MATTHEW 24 & 25: PART 2

Matthew 24 begins with a brief conversation between Jesus and His disciples in the Temple complex in Jerusalem.  At that time, Jesus predicted the complete destruction of the Temple.  One can fill in some drama in the reaction of the disciples.  They appeared to say absolutely nothing—dumbstruck by Jesus’ prediction.  After some time, when they were alone with Him outside the city on Mount Olives, they had recovered enough to ask three questions (the second and third tied together): 

“Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”  (Matthew 24:3, all Scriptures English Standard Version unless stated otherwise)

Matthew 24:4 through the end of Matthew 25 is Jesus’ reply to these questions, as recorded in Matthew (parallels in Mark 13:5-37 and Luke 21:8-36). 

“SEE THAT NO ONE LEADS YOU ASTRAY”

(Matthew 24:4)

            Jesus’ first admonition is one that all should take to heart.  If ever there were ever occasions for deception, it is in interpreting this and other prophetic Scriptures.  Paul remarks about evil people that they are “deceiving and being deceived.” (II Timothy 3:13)  This gives us a clue that the source of deception is also the source of all other evils. 

That understanding reminds us that we must always be in prayer that our hearts will be right before God as we study the Scripture.  I believe that a sincere and righteous heart may make a mistake in interpretation.  But such a heart will have a righteous attitude about the whole enterprise of interpretation.  We will not be boastful or bitterly polemical.  We will be willing to be proved wrong, but will humbly hold fast to what we believe is the truth in the face of those who seem to have the majority on their side. 

As we consider interpretation of prophetic Scriptures, we need to take the project quite seriously.  In my first article in this series, I discussed the fact that lack of interest in eschatology is symptomatic of a spiritual malaise in the church.  As we deal with these Scriptures, over and again we observe that spiritual exhortation is at the heart of these Scriptures.  We are not simply getting to see into the future.  We are receiving warnings, comforting thoughts, and exhortations to encourage us to endure to the end (Matthew 24:13).

Moreover, we can observe that gross distortions of the Christian message often are accompanied by gross distortions of eschatology.  The Watchtower Society, or Jehovah’s Witnesses, presents a theology that is far removed from orthodox Christianity.  They reject the Trinity, and they do not accept the full deity of Jesus Christ.  They have taught that Christ returned “spiritually” in 1914.  They have taught that a select group of Jehovah’s Witnesses are the 144,000 that are described in Revelation 7 and 14 (Ridenour pages 114-129).

However, I do not think we have to look to cults and other far-out groups to see deception in the interpretation of eschatological Scripture.  People commonly make mistakes in their approach to eschatology.

·         The most common error is to choose to ignore the subject.  People are frightened or they are overwhelmed by the complexity or they make judgments on certain groups that stress eschatology.  Whatever their reasons may be, they choose to avoid eschatology and the Scriptures of eschatology.  By doing so, they remain ignorant of an important segment of the counsel of God.

·         Some people overemphasize eschatology.  They tend to judge all Scripture on the basis of their personal eschatological perspective.  This can distort their understanding of important Scriptural teaching.  It also can deprive them of a foundation for discernment of eschatological teaching.

·         Many have succumbed to the temptation to set dates.  Jesus told us we would not know the day or the hour (Matthew 24:42), yet many cannot resist setting dates.

·         Some people are quick to make judgments about certain teachings because they have observed obnoxious behavior in some adherents of those teachings.  This is the ad hominem logical error. 

·         Some people are quick to interpret current events in eschatological terms. 

I believe Jesus was especially warning about the final item in the list when He warned about deception in regards to the timing of eschatological events. 

INTERPRETING JESUS’ REPLY:

A RANGE OF APPROACHES

            There are a number of interpretative approaches to this complex passage.  I shall briefly introduce some of those approaches.

1.      A Passage Fraught with Problems:  R. V. G. Tasker wrote the commentary on Matthew in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries—a collection of evangelical commentaries that has been very helpful to me over many years.  But Tasker approaches the Olivet Discourse through eyes of scholars (in many cases solid in their orthodoxy) who only see the “problems” of the passage.  The following are quotes from his first paragraph on the passage:  “In this very difficult section the evangelist has brought together sayings of Jesus which foretold the downfall of Jerusalem and the final coming of the Son of man [sic] in judgment…[Scholars] have found it extremely difficult to say with any degree of certainty which parts of the chapter contain an answer [to when the destruction of Jerusalem would take place] and which parts are a response to their supplementary question [what will be the sign of the His coming and of the end of the age].”  In a footnote, Tasker refers to the “problems raised by this chapter…” (Tasker page 223)

2.      A Prediction of the Judgment on Judaism—the True Parousia:  J. S. Russell published his book in 1878 that established the interpretive theory that came to be known as Preterism.  In that book he contended that the Parousia was evidenced by the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.  He claimed that this event was Jesus’ coming in judgment upon the nation of Israel and that constituted the Second Coming, or Parousia, of Jesus Christ.  His book surveyed the entire New Testament (together with some Old Testament Scriptures).  In his commentary of Matthew 24-25, he said:  “What we contend for is the unity and continuity of the whole [Olivet] discourse…The theme is the approaching consummation of the age…the woes which were to overtake that ‘wicked generation,’ comprehending the invasion of the Roman armies, the siege and capture of Jerusalem, the total destruction of the Temple…along with this we find the true Parousia,…the judicial infliction of divine wrath upon the impenitent, and the deliverance and recompense of the faithful.”  (Russell, pages 63-64)

3.      A Description of the Tribulation Period and Beyond:  Dwight Pentecost is a representative author of the Dispensationalist school of interpretation.  He understands this passage to be focused on prophecies that are pertinent to the nation of Israel:  “The first event in Israel’s program for the end of the age is the tribulation period, described in Matthew 24:4-26.”  (Pentecost, page 277) He does not believe that any of this material applies to the church:  “Consistency of interpretation would seem to eliminate any application of this portion of Scripture to the church or the church age, inasmuch as the Lord is dealing with the prophetic program for Israel.”  (Pentecost, page 278)

4.      A Prediction of Events of the First Century that Foreshadow the Future Events that Focus on the Second Coming of Christ:  G. Eldon Ladd has carefully looked at this and other passages with a scholar’s eyes, but also has tempered his approach with a conviction of traditional prophetic teaching.  He recognizes that the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 is certainly an element in the Olivet Discourse.  However, the events of the first century do not exhaust or fulfill the prophecy that Christ gave in His discourse.  He quotes C. E. B. Cranfield:  “‘in the crises of history the eschatological is foreshadowed.  The divine judgments of history are, so to speak, rehearsals of the last judgment and the successive incarnations of antichrist are foreshadowings of the last supreme concentration of the rebelliousness of the devil before the End.’”  (Ladd, pages 198-199)

5.      A Prediction of Events that Will Affect the Church:  One of the most controversial subjects of prophecy study is the timing of the rapture/resurrection.  The Dispensationalists, of whom Pentecost is a representative, generally believe in a “Pretribulation” Rapture.  Some Dispensationalists, while accepting many of the tenets of that school, believe in a “Post-tribulation” Rapture.  Robert H. Gundry is a representative of this group.  He believes that Jesus’ discourse was directed especially to the church, as He spoke to the Disciples as the future Apostles of the church.  Thus, he believes that Jesus described a Post-tribulation Rapture in Matthew 24:31 (Gundry, pages 129-139).

6.      My Own Approach:  It is easy to describe one’s interpretation as “objective,” but I recognize that, when one has a certain preconception, it is impossible to avoid being influenced by that preconception.  I was introduced to the Post-tribulation Rapture idea about 30 years ago.  As I have studied Scripture over the years, I have generally confirmed that theory for myself.  So, I approach this passage with a tentative idea that Jesus is describing events that culminate in His future Second Coming and the Rapture/Resurrection of the saints.  Nevertheless, as I study other students of prophecy, I recognize that they often make strong arguments for their positions and one must take them seriously.  As I progress through this passage, I hope that I can look at critical evidence with an open mind and make decisions based on Scriptural evidence and not simply based on my own bias.

 

References:

Gundry, Robert H.  The Church and the Tribulation.  Grand Rapids, MI:  Zondervan

            Publ. House, 1973.

Ladd, George Eldon.  A Theology of the New Testament.  Grand Rapids, MI:  William B.

            Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1974.

Pentecost, J. Dwight.  Things to Come.  Grand Rapids, MI:  Zondervan Publ. House,

            1958.

Ridenour, Fritz.  So What’s the Difference?  Ventura, CA:  Regal Books (Gospel Light),

            2001.

Russell, J. S.  The Parousia, A Critical Inquiry into the New Testament Doctrine of Our

            Lord’s Second Coming.  (Google Internet Book)  London:  Daldy, Isbister

            & Co., 1878.

Tasker, R. V. G.  The Gospel According to St. Matthew.  Vol. 1 of Tyndale New

            Testament Commentaries.  General Ed.  R. V. G. Tasker, Grand Rapids:

            Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1961.

 

 

           

 

ANALYSIS OF MATTHEW 24-25 PART 1

            Matthew 24-25 is the “little apocalypse”—an extended discourse that many believe parallels the book of Revelation and gives a brief prediction of last day events.  Not everyone agrees with that interpretation.  The Preterist interpretation understands these sayings of Jesus to be a prediction of events in the first century. 

            In this article I shall begin an analysis of these two chapters.  I have given some introduction in a previous article.  That article includes an outline of the passage.  The present article addresses two topics.  First, I analyze the relationship between the lament over Jerusalem in Matthew 23 and Jesus’ prediction of destruction in Matthew 24.  Second, I analyze the questions that the disciples asked of Jesus.

 

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MATTHEW 23:37-39

AND THE PREDICTION OF THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE

At the Temple (24:1-2):   The narrative in Matthew 24 follows directly Jesus’ seven woes against the religious leaders, which is found in Matthew 23.  At the end of His denunciation, Jesus revealed His tender heart for the city of Jerusalem:

37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! 38 See, your house is left to you desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’”  (Matthew 23:37-39; all Scripture quotations from English Standard Version unless stated otherwise)

A question that should be considered is:  how closely should this saying of Jesus be tied to Matthew 24—especially Jesus’ prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem? 

This prediction, in Matthew’s narrative, comes immediately after Jesus’ lament that I just quoted.  As Jesus was leaving the Temple, His disciples pointed out the magnificence of the Temple.  Jesus replied with a saying that most have interpreted as a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in AD 70.  Jesus said that “not one stone here will be left on another...”  My previous article gives an overview of the Jewish-Roman War of AD 66-70, which culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.

So, I shall consider the question of the relationship between the lament and the prediction.  Hank Hanegraaff, in The Apocalypse Code, makes a strong connection between these two sayings.  Consider the following:

So great was the devastation of Jerusalem and its temple “that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it had ever been inhabited.”  As the starved and shackled survivors slumped out of the smoldering ruins, no doubt more than a few remembered the words of Jesus, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem…[quotes Matthew 23:37-38, omitting verse 39]” Some may even have recalled the scene.  As his words still hung in the air, Jesus turned his back on the place that had tabernacled the shekinah glory of the Almighty.  Sensing the gravity of the moment, his disciples had called his attention to the majesty of the temple and its buildings.  “Do you see all these things?” he had responded, “I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another…”

In another place, Hanegraaff also connects Matthew 23 and 24 closely:

Jesus began his famous Olivet Discourse by walking away from the very house that afforded the Jewish people their theological and sociological significance.  He had pronounced seven woes on the Pharisees and then uttered the unthinkable:  “Your house is left to you desolate”  (Matthew 23:38)

            Hanegraaff makes three interpretative errors. 

1.      He misinterprets the term “your house.”  In Matthew 23:37-39, Jesus is addressing Jerusalem.  He has just addressed the leaders of the entire nation.  Now, He addresses the city.  The city was a symbolic representative of the whole nation as the center of its religious and political life.  He characterized the city by its long history of rejection of prophetic leadership—which was also rejection of the outstretched hand of a loving God.  Now, Jesus had come and passionately loved the people of that city and the nation it represented—a passionate and protective mother-like love.  But, again, He met with rejection.  So, He said, “your house is left to you desolate.”  What was Jesus saying?  First, He had characterized the leadership in the seven woes to demonstrate their spiritual bankruptcy.  Then, in 23:37-38, He characterized the spiritual bankruptcy of the whole nation by their rejection of the messengers of God and of Himself.  Therefore, the “house” of Israel “is left to you desolate.”  He used “house” as a reference to the condition of the whole nation.  There are numerous examples of the use of “house” to refer to the nation in the Old Testament.  See for example Isaiah 2:5 and 5:7 and Ezekiel 3:7.   There is nothing in the context of Matthew 23:38 to indicate that Jesus was referring to the Temple.

2.      He fails to observe the element of time.  Jesus used the presence tense in Matthew 23:38:  “Look, your house is left to you desolate.”  Jesus had just excoriated the present condition of the religious leaders.   He characterized the whole city by its history of rejection of the prophets in the past and by its present rejection of Himself.  Jesus was not making a prediction; He was stating a fact.  The present condition of the house of Israel of that time was spiritual desolation.   Jesus was not referring to the later desolation of the Temple.

3.      He ignores Matthew 23:39.  Jesus, in effect, was saying “Good bye” to the city of Jerusalem.  This speech is depicted in Matthew as taking place during Holy Week (Luke has a different setting).  It is true that the people would see Him in that week.  But Jesus knew that the machinations that would lead to His crucifixion were already in motion.  In a few days they would see Him on trial and then executed outside the gates of the city.  Only His followers would witness the resurrected Christ.  But the city would see Him again.  They would see Him and shout:  “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.”  This is a quotation from Psalm 118:26.  The crowds at Jesus triumphal entry were quoting from Psalm 118:25-26:

Save us, we pray, O LORD! O LORD, we pray, give us success! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the LORD! We bless you from the house of the LORD.

It is obvious that, for Jesus, the next important event for the people of Jerusalem—after His Passion and resurrection—would be when He came to bring blessing.  This is predicted in Zechariah 12 and various other places.  Therefore, though Jesus lamented the spiritual declension of the city, He knew that ultimately He would return in salvation.  He is NOT saying His next visit (Parousia) would be to bring desolation to their house.  Hanegraaff conveniently omits this verse in referring to Jesus’ lament, because he tries to make the case that the Parousia is Jesus’ visitation in judgment in AD 70.

  

            Therefore, I do not believe that we can make a tight connection between Matthew 23:37-39 and the prediction of the destruction of the Temple.  We should not ignore Matthew 23.  It gives us a powerful statement of the spiritual condition of the leaders as well as the people—not just of Jerusalem, but of the entire Jewish nation.  That spiritual darkness led to the rejection of Jesus and to the perfidy of the leaders in His arrest, trial, and crucifixion.  The rejection of Jesus by a majority of the people was, I believe, punished by the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.  However, again and again, commentators ignore the fact that the end of the validity of the Israelite religion took place when the veil of the Temple was rent in two from top to bottom on the day that Jesus was crucified (Matthew 27:51)—not in AD 70.

 

THE QUESTIONS FROM THE DISCIPLES

The Questions on Mount Olivet (24:3): The disciples asked some follow-up questions to Jesus prediction of the destruction of the Temple.  They asked them sometime later when they were alone with Jesus on Mount Olivet.  I think it is significant to understand that all that follows (often called the Olivet Discourse) is said to the disciples in private.  It is not said to the Jewish nation at large, but rather to the disciples, who can also be considered the apostles, the foundation of the church.   

The questions that the disciples asked are the following:

1.  When will this happen?

2.  What will be the sign of your coming [Parousia]?

3.  What will be the sign of the end of the age [suntelios tou aionos]?

It can hardly be in doubt that “this” of question (1) is the destruction of the Temple.  The disciples seemed to associate that event with Christ’s coming and with the end of the age.  So they followed up the first question with two more.  They wanted to know what would be the sign of Christ’s coming and the sign of the end of the age. The wording is as though the sign of His coming would also be the sign of the end of the age.

Why would they associate the destruction of the Temple with Christ’s coming and the end of the age?  What did they know about His coming, since they seemed to be murky about the fact of Jesus’ approaching death and subsequent resurrection?  What did they mean by the end of the age? 

The term that is translated “coming” is Parousia.  It can mean “presence” (Philippians 2:12), “arrival” (I Corinthians 16:17), or “coming” (II Corinthians 7:6).  It can refer to a visit by an official (Arndt and Gingrich page 635).  It is used several times in the New Testament to refer to a future event that most interpret as the Second Coming of Christ.  However, others may interpret some of these instances as His “coming” in judgment in AD 70 or to the secret rapture. These passages are (other than the present passage): 

I Corinthians 15:23

I Thessalonians 2:19, 3:13, 4:15

II Thessalonians 2:1, 2:8

James 5:7, 5:8

II Peter 3:4

I John 2:28

The “coming of the lawless one” also uses parousia (II Thessalonians 2:9), and the coming of the “day of God” uses the same term (II Peter 3:12).  I believe that the best understanding of the term is “presence with emphasis on arrival.”  For example, Paul was comforted in Macedonia by the parousia of Titus.  (II Corinthians 7:6)  It was both the fact that Titus came and the fact of his presence once he had arrived that brought comfort to Paul.  Such an understanding fits well with the Second Coming of Christ (though it could fit with the events of AD 70).  Obviously, a word study on this one term does not exhaust the debate over what Parousia means in Matthew 24 and elsewhere.  It is important to understand that this question of the disciples is specifically addressed in verses 26-31, which refer to the Parousia of the Son of Man.        

For the Jews, there were two ages: this age and the age to come. The age to come will be God’s great victory and a time of glory and blessing.  I believe that the disciples were asking their question with that framework in mind.

I think it is important to understand that these questions introduce the passage, but they do not totally define the passage.  Jesus used their questions as a starting point, but He framed His discussion for His own purposes.  This is very typical of Jesus’ style of conversation.  Again and again, someone asks Jesus a question and Jesus does not confine His answer simply to giving the person the information he or she asked for.  See, for example, Jesus’ reply to Nicodemus in John 3. 

 

NEXT:  Jesus begins His reply to the disciples’ questions.

 

REFERENCES:

Arndt, William F. and F. Wilbur Gingrich.  A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and                Other Early Christian Literature.  Chicago:  The University of Chicago Press, 1957.

 

Crossway Bibles (2009-04-09). ESV Study Bible (Kindle Locations 235395-235396). Good

             News Publishers. Kindle Edition.

 

Hanegraaff, Hank.  The Apocalypse Code. Nashville:  Thomas Nelson, 2007.

THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM

 

            The Olivet Discourse—a lengthy discourse that Jesus presented to His disciples on the Mount of Olives—is occasioned by a conversation between Jesus and His disciples at the Jewish Temple. 

Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. ² “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.” (Matthew 24:1-2, all Scripture quotations from New International Version unless stated otherwise)

Jesus’ statement has been generally understood as a prediction of the destruction of the Jewish Temple in AD 70 (Tasker, 223).  That destruction was the climax of the first Jewish-Roman War, which lasted from about AD 66 to 73.  Almost all of the detailed information about that war comes from the works of Josephus (Josephus, 615-771 and Goldberg website).  He may not always be a reliable source, especially of analysis of motives, since he was intimately involved in events himself.  He was a Jew who fought against the Romans until he was captured and began to act as an ambassador to the Jews who tried to persuade them to surrender.  Nevertheless, he described the war in great detail, and he probably mostly told a true story. 

            In this article, I shall briefly describe the war.  I shall limit interpretative comments.  This article will be an important resource later when I discuss the arguments of Preterism.

Several groups and individuals in Judea agitated each other to the degree that war became inevitable.  Florus was the procurator at Jerusalem.  Josephus depicts him as a very dishonorable man.  For example, when he had been appealed to by moderate leaders of the Jews, his response was to send his Roman troops into a section of the city to kill and loot—3600 were killed.  Later, he laid a trap for a group of moderate Jews.  They went out to conciliate a group of soldiers.  But a few radicals hurled insults.  Florus had given the word that the Romans were to attack when that occurred, so many were killed. 

Judea was also the home of radical Jews who were pushing for war against the Romans.  They also were constantly fighting moderate leaders who sought accommodation with the Romans.  Moreover, the radicals were not unified and did not hesitate to attack other radicals. 

In addition, in the coastal city of Caesarea, non-Jewish elements (“Greeks”) gained control and harassed the Jews.  These conflicts between Jews and non-Jews were intensifying throughout Galilee and into Syria and elsewhere.  For example, 50,000 Jews were killed in Alexandria, Egypt. 

The Greeks in Caesarea precipitated a crisis by surrounding the synagogue with buildings so that entrance was difficult.  One of them sacrificed birds on an upside down pot near the synagogue entrance.  This outraged the Jews on two counts:  it was a pagan sacrifice near their worship space, and it was similar to the Hebrew ritual cleansing of leprosy—implying that the Jews were a leprous people.  Later, 20,000 Jews were killed at Caesarea.  This sort of friction added to the push for rebellion by the radicals.

In August of 66, a group of radicals overthrew the Roman garrison at Masada, a fort perched on a high plateau near the Dead Sea.  About the same time, Eleazar, one of the radicals who had authority in the Temple, forced the priests to cease making sacrifices on behalf of the Emperor (Nero).  This insult demonstrated the determination of the radicals to break with Rome.

In the days and weeks following, the radicals fought with the moderates.  Eventually, they took over most of the city and burned the high priest’s house.  They also burned the records office that contained records of debts—in hopes of attracting the poor to their cause.  About this time, Menahem (also spelled Manahem) arrived with a following.  They were armed with Roman arms they had collected at Masada.  Menahem tried to force his way into the leadership at Jerusalem and to be declared a king.  However, he was eventually killed.

Since Florus was unwilling or incapable of controlling the situation, Cestius, the Roman official in Syria, invaded Galilee and Judea with an army of 18,000.  This was in mid-October, 66.  He invaded the city, setting part of it on fire.  He made an attempt to attack the Temple, where many of the radicals were stationed, but was unsuccessful.  Although he probably had a good chance of taking the city if he had stayed with the task, he withdrew his army.  As he was retreating, he was attacked by Jews, who killed about 6,000 Romans. 

Cestius’ failure was a turning point.  Josephus believed it was ordained by God (or by the gods, depending on his audience) so that things would turn out as they did, to the advancement of Vespasian.  Whiston, the translator of Josephus, has another interpretation.  He believes that the arrival of Cestius and the Roman legions with their pagan ensigns was the “Abomination of Desolation” of Matthew 24:15 that would signal to the Christians to flee Jerusalem and head for the mountains.  In addition to these speculations, one definite interpretation was that of Nero:  he was not pleased.  Because of this, he decided in January of 67 to send Vespasian to put down the Jewish revolt.

Vespasian’s campaign (along with his son Titus) began in Galilee.  This first effort took most of 67.  During that campaign, they captured a Jewish officer by the name of Josephus.  He had been appointed one of the regional governors/generals by the radicals at Jerusalem.  Later, Josephus would serve as a messenger to the Jews in Jerusalem to try to persuade them to surrender.  Eventually, he was freed and even adopted into Vespasian’s family.  This was partly because he had early on predicted that Vespasian would become emperor.

In 68 and 69, the invasion spread from Galilee into Judea.  When Nero died, the effort began to lag for a while.  In the year following Nero’s death, four different men were briefly emperor.  Then, Vespasian began to gain support throughout the eastern empire.  His army finally defeated Vitellius’ army in Italy, and Vespasian was the last man standing, now the leader of the vast Roman Empire.  At the time he and Titus were in Alexandria, Egypt.  Vespasian proceeded to Rome, and Titus led troops back to Judea to complete the job there.  It was December, 69.

In the meantime, the radicals of Jerusalem split into three factions who fought bitterly with one another.  They would continue fighting until the walls of Jerusalem were about to fall down and necessity would unite them against the Romans.

By May 1, 70, four Roman legions (about 5,500 men each) were encamped near Jerusalem.  By May 25, they had broken through the “third wall” on the northwest and three legions were encamped within the suburbs of Jerusalem.  A fourth legion was to the east on Mount Olives.  By June 4, they had broken down the “second wall” on the north.  They were in a section of the city directly west of the Temple. 

(The Temple complex included a very large set of courtyards, apartments, and other buildings as well as the Temple itself.)

Part of the Roman strategy was to terrorize the residents in hopes that they would surrender.  One way they did this was to crucify Jews that they captured.  During part of their siege they were crucifying 500 people a day.  This only intensified Jewish determination.

The Romans erected siege works at various points, not always with good outcomes.  Jews managed to undermine one and set fire to the supporting timbers.  This resulted in many Roman deaths.  The Romans responded by building an earthen ridge that surrounded the whole city.  This confined city residents who tried to slip out and forage for food.  Many were captured.   Others were simply trying to slip out of the city for good.  Some of these had swallowed gold coins as a way of “taking it with them.”  Romans slit many of them open searching for gold.

One important target of the Romans was the Fortress Antonia, a tower on the northwest corner of the grounds of the Temple.  By July 24, the Antonia wall had been broken down, but another had been built behind it.  Eventually, the Romans scaled that wall and drove the Jews deep into the Temple complex.  As things grew more desperate, the radicals ordered the daily sacrifices to cease on August 5, 70.

Titus now focused on the western wall of the outer Temple court.  On August 27, he tried to scale it, but had little success.  So, he ordered its gates burned.  However, in a council of war the next day, he gave orders to preserve the Temple itself.  The next day, August 29, there was a pitched battle in the vast courtyard.  The Jews were forced back into the Temple.  At the same time, throughout the area, fires were burning.  A Roman grabbed a firebrand and threw it into the chambers that bordered the Temple along the north side.  Now the Temple itself was in danger of being burned.  Titus managed to get into the Temple and see its magnificence.  He ordered the fire extinguished.  However, a soldier took a brand and set fire to the interior.  The Temple was lost, August 29, 70.

Josephus relates two horrors of this time.  He tells of a group of desperate men who entered a woman’s residence.  They smelled something cooking and demanded she give them her food.  She then presented to them her half-eaten baby.  The men left in shock.  This story spread throughout the city and through the Roman army.  Josephus also tells of a “false prophet,” ironically named Jesus, who urged many people to go to the Temple mount where they would be saved.  These people ended up in chambers along the west side of the area.  The chambers were put to the torch and 6,000, mostly women and children, died.

As the Temple was burning and the Jews were definitely routed in that area, the jubilant Romans brought their ensigns, with eagles and signs of their particular legions into the area and sacrificed to them.  The Roman soldiers were said to honor their ensigns above all other gods.

The Roman army continued its conquest.  By September 26, the entire city was in Roman hands and much of it was on fire.  Eventually the walls as well as the Temple were totally destroyed.  A few towers were left standing.  About 1,000,000 Jews had died, and 97,000 had been taken prisoner.  Many had been sold into slavery.  Romans looted a great deal of gold.  It was said that they were carrying so much gold that the price of gold was cut in half in the area.

After the collapse of Jerusalem, there was some mopping up action.  The final chapter of the First Jewish War (from the Roman standpoint) was Masada.  It had remained in Jewish hands and had been a base of operations.  The Romans finally attacked in 73.  The Jews carried out a suicide pact, so when the Romans broke through, they found all of them dead except two women and four children.  Thus ended the attempt of the Jewish radicals to throw off the Roman yoke.

One more comment from Josephus needs to be included.  Josephus tells of a set of “signs” or omens that he believes were warnings of the terrible destruction that was to come.  The following is a list of those signs (He is vague as to when these occurred, but he implies they took place a few years before the conflict.):

a.       A star resembling a sword stood over the city

b.      A comet that stood for a year

c.       During the feast of unleavened bread, one night, a bright light shone around the altar and Temple for ½ hour

d.      A heifer gave birth just before it was sacrificed in the Temple

e.      The eastern gate of the inner court (extremely heavy—it normally took 20 men to swing it) opened on its own

f.        Chariots and troops of soldiers were seen in the sky

g.       Priests heard voices from the Temple saying, “Let us remove hence.”

h.      A prophet named Jesus cried out:  “A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house…a voice against this whole people!”

This account from Josephus—along with other features of this war—requires extensive discussion, because they relate directly to the Preterist interpretation.  I shall delay making my comments until I have completed analysis of Matthew 24 and 25.                                                                                                                                                      

References:

Goldberg, G. J.  A Chronology of the First Jewish Revolt against Rome according to Josephus.  

            Website:  www.josephus.org/warChronologyIntro.htm

Tasker, R. V. G.  The Gospel According to Matthew. Vol. 1 of Tyndale New Testament

            Commentaries.  General Ed. R. V. G. Tasker, Grand Rapids:  Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ.

            Co., 1961.

Whiston, William, trans. The Works of Josephus, by Flavius Josephus.  N. p.:  Hendrickson

            Publ., 1987.

 

 

 

BEGINNING TO STUDY MATTHEW 24-25

Matthew 24 and 25 is a lengthy narrative which consists almost entirely of Jesus’ discourse on the Mount of Olives.  Much of it is found in parallel accounts in Mark 13 and Luke 21.  This “Olivet Discourse” is also called the “little apocalypse.” 

As Jesus was leaving the Temple (It is implied by Matthew’s narrative that this is directly after Jesus’ denunciation of the Jews and His lament for Jerusalem in Matthew 23.), His disciples pointed out the magnificence of the Temple.  Jesus replied with a saying that most have interpreted as a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in AD 70.  Jesus said that “not one stone here will be left on another...”

The disciples asked some follow-up questions to Jesus’ reply.  They asked them sometime later when they were alone with Jesus on Mount Olivet.  I think it is significant to understand that all that follows (often called the Olivet Discourse) is said to the disciples in private.  It is not said to the Jewish nation at large, but rather to the disciples, who can also be considered the apostles, the foundation of the church.   

The questions that the disciples asked are the following:

1.  When will this happen?

2.  What will be the sign of your coming [parousia]?

3.  What will be the sign of the end of the age [suntelios tou aionos]?

It can hardly be in doubt that “this” of question (1) is the destruction of the Temple.  The disciples seemed to associate that event with Christ’s coming and with the end of the age.  So they followed up the first question with two more.  They wanted to know what would be the sign of Christ’s coming and the sign of the end of the age. The wording is as though the sign of His coming would also be the sign of the end of the age.  The following is an outline of Jesus’ reply:

            1.  Jesus’ immediate answer: 24:4-31

a.  The beginning of birth pains–events in the world: 24:4-8

b.  Developments in the church until the end: 24:9-14

c.  The end(?)–the Abomination of Desolation and associated events: 24:15-25

d.  The end(?)–the Parousia of the Son of Man: 24:26-31

2.  Jesus’ comments about the timing of the events: 24:32-44

a.  The parable of the fig tree: 24:32-35

b.  The days of Noah: 24:36-41

c.  The thief: 24:42-44

3.  Jesus’ comments about readiness: 24:45-25:13

a.  The good and bad servants: 24:45-51

b.  The wise and foolish virgins: 25:1-13

4.  Jesus’ comments about judgment: 25:14-46

a.  The allegory of the talents: 25:14-30

b.  The sheep and the goats: 25:31-46

 

            In this first of several articles on this passage, I shall make some brief preliminary comments on this outline and then mention one important controversy regarding the passage.  I shall keep interpretation to a minimum, since interpretation needs to await sufficient space to make the arguments.

 

JESUS’ IMMEDIATE ANSWER:  Jesus replied to the disciples’ questions.  Jesus often replied to questions in very unexpected ways.  At times I would call them non sequiturs.  See, for example, Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus.  Jesus never felt confined by a conversation.  First, Jesus gave two sets of developments.  The first set is what will be going on in the world at large.  The second set is what will be happening to His followers—in terms of persecution from the outside and of diminishing morale within.  There is no time frame for these developments.  The most natural explanation is that they would progress from the near future until the “end.”

            The turning point of these developments is verse 14:

And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.*

There follows material that one would take to be very close to the end (verses 15-25).  Notice that events are described more specifically than the earlier account of developments in history.  Christ issues a warning that people should flee to the mountains.  He also warns that a terrible time of tribulation will take place.  All of this begins with an event called the Abomination of Desolation.  Finally, the end takes place, and the Son of Man comes, gathering His elect (26-31).

 

THE TIMING OF EVENTS:  Jesus used three figures of speech to comment on the timing of the events He outlined for the disciples.  The first is the lesson of the fig tree.  That lesson is that precursor events will signal that the whole complex of events is about to unfold (24:32-35).  The second figure is the lesson of the days of Noah.  That lesson is that most people will be oblivious of the impending doom that is coming (24:36-41).  The third figure is the lesson of the thief in the night.  That lesson is to be ready for the “Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.”  (24:42-44)

 

JESUS’ COMMENTS ABOUT READINESS:  Jesus used two parables to illustrate the need for watchful readiness and what that entails.  The story of the good and the bad servants contrasts faithful followers of Jesus to unfaithful ones:  the former are “caught” being faithful and the latter are caught being unfaithful by the sudden return of the Lord (24:45-51).  The story of the wise and foolish virgins contrasts those who have properly prepared for the arrival of “the bridegroom” with those who have not (25:1-13).    

 

JESUS’ COMMENTS ABOUT JUDGMENT:  The final two units in the Discourse give two sets of criteria for judging.  The first uses the allegory of the talents to emphasize one aspect of faithfulness (25:14-30).  The last unit is the sheep and the goats (25:31-46).  Because there are several interpretations of this passage, I shall not comment further in this article.

 

THE CONTROVERSY CONCERNING “THIS GENERATION” IN 24:34:  Probably the verse in the Discourse that has created the most controversy is verse 24:34:

Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

I mentioned in my previous article that J. S. Russell and others have advocated that many prophecies were fulfilled in the first century.  (This is termed Preterism.)  The linchpin of this approach to interpretation is the understanding of this verse.  In that article I made the point that how one deals with this issue—and especially with this verse—is a deciding point in one’s study of prophecy.  I shall not go through my argument to refute the Preterist position.  I shall simply say that a thorough study of the entirety of the Olivet Discourse makes the Preterist approach an unlikely interpretation.  It is my belief that it is wiser to use the total context of the Discourse to interpret one verse than to use one verse to interpret the entire Discourse.

FUTURE STUDY OF THE OLIVET DISCOURSE:  I shall devote future articles to the various sections of the outline that I have included above.  In some cases, I shall digress in order to discuss difficult issues, such as the Abomination of Desolation.

 

NEXT ARTICLE:  JESUS’ PREDICTION OF THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE

 

*Scripture quotations are from New international Version.

WHAT'S IMPORTANT IN STUDIES OF THE LAST DAYS?

            IT MIGHT REQUIRE A MILLENNIUM JUST TO SORT OUT LAST-DAYS PROBLEMS AND QUESTIONS.  (PLEASE FORGIVE THE “ALL-CAPS.”  I AM RECOVERING FROM SHOULDER SURGERY, AND I AM TYPING WITH ONE HAND.  ALL-CAPS AVOIDS THE HASSLE OF STOPPING TO CAPITALIZE.)  AS I SAID, EVEN IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE IN A 1000-YEAR EARTHLY REIGN OF CHRIST, YOU MIGHT NEED ONE TO STUDY ESCHATOLOGY (STUDY OF LAST THINGS).  THERE ARE NUMEROUS CATEGORIES OF PROBLEMS AND NUMEROUS METHODOLOGIES AND APPROACHES TO SCRIPTURE.  THERE ARE MANY CONTROVERSIES AND, SOMETIMES, BITTER DISPUTES.  ALL OF THESE ISSUES CAN OVERWHELM ONE.  THIS ESSAY CERTAINLY WILL BE LIMITED IN SORTING THE PROBLEMS OUT, BUT I SHALL LIST WHAT I BELIEVE ARE SOME OF THE CENTRAL FOCUSES IN THE STUDY OF LAST THINGS.

1.      WHAT IS THE APPROACH TO SCRIPTURE?  I HAVE BEEN READING A VOLUME THAT PURPORTS TO BE A “HANDBOOK” OF ESCHATOLOGY.  YET, IT CONTAINS ONE CHAPTER ON “FUNDAMENTALIST” AND ONE ON “PENTECOSTAL AND CHARISMATIC”    ESCHATOLOGY.  THESE ARE THE ONLY CHAPTERS THAT TAKE SOME OF THE TRADITIONAL ISSUES OF BIBLICAL ESCHATOLOGY SOMEWHAT SERIOUSLY.  THE OTHER CHAPTERS THAT ADDRESS CHRISTIAN VIEWS APPROACH SCRIPTURE FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF 20^TH-CENTURY HIGHER CRITICISM.  THAT UNDERSTANDING HAS NO REGARD FOR SUPERNATURAL, SPIRIT-DIRECTED PROPHECY.  ALMOST NONE OF THE CATEGORIES OF ESCHATOLOGY ARE TAKEN SERIOUSLY BY THOSE WITH THAT APPROACH TO SCRIPTURE.  AT ANOTHER EXTREME, I READ A LENGTHY TOME BY AN AUTHOR WITH A TRADITIONAL VIEWPOINT.  HE ARGUED THAT THE APPROACH OF THAT PARTICULAR SCHOOL WAS TO TAKE SCRIPTURE LITERALLY.  ANY WHO DISAGREED WITH HIS CONCLUSIONS EITHER WERE THEOLOGICAL LIBERALS OR, AT BEST, OVER-SPIRITUALIZERS.  THIS KIND OF ATTACK IS UNFAIR AND INACCURATE.  PEOPLE WHO HOLD A HIGH VIEW OF SCRIPTURE CAN HAVE SOME VERY PRONOUNCED DIFFERENCES IN ESCHATOLOGY.  SO, I ACCEPT SCRIPTURE AS THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD.  THAT IS IMPORTANT, BUT IT IS ONLY A FIRST STEP IN ESCHATOLOGY.

2.      WHAT WAS FULFILLED IN THE ROMAN DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM AND THE JEWISH TEMPLE IN AD 70?  IN THE 19^TH CENTURY, J. S. RUSSELL PROPOSED AN APPROACH TO VARIOUS PROPHECIES THAT IS NOW CALLED THE PRETERIST INTERPRETATION (IN THE PAROUSIA, 1878 AND 1887—FROM SPROUL).  THIS UNDERSTANDING IS THAT ALL THE VARIOUS PROPHECIES THAT ARE USUALLY BELIEVED TO REFER TO THE END TIMES HAVE BEEN FULFILLED BY THE EVENTS OF AD 69-70.  R. C. SPROUL, IN THE LAST DAYS ACCORDING TO JESUS, DEVELOPS A VERSION OF THIS, WHICH HE CALLS “PARTIAL PRETERISM.”  HANK HANEGRAAFF (THE RADIO “BIBLE ANSWER MAN”) DEFENDS A SIMILAR VIEW IN THE APOCALYPSE CODE.  THIS APPROACH ALSO FIGURES INTO THE THINKING OF SOME POST- AND A-MILLENNIALISTS.  (IT IS ALSO SIMILAR TO THE “REALIZED ESCHATOLOGY” OF DODD.)  THE ARGUMENTS DEVELOPED BY THE PRETERISTS ARE CONVINCING TO MANY.  IF ONE ACCEPTS THEIR HERMENEUTIC, THEN ONE’S ESCHATOLOGY IS DRASTICALLY CHANGED.  THERE IS NO GREAT TRIBULATION, NO FUTURE ANTICHRIST, AND, FOR SOME, NO RESURRECTION!  OBVIOUSLY, IN A FLOW CHART OF HOW ONE APPROACHES PROPHECY, A DEFINITE DECISION POINT IS THE QUESTION THE PRETERISTS RAISE.

3.      WHEN AND WHAT IS THE MILLENNIUM?  ALTHOUGH I, PERSONALLY, PERFER TO PUT THIS QUESTION OFF, I RECOGNIZE THAT IT HAS BEEN A VERY BIG BONE FOR THE DOGS TO FIGHT OVER.  THE THREE PREFIXES SAY A LOT:  PRE-, POST-, AND A-MILLENNIALISTS BELIEVE THAT CHRIST’S SECOND COMING WILL OCCUR BEFORE OR AFTER THE 1000 YEAR REIGN OF CHRIST (REVELATION 20:1-6) OR ELSE THERE WILL BE NO LITERAL 1000 YEAR REIGN.  HOWEVER, THE TIMING OF THE SECOND COMING AND THE MILLENNIUM IS NOT THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE VIEWPOINTS.  THAT BRINGS US TO THE NEXT ISSUE.

4.      WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD?  THE LIBERALS OF THE 19^TH CENTURY BROUGHT JESUS’ TEACHINGS ON THE KINGDOM INTO SHARP FOCUS.  THE DISPENSATIONALISTS BROUGHT ANOTHER APPROACH TO THE KINGDOM.  ALMOST EVERYONE TALKS ABOUT THE KINGDOM, BUT MY IMPRESSION IS THAT THERE IS GREAT CONFUSION.  HOW ONE UNDERSTANDS THE KINGDOM DEFINITELY HAS AN AFFECT ON ONE’S ESCHATOLOGY (AND ONE’S VIEW OF THE MILLENNIUM).  THAT UNDERSTANDING ALSO AFFECTS THE NEXT ISSUE.

5.      WHAT IS THE ROLE OF ISRAEL IN GOD’S PLANS?  IN RECENT YEARS VARIOUS “EVANGELICAL” PREACHERS HAVE MADE HEADLINES BY ADVOCATING RADICAL SUPPORT FOR THE NATION OF ISRAEL (SEE MY NOTE AT THE END).  THE GENERAL PUBLIC HAS NOT BEEN SCHOOLED IN THE TRADIONAL DISPENSATIONALIST TEACHINGS ABOUT “SHEEP NATIONS” AND “GOAT NATIONS” (BASED ON ONE OF MANY INTERPRETATIONS OF MATTHEW 25:31-46), AND, THEREFORE, MANY OF THEM ARE MYSTIFIED BY THESE PREACHERS.  THE TRADITIONAL DISPENSATIONAL BELIEF IS THE PROPHETIC PROGRAM OF GOD IS ABOUT THE NATION OF ISRAEL.  THIS IS WHY SOME URGE SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL.  THE CHURCH, ON A PROPHETIC TIME LINE, IS A PARENTHETICAL PAUSE IN THAT TIME LINE.  AT THE END OF THAT PARENTHESIS, THE CHURCH WILL BE RAPTURED, AND GOD’S DEALINGS WITH ISRAEL WILL RECOMMENCE.  THOUGH THAT APPROACH HAS BEEN TAUGHT FOR MANY YEARS, I BELIEVE IT CREATES SOME PROBLEMS.  FOR EXAMPLE, THE BOOK OF HEBREWS INDICATES AN END TO AND A FULFILLMENT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN CHRIST.  EPHESIANS 1:9-10 AND 2:11-22 DESCRIBE HOW CHRIST HAS BROUGHT TOGETHER ONE PEOPLE OF GOD.  WE SEE THIS SYMBOLIZED IN THE NEW JERUSALEM, WHICH WILL HAVE THE NAMES OF THE 12 TRIBES OF ISRAEL INSCRIBED ON ITS GATES AND THE NAMES OF THE 12 APOSTLES ON ITS FOUNDATIONS (REVELATION 21:12-14).  THESE PROBLEMS ARE KNOTTY AND MUST BE DEALT WITH.

6.      WHAT EVENTS LEAD UP TO THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST?  THIS QUESTION ENCOMPASSES MANY OF THE QUESTIONS THAT EXCITE STUDENTS OF PROPHECY MORE THAN ANY OTHERS.  WHAT IS THE 70^TH WEEK OF DANIEL?  WHAT IS THE ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION?  WHO IS THE ANTICHRIST?  WHO ARE THE 144,000?  ONE PARTICULAR QUESTION IS OF SPECIAL IMPORTANCE, AND I MAKE IT MY LAST IN THE LIST OF WHAT IS IMPORTANT IN LAST-DAY STUDY.

7.      WHEN DOES THE RAPTURE OCCUR?  THE RAPTURE IS THE TRANSFORMATION OF LIVING CHRISTIANS SO THAT THEY HAVE RESURRECTION BODIES AND THEIR SIMULTANEOUS TRANSPORT TO MEET CHRIST IN THE AIR.  THE TRADITIONAL, DISPENSATIONALIST ANSWER IS THAT THE RAPTURE TAKES PLACE SEVEN YEARS BEFORE CHRIST’S RETURN TO EARTH.  THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OTHER VIEWPOINTS.  SOME ADVOCATE FOR A MID-TRIBULATION RAPTURE, AND OTHERS FOR A POST-TRIBULATION RAPTURE.  SOME DO NOT ACCEPT THE CONCEPT OF A TRIBULATION, AND SO THE TERMINOLOGY BREAKS DOWN FOR THEM.  OF ALL THE CONTROVERSIES SURROUNDING PROPHECY, THIS ONE IS MOST RELEVANT TO THE CHURCH.  THE QUESTION WOULD BE:  WILL THE CHURCH GO THROUGH THE TRIBULATION, AND IF SHE DOES, IS SHE READY?

 

WELL, THAT IS THE LIST!  IT COULD CERTAINLY BE LENGTHENED.  I THINK THERE IS ENOUGH

THERE TO KEEP ANY WHO IS INTERESTED BUSY FOR A LONG TIME—IF NOT A MILLENNIUM.

            NEXT TIME:  BEGINNING TO STUDY MATTHEW 24-25.

 

NOTE:  I PUT “EVANGELICAL” IN QUOTATION MARKS.  IT IS AN ABUSED TERM THAT HAS BEEN STRIPPED OF THE GREAT HONOR IT ONCE HELD.