Matthew 24:1 - 5
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.”
3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”
4 Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many.
Questions:
ReplyDelete1. (v2) When will the temple be thrown down?
2. (v3) When the disciples meant "the end of the age", what did they mean? Did Jesus answer according to the way that they meant?
3. (v5) Who is coming in His name to deceive? What do they look like?
Concerning the temple being thrown down: http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-97/not-one-stone-left-upon-another.html:
ReplyDeleteJesus predicted it 37 years before it happened. Herod Agrippa II and his sister Bernice, who heard Paul's testimony at Caesarea (Acts 26), tried hard to prevent it, as did the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (our main source of first-century information). But the fall of Jerusalem and the burning of the Temple in A.D. 70 happened nevertheless, and it was a catastrophe with almost unparalleled consequences for Jews, Christians, and, indeed, all of subsequent history. It compelled a whole new vector for synagogue (not Temple) Judaism, it submerged the Jewish homeland for the next 19 centuries under foreign domination, it helped foster the split between church and synagogue, and it set the stage for rampant prophetic speculation about the End Times that continues to the present day. Few episodes in history have had that sort of impact.
The Jewish rebellion in A.D. 66 that ignited the war with Rome was by no means inevitable. Judaism was a legal religion in the Roman Empire, and Nero's own empress, Poppaea, was very interested in it. Contrary to biblical novels and movies, far worse things could happen to you in the ancient world than to be conquered by Rome. The Romans hung out the traffic lights in their sprawling empire, curbing piracy at sea and brigandage by land, thus providing security in the Mediterranean world. The apostle Paul's missionary journeys would have been impossible without the Pax Romana, the "Roman peace" that ordered society. As for the "horrors" of Roman taxation, I would much rather have paid the tribute to Rome as a citizen of Jerusalem than American income tax!
Still, Rome did have wayward governors who were not always disciplined, even if there was an extortion court set up for this purpose at Rome. Governors of Judea had a particularly difficult role, because according to Deuteronomy 17:15 it was heresy for any Gentile to govern God's people: "You must not put a foreigner over you who is not your brother." Nevertheless, the governors Rome sent to Judea in the first century were able enough, including Pontius Pilate, who could never have had a ten-year tenure there had he been the villain so familiar in sermons and novels.
Gessius Florus, however, Rome's last governor before the Jewish rebellion, made Pilate look like a paragon of virtue by comparison. Emperor Nero, perhaps distracted in the aftermath of the Great Fire of Rome, had not done a good job of screening overseas governors, and this wretch slipped through. Venal, corrupt, and brutal, Florus hoped that a Jewish rebellion would somehow cover his own crimes in Judea, and so he fomented discontent among his subjects wherever possible. Even the first-century Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus commented, "Jewish patience persisted until Gessius Florus became procurator" (History 5.10).
Justifiably outraged, Jerusalemites rose in revolt, even though Jews who had visited Rome warned that war would end in disaster because of Rome's overpowering resources. Zealots in Jerusalem—the "fourth party" after the Scribes, Pharisees, and Essenes, according to Josephus—carried the day, and the Jews won some surprising early victories against the Romans.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-97/not-one-stone-left-upon-another.html (continued):
ReplyDeleteUntil, that is, Commander Vespasian landed in Galilee with three legions. After that, it was a steady Roman advance southward into Judea, with Jewish strongholds falling one after another along the way. In fact, Vespasian was at the walls of Jerusalem when news reached him of the turmoil in Rome following Nero's death. Soon Rome's eastern legions declared Vespasian the new emperor. Before hurrying off to Rome in 69 to don imperial purple, he transferred command of the Jewish war to his own son Titus (also future emperor), who would complete the siege and destruction of Jerusalem.
With careful strategy and maximum resources, Titus finished the job in a matter of months, despite fierce Jewish resistance. Spurning all overtures for peace, the Zealots inside Jerusalem fought amongst themselves as much as against the Romans, while Titus surrounded the city with a siege wall and simply waited. The starvation inside Jerusalem was severe because many of the Judeans from the countryside had taken refuge there. It got so bad, Josephus wrote in The Jewish War (6.194ff.), that dove dung went for premium prices, and one poor woman even ate part of her own baby!
The best of friends wrestled with each other for even the shadow of food. Others, mouths agape from hunger like mad dogs, staggered along, beating on the doors like drunken men. … They put their teeth into everything, swallowing things even the filthiest animals would not touch. Finally they devoured even belts and shoes or gnawed at the leather they stripped from their shields.
After furious fighting inside Jerusalem, the Temple Mount finally fell to the Romans. According to Josephus, Titus had ordered that the Temple itself be spared (though some historians doubt this), but one of the Roman troops hurled a burning firebrand through a window of the Temple and it went up in flames anyway. The date, August 30 in the year 70, was the very day on which Nebuchadnezzar had destroyed the Temple in 586 B.C. What was left was torn down by the victors, almost in literal fulfillment of Jesus' famous statement, "Not one stone here will be left upon another" (Matthew 24:2). This was the catastrophic end of Temple Judaism.
Might it have been the end of Judaism itself? Possibly. The Romans, however, permitted a Jewish sage named Jochanan ben-Zakkai to be smuggled out of the Temple Mount in a casket. He virtually re-founded Judaism in a rabbinical school established at Jamnia near the Mediterranean. The previous central authority of the Temple was now transformed into the regional authority of the synagogue—a tradition that has remained to the present day. Also in Jamnia, the Jewish rabbis established the canon of 39 books in their Hebrew Bible—the Christian Old Testament—in the year 93.
Josephus, our major source for all this information, does not name a single Christian victim in connection with great Jewish War. Why not? With immense luck—or blessing—the earliest Christians largely escaped all this horror for two reasons: (1) Only four years before the war's outbreak, James the Just of Jerusalem (the first Christian bishop according to both Acts 15 and Eusebius) was stoned to death by the Sanhedrin, which must certainly have led the struggling Jewish-Christian community to think about leaving. (2) Eusebius, the "father of church history," also tells us that Christians were warned by an oracle to flee the city some time before war's outbreak. In fact, they evacuated to Pella and other cities north of Jerusalem, and so escaped the Roman siege and conquest.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-97/not-one-stone-left-upon-another.html (continued):
ReplyDeleteAfter the war, some Christians returned to Jerusalem, where they must have kept a low profile since Zealotry and the yeast of Messianism among the Jews led to one last tragic uprising in A.D. 132 under a rebel named Shimon Bar-Kosebah. Rabbi Akiba, the leading Jewish sage at the time, put Bar-Kosebah on a white horse, led him through the streets of Jerusalem, and cried, "The Messiah has come! The Messiah has come!" He also changed his name to "Bar-Kokhba," which means "Son of a Star" (showing us that the gospel writer Matthew did not invent the idea that the Star of Bethlehem was a messianic symbol for Jews).
When the Zealots learned that Hadrian, the Roman emperor at the time, planned to build a new temple to Jupiter on the ruins of the old Jewish Temple, they rose up in revolt. Hadrian had a very difficult time conquering these rebels, some of whom hid out in caves on the western coast of the Dead Sea, where letters written by Bar-Kokhba have been discovered. Some 580,000 Jews perished, and the Romans also suffered great losses until they finally conquered the rebels. Furious at this renewed Jewish uprising and without a shred of patience left, they dismantled Jerusalem and rebuilt the city as "Aelia Capitolina" in honor of Aelius, Hadrian's family name.
All Jews were expelled from the city, and only Gentiles were allowed to live there. (This exile was moderated later when first Jewish Christians and then also Jews slowly returned to the city.) The Roman province of Judea now became Syria Palaestina—further diminishing Judaism in favor of the Philistines who had battled Saul and David a millennium earlier. It remained "Palestine" up through the British mandate in the 20th century and among Arabs to this day.
In the second and third centuries, Aelia Capitolina (a.k.a. destroyed Jerusalem) showed barely a glint of its former glory. It was not a ghost town, but it was sequestered to the boondocks of the Roman Empire.
An equal-opportunity desecrator, Hadrian attacked Christianity when he raised a shrine to Aphrodite adjacent to his new temple at the site of Golgotha, where Christians had held liturgical observances until they fled the city in A.D. 66. But in trying to desecrate the site, he merely helped identify it for later generations.
It is no surprise to learn from Aristo of Pella, an early Christian historian whose works are not extant, that the Jerusalem church after the Bar-Kokhba revolt was now composed almost entirely of Gentiles. In his Church History (5.12), Eusebius lists 12 Gentile bishops of Jerusalem following Mark, the first.
ReplyDeleteEarly on, Christians in Jerusalem recognized the importance of the sites where biblical events took place. The early Christian apologist Justin Martyr (c. 100-c.165) was born of pagan parents in Nablus, Samaria, and after his conversion to Christianity knew the cave or grotto where Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Melito, bishop of Sardis, visited there in the 160s. The mightiest mind in early Christendom, Origen of Alexandria, spent the last part of his life (230-254) in Caesarea and regularly visited the sacred sites, including Bethlehem.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-97/not-one-stone-left-upon-another.html (continued):
Slowly, Jews were allowed to return to their Holy City. But other centers of Judaism across the Mediterranean world, such as neighboring Alexandria in Egypt, Ephesus in Asia Minor, Athens, and even Rome, could now compete through their synagogues for the authority once held by the Jerusalem Temple. Those Jewish Christians who had not abandoned the Temple (such as those described in Acts) now had to look elsewhere for cohesion and authority. The split between Jews and Christians only widened in the future.
Both sides were responsible for this cleft. The first persecution of the church was by Jewish authorities in Jerusalem, and even the most cursory reading of Acts reveals the grief that Paul regularly received from synagogues along his mission journeys. Later, in some cities across the Mediterranean, Jews reported Christians to Roman authorities who had been lax in persecuting them. For their part, Christians attributed the destruction of Jerusalem to God's retribution against the Jews for having crucified Christ. Church and synagogue have gone their separate ways ever since. One can only conjecture as to what might have happened to Jews, Christians, and all of subsequent history had Jerusalem not fallen and the Temple endured.
Concerning what the disciples meant by the end of the age, https://www.gci.org/prophecy/matt24 says:
ReplyDeleteHe brushed aside their lavish praise of the temple. "Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down" (24:2).
This must have been shocking to the disciples. They thought the Messiah was going to save Jerusalem and the temple, not allow both to be destroyed. As Jesus spoke of these things, the disciples must have thought about the end of gentile rulership and the glory of Israel, both which are prophesied so many times in the Hebrew Scriptures. They knew these events would occur at "the time of the end" (Daniel 8:17; 11:35, 40; 12:4, 9). It was at this time that the Messiah would appear or "come" to usher in the kingdom of God. This meant Israel would arise to national greatness as the spearhead of that kingdom.
The disciples, who believed Jesus was that Messiah, were naturally anxious to know if the "time of the end" had come. There was great expectation that Jesus was about to announce that he was the messiah (John 12:12-18). It's not surprising, then, that the disciples pressed Jesus about the nature and timing of his "coming."
They wanted to know when the things Jesus said about Jerusalem would take place, for they undoubtedly associated these with the end of the age and his "coming."
When the disciples asked about his "coming," they didn't have a "second" coming in mind. In their thinking, the Messiah would come and immediately establish his government in Jerusalem, and it would last "forever." There would be no "first" and "second" coming.
There is another vital point to notice about Matthew 24:3, for it is a kind of summary statement of the content of chapter 24. Let us repeat the disciples' question, italicizing some important words: "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" (24:3). They wanted to know when the things Jesus said about Jerusalem would take place, for they associated these with the end of the age and his "coming."
The disciples were really asking three questions. First, they wanted to know when "this" would happen. The "this" could be a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, which Jesus had just finished describing as being threatened with destruction. Second, they wanted to know what the "sign" of his coming was, which as we shall see, Jesus finally gave them in 24:30. Third, the disciples also wanted to know when the "end of the age" would occur. This is something Jesus told the disciples they could not know (24:36).
https://www.gci.org/prophecy/matt24 continued:
ReplyDeleteIf we separate out the three questions, and see how Jesus answered each of them, we can clear up a number of problems or misinterpretations associated with Matthew 24. Jesus was telling his disciples that Jerusalem and the temple (the "this") would, indeed, be destroyed in their day. But the "sign" they asked about, Jesus said, would be associated with his coming, not with the destruction of the city. Finally, as to the disciples' third question, Jesus said, no one could know the answer to the question of when he would return and "the end" of the age would occur.
We can still have Jesus' return and the "end of the age" occur in the future, and Jerusalem be destroyed in the past, in A.D. 70, just as Jesus prophesied.
That is not to say the disciples separated out the destruction of Jerusalem from "the end," because they almost certainly didn't. And they most likely thought that the events would occur almost immediately.
Let us see how these questions play out in Matthew 24. First, we note that Jesus didn't seem particularly interested in talking about the circumstances of "the end." It was his disciples who provoked the questions, and Jesus obliged them by providing some comments.
We also realize that almost certainly the disciples' questions about "the end" were based on a wrong conclusion — that all the events would occur almost immediately, and all at the same time. Hence, it's not surprising that they thought Jesus' "coming" as Messiah was extremely close, in the sense that it might happen within days or weeks. Still, they wanted a physical "sign" of his coming as a confirmation. With this private and secret knowledge they would be able to place themselves at the most advantageous position when Jesus made his move.
We should see Jesus' comments in Matthew 24 in that context. In short, the disciples provoke the discussion. They think Jesus is about to assume power, and they want to know exactly when this will happen. They want a preparatory sign. But the disciples totally misunderstood Jesus' mission.
Rather than answering the disciples' questions on their terms, Jesus used the occasion to teach them three important things. One, he taught them that the scenario they were asking about was much more complicated than their simplistic notions. Two, they could not know when Jesus would "come," or as we would say, "return." Three, they should worry about or "watch" their relationship with God and not worry about "watching" world or local events.
https://www.gci.org/prophecy/matt24 continued:
ReplyDeleteLet's now notice how Jesus' conversation with his disciples unfolded, keeping these principles and the prior discussion in mind. The first thing he did was warn the disciples not to be deceived by traumatic events that might make it appear as though "the end" was near (Matthew 24:4-8). Tumultuous things would happen in the world, but "the end is still to come" (verse 6).
Next, Jesus told his disciples that they would be persecuted and put to death (24:9-13). How shocking that must have seemed! They must have wondered, "What is all this talk about persecution and death?" The Messiah's people would be triumphant and victorious, not butchered and destroyed, they thought.
Jesus then began talking about a gospel to be preached to the whole world. After this, "the end" would come (24:14). This must have also been confusing to the disciples. They probably thought the Messiah would "come" first, then establish his kingdom. Only after that would the word of the Lord go forth to all the earth (Isaiah 2:1-4).
Next, Jesus seemed to backtrack and forecast a dire warning for the temple. The abomination of desolation would be seen in the holy place, and those in Judea would have to flee to the mountains (24:15-16). These would be dreadful times indeed for the Jews. "For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now — and never to be equaled again," said Jesus (24:21). Things would get so bad that no one would survive if those days weren't cut short.
Though Jesus mentioned what would happen in the world at large, Jesus was talking primarily about what would happen in Judea and Jerusalem. Luke uses the phrase "there will be great distress in the land" to describe the context of Jesus' comments (Luke 21:23). The temple, Jerusalem and Judea were the focus of Jesus' warning, not the entire world. The warning Jesus gave about impending doom was primarily for Jews in Jerusalem and Judea. The events of A.D. 66-70 confirmed this.
It's not surprising, then, that Jesus said, "Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath" (24:20). Some have wondered why he would make this statement if the church was not required to observe the Sabbath? Since the Sabbath is no longer a concern for Christians, why would it be mentioned as a significant problem?
He gave this admonition in the context of their current understanding of the Law of Moses. We can paraphrase Jesus' thought in this way: I know you don't believe in traveling long distances on the Sabbath, and you won't do it because of what you think the law demands. So if the things to befall Jerusalem fall on the Sabbath, you will be caught and killed. I can then only offer you this advice: You better pray that the need to flee doesn't occur on the Sabbath. Even if they did choose to flee on the Sabbath, the restrictions imposed by other Jews would make escape difficult.
Meanwhile, Jesus continued with his discourse, which had the purpose of answering the disciples' three questions about when he would come. But we note that so far all he has done is tell them when he will not come. Jesus has separated out the calamity to occur at Jerusalem from the "sign" and the coming of "the end."
At this point, the disciples must have thought that the destruction in Jerusalem and Judea was the "sign" of the end they were looking for. But they were mistaken, and Jesus pointed out their error.
https://www.gci.org/prophecy/matt24 continued:
ReplyDeleteNow we come to verse 29, where Jesus began telling the disciples about the "sign" of his coming, which was the answer to their second question. The sun and moon would be darkened and "stars" (perhaps comets or meteorites) would fall from the sky (24:29). The solar system itself would be shaken.
Finally, Jesus gave the disciples the "sign" they were waiting for. He said: "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory" (24:30).
Basically, the "sign" of Jesus' coming, as he gave it, was his coming! There is a lesson here for us. Quite simply, there is no advance sign of Jesus' coming for us to be able to predict. He comes when he comes, and the people who are then alive will know it when it happens.
Next, Jesus asked the disciples to learn a lesson from the fig tree (24:32-34). As soon as the tree's twigs got tender and its leaves came out, they knew summer was near. "Even so," said Jesus, "when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door" (24:33).
What are "all these things"? Are they only wars, famines and earthquakes in various places? No. These are only the beginning of sorrows. There are many other sorrows as well before "the end." Does "all these things" end at the appearance of false preachers and the preaching of the gospel? No, again. Is "all these things" fulfilled with the distress in Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple? No, it is not. What, then, must "all things" include?
Until you see the "sign" of the Son of Man appear in the sky, do not listen to those who say he has already come, or is about to come.
n Matthew 24:36, Jesus said, "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." This is Jesus' plain statement that he did not know when the end of the age would come. That may seem shocking, since he was the Son of God, but nonetheless it is clear.
Accepting this point clears up a lot of confusion about chapter 24. It tells us that Jesus was not meaning to prophesy about the specific time of "the end" or of his return, since he himself did not know when it would be. Matthew 24 was to be a lesson in spiritual awareness, not awareness of world events nor a "when" prophecy. To repeat, Jesus could not have been prophesying about when "the end" would happen. How could he have, if he said he didn't know when his return would occur?
What we see in subsequent history is that Jerusalem has been the focal point of many turbulent events and times. For example, in A.D. 1099, the Christian Crusaders surrounded Jerusalem and massacred all the inhabitants. And during World War I, in 1917, British General Allenby took the city from the Turkish empire. And we are all quite aware of the central role Jerusalem and Judea continue to play in the strife between Jews and Arabs.
To summarize, Jesus told his disciples that the answer to their question about when the end would come was: "You can't know it, and not even I know it."
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/mat02.html concerning when Jesus will come back:
ReplyDeleteVerse 3 is the most important verse in this whole chapter. If you don't understand their question, you will never understand Jesus' answer. We must be sure we understand the questions.
The way many deal with these questions is a good example of how our paradigms can blind us from seeing certain truths. If, in your eschatological paradigm, you see the second coming of Christ as the end of the physical world, a cataclysmic, earth burning, total destruction of life as we now know it, you will certainly miss what Jesus is saying here.
Let's begin by looking at a verse that shatters the paradigm that views the second coming as the end of the world (2 Thessalonians 2:1-3). The Thessalonians were being deceived that the Second Coming already came!
Let me briefly remind you of what we saw last time. Throughout Matthew's gospel Jesus continually warned the Jews of their coming judgment because of their apostasy.
Jesus continues to warn them of a coming judgment because of their rejection of the Messiah. It is clear that the reference here is to Jerusalem's destruction in AD 70.
Their question was two-fold. First they ask, "when will these things be?"
The "these things" refers to the temple's destruction in verse 2.
The second part of their question is," What will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age." To help us understand the question, we need to compare all three synoptic gospels.
Comparing all three accounts shows us that the disciples considered His "coming" and "the end of the age" to be identical events with the destruction of the temple.
The sign of His coming and the end of age was the same as the "these things," which referred to the destruction of Jerusalem in the year AD 70. These are not separate questions that can be divided up into different time-events. The disciples had one thing, and only one thing, on their mind and that was the destruction of the temple. With the destruction of the temple, they connected the coming of Messiah and the end of the age.
Their main question was, "WHEN?"; and Ryrie and Walvoord say the Lord doesn't even answer it! He ignores their question about the destruction of the temple and he proceeds to talk about a far distant, 2,000 plus years, coming and end of the world. Does that make sense to you? More important, would it make sense to the disciples? I think not!
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/mat02.html (continued):
ReplyDeleteThey associated the destruction of the temple with His coming. The disciples expected Jesus to be their physical King and set up a worldly Kingdom at his First Coming (John 6:15, Luke 24:21), not at his Second Coming. So did others (John 18:36, Luke 17:20-21; 19:11). Even after the crucifixion, they still had no concept about his Second Coming, because they still thought he was going to give them the Kingdom at that time (Acts 1:6).
"If they had no idea that Jesus was going to leave them, why would they ask Him about His return?" They didn't understand anything about a second coming. You might ask, "Why did they ask, 'what will be the sign of your coming,' if they didn't think He was leaving?" Good question. The answer is in understanding the Jewish concept of the parousia. As I said, the word meant arrival or presence, and not return. It didn't refer to any future return of Christ. To the disciples the "parousia" of the son of man signified the full manifestation of His Messiahship; His glorious appearing in power. William Barclay says of parousia, "It is the regular word for the arrival of a governor into his province or for the coming of a king to his subjects. It regularly describes a coming in authority and in power."
Now, you might ask, "Why would the disciples connect the destruction of the temple with Christ's parousia?" The disciples knew the Old Testament and they knew that the destruction of Jerusalem would usher in Messiah's kingdom (Zechariah 14:1-5). In the day of the Lord, Jerusalem is destroyed and the Lord comes with his saints. Also, look at Daniel 9:26: The disciples believed that the coming of Messiah would be simultaneous with the destruction of the city and the temple.
It is not talking about the end of the physical world; the word aeon means age, era, or a period of time. The expression "end of the age" refers to "the end of the Jewish age." The disciples knew that the fall of the temple and the destruction of the city meant the end of the Old Covenant age and the inauguration of a new age.
Why didn't the Lord say the temple will be destroyed soon but the end of the age is a long way off? What Jesus did tell them was that all the things they asked about would be fulfilled in their life time (Matthew 24:34).
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/mat02.html (continued):
ReplyDeleteo the Jews, time was divided into two great periods, the Mosaic Age and the Messianic Age. The Messiah was viewed as one who would bring in a new world. The period of the Messiah was, therefore, correctly characterized by the Synagogue as "the world to come." All through the New Testament we see two ages in contrast: "This age" and the "age to come." The understanding of these two ages and when they changed is fundamental to interpreting the Bible. Most Christians believe that most all of the New Testament prophecies deal with a time future to us. When they read in the New Testament the words "the age to come," they think of a yet future age. But the New Testament writers were referring to the Christian age. We live in what was to them the "age to come," the New Covenant age.
The world has already lasted longer since the incarnation than the whole duration of the Mosaic economy, from the exodus to the destruction of the temple. Jesus was manifest at the end of the Jewish age. Peter says the same thing (1 Peter 1:20). Jesus came during the last days of the age that was the Old Covenant age, the Jewish age. That age came to an end with the destruction of the temple in AD 70. All the things prophesied by Jesus in Matthew 24 occurred at the end of that age. Nothing is taught in the Bible about a millennial age.
The Bible talks about "this age"-- the Old Covenant age, and the "age to come"-- the New Covenant age. The millennium was the time of transition between "this age" -the Old Covenant age, and the "age to come"- the NOW present New Covenant age.
We are no longer under the Old Covenant, we live in the Messianic age of the New Covenant. The age we live in will never end, it is an everlasting age (Hebrews 13:20). The Bible doesn't teach about an age future to us. The age in which we live is the everlasting age of the New Covenant.
F.C. Cook in his commentary says this, "From the form of the question we may infer that two separate events, the destruction of the temple, and the final coming of Christ at the end of the world, were closely connected together in the minds of the disciples. The popular belief of the Jews at this time seems to have been that the coming of the Messiah would be simultaneous with the destruction of the city and temple". Cook sees them as two separate events but admits that the disciples didn't. I think he sees them as separate because his paradigm of the Second coming blinds him.
My 2 cents on the previous article:
ReplyDeleteThe previous article seems to say that there is no millennium period and that all of Matthew 24 is about the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D.
This is not a normal belief of most Evangelicals.
http://www.bible.ca/ef/expository-matthew-24.htm concerning the end of the age:
ReplyDeleteThe teachings of Jesus recorded in Matthew 24 are commonly misapplied by people in the denominational world.
The Jews had killed God's people in the past. Though this current generation though they were above such misdeeds, Jesus state that they would continue to kill righteous people. They were not above the misdeeds of their forefathers, they were just as guilty. The punishment for killing God's people would fall upon this very generation.
This is a shocking statement to those who had been expecting a rebirth of the Jewish nation! He stated the temple would be destroyed to the point that not one stone would be left upon another. Now to the Jews, such a destruction of the temple could only mean the end of Jerusalem, their nation, and the world. When they had a private moment with Jesus, they asked him three questions: 1) When will these things happen? 2) What will be the sign of your coming? 3) What will be the sign of the end of the age?
As we read through the gospels, we are struck with the fact that Jesus often answers the actual question asked and not the question the person thought they were asking. His answer to his disciple's questions is no different. To the disciples, all three questions dealt with the same event, but Jesus' answer shows there are two events being asked about. In Matthew 24:4-34, he answers the question about the end of Jerusalem. In Matthew 24:36-25:46, he addresses the topic of the end of the world.
Jesus warns his disciples that the destruction of Jerusalem would be soon. The times leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem would be unusual. There would be an increase in the number of wars, famines, and earthquakes (Matthew 24:6-8). The persecution of the disciples would also increase (Matthew 24:9-13). These predictions have been supported by historians of the time period between A.D. 50 and A.D. 70, when Jerusalem was destroyed.
In addition to general signs, Jesus gives his disciples specific signs to watch for which would tell them that the destruction of Jerusalem would be soon. Before Jerusalem would be destroyed, the gospel would be preached to the whole world (Matthew 24:14). Paul stated this was accomplished in Colossians 1:23. Just prior to the destruction, the "abomination of desolation," which Daniel prophesied, would take place. In Luke's account of these same matters, Jesus said that the Roman army would surround Jerusalem just prior to the desolation (Luke 21:20). Josephus speaks of a tyrant, named Simon, who slew the priests "as they were about their sacred duties... many persons, who came thither with great zeal from the ends of the earth, to offer sacrifices at this celebrated place... fell down before their own sacrifices themselves, and sprinkled that altar... with their own blood; till the dead bodies of strangers were mingled together with those of their own country, and those of profane persons with those of the priests, and the blood of all sorts of dead carcases stood in lakes in the holy courts themselves." This happened just prior to Titus marching on Jerusalem.
These signs would give those who paid heed to them plenty of advance warning (Matthew 24:32-33). When they saw the signs, Jesus urges his followers to flee Jerusalem as fast as they possibly could (Matthew 24:16-22). According to traditional history, Christians heeded their master and not one Christian perished in the destruction of Jerusalem.
http://www.bible.ca/ef/expository-matthew-24.htm (continued):
ReplyDeleteThe destruction prophesied, while severe, was limited only to Jerusalem and the nation of Israel (Matthew 23:25; 24:1-2). Descriptive terms are used to show the severity of this destruction which are similar to the terms used for the destruction of Babylon (Isaiah 13:9-11, Joel 2:10) and of Egypt (Isaiah 11:12; 19:1).
Jesus now moves to a new topic, concerning when the end of the world will take place. Unlike the end of Jerusalem, the time for the end of the world is not known even Jesus did not know when the end will be (Matthew 24:36). Notice that Jesus calls this event "that day." This is the same phrase used by Paul (I Thessalonians 5:2) and Peter (II Peter 3:10-13) in regard to the end of the world.
The end of Jerusalem would be preceded by unusual events, but at the end of the age, the times will appear to be normal (Matthew 24:37-39). Paul said people would be thinking content thoughts of peace and safety (I Thessalonians 5:3). Nothing unusual would precede the end. No warnings, no signs, nothing to mark the event in advance.
Without advance warning, there is no possibility of preparing for the end at the last moment. Therefore, we must be prepared for the event to happen at any time (Matthew 24:42-45; I Thessalonians 5:4-11). Nor will there be an opportunity to hide from this event (Matthew 24:40-41; I Thessalonians 5:3). This will be a universal judgment (Matthew 25:31-46), whom no one can escape.
Compare the two halves of Jesus' answer to his disciples:
Destruction of Jerusalem Matthew 23:36-24:35
1. The time is identifiable.
2. It will occur in "this generation."
3. The events prior will be unusual.
4. There will be advance warnings.
5. The example of the fig tree.
6. The judgment will be local on the nation of Israel.
7. Specific signs of the coming judgment can be seen.
8. There will be time to escape the judgment.
Destruction of the World Matthew 24:36-25:46
1. The time is unknown.
2. It will happen on "that day."
3. The events prior will be typical.
4. There will be no warning
5. The example of the thief.
6. The judgment will be universal.
7. No advance sign of the end.
8. There will be no time for flight.
Too often, people mix the events from the destruction of Jerusalem with the events dealing with the end of the world. This leads people to believe they can predict the end of the world, even though Jesus clearly states that there will be no warning. You will not know years, months, weeks, or even days in advance of Jesus' return. You will not have a chance to make last minute preparations. You must be prepared for the master to return at any moment. Are you ready?
My 2 cents on people coming in Jesus name to deceive:
ReplyDeleteAlthough Jesus' warning included people claiming to actually be Christ, I think it includes a lot more. It's pretty easy to see through someone actually claiming to be Christ. What is not so easy to see is people misrepresenting Christ and what He is saying.
Jesus and the apostles gave us the gospel, and told us how to remain in Christ. Sometimes, people try to add (or subtract) from that message. I think that this is also what Jesus was warning us about.
We have taken Jesus life and identity on ourselves. When we tell others to live in a certain way, we are representing Christ. When we live in a certain way, we are examples and representatives of Jesus.
People catch Jesus' character and message by watching and listening to us.
There are a couple ways in which we can misrepresent Christ:
1. We can add things to His gospel that don't belong. For example, if we say that all Christians need to vote for a certain candidate, we misrepresent Jesus. When we propose or model a certain lifestyle (or lifestyle rules), we misrepresent Christ. When we propose rules or laws that we should live by (instead of living by the Law of Christ), we misrepresent Jesus.
2. Forgetting what Jesus told us to do. When we put fear above love (of Muslims, for example), we misrepresent Jesus. When we forget to serve one another, when we put the "stuff" in our lives first, when we forget to live for Christ, we misrepresent Christ.
There's a lot of deceptive messages out there. There are a lot of deceptive "emphasis's" out there. We need to keep our devotion to Christ pure and simple or we will be deceived (and possibly deceive) too.