DISCOURSE 5
 THE APOCALYPTIC DISCOURSE: 
Messianic Hope Placed in the Messiah, not Jerusalem 
Matt 23:1-26:1
In this final discourse we will explore four components of the Discourse:
1. Jesus' Condemnation of the Scribes and Pharisees
2. The Destruction of Jerusalem Predicted by Jesus
3. Comments Regarding the End of the Age, or the End of the World.
4. Warnings to Be Prepared for the Final End.

For the sake of convenience, and with some structural interests in mind, we will consider the above four components in two lessons.

JESUS' JUDGMENT OF THE TEMPLE AND JERUSALEM (Matt 24:1-35)

In order to be able to follow the flow of thought and the shifts in emphasis in this section of the Apocalyptic Discourse of Matt 24 we need to recognize several factors which will be borne out in the course of the study.  It is vital that one understand these emphases in order to understand this complicated discourse.

1. This Discourse, as with all the other materials in this Gospel, must be set in the context of Matthew's Gospel, and the context of Jesus' ministry, which was a Jewish context.  Jesus was addressing the Scribes and Pharisees and pronouncing judgment on Jerusalem.  This was Jewish problem!
2. We have already noticed that Jesus began, and Matthew set this Discourse in an apocalyptic context (seven woes).  We will see that he continues by keeping his discussion in an apocalyptic genre (kind of language or idiom).
3. Any judgment on Jerusalem and the Temple, and any destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, would be interpreted by a Jew as the end of the age or world.  To a Jew, nothing could be worse than a judgment on the Jewish religious system, and on Jerusalem such as Jesus had just made.
4. There were eschatological implications in the tone of Jesus' condemnation of Jerusalem and that generation (Matt 23:37-39).
5. The disciples were so shocked by Jesus' denunciation of the Jewish system, the Temple, Jerusalem, and that generation that they asked Jesus two questions, although they saw them as one question.  "When" will this be, and "What" would be the sign of Jesus' coming and the close of the age?
6. Jesus responds by treating their questions as two events, not one.  He separated the destruction of Jerusalem as one event, and his coming and the end of the age as a separate event.
7. Jesus first discussed erroneous views or predictions of his coming (theologically, we refer to this his second coming or the parousia).
8. He then draws on the imagery of  Daniel 9:27 to describe the coming of an enemy on Jerusalem, and warns the disciples to flee the city.  These signs can be clearly seen and understood!
9. He draws on clearly understood apocalyptic imagery (Matt 24:29-31) to demonstrate that this was a political enemy, and that the destroying enemy was an agent of God.  (This is the genius of the unique apocalyptic genre adopted by Jesus.)
9. He drives his point home that these clearly interpreted events would come upon the generation he was addressing.
10. Jesus now turns to discuss the second question asked, "What" would be the sign of his coming and the end of the age, and responds that there would be no sign!
11. Jesus warns the disciples to be alert and watchful for no-one will be able to predict when the Son of man would come again (the parousia).  He places this warning in an eschatological context.
12. Matt 25 and the three parables illustrate how the disciples must be alert, watchful, and prepared for the sudden and unannounced coming of the Son of Man.

The Disciples' Question (Matt 24:1-3)
 The disciples were so shocked by Jesus' condemnation of Jerusalem that as they were near the Temple they drew Jesus' attention to the Temple, the bastion of Judaism!

Jesus responded in a manner intended to help the disciples see that the temple, however important it was to Judaism, was not to play a part in the Messianic kingdom and ministry.  The Temple was to be destroyed!

To a Jew, and the disciples were Jews, this was inconceivable and unbelievable!
The Temple to be destroyed!
When would such a significant event take place?
Surely such an event had to be the eschatological end of the age.  Remember, Judaism held to an eschatological end of the world.
What would be the sign of Jesus coming (eschatological coming), or the eschatological end of the age (world)?

Jesus' Response #1:  Do not be led astray by false predictions of his coming! Matt 24:4-14)
Jesus warned that many would falsely predict his coming, but before such an event the messianic ministry of the Gospel had to take place and the gospel had to be preached throughout the world!
Jesus encouraged his disciples to not be mislead by wars, earthquakes, and other such events which false prophets would use to lure followers to "fall away".  He encouraged his disciples to endure such catastrophes and persecutions, and that those who endured would be saved in the end (he was speaking of eschatological salvation, not present the salvation we enjoy in the Christian life.)

The point Jesus was making to the disciples in this pericope was that they should not be lead astray by false predictions or claims that Jesus had come or was about to come.

The messianic ministry of preaching to the whole world had to take place before Jesus returned at the close of the age.

Do not confuse the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple with the end of the world or the eschatological coming of the Son of Man!

The Destruction of Jerusalem (Matt 24:15-31)
Jesus begins his discussion of the destruction of Jerusalem by making reference to language and events with which all Jews were familiar, the language of Dan 9:27 and 12:11 "the desolating sacrilege" which one can also find in 1 Macc 1:54 and 2 Macc 8:17.  The event prophesied by Daniel took place in 168 BC when Antiochus Epiphanes captured Jerusalem and desecrated the Temple by erecting an altar to the god Zeus in the Temple.  Such an abomination to the Jews became such a part of their imagery and thought pattern that the term became a technical term for any desecration of the Temple.  Jesus picks up on this well known imagery and uses it to describe the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem in his prophecy.

Almost all scholars identify this event with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70.  Reference to the historical accounts of the Roman siege and destruction of Jerusalem fill in the gaps of the viciousness of this event that fit well with the language used by Jesus in this pericope.  Matt 24:20, 21 speaks of nature of this event in these terms, " Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a sabbath. 21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be."

Jesus warns the disciples to immediately and hastily flee Jerusalem when they see the approaching desolation.  Fir those with child and small children the times and flight will be difficult.  The disciples should pray that their flight is not necessary on the Sabbath (the Jewish travel restrictions on the Sabbath) and that it not be in the winter.
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.5.3 records that in the year 66 AD, when the Christians saw the approaching Roman armies, in keeping with Jesus' admonition, they fled Jerusalem for the region of Pella (Transjordan, now the nation of Jordan).

In Matt 24:22 Jesus proclaims "And if those days had not been shortened, no human being would be saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened."  The expression is drawn from the apocalyptic tradition (cf 2 Apoc. Bar. 20:1-2; 83:1; et al) and symbolically expresses the severity of the tribulation and the preservation of the saints under persecution and tribulation.

Again, Jesus warns the disciples not to believe those who might proclaim that these events ushered in his eschatological coming (parousia).  In Matt 24:22-25 Jesus repeats his previous warning,  23 Then if any one says to you, ‘Lo, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 24 For false Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. 25 Lo, I have told you beforehand.  the eschatological coming of Christ would come suddenly without warning, just as the lightning strikes without warning!  
We note that Jesus has now twice warned his disciples not to interpret world events as signs of his eschatological coming.

The last saying of this pericope (Matt 24:28) falls firmly within the apocalyptic tradition, Wherever the body is, there the eagles will be gathered together.  The term eagle is not a reference to the Roman insignia or banner, but derives from the term aetos - aetos which is a bird of carrion.  It could be an eagle or a vulture, but it is a reference to the bird of carrion.  the imagery is that there will be much bloodshed and death when the abomination of desolation comes on Jerusalem.  The terms "desolating sacrilege" (abomination of desolation) and eagles gathering form a sort of inclusio describing the fierceness of the trial and destruction coming on Jerusalem.

The Coming of the Son of Man (Matt 24:29-31)
This short pericope has generated considerable discussion among scholars through the centuries!  Without question, it is a difficult passage, especially if one does not let it remain within the strong apocalyptic genre in which it is so obviously couched.  The terms used in the passage have a long and rich history in the Old Testament and Apocalyptic literature, and must be seen in line with this tradition.  Failure to understand this tradition has led to many speculative conclusions.

The apocalyptic genre and tradition is the genre or literature of persecution, tribulation, and suffering.  It is generally pessimistic regarding the potential of human endeavor and history to solve the suffering and tribulation, but is especially optimistic regarding God's ability to provide a solution.  Generally, apocalyptic expression sets the events being described within God's heilsgeschichte or plan of redemption (salvation of the human system).

What makes the passage so difficult is the tendency of apocalyptic (and here Jesus and Matthew) to bring several well known Scriptures together in a collage of thought and symbolic representation of what is taking place.  Apocalyptic is highly symbolic and dramatic, and presents its "story" in cosmic dimensions, demonstrating that the events symbolically described are not simply human events of history, but are in fact, God's divine intervention and judgment on history and man.

 We begin by considering Jesus (or Matthew's) use of immediately.
The meaning of a word in a text is determined by several factors, some less so than others.  The following list is not intended to be comprehensive, but serves as a general guide to understanding and interpreting words:

1. Its etymology or root meaning (only marginally helpful)
2. Its use in general, studied historically, geographically, and linguistically
3. The use in a specific context, such as the Old and New Testaments
4. Its use by a specific author
5. Its use in a specific literary context, such as eschatology or apocalyptic
6. Its use in a literary context, such as in a book, chapter, paragraph, or sentence
7. Its use in a specific idiom such as a theological idiom, a parable, or a myth

The word euqews - eutheos translated in the RSV and most translations as immediately is found 14 times in Matthew's Gospel (35 times in mark's Gospel, 12 times in Luke's Gospel, and only 2 times in John's Gospel).
In Mark's Gospel it is a transitional term intended to add dynamic action and movement tot he narrative.
Of the 14 times in Matthew eutheos functions as in Mark as a transitional term which ties action closely or intentionally to the previous action, thought, or event.

The term immediately - eutheos - ties this pericope (Matt 24:29-31) and what it is describing back to the previous discussion, namely, the destruction of Jerusalem. 
 
To have the pericope under discussion (Matt 24:29-31) refer to the parousia or end of the world eschatological parousia poses significant problems since it would then have the eschatological parousia occurring immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem!   But historically and theologically this did not happen and Jesus himself had warned against such interpretation (Matt 24:5-14).
 
What complicates the use of eutheos in Matt 24:29 is the fact that it is connected in thought to the expression of the Son of man coming in on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory, which some interpret as referring to the eschatological parousia or end of the world coming of the Son of Man.  
But this is not necessary, is unfortunate, is misleading!  
It implies that the Son of Man comes only at the eschatological parousia, but Revelation (especially chapters 2 and 3) implies that Jesus will come in judgment on the churches and on Rome long before the eschatological parousia.

The apocalyptic genre and context of this pericope require that we interpret the expressions of this pericope in an apocalyptic context and not literally.  Jesus draws a number of Old Testament and apocalyptic expressions together in a manner that dramatically demonstrates that the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem are not merely historical occurrences, but are the result of divine intervention and judgment on a nation that has been rebellious to God.

We will shortly look at several terms used in this pericope and illustrate the above point.

We return at this point to eutheos and immediately.  Immediately is a transitional term that connects the pericope under discussion directly and dynamically back to the previous discussion, namely, the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem, and makes the case that the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem are the direct judgment of God and the Son of Man, not merely an historical occurrence.  The apocalyptic context of the pericope explains that the desolating sacrilege has theological implications, not merely historical or tragic implications.

Now to the apocalyptic nature of this pericope!
We have already drawn attention to the fact that Matt 23, with its seven woes is set squarely in an apocalyptic genre.
We now turn attention to several statements in Matt 24:29-31 that draw heavily on this genre.

1. The term "tribulation" sets the pericope into the primary context of apocalyptic genre, namely, suffering, persecution, and tribulation.  These are the context and framework of apocalyptic expression and literature.
2. The expression "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", are perhaps the purest of apocalyptic expression in scripture!  The Old Testament and Apocalyptic literature are replete with such expressions.  (Cf. Isa 13:10; 24:21-23; 34:2-4; Ezek 32:7; Joel 2:10, 30, 31; et al.)  We find this type of expression also in Revelation 6:12.
In every instance where this type of expression is present, the context is the judgment and destruction of a rebellious nation such as Babylon, Egypt, Judah, and Rome.  In Matt 24:29 the rebellious nation under God's judgment is Israel and Jerusalem.  the theological symbolism is the removal of Israel and Jerusalem as a national religious system opposed to God.
3. The expression "The sign of the Son of man in heaven" is clearly drawn from Dan 7:13, which is likewise in an apocalyptic tradition.
4.  The comment that "the tribes of the earth shall mourn" is almost verbatim from Zech 12:10-14, and the combination of this with Dan 7:13 is found also in Rev 1:7, adding to the apocalyptic flavor of the text.
5.   The reference to seeing of "the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven" is as Hagner implies, a theophany, but contra to Hagner, it is a theophany of the coming of Jesus in judgment on Jerusalem.   Hagner is hardly convincing when he implies that Tasker, S. Brown (The Matthean Apocalypse), France, and Garland are "hardly convincing"!
We have much in agreement with Hagner in his Excursus: Immanence... pp. 711, 712, but believe he overstresses the final eschatological aspects of this expression.  Hagner is correct in seeing the "consummative" eschatological "character of this event", but the consummative eschatological character of this event reinforces the finality of Jesus judgment on Jerusalem.
6. Hagner prefers to identify the "gathering of the elect from the four winds" to the final gathering of all the saints, both Jews and Christians, at the end of the age.  But once again, Hagner is straining to move the emphasis of this pericope from the immediate connection of this pericope to the previous one on the destruction of Jerusalem.  Jesus (and Matthew) by adopting this collage of Old Testament apocalyptic expressions is demonstrating the eschatological finality of Jesus'  condemnation of Jerusalem.  The point here in this expression is that the elect have nothing to fear from Jesus' condemnation.
7. Although one is tempted to read into this pericope the final parousia of Jesus, this misses the point and genius of apocalyptic expression.  In the apocalyptic genre, when immediate events are described in terms of the eschatological condemnation it merely indicates the severity of the immediate condemnation.  Theologically, we call this a proleptic eschatological expression where immediate events and judgments are described in final eschatological terminology.  This heightens the severity of the immediate or present judgment.  Revelation makes much use of this concept of proleptic eschatology.  Rome is judged now (in the first century) with the final eschatological judgment of the end.  This heightens the severity of Jesus' judgment on Rome.  (Proleptic simply means experienced in advance.)

However, the Christian faith is familiar with this type of expression where concepts have a here and then nature.  We experience (proleptically) salvation now that is only to be fully experienced at the eschatological end.  We participate now in the resurrection of Jesus (in baptism) which will be realized only at the resurrection at the final eschatological end!  

The dramatic nature of proleptic eschatological expression which we encounter in much of the apocalyptic genre heightens the reality and seriousness of the event being discussed.  In this case, the apocalyptic description of the judgment and destruction of Jerusalem merely dramatizes the severity of the judgment.  Jerusalem is judged now with the severity of the final eschatological judgment.

We conclude this discussion on Matt 24:29-31 by observing that in spite of one's first tendency to identify these apocalyptic events with the final parousia of Jesus, or the end of the world, to do so is to diminish the severity of the condemnation of Jesus on Jerusalem.  furthermore, to do so ignores the true character of apocalyptic eschatology and the concept of proleptic eschatology so present in the Christian faith.  

In the concept of inaugurated eschatology, which we believe to be the theological context of the Christian faith (meaning that with the coming of Jesus the end was breaking in), any event in the Christian age is final and partakes of end of the world significance.  If you believe in Jesus now, it has end of the world significance.  If you deny Jesus now, this too, has end of the world significance.

The final point of this discussion is that in apocalyptic eschatological contexts one can describe present events with end of the world terminology without implying that one is discussing the end of the world.  Unfortunately, this was the pitfall that the original disciples fell into when they confused the destruction of Jerusalem with the end of the age or world.

Hagner's observation is to the point:

Two key facts provide the basis for understanding these complex data.  the first of these is the statement of Jesus in 24:35...that "about that day (the final parousia, IAF) and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the father....
The second key fact is that the disciples were unable to conceive of the fall of Jerusalem apart from the occurrence of the parousia and the end of the age. (as the question of 24:3 indicates).  In light of these two facts, the following conclusion becomes possible.  Although Jesus taught the imminent fall of Jerusalem he did not teach the imminence of the parousia, leaving the latter to the undetermined future....
Knowing that Jesus had taught the imminence of the fall of the temple, they (the disciples, IAF) naturally assumed the imminence of the parousia.  In their minds the two were inseparable...

When scholars attempt to tie Matt 24:29-31 to the parousia and separate it from Jesus'  judgment on Jerusalem and the Temple, and their imminent demise, they fall into the same trap into which the disciples fell!

The Sign of the Fig Tree (Matt 24:32-35)
Because scholars have attempted to tie Matt 24:29-31 to the parousia, this has created difficulties with this pericope, especially regarding how to interpret or understand "this generation" in Matt 24:34.

We make several observations here:

1. This pericope encourages disciples to interpret signs correctly!
2.   But Jesus had said that for the coming of Christ, or the eschatological parousia, they were not to interpret whatever signs they saw as signs of his parousia (Matt24:4-14).
3. In the next pericope Jesus informs the disciples that no one would know when the Son of Man would come at the eschatological end.  His coming would be as sudden as the lightning strikes! (Matt 24:36-44).
4.   The signs of the "fig tree" the disciples were to interpret cannot therefore be of the parousia, but of events that could be predicted by signs. 
5. Jesus speaks of "these things" that the disciples would see.  These would be signs that could be interpreted.
6. The signs were to be interpreted by "this generation", not a later generation.
7.   Before "this generation" passes away the signs would be fulfilled.

To apply this pericope to the eschatological parousia for which there would be no signs is to stretch biblical interpretation beyond reason and the context of the pericope.

We should be sensitive to the words "these things" and "this generation".  the pronouns "these" and "this" refer to what is closest at hand, either temporally or spatially.  

We will note in Matt 24:36 that Jesus speaks of "that day and hour".  The pronoun "that" points to what is further away either temporally or spatially, in contrast to "this" and "these".

In Matt 24:32-35 the signs are for what is temporally or spatially closer or nearer.  The context of the discussion and the fact that signs can be interpreted point to the judgment and destruction of Jerusalem rather than the eschatological parousia.

Hagner, p. 715 argues that this pericope points to "all the things" prior to the "things" relating to the coming of Jesus in the eschatological parousia.  If they are to include the sign of the Son of man coming in the clouds, we have already demonstrated that this expression in the apocalyptic pericope of Matt 24:29-31 refers to the coming of the Son of man in judgment of Jerusalem, and not to the eschatological parousia.  Hagner adds that to take the expression "this generation" and have it refer to the generation alive at the eschatological parousia, or more generally as the human race goes against the natural meaning of the phrase and makes the words irrelevant both to Jesus' disciples and to Matthew's readers.

SUMMARY OF MATT 24:1-35
In this fascinating discourse Jesus has predicted the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.  this has disturbed the disciples who interpret this as the end of the age or world.  We refer to the end of the world as the eschatological end associated with the parousia.

Jesus separates the destruction of Jerusalem from the eschatological parousia, warning the disciples to be able to interpret the signs of the coming tribulation and destruction of Jerusalem and to flee from the city before that event occurs. 

He warns that some would interpret the signs as signs of his parousia, and clearly warns them not to be misled by such predictions.  Before the final eschatological end the Gospel had to be preached to all the world.  Before that eschatological end, and much closer in time, the "desolating sacrilege", the destruction of the Temple, would occur.  This event could be interpreted from the signs of its coming.

Jesus has set the discussion of the destruction in the context of an apocalyptic genre to demonstrate that the destruction would  not simply be the work of the Roman army, but would in fact be the work of God through the Son of man.  The Roman army would simply be God's destroying agent.

BUT!  Jesus must turn to the second part of the disciples question, "What would be the sign of the coming of Jesus at the close of the age?" (Matt 24:3).  Jesus now proceeds to argue that there would be no sign for his eschatological coming or parousia at the close of the age.

 Click here to go to Matt 24:36-25:46 and Jesus' discussion of the eschatological close of the age, or eschatological parousia.