and the preceding one as well: In this life the eagles are Christians
surrounding the body of Christ (to partake of the Communion). In eternity it is the entire human race,
summoned as by the formerly dead Jesus as if to a corpse--but in a dramatic
role reversal the “carrion” turns out to be the judge of all.[17]
Others find the “body” to be
anti-christ or some hostile “world-power” that either God’s people or the
angels encounter at His second coming.[18] Modern speculative interpreters have
sometimes argued that the unexpected growth of the vulture population in Israel
is an indication of the nearness of the fulfillment of this prophecy.[19] The proportion of vultures is an
irrelevancy--whether in Israel or anywhere else. In no way is it referred to in the text.
All of these approaches
having nothing that fits the actual historic situation. Nor do they fit the interpretive format urged
by the text itself. They may represent
useful expository tools for a speaker to utilize, but even there their
usefulness would seem to be minimal at least for this era.
3. THE DISASTER TO TEAR APART THE VISIBLE COSMOS (Matthew 24:29;
Mark 13:24-25; Luke 21:25a)
What occurs is next pictured in
cosmos shattering rhetoric, “Immediately after the tribulation of those days,
the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars
will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken” (Matthew
24:29). Mark has essentially the same words but Luke records the more modest
assertion, “And there will be signs in sun and moon and stars.”
[Page 202] Old Testament precedent. In
these words, Jesus is walking firmly in the steps not just of Old Testament
concepts and rhetoric in general but of apocalyptic language in
particular. Indeed, the use of such
earlier descriptions to picture events the scriptures speak of as already
accomplished prior even to the birth of Jesus, argues strongly against the
trap of demanding excessive literalism in interpretation. (We will point out later, that in the fall of
Jerusalem the language often straddles the line between literal and symbolic.)
Such cosmic imagery is used of the
fall of Babylon. Isaiah 13 picture the
coming fall this way
The oracle concerning
Babylon which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw. . . .
Behold, the day of the Lord comes,
cruel, with wrath and fierce anger, to
make the earth a desolation and to destroy its sinners from it. For the stars
of the heavens and their constellations will not give their light;
the sun will be
dark at its rising and the moon will not shed its light. I will punish the world
for its evil, and the wicked for their inquity. . . . (Isaiah 13:1, 9-16, for
context).
Similar universal rhetoric is
utilized of the punishment of ancient Egypt.
In Ezekiel 32:2-8, God’s judgment upon that land is depicted with these
words,
Son of man, raise a
lamentation over Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and say
to him: “You consider yourself a
lion among the nations, but you are like a
dragon in the seas; you burst forth in your rivers, trouble the waters with
your feet, and foul their rivers.
Thus says the Lord God: I will
throw my net
over you with a host of many peoples; and I will haul you up in my
dragnet.
And I will cast you on the ground, on the open field,
I will fling you, and will
cause all the birds of the air to settle on you [compare the eagle/vulture
image
Matthew 24, rwjr], and I will gorge the beasts of the whole earth with
you. I
will strew your flesh upon the mountains and fill the valleys with your
carcass. I will drench the land even to
the mountains with your flowing
blood; and the watercourses will be full of you. When I blot you out, I will
cover the heavens, and make their stars dark; I will cover the sun
with a
cloud, and the moon shall not give its light. All the bright lights of heaven
will I make dark over you, and put darkness upon your land, says the
Lord
God.”
[Page 203] Amos
used similar terms in describing God’s judgment upon the people of ancient
Israel,
Then the Lord said to
me, “The end has come upon my people Israel;
I will never again pass by them!” . . .
The Lord has sworn by the pride of
Jacob: “Surely I will never
forget any of their deeds. Shall not the
land
tremble on this account, and every one mourn who dwells in it and all of it
raise like the Nile, and be tossed about and sink again, like the Nile of
Egypt?
And on that day,” says the Lord God, “I will make the sun go down at
noon,
and darken the earth in broad daylight. I will turn your feasts into
mourning and all your songs into lamentation; I will bring sackcloth upon all
loins, and baldness on every head; I will make it like the mourning for an
only son, and the end of it like a bitter day.” (Amos 8:2, 7-10)
Joel 2:28-32 also speaks in similar
language. In Acts 2:16-21 we have the
earliest recorded apostolic interpretation of the nature of such rhetoric and
it is applied to events that had already begun to occur, not to some
end-of-the-world situation. Peter is
presented as doing this in defending the apostles receiving the baptism of the
Holy Spirit and the resulting ability to speak in tongues,
[Page 204]
But this is what
was spoken by the prophet Joel: “And in
the last
days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all
flesh,
and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall
see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; yea, and on my men-
servants and my maidservants in those days I will pour out my Spirit and
they shall prophesy. And I shall shew wonders in the heaven above and
signs on the earth beneath, blood and fire, and vapor of smoke; the
sun shall
be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood before the day of
the Lord
comes, the great and manifest day.
And it shall be that whoever calls on the
name of the Lord shall be saved.”
Since their is no evidence in Acts 2
that women or even any male other than the apostles were addressing the crowd
in tongues,[20]
it would follow that the application to Pentecost this was one of the
events Peter believed the text applied to.
Presumably the reference to “my menservants and my maidservants”
engaging in similar conduct was considered precedent for the presence of such
Spirit manifestations as Paul refers to in First Corinthians. (Although requiring as publicly manifest a
receiving of the Spirit as depicted in Acts 2 is not necessarily implied.)
This was yet future, as was the
reference to the sun turning “into darkness” and the moon “into blood before
the day of the Lord comes.” Jesus in
Matthew 24, in context, has the fall of Jerusalem in mind in the use of such
language. Whether such a coming
catastrophe in general or that one in particular was yet in Peter’s mind is
unknowable. The similarity in language
and the presence of the event in the then future would certainly have pressured
the apostle, as he meditated upon the text’s significance, toward identifying
the two disasters as the same.
First century occurrence of such
phenomena. In spite of the
presence of the word “immediately” to introduce the description (“immediately
after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened” etc.), it is
common to argue that the normal usage of the term simply will not fit the
context of the destruction of Jerusalem.[21] Two nineteenth century commentators summarized
possible options that would explain the use of “immediately” in a context where
it seems historically inappropriate,[22]
[Page 205]
1. That Jesus reckons
the time after His own divine, and not after
our human, fashion. Viewing the
word in this light, the passage at 2 Peter
3:4-9 may also be regarded as an inspired comment with reference to
this
passage.
2. The terrible judgment upon Jerusalem and the
corresponding
terror of the judgment day have between them no intervening season of
judgment in any way worthy to be compared to either of them. The two
periods, therefore, stand with regard to each other in immediate
connection.[23]
3. The tribulation which came upon the Jewish
people merely began
with the destruction of Jerusalem, other woes followed at once, and, coming
down thorough all the centuries of wandering and dispersion, they were yet
unfulfilled and incomplete.
Each of these points is very
challengeable. The third is made
difficult by the fact that what is depicted in the most immediate context is
presented as if it were the definitive, final disaster. Not as if it were the beginning of a series
of ones that would require centuries, or that what has already been described
is mere precedent for something far worse in the distant future.
The second objection as to the lack
of a corresponding major war disaster made sense in the relatively peaceful era
in which the words were penned. The
massive blood-letting of the twentieth century inflicts upon it harsh
blows. Indeed, one of its two authors
lived through a vicious civil war and the occupation of his hometown by an
invading army. Perhaps his own painful memories
had been softened by the time these words were written.
The first argument (a thousand years
equals a day in the sight of God) would mean that “immediately” equates to at
least two thousand calendar years since the event has yet to occur. Since Matthew 24 then proceeds to point to a
yet more distant future then would not one be required to believe that
the earth is destined to last countless millenia? Otherwise, there would be no real contrast
between “immediately” and a distant unknowable date (Matthew 24:35-36).
[Page 206] Perceptive
as this particular nineteenth century scholar often was, he overlooks a key
issue: What is the point of reference of
“immediately after the tribulation?”
Does it imply or require “immediately after the tribulation has begun”
or “immediately after the tribulation has ended?” He preferred the latter but to obtain it he
has to bend “immediately” all out of its natural meaning and resort to
interpretive options that are unconvincing on their own merits--at least in the
interpretation of this particular text.
In contrast, to read the verse as requiring the meaning “immediately
after the tribulation has begun,” provides a time frame that was,
indeed, “immediate.” It also avoids
creating an inconsistency in the match-up of text and history that requires the
invention of speculative interpretive options that are weak and needless.
“The Sun Will Be Darkened”
“The Moon Will Not Give Its Light”
“The Stars Will Fall from Heaven”
The text does not claim that the
sun, moon, or stars will be destroyed, nor does it assert that the darkness
will be permanent. Both deductions would
be compatible with the text, but not required by its wording. Indeed, the fact that both Babylon and
Egypt’s earlier defeats are described by such language argues against Jesus’
use intending any such meaning.
As we documented above, “The cosmic
disturbances are a conventional part of Old Testament imagery when the approach
of God’s judgments are described.”[24] It deserves stressing, however, that
something approaching a literal fulfillment of the blotting out of the sun,
moon, and stars did occur in the destruction of Jerusalem. It would have been produced by the burning of
the temple.
We know from World War Two, that the
sun can be blotted out by massive fires and if they can blot out the sun by
day, they would certainly blot out the much lesser brightness of the moon and
stars by night. Since the phenomena is
little known it would be constructive to provide the experiences of two women
who lived through such events..
[Page 207] The
first are the memories of Wilhelmina Steenbeck, recalling the Luftwaffe bombing
of Rotterdam in 1940, “A great glare hung over the burning city. In the afternoon people on Beuwe had seen the
sun strangely obscured, as in an eclipse, and now with the coming
of evening they saw the frightening fireglow in the direction of the great
harbour town many miles away.”[25]
The second comes from two
experiences of Anne Wahle, who survived massive Allied bombings of both Dresden
and Hamburg. She speaks of both in
writing of the massive assault that leveled Dresden, “By this time it was
almost dawn. Although the flames had
died down, I knew it was not yet time to move on. There was still a black pall over the city,
and we would have difficulty making our way.
From the Hamburg raid I knew how long it took daylight to break though a
city after an attack. As I remembered, it
didn’t get light until after ten o’clock.”[26]
“Light,” notice,
not “clear visibility. It took
just as long that tragic day in Dresden, “Finally, shortly before ten, the
heavy black smoke began to lift enough so that we could see our way.”[27] Even so, the sun remained partly masked, “As
we started to walk, the smoke lifted a good deal, and there was considerable
light. . . . The pale sun that
broke through the darkened sky lit our route with a strange
yellow-light.”[28]
It is easy to envision the fiercely
burning fires in Jerusalem blotting out the sun and the stars during the
following night. It was not uncommon
for ancient cities to be torched when they fell and it may be this grim reality
that lies behind the Old Testament descriptive rhetoric of moon and sun being
stripped of light and the stars “falling” from heaven. This is in addition to it representing a
reasonable hyperbolic of the political-civic disaster that was the result of a
city or empire being destroyed.
“The Powers of the Heavens Will Be Shaken”
Although we can provide “down to
earth” interpretation for the other phenomena of the verse, this one is far
harder to approach on such a basis. The
text [Page 208] could refer to some major curbing of
Satan’s power (cf. the binding of Satan in Revelation 20). It could refer to the elimination of any
influence (assuming there were such) of the heavens over earthlings; i.e., it could
be denying the assumptions of astrology.
Again, it might refer to the powers of the physical heavens being
“shaken” (altered) by Divine fait in order to cause the “sign” referred to in
the next verse.
All of these plus other alternatives[29] are probably needless. The root idea is probably the best: hyperbole for the devastating effects
produced by any major political collapse.
What had existed seemed permanent and abiding; it had seemed as if no
crisis was sufficient to crumble it. In
the fall of Jerusalem the foundations of reality had been shaken to the
core: one world had been destroyed and,
by doing so, required that a new and uncertain one be erected in its
place.
4. THE DISASTER TO CAUSE WORLD-WIDE MOURNING
(Matthew 24:30;
Mark 13:26; Luke 21:26-27)
It was to be a grim time; disaster
had occurred and it was a time of weeping and bereavement. As the text puts it, “Then will appear the
sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will
mourn, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with
power and great glory” (Matthew 24:30).
Mark 13:26 speaks of seeing “the Son of man coming in clouds with great
power and glory.” Luke’s text (21:26-27)
puts an even greater emphasis on the distress element, “And upon the earth
distress of nations in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the waves, men
fainting with fear and with foreboding of what is coming on the world; for the
powers of the heavens will be shaken.
And then they will see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and
great glory.”
Old Testament precedent. Mourning, of
course, was an ancient custom among the Jews, in time of both personal and
national tragedies. The death of an individual’s loved ones was
both societally expected and an indication of one’s own [Page 209] inner
despair. Hence we read of mourning for
fathers (Genesis 27:41; 50:1-4) or mothers (Psalms 35:14), dead spouses (2
Samuel 11:26-27), and sons (Jeremiah 6:26).
Grief was also poured out for a broader range of acquaintances, such as
the death of one’s co-religionists (1 Kings 13:30) or their unfaithfulness to
God (Ezra 10:6).
It could be accompanied by refusing
to eat (Deuteronomy 26:14) and an outpouring of tears (Deuteronomy 34:8; Joel
2:12), and the wearing of sackcloth (2 Samuel 3:31). Likewise one might pour out one’s grief
through prayer (Nehemiah 1:4). One’s own
clothes (disproportionately expensive to replace in those days as compared to ours)
might be ripped asunder to express the frustration over what caused the mourning
(2 Samuel 1:11-12). Certain types of
clothing were considered the appropriate attire for such times and one would
neglect normal signs of personal cleanliness and neatness such as “anoint[in]
yourself with oil” (2 Samuel 14:3).
Because of the connection with
death, mourning would be a natural accompaniment to war--especially if the
losses were great or, even worse, disastrous, as in the case of the fall of
Jerusalem to the Romans. Even the
survivors would be in shock. As Ezekiel
pictures an earlier disaster, “And if any survivors escape, they will be on the
mountains, like doves of the valleys, all of them moaning, every one over his
iniquity” (7:16).
Severe national disasters (and the
fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. was certainly such) reduced the happiest occasions
to despair. “I will turn your feasts
into mourning,” warns Amos 8:10, “and all your songs in lamentation; I will
bring sackcloth upon all loins, and baldness on every head; I will make it like
the mourning for an only son, and the end of it like a bitter day.” This would be a day of Divine remembrance “of
their deeds” (8:7) and throughout the entire “land” people would “tremble” over
what had happened (8:8).
Saul’s death on the battlefield
represented not only a personal disaster but a calamity for the entire
nation. Although Saul had been David’s
bitter enemy he respected the right of the monarch to rule and recognized the
injury to the kingdom posed by his death.
Furthermore Jonathan also perished and he had been a close friend
of. Because of the dual nature of the
defeat, the personal sorrow was [Page 210]
intensified. “Then David took hold of his clothes, and
rent them; and so did all the men who were with him; and they mourned and wept
and fasted until evening for Saul and for Jonathan his son and for the people
of the Lord and for the house of Israel, because they had fallen by the sword”
(2 Samuel 1:11-12).
First century occurrence of such
phenomena. In a similar
manner, it would have been shocking if the Jewish people of the first century
had not mourned the tragedy of the loss of their holy Temple. A similar sense of profound sadness would
have been inevitable at the fall of Jerusalem for it (and especially the
Temple) were the center of gravity for Jews throughout the world.
“All the tribes of the earth will
mourn” could be taken in a broader sense than “all the Jews of the
Diaspora.” The term “tribes” argues for
that limitation, however. Even in the broader sense of the entire human community,
there were more than a few who would have been saddened at the destruction of
the Temple. They would have regarded it
as an act of sacrilege both because of its religious purpose and its well-known
aesthetic beauty.
“The Sign of the Son of Man”
Both early post-apostolic church
writings and later pseudephrigal ones interpret this as the image of the cross
of Christ.[30] Twentieth century interpreters sometimes
opt for a heavenly military-type ensign or a tremendous burst of light.[31]
But is there anything that is known
from the actual historical record that might provide us more precise
guidance? Josephus had access to
eyewitnesses who went through the siege of Jerusalem and he himself probably
witnessed some of the events leading up to its fall. He records
seven strange phenomena that occurred during or prior to the
encirclement of the city: (1) Lights in the sky; (2) a light that
illuminated the temple; (3) an animal giving birth when ready to be sacrificed
in the temple; (4) the unaided opening of the east gate of the temple; (5)
warriors being seen fighting in the clouds of the sky; (6) a voice being heard
in the temple; (7) the death of one Jesus, son of Ananus, who prophesied of the
ill that would overtake the city.[32] Some of these phenomena are also referred to
by Tacitus.[33]
[Page 211] How
many objectively occurred and how many were produced by war nerves
is anyone’s guess. The important
fact is that alarming phenomena occurred that was unnerving at the time and
even more ominous in retrospect. That early
Christians could have interpreted one or more of these as the “sign of the Son
of man” is quite possible. They
occurred at the right place and the right time.
They were inherently amazing and carried frightening overtones of
uncertainty and alarm. In our judgment,
however, the reference is probably intended to cover the fall itself--considered
as a collectively entirely-- rather than to some particular incident associated
with the fall.
“They Will See the Son of Man Coming:”
Jesus Personally?
This leaves us with one remaining
interpretive question in verse 30: Is
the “sign of the Son of man” identical with “the Son of man coming on
the clouds”? (An understanding even
easier to gain in Mark’s shorter accounting.)
Interpreted as a reference to the
second coming, the “sign” would inescapably have to be Jesus personally. Some read the grammatical construction of the
Greek as implying that the sign is to be interpreted in this fashion.[34] Furthermore, since a personal visible
manifestation of the Son is allegedly mentioned here, there would be a perfect
parallelism if the “sign” in the first part of the verse is the Son as well.[35] In this reconstruction, it would not be a
sign that the Son is coming, but a sign that the promised return has been fulfilled
or a sign that the judgment is immediately to begin (cf. verse 31).
Two Messianic passages from Isaiah
are introduced by Douglas R. A. Hare as precedent for the identification of the
sign as Jesus Himself. “ ‘On that day the root of Jesse shall stand as an ensign
to the peoples’ (Isaiah 11:10); ‘He will raise an ensign for the
nations’ (Isaiah 11:12). In the second
of these clauses the Greek translators employed semeion, the word
translated ‘sign’ in Matthew 24:30.”[36] Enticing though this line of reasoning is,
the time frame provided in Matthew 24 [Page 212] precludes
it. At the most it would indicate the appropriateness
of the usage. If the two texts are
interpreted in a Christocentric manner, then they refer to what Jesus would be
(an “ensign”), not to something that He would do to vindicate His power
and triumph.
Others point to the parallel
phraseology concerning an Old Testament event.
In Matthew 12:39 Jesus warned that “no sign shall be given to it except
the sign of the prophet Jonah.” The same
wording is repeated in Matthew 16:4. It
is contended that in these texts the “sign” is equated with Jonah
personally. The sign is Jonah.[37]
In Matthew 12:40, however, the
“sign” of the previous verses is interpreted as Jonah being “three days and
three nights in the belly of the whale.”
Hence the emphasis is on the event rather than the person
the event occurred to. It happened to
Jonah but for the purpose of the argument, what is important is the fact that
it happened. Indeed, if the texts
have any relevance to Matthew 24 at all, it would be that the emphasis is on a sign
appearing rather than on Jesus personally appearing.
Even if the “sign” is Jesus
personally (and that this commentator doubts), where is He coming to, to
heaven or earth? If heaven,
then we have a picture of Jesus returning to heaven in triumph
over His earthly foes of old (cf. the imagery in Revelation of Jesus going out
to conquer and then returning in triumph).
There is much appealing in this scenario.[38] On the other hand, the “they” who observe the
return would have to be angelic beings.
There is nothing in the words of Jesus preserved in Mark that is
incompatible with this. The preceding
words in both Matthew and Luke, however, make one anticipate a
earthly setting (Matthew: “all
the tribes of earth will mourn;” Luke:
“upon the earth”).
The shift to a heavenly perspective
is unexpected but not necessarily contradictory to this language. If this be the case, then the following
verses in Matthew and Mark--the collecting of all God’s people together through
the action of angels--requires no earthly, symbolic explanation. It refers to the gathering together of those
in heaven to share in the celebration of the triumph of the Lord. The whole problem of how and in what sense it
happens on earth is completely removed.
[Page 213]
“They Will See the Son of Man Coming:”
Through the “Sign” that Would Occur?
Adam argues, “If this sign if
something different from Himself we cannot pretend to
say what it will be.”[39] Although this is a good brief in behalf of
the final parousia of Jesus being under consideration,
this reference remains within the section of text centered on the fall of
Jerusalem. The exegesis needs to be
within the framework of that self-imposed time-frame given by the text.
So the interpretation would need to
be not that there is a “sign” and that it is Jesus personally, but that it is a
“sign” that manifests the presence and power of Jesus in an irresistible
and inescapable fashion. Although a
number of strange and exotic phenomena are reported at this time (see above)
they are probably not what is in mind in the
text. Most likely it would be the fall
of Jerusalem itself that is the sign, as a visible manifestation of Jesus’
triumph over His religio-political foes who had put him to death. It bore witness that the controlling factor
was neither provincial insurrection or repressive
Roman power but that Man of Nazareth--the very Individual who had been
explicitly rejected by the power brokers of the land and tacitly by the bulk of
the populace. His was the invisible hand
behind the scene.
The
argument from visible manifestation to covert guiding hand is used in Acts
2:33. In that verse Peter is presented
as arguing that evidence was Jesus was indeed “exalted at the right hand of
God,” an event, which, being invisible, could never be
“objectively” proven to the human eye.
Yet it could be considered as proven and vindicated by that which could
be seen--the apostles receiving the “pour[ing] out” of the Holy Spirit, which
enabled them to speak in the languages of their listeners.[40] Human power could not accomplish either
result; supernatural intervention was required.
“On the clouds of heaven” does not
require a visible coming but is rather a traditional Old Testament means of
describing Divine judgment being inflicted on humanity. In Isaiah 19:1, Yahweh’s temporal judgment is
pictured as descending [Page 214] upon Egypt:
“the Lord is riding on a swift cloud and comes to Egypt” to inflict His
wrath. The fury upon Judah is pictured
in similar terms, “Behold, He comes up like clouds, His chariots like the
whirlwind; his horses are swifter than eagles--woe to us, for we are ruined!”
(Jeremiah 4:13)[41]
What greater manifestation could
there be of triumph than the destruction of the civic center of scribal,
Pharisaic, and Sadduccean power and the religious institution (temple) they
utilized as the basis of it? The faith
propagated on behalf of the crucified “heretic” continued to grow and spread
while the very center of traditionalism had been destroyed and all the rituals
and sacrifices dependent upon the existence of the temple brought to an
end.
The only thing that could surpass
this victory over the religious establishment that had opposed Him would be His
personal return. Even without that, the
cessation of the traditional cultic practices was a clear, visible, and
tangible triumph that could not be gainsayed.
It would be interpreted differently, of course. To traditionalists it was inescapably a
manifestation of Divine wrath that the destruction could be permitted to
occur. They could separate it from Jesus
and attribute it to other causes, but His followers would link the two inseparably.
5. BELIEVERS TO BE RESCUED DUE TO ANGELS (Matthew 24:31;
Mark 13:27; Luke 21:28)
The coming disaster would be partly
alleviated by the rescue of a minority, “And he will send out his angels with a
loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one
end of heaven to the other” (Matthew 24:31 and parallel in Mark). Luke has a very different way of conveying
the idea of a rescue of the godly in a period of chaos and turmoil, “Now when
these things begin to take place, look up and raise your heads, because your
redemption is drawing near.” Luke speaks
in terms of the result (“redemption”); Matthew and Mark picture the means
[Page 215] We would anticipate that relief would be profound over their rescue
from the tragedy that was harming so many of their fellow countrymen and
women. Yet neither Matthew nor Mark records
any words from Jesus urging such. In
contrast Luke edges up to the idea by the admonition to “look up and raise your
heads.” Don’t be depressed any longer;
feel the burden lifted from you.
Conceptually we are speaking of the same idea.
Old Testament precedent.
Angels are presented as numerically capable of carrying out any task
assigned them (“twice ten thousand, thousands upon thousands,” Psalms
68:17). Furthermore, they are pictured
as having the strength to carry out these assignments. They do not arbitrarily use this power but
utilize it strictly in order to carry out their assigned duties. Psalms 104: 20 link these two ideas together,
“Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening
to the voice of his word!”
Not only is their power asserted,
but also their ability to exercise that capacity upon behalf of God’s
people. The principle of angelic
deliverance is found in Psalms 34:7, “The angel of the Lord encamps around
those who fear him, and delivers them.”
In Psalms 91:9-16, angelic
protection is presented as the reward for loyalty to God,
Because you have made
the Lord your refuge, the Most High your
habitation,
no evil shall befall you, no scourge come near your tent.
For he
will give his angels charge of you to guard you in all your ways.
On their hands they will bear you up, lest you dash your foot against a
stone.
You will tread on the lion and the adder, the young lion and the
serpent you
will trample under foot.
Because he cleaves to me
in love, I will deliver him; I will protect him,
because he knows my name.
When he calls to me, I will answer him; I will be
with him in trouble, I will rescue him and honor him. With long life I will
satisfy him, and show him my salvation.
[Page 216] The
earliest Old Testament presentation of this power actually being utilized is
the case of the three individuals sent to earth by God to verify the conduct of
Sodom (Genesis 18:16-21). (They are
identified as angels in Genesis 19:1.)
Although their task was ultimately destructive to the community itself,
yet they rescued Lot from that city’s disaster (Genesis 19:1-23). Here we have the image of angels both as
agents of Divine information seeking and as rescuers of the just.
Much later in the
Old Testament narrative we read of Daniel being cast overnight into a den of
lions (Daniel 6:16-18). The next
morning, the worried king came to the place and hollered out a greeting in the
hope that the young man was still alive.
“Then Daniel said to the king, ‘O king, live for ever! My God sent his angel and shut the lions’ mouths, and they have not hurt me, because I was found
blameless before him; and also before you, O king. I have done no wrong’ ” (6:22).
At an earlier period in the same
book Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were cast into a “burning fiery furnace”
to destroy them (Daniel 3:21). The king
was astounded when he could see through the flames not just them but a “fourth
[figure who] is like a son of the gods” (3:25).
The king interpreted this as evidence that their God “has sent his angel
and delivered his servants, who trusted in him” (3:28).
The use of a trumpet as a call
signal is also rooted in the older scriptures as well. Traditionally it was to announce an important
event: it might be to begin a joyous
celebration (Psalms 81:1-5); it might be to call the people together (Jeremiah
4:5-6; Joel 2:15); or it might be to warn the populace of danger (Joel 2:1).
First century occurrence of such
phenomena. The phrase “of heaven” makes one tempted to
place the entire event in heaven.
Why this would be of any importance within a passage that, so far, has
dealt strictly with earthly events would be perplexing. A comparison with the parallel in Mark 13:27,
indicates that this approach would be incorrect, “And gather his elect from the
four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.” Here the text might include heavenly events
but clearly alludes to earthly ones as well.
[Page 217] Probably
the idea in both accounts is that of gathering the elect “from every place
covered by heaven.” In Deuteronomy
30:3-4 it was used in this sense, “Then the Lord your God will restore your
fortunes, and have compassion upon you, and he will gather you again from all
the peoples where the Lord your God has scattered you. If your outcasts are in the uttermost
parts of heaven, from there the Lord your God will bring you into the land
which your fathers possessed. . . .”
In the present context it would
carry the idea of every one in every place that might be affected by the
catastrophe. Just as those in Judea had
been instructed to “flee to the mountains” (Matthew 24:16), the text may be
referring to God using whatever means natural or supernatural to bring out
whatever Christians remained in the immediate Jerusalem area.[42]
It was an unsafe period for
Christians to be dispersed throughout the land.
Too many rebellion minded zealots stalked the
landscape and disciples could be easy targets.
Roman forces were scattered in various places and were edgy because of
the not-yet-squashed rebellion. Hence
the coming together of Christians in one or a few quiet areas of Roman
occupation would protect them against dangers that could be faced from both
sides in other parts of the country.
Since the disaster on Jerusalem had
just been discussed, it is possible that events after it was over could
be under consideration. Just as the
Israelites had been scattered to “the four winds” (Zechariah 2:6), Christians
would be called back to their former homes in Judea after the land was
again safe. This is significantly less
likely to be under discussion.
Even less probable in this context
is the message of liberation from the Old Testament ritual system that is so
central a message of the apostle Paul.
The continued existence of the Temple encouraged many to place more
faith in their ethnic past than in the religious system of Jesus. The “Judaizing” movement was only viable within
the church so long as the Temple existed for only until then could a
theoretical full conformity with the ritual demands of the Torah. The disaster at [Page 218] Jerusalem
could be considered an angelic deliverance from that temptation. That the following generation embraced that
conclusion is inherently probable; that Jesus intended it by the words
recorded in this verse is not.
6. SIGNS OF THE CATASTROPHE TO BE OBVIOUS (Matthew 24:32-33;
Mark 13:28-29; Luke 21:29-31)
The text next presents an
illustration from nature. “From the fig
tree learn its lesson: as soon as its
branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. So, also, when you see all these things, you
know that he is near, at the very gates” (Matthew 24:32-33 and Markian
parallel). The Greek of verse 33 can be
translated either as “he” or “it” being near.[43] “It” would refer to the event under
discussion; “he” to the role of Jesus in accomplishing the event.
In Luke the teaching still includes
“the fig tree” but the point is generalized to include “all the trees,”
i.e., one can’t quibble and deny the point by arguing that the case would be
different in the case of a different type of tree. Here it is not Jesus but His “kingdom of God
[that] is near.” There is an unstated
image underlying all three apocalyptic accounts that only becomes explicit in
the book of Revelation: Jesus waging war
upon His enemies and triumphing and by that victory His kingdom triumphs as
well. In this case it is Jerusalem that
is the enemy, but the power used against Jerusalem is also one that could be
utilized against any other earthly foe as well.
Old Testament precedent.
What is predicted is not some potentially speculative act of Divine
“providence,” where an individual may see the hand of God acting behind the
scenes. Instead, the various elements of
the preceding verses picture phenomena that will be readily observable by one
and all. Hence if they occur it will not
be a question of whether God has acted but whether one has learned the humility
and obedience the intervention is intended to encourage.
[Page 219] Perhaps
the best illustration of this correlation of warning/recognition of Divine
power/submissiveness-of-belief can be found in the recounting of the Ten plagues upon Egypt.
All are explicitly warned of. All
are to be in the immediate future. And
all are intended to warn of the necessity of yielding to the Divine will.
Initially, Moses is instructed as to
miracles God will perform through him in Pharaoh’s presence (rod into serpent
and appearance/disappearance of leprosy on Moses’ hand). “If they will not believe you . . . or heed
the first sign, they may believe the latter sign. If they will not believe even these two signs
or heed your voice” a wonder that would be known to the entire land (and not
just Pharaoh’s court) was to be performed:
the turning of the Nile and all water supplies into “blood” (Exodus
4:8-9).
In Matthew 24 the motive shifts a
bit. Instead of being done to produce
faith the implicit purpose is clearly to preserve the faith of the first
generation disciples in a time of stress and conflict. In the Old Testament narrative the miracles
are explicit; in Matthew 24 the events are non-miraculous earthly phenomena
that God is utilizing to produce His ultimate purposes. By forewarning of them, Jesus encourages His
disciples to see not just pain and anguish but the guidance of God in executing
judgment through human intermediaries.
First century occurrence of such
phenomena. These two
verses do not deal with any new warning phenomena; rather they concern how
early believers were to interpret the phenomena once they occurred: they were to be a call for concern,
alertness, and then flight.[44]
The fig tree allusion was a
peculiarly apt choice for illustration purposes. Fig trees grew throughout the area where He
was speaking. Indeed, nearby Bethpage
was a village whose name even meant “house of figs.”[45]
The fig tree is also the best choice
to convey that image of approaching summer.
In Palestine, only the leaves of the almond and fig trees lose their
foliage in the winter. The leaves of the
almond tree return much earlier than those of the fig tree. Hence the reappearing of the leaves of the
latter is the better indication that the harvest season of summer is imminent.[46]
[Page 220] The
image is a surprisingly positive one:
the approach of summer.
The warnings and description have been of disaster, harm,
injury--symbolically, signs of fall and winter.
Here Jesus brings out the paradox of the destructive events that were to
occur in the late 60s of the first century:
in spite of the horror of the time, there was yet a bright “summer” that
would shine forth after it was all over.
It is, of course, quite possible,
that we place too great an emphasis on the symbolism of “summer.” The key idea in the verses is the knowability
of when the events were about to occur.
The mention of “summer” might be no more than necessary to complete the
image from nature. That seems, however, much less likely though here we get
into an area where the line between “subjectivity” and “objectivity” becomes
very cloudy in interpreting the text.
The idea is that when one sees the various events described one can be
as certain that God is about to inflict judgment on Jerusalem, as one can see
by the appearance of fig tree leaves that summer is about to arrive.[47]
Finally, the text puts the emphasis
on “all these things” being observed.
Some of the phenomena can be found in any generation and (at
times) in almost any single year in the long annals of history. The key was not that one could observe one or
two of these, but that they would “all” be present. Individually, they were hints; collectively,
they were a grim warning.
[1]Michael Fallon, The
Winston Commentary on the Gospels.
Minneapolis, Minnesota: Winston
Press, 1980), 355; John L. McKenzie, “Matthew,” in The Jerome Biblical Commentary (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1968), 105. Newman and Stine, 746, suggest that the idea is
not merely seeing Jesus but, more specifically, the fact that He is “recognized
by everyone.”
[Page 221] [2]Boles, 468; Broaddus, 489; J. Newton
Davies, “Matthew,” in Frederich G. Misilen, et al.,
editors, The Abingdon Bible
Commentary (New York: Abingdon Press, 1929), 991.
[3]Albright and Mann, 296.
[4]Filson, 256.
William Manson makes the same remark on the statement’s usage in Luke
17:37, in his The Gospel of Luke, in the Moffatt’s New Testament
Commentary Series (London: Hodder and Stoughton, Limited, 1930; sixth
printing, 1948), 200. .
[5]Foster, 146.
[6]For citations see Daniel J. Harrington,
338.
[7]Newman and Stine, 746.
[8]Adam Clarke, 231.
[9]Fenton, 388.
[10]W. K.L. Clarke, 742.
[11]Williams, 438, speaks of how the carcass,
“fall where it may is immediately observed by the vultures and attracts them;
so Christ’s coming shall at once be discerned by all men and draw them unto
it.” Cf. Stock, 368,
who interprets the text as making the same point. Since the second coming is not under
discussion, we have applied the reasoning to the fall of Jerusalem.
[13]Patte, 340. The
same basic approach is also taken by Montague, 269.
[14]Williams, 438.
[15]Such as J.F. Rutherford, The Harp of God
([N.p.]:
[n.p.], 1921; 1925 reprint), 240.
[16]Cf. the discussion in Williams, 438.
[17]Quesnel, 301.
[18]Cf. the discussion in Williams, page 438.
[19]Ivor Powell, 434.
[20]It is sometimes asserted that the entire
band of disciples received the baptism of the Spirit on that day, regardless of
how many actually spoke to the crowd.
This is based upon Acts 2:1 saying that “they were all together in one
place” and this being read as referring to the entire group of believers. The prior verse, however, refers to how
Matthias was chosen and counted “with the eleven apostles” (1:25). It is of this group, now twelve once again,
that the text refers to all being “all together in one place” (2:1).
[21]McGarvey, page 210.
[22]J. W. McGarvey and Philip Y.
Pendleton, 629.
[Page 223] [23]For a more recent presentation of this
“telescopic” interpretation, see Donald Guthrie, New Testament Theology
(Madison, Wisconsin: Inter-Vasity Press,
1981), 795.
[24]McKenzie, 105. Cf.
Riley, 41.
[25]Wilhelmina Steenbeck, Rotterdam: Invasion of Holland (New York: Ballantine Books, Inc., 1973), 128-129.
[26]Anne Wahle, as told to Paul Tunley, Ordeal by
Fire (New York: Dell Publishing
Company, 1966 copyright, 1968 printing), 38.
[27]Ibid., 39.
[28]Ibid., 40.
[29]See Lange, for example, 428.
[30]For citations, see Brunner, 869-870. For brief quotations from the early centuries
purporting to document this point, see Schweizer, 455. The quoted segments, however, do not seem to
say any such thing so, presumably, the usage is established by the broader
context in which each quotation occurs.
For a nineteenth century interpreter who embraced the approach see
Alford, New Testament for English Readers, 168.
[31]Gardner, 347, without endorsing either.
[32]Wars VI:5:3.
[33]Histories V:13.
[Page 224] [34]The furthest that William E. McCumber will
go is that the “Greek construction may indicate” this interpretation
(our emphasis). See his Matthew,
in the Beacon Bible Expositions series (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1975), 184.
[35]Stock, 371.
[36]R. A. Hare, 279.
The text also interpreted as referring to the appearing of Jesus Himself
by Gundry, Matthew, 487.
[37]Newman and Stine, 748, present this view,
but neither embrace it nor reject it.
[38]France, 79, makes this coming of Jesus not
one to earth--but to heaven, “to the place of supreme power.” Since Jesus is depicted in Acts 2 as already
triumphant, the approach would need to be modified into something along the
line of what we suggest in the text.
[39]Adam, 86.
[40]Dawson, [n.p.]
introduces this text as part of his effort to show that the sign of the Son of
man was “a sign which would show that the Son of man was in heaven.” He notes that the high priest Caiphas was
warned that in the future he would “see the Son of man seated at the right hand
of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matthew 26:64, RSV; Dawson
quotes from a different translation).
When he saw the Jerusalem catastrophe, “Caiaphas, who was familiar with
the judgment language of the Old Testament, would have to realize that it had
come to pass just as Jesus warned it would.”
[41]Both passages, though in a different
translation, are cited by Dawson, [n.p.].
[43]Montague, 272, and Newman
and Stine, 752.
[44]Cf. the remarks of Robinson, 200.
[45]On these elements being a factor in the use
of the fig tree imagery, see Boles, 463.
[46]Brunner, 875. Cf.
Meier, Matthew, 289. Both
commentators (same page references) note that though harvest will occur at
other times as well, that this is the dominant time and, hence, the best
illustration available. On the
preference for the fig over the almond tree as an illustration also see Gundry,
Matthew, 490. Fenton, 391, does
not mention the almond tree, merely stating that the fig tree is “almost the
only tree in Palestine that loses its leaves. . . .” Cf. the Nolland, 1009.
[47]Newman and Stine, 750 present this as the
Jerusalem centered interpretation but neither accepts nor rejects it. Their suggested alternative is, “If applied
to the coming of the Son of Man, its function is to encourage both patience and
certainty” (750).