MERRY CHRISTMAS! FOR UNTO US
HAS BEEN BORN A SAVIOR, WHO IS CHRIST THE LORD!
In recent articles, I have described
the interpretations of Matthew 24:4-14 by Preterists (represented by J. S.
Russell) and Dispensationalists (represented by J. Dwight Pentecost). I shall now do similar analyses of Matthew
24:15-22. In this article, I shall
present and respond to the views of Russell on this passage.
THE
PRETERIST INTERPRETATION OF
MATTHEW
24:15-22
Russell is critical of the
interpreters of his day who tried to extract “double meaning” from the Olivet
Discourse. So, when he comments on this
passage, he emphasizes there is not a transition from, but“continuity” with the
previous material in verse 15 (Russell, page 62). He also stresses that verses 15-22 have a
strict and exclusive
reference to Jerusalem and Judea. Here
we can detect no trace of double meaning, of primary and ulterior fulfilments
[sic]…Everything is national, local, and near:
‘the land’ is the land of Judea,--‘this
people’ is the people of Israel,--and the ‘time’ is the lifetime of the disciples,--‘When YE therefore shall see.’
[original emphasis and British usage] (Russell, page 72-73)
These comments are typical of the
Preterist position. The whole thesis of
that understanding is that Jesus’ Discourse was a prediction of the destruction
of Jerusalem and the Temple and the end of the Jewish religion as a judgment on
that nation for its rejection of Christ.
Verse
15 includes the phrase “the abomination of desolation” (Greek: tes bdelugma
tes eremoseos, “the detestable thing which makes desolate”). Russell’s comment on this phrase is
surprisingly brief. He concurs with
others that this expression referred to the standards of the Roman Legions,
which included eagles. The soldiers
worshiped these as idols. Russell refers
to a previous instance when Jewish authorities objected to Roman legions
carrying their standards through Judea.
“How much greater the profanation when these idolatrous emblems were
displayed in full view of the temple and the Holy City!” (Russell, page 73) This, he says, “was to be the signal to all
Judea to escape beyond the mountains [verse
16]…for then would ensue a period of misery and horror…” (Russell, page 73)
Russell then interprets the “great
tribulation” [his usage] of verse 21
to be the “dreadful calamities attending the siege of Jerusalem…” (Russell, page 73) He then focuses on the story of the mother
who ate her baby as an example of those calamities. He stresses Jesus’ words in verse 21 “no nor
ever shall be” that Jesus was speaking of the historical fulfillment in the
destruction of Jerusalem and not “any subsequent events at the end of time.” That is, he would take it that “nor ever
shall be” would imply a future history of humankind after the “great
tribulation.”
I believe that I have represented
Russell’s commentary on this section of Scripture (Matthew 24:15-22)
fairly. The reader might be a little
surprised, because it seems so brief. In
fact, his entire commentary covers pages 72-74 in his book. So, yes, it is surprising that such a key
passage would be given so little attention.
RESPONSE
TO
RUSSELL’S
COMMENTARY
Russell draws four conclusions from
these verses.
1. That
the wording of verses 16-20 is good evidence that the passage refers to events
in Judea in the first century.
2. That
the “abomination of desolation” is the presence of the standards of the Roman
legions. These were idols and would desecrate
the city and the Temple.
3. That
the presence of these standards was the signal for the Jews to escape from
Judea to the mountains “for then would ensue a period of misery and horror
without parallel in the annals of time.”
(Russell, page 73)
4. That
the “great tribulation” was the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.
His first conclusion is a strong point,
especially with regard to the local “flavor” of verses 16-20. His focus on “you” will need to be dealt with
in conjunction with discussion of verses 32-35.
I believe that I will need to return to the issues concerning the
“Jewishness” of verses 16-20 at another time.
The issues include points raised by the Dispensationalists as well the subject
of “double fulfillment” of prophecy (an
idea that Russell abhors). Instead, I
shall deal with the latter three conclusions.
I believe that I make a good argument that those conclusions cannot be
supported. If that is the case, the
first conclusion is almost destroyed, and yet it does create problems for any
other interpretation.
The
Abomination of Desolation
(Russell’s
First Two Conclusions)
The
following is the wording of Matthew 24:15:
“[Quotation from Jesus]
So when you see the abomination of
desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the
reader understand), then let those who are in Judea
flee to the mountains.”
(all Scripture quotations from English Standard Version unless stated
otherwise)
Note
that Christ is predicting that a detestable event or thing is going to
make something desolate and that it
is going to stand in the Holy Place.
This event was to be the signal to flee to the mountains. We should apply these criteria to various
options that would fit the Preterist hypothesis that Jesus’ predictions apply
exclusively to the events of AD 70. I
shall consider two options—one is the presence of the troops of Cestius (not Russell’s idea) in the Temple area in AD
66 and the other is the presence of the troops
of Titus in AD 70.
Before
considering these options, I should comment on the criterion that the event in
question served as a signal to flee to the mountains. Russell states that this was be a signal “to
all in Judea to escape beyond the mountains…” (Russell, page 73). This conforms to his contention that Jesus
was speaking to the disciples about Jewish events. The problem with this reasoning is that the
Discourse was spoken in private to the disciples on Mt. Olivet. These men would live the rest of their lives
in a state of alienation from their countrymen because of their devotion to
Jesus, so they would not be in a position to spread this word of warning to
“all in Judea.” In fact, there is no
record that Jews used this warning from Jesus to flee the Romans with one
exception.
The
only people who are believed to have heeded this warning is a group of Jewish Christians
who took refuge in Pella, just east of Jordan in the Decapolis, at some point
during the Jewish-Roman War (SEARCH).
When their flight occurred and how it corresponded to other events is
not very clear. Commentators often cite
this flight to Pella as a very satisfactory confirmation that Jesus’ reference
to the Abomination of Desolation had something to do with Roman legion
standards. (They also refer to Luke’s
term, “Jerusalem surrounded by armies.”—see Russell, page 73) It seems very likely that Christians were
aware of Jesus’ words and took heed by fleeing to Pella. What event triggered their flight is
unknown. Nor does their flight confirm a
Preterist interpretation of the relevant Scriptures. Four interpretations of their flight are
possible. One is that they knew Jesus’ words and understood they applied to the
situation at hand (Preterist view). A
second is that they knew Jesus’ words and applied them on their own to the
situation. A third is that they did not
know Jesus’ words and simply fled because they recognized the danger. A fourth is that they understood a
double-meaning to Jesus’ words and applied them to the situation, but also
understood them to apply to the end times.
We have no way of deciding among these possibilities.
Option 1: The Troops of Cestius: Whiston, the translator of Josephus, believed that a set of legion
standards that were displayed earlier than the siege of Jerusalem was the
signal to flee. He gives this opinion in
a footnote. In November, 66, Cestius (a
Syrian commander) brought Roman legion soldiers into the city in order to subdue
the revolution that was threatening to begin.
Whiston believed this was the signal for people to flee to the mountains
(Whiston, pages 631-632). If people were
alert to this sign, they may have avoided considerable danger by fleeing, since
Vespasian’s legions would begin their campaign in Galilee and Judea in 67. This “signal” of the troops of Cestius would
have been about 3 ½ years before the siege of Jerusalem. It may well have been the signal heeded by
the Christians who fled to Pella. This
signal, though, does not seem to live up to the Abomination of Desolation. In the historical record, it is a
footnote. The presence of the standards
did not seem to create a Jewish reaction as an abomination (as I read Josephus). In fact, moderate Jews had invited Cestius
and his army into the city in order to quell the radicals.
Option 2: The Troops of Titus: Russell focuses on the ensigns (of the
legions of Titus) being “in full view of the Temple and the Holy City!” (Russell, page 73, includes exclamation) as
the Abomination of Desolation.
I have outlined the siege/battle of
Jerusalem in a previous article. The
Roman Legions, under Titus, arrived about May 1, 70. A short time after that, Jerusalem was
surrounded by these armies. By June 4,
some Romans were within the city proper and close to the Temple. By August 29, Romans had entered the outer
courts of the Temple complex, and on that same day the Temple was burned. The city was totally subdued by September
26. From about July onward, the Romans
had cut off all escape from the city.
Russell is vague whether he regards their
presence in the armies surrounding Jerusalem or after they actually entered the
city to be the Abomination. However, he
(Russell, page 73) argues that the presence of the ensigns in Judea would be
bad enough and that their presence in the siege armies would be “last token
which portended that the hour of doom for Jerusalem had come.” (Russell, page 73) He cites Luke 21:20 (Jerusalem “surrounded by
armies”) as confirmation for his argument.
Note that Russell places more emphasis on the role of the event as a
warning signal than he does as an abomination that makes desolate (see below).
The first question to ask is this:
Did the legions of Titus stand with their standards in the Holy Place
and make desolate something? There are
two parts of the question. The first
is: “Did they stand…in the Holy
Place?” In fact, from a description by
Josephus of events in the Temple area August 28-29,70, probably actual
standards did not enter the Holy Place (Whiston, page 740). Russell avoids this question by simply making
their presence “in full view of the temple and the Holy City” “a profanation of
the law.” (Russell, page 73) This does
not compare in degree to the original Abomination of Desolation. That event was when Antiochus Epiphanes, in
168 BC, sacrificed a pig on an altar to Zeus within the Temple. (See NIV Study Bible at Daniel 9:27 and 11:31
and ESV note at Matthew 24:15.)
Did
the Roman legion standards make the Holy Place desolate? If one reads the details of all that went on
before and during the siege, one would be struck by the level of violence and
betrayal in Jerusalem, including bloodshed in the Temple area that took place at the hands of Jews. For example, Jewish radicals killed the high
priest in September of 66, four years before the Romans laid siege. Also, the sacrifices had ceased August 5, 70,
weeks before the Romans broke into the Temple area. Moreover, by the time the legion standards
were in the Temple complex it was on the verge of burning down. So, from a Jewish perspective, it is difficult to see how the presence of
legion standards would be a decisive desecration of an already degenerate
Jewish religious situation. But,
from a Christian viewpoint, the Jewish Holy Place was already desolate. Jesus spoke of the nation (and not the
Temple) in Matthew 23:38 when He said:
“See, your house is left to you desolate.” (Matthew 23:38) However, it was true enough that the
desolation of the House of Israel was a religious desolation. When Jesus was crucified, the curtain that
divided the two holy places—Holy Place and the Holy of Holies—was torn in two
from top to bottom (Matthew 27:51). This
signaled the end of the old system of worshiping God and the institution of a
new and living way into God’s presence (Hebrews 10:19-20).
The
second question to ask is this: Would anyone in the area of Judea have been
warned by the presence of the Roman Legions?
Yes, that is possible in the early days of the siege, since some were escaping. However, once the siege was in earnest, there
would not likely be any escapees.
Moreover, once the Romans broke into the city and the standards were in
the presence of the Temple as abominable idolatrous objects, no one outside
Judea would have known it.
The third question to ask is this:
would escape have been of any great consequence once the Jerusalem siege
began? After the destruction of
Jerusalem, Roman operations were limited.
There was a siege of the city of Macherus by the Roman legate Bassus,
who also totally destroyed the Jews hiding in the forest of Jarden. Also, many of the Jews of the city of Antioch
were killed by the Gentiles of that city as well as being harassed by a turncoat
Jew, named, coincidentally, Antiochus. (Whiston,
pages 758-762) My point is this: Once the siege of Jerusalem was over, the
Roman-Jewish War was essentially over.
The final battle would take place three years later at Masada, but this
was the completion of the mopping-up of Jewish resistance. (Josephus, page 762ff) It does not appear to me that, for ordinary
persons—Christians or Jews—that “escape” from Judea (excluding Jerusalem)
during or after the siege would have been an escape from a horrible
situation. Russell himself defines the
“great tribulation” of Matthew 24:21 to be the siege of Jerusalem (Russell,
page 73).
I do not believe that there is a
good case for Russell’s conclusions concerning the Abomination of
Desolation. The presence of Roman legion
standards would have been an affront to the Jews in an isolated action by Roman
authorities. However, in the heat of the
battle in Jerusalem, it would have been “just one more thing” to remind the
Jews of their crushing defeat. Moreover,
the standards were there because the legions were there, not as a direct
assault by the Romans on the spiritual values of the Jews. Josephus claims that Titus had a certain
respect for the Temple and that its destruction was contra his orders (Whiston,
pages 739-740). (Of course, Josephus’
reporting is suspect, but it is about all we have.) Keep in mind that the implication of Jesus’
words is that He is predicting spiritual
defilement and not physical destruction.
I do not believe that there is an historical record of this sort of
defilement by the Romans beyond what would take place in the heat of
battle.
One
other point needs to be made. Although
Russell separates the two, I believe there is a twisting together in the minds
of many of an event that would signal escape, on the one hand, and the
destruction of the Temple on the other.
Russell does not confuse the two, but, because they are so close in
time, many do confuse them. This leads
to a discussion of what is the Great Tribulation.
The
Great Tribulation
Russell’s final conclusion is that
the siege of and destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple is the “great
tribulation” of Matthew 24:21. He reinforces that idea with the horror of a
woman eating her baby. Certainly, the
destruction of Jerusalem was a horrible time.
I am not an expert on sieges. I
read an account of the siege of Leningrad by the Germans in World War II. That, like all sieges, was terrible. By their very definition, sieges are designed
to starve the enemy out of a city or fortress.
Keep in mind that about 650 years before the Romans destroyed Jerusalem,
the Babylonians had done the same. Lamentations
2:20 and 4:10 tell of mothers eating their children during that siege. So, whether the siege and destruction of
Jerusalem was the worst of all sieges probably could be debated. Moreover, Jesus’ words in verse 22 indicate that the tribulation
He was speaking of would be world-wide, since “no human being” could be saved
if those days not be cut short.
Therefore, to assign the Great Tribulation period to the events of AD 70
does not seem to match the Lord’s words.
In addition, chronology is a problem
when one compares Matthew 24:15-22 with the events of AD 70. If one follows Russell’s reasoning, the
following table would apply:
|
|
Preterist
Scenario
|
|
||
|
Verse
|
Prediction
|
Application
|
Timing
|
Alternative
Scenario
|
|
15
|
Abomination
as
a signal
|
Legion
standards
around
and/or
in
Jerusalem
|
AD
70
May
(surrounding
Jerusalem)
or
June (close to Temple)
or
Late August in Temple
complex
|
A
repugnant
event
that has
spiritual
implications
occurs
|
|
16-20
|
Flight
to the
mountains
and
its
hazards
|
?
Unknown except
Christians’
flight to
Pella
|
Unknown
|
Persons
are alarmed by this event and flee to the mountains
|
|
21-22
|
Great
Tribulation
|
Siege
and destruction
of
Jerusalem
|
Siege: May-August
Destruction: late August-
September
|
There
follows a protracted period of terrible trouble.
|
Note
that Russell’s scenario for the Abomination of Desolation overlaps the Great
Tribulation so that, about the time the signal to flee occurs, the Great
Tribulation is almost over. If one
posits Cestius’ entrance into the city in AD 66, the chronology problem is
solved, but one is left with an obscure event.
If one reads Jesus’ words, a scenario far different from the events of
AD 70 seems to be implied, as I have indicated in the table.
One other point needs to be
made. Jesus indicates in verse 22 that
those days will be “cut short,” otherwise no one would be saved. There is no indication that the Roman siege
and destruction of Jerusalem was a day shorter than it needed to be. Some survived, but only to be sold into
slavery or to be imprisoned.
I do not believe the destruction of
Jerusalem is a fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction of the Great Tribulation.
Summary
Russell, a representative of the
Preterist method of interpretation, believes that verse 15-22 refer exclusively
to the events around AD 70 in Judea, that the presence of the standards of the
Roman legions was the Abomination of Desolation, that the legion standards signaled
people to flee to the mountains, and that the siege of Jerusalem and its
destruction along with the destruction of the Temple was the Great
Tribulation. I believe that the legion
standards were not a spiritually significant abomination that desecrated Jerusalem
and the Temple. If one posits the
presence of the standards during Titus’ siege and destruction, the timing would
not be adequate to warn people to flee from Jerusalem and would be of doubtful
benefit to people throughout Judea. If
one posits the standards of Cestius’ troops, it is doubtful that there was any
obvious affront to Jewish sensibilities.
Though the siege and destruction of Jerusalem were horrific, it is a
debatable question that it would fit Jesus’ description of the horrors of the
Great Tribulation. Overall, the
chronological problems and the nature of the hypothetical Abomination of
Desolation make it unlikely that there is a “fit” for the events of AD 70 to
Jesus’ predictions in Matthew 24:15-22.
NEXT: DISPENSATIONALIST INTERPRETATION OF MATTHEW
24:15-22
REFERENCES
Barker, Kenneth L., gen. ed. The New International Version Study Bible. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan
(International Bible Society), 2002.
Crossway
Bibles (2009-04-09). ESV Study Bible (Kindle Locations 235445-235449). Good
News Publishers. Kindle Edition.
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.
SEARCH
(the Society to Explore and Record Christian History) “Escape to
Whiston, William, trans. The Works of Josephus, by Flavius
Josephus. N. p.: Hendrickson
Publ.,
1987.
No comments:
Post a Comment