Interpreting the “Obscure” by the “Clear”
NOTE: Since this post is long and has special formatting, the first paragraph is posted here. The entire document may be downloaded at the link below.
Recently I had the privilege of teaching a class on Revelation at South Side Christian Church in Springfield, Illinois. Following one of the evening sessions, a young man came up and asked me how I interpreted Matthew 24. I told him that I believed that Jesus was responding to two questions asked by the disciples: When was the Temple and Jerusalem going to be destroyed and what signs would accompany the end of the world? I believe that the disciples were equating the two, and Jesus was clarifying that they were not one-in-the-same. They were two distinct events. The first event would be accompanied by signs and Jesus said that the judgment on Israel as a nation would come within their lifetimes (Matt. 24:1-35). The other event would not be accompanied by signs, but rather they (and we!) needed always to be alert (Matt. 24:36-25:46). He had been taught that “this generation” in 24:35 referred to the generation living right before Christ returns. Not so, I responded. Let me share with you a portion of my explanation I offered to him.
Download the entire post (PDF)
Technorati Tags: interpretation, Bible, end times, Matthew
Related posts:
Hello Professor,
First, thanks for blogging. I really appreciate this blog and your thoughts.
Second, as I read Mt. 24, I see the disciples asking three questions in verse 3: when will this (Temple’s destruction) happen? what will be the sign of your coming? what will be the sign of the end of the age?
Should we combine those last two questions into one? it seems to me that they are asking when Jesus is going to “come”/ascend His throne in Jerusalem, which would bring an end to the evil age…especially if they understood His statement about the Temple being destroyed as a real possibility. Perhaps in light of the coming attack, they’re asking Jesus: “so what’s your plan of attack to make sure that doesn’t happen…when will your coming to power be so that we can end this age of darkness?”
One more comment and question: your attention to ‘peri de’ is noteworthy as well as Jesus’ desire to sift out their questions’ answers…but, it seems to me that your position asks many assumptions of the disciples that I’m not sure they had. I doubt they really believed He was serious about dying. Jesus can surely do WHATEVER He wants, but if He was referring to His final revealing (second coming)…I’d like to point out how far ahead He was asking His disciples to imagine.
For the sake of understanding His argument, they would have to say, “Okay, He really is going to die…He will Resurrect (but no one else will – even though that’s never been suggested before)…He will ascend to Heaven…and THEN come back to Resurrect everyone else”. I seriously doubt they could even jump hurdle one.
Should we assume Jesus expected them to get this only in hindsight, or might there be reason to think Jesus told them: “The Temple will be destroyed, and as it is destroyed, my people and I will be authenticated”, of course, in very apocalyptic vocabulary?
Thanks for your time and thoughts!
I am delighted you find the site helpful. There are times that I am stretched to keep up, but I still enjoy responding, reflecting, etc. You have raised some helpful issues. Let me respond (via Vienna, Austria where I am teaching Bulgarians and Russians on eschatology!).
First, the grammar suggests that there are two main questions. The context is they ask when will this happen, that is, the turning of the stones, etc. and then they link the parousia/his coming with the end of the world (They are viewed as one and the same).
Second, Jewish literature suggests that when the Messiah would come there would indeed be the end of the age as we know it. There is nothing in this context which suggests that Jesus is focusing on overthrowing the Romans, etc. The Messiah, if anything, would NOT overthrow the temple but give credibility to it during his reign.
3. That Jesus would talk about an event or an issue that they would not understand should not surprise us. He does so through Matthew (the confession of Peter, the request by the disciples concerning greatness in Matt. 20:20, preceded by a statement concerning his suffering, etc. Even though they may not have understood when he gave them the teaching, he still gave it.
4. The nature of apocalyptic literature is metaphor, simile, and hypberbole. We find all three in Matt. 24
Thanks for our thoughtful questions.