Patently, Matthew 24 is a pivotal text in the eschatological
debate. Amillennialists and premillennialists find little
in common here. One shared belief, however, is that
the disciples' questions reveal they mistakenly believed
Jerusalem's fall and the end of time to be synchronous.
One writer insists that while their questions indicate
two events to us, "the disciples were indeed thinking
of one stupendous event", i.e., the fall of Jerusalem.
He then says, "However, it does not follow...that they
were correct in their assumption". Such sentiments
are common. In fact, seemingly taken for granted
by the commentators is the gross misunderstanding of
Jesus' disciples and the clarity of modern comprehension!
Did the disciples misperceive Jesus' discussion? Can we
assume we are right and they wrong? This paper seeks
to challenge the current consensus which suggests the
disciples were wrong in their understanding that Messiah
would come and the world would end at the fall of Jerusalem.
What Coming? What World?
The interpretation of Matthew 24 hinges upon a proper
understanding of the questions in verse 3. Did the disciples
ask about the destruction of Jerusalem plus the end of time;
or did the disciples ask about the destruction of Jerusalem?
Were the disciples confused? Could it be that the disciples
(knowledgeable in Jewish apocalyptic) had a more perfect
understanding of what was to happen in the "end of the age"
and "day of the Lord" than we give them credit for having?
In fact, upon what basis do WE assume that the disciples
even conceived of the end of time? Have we read back
into the text our modern concepts? Could it be that the
end of the world they had in mind was the full end of the
Jewish Theocracy at the coming of Messiah in his kingdom,
Daniel 9:24-27? Space forbids us to pursue this here but
we urge the reader to study this on his own.
An Admission--A Fact
We would acknowledge that the disciples very often
misunderstood Jesus' teaching. In fact, the resurrection
is the one subject most misunderstood. See Mark 9:32,45.
They did not fathom some of his references to the Father,
John 8:27; his teaching about the sheepfold, 10:6; his
entry into Jerusalem, 12:14-16; Jesus washing their feet,
13; his relationship with the Father, 14:7ff; and the doctrine
of the Pharisees, Matthew 16:5ff. This question: How do
we know of the disciples' comprehension problems? Quite
simply, we know because the Bible tells us! In each case
cited above inspiration specifically tells us the disciples
did not understand! The writers, writing "post facto"
very candidly reflect on their own ignorance as they
write about their time with Jesus.
Another question; Where in Matthew 24 are we told
the disciples did not understand? Where does it say,
"They did not understand what they were asking"
as happened in Matthew 20:20ff? Where does it tell us
that after Jesus was glorified they understood his words
as is the case in John 2:22 and 12:14-16? Patently,
there is no verse in Matthew 24 which tells us the disciples
did not properly understand the nature of their questions
or Jesus' response!
Now, on other occasions, when the disciples did not
understand Jesus' teachings, or the significance of their
own questions, the Holy Spirit specifically tells us of
their failure to fathom. Thus, nor can we maintain they
did not understand in Matthew 24 when not one word
to that effect is stated by the writer? It is nothing less
than arbitrary assumption to state something for which
there is not one word of contextual evidence! But there
is more to consider.
Knowing Their Thoughts
Not only do the writers tell us if the disciples failed to
understand Jesus' words, they also tell us that because
Jesus knew their thoughts he corrected their error.
In Mark 8:13ff he had warned them to beware of
the leaven of the Pharisees. Not comprehending, they
reasoned among themselves. But Jesus, knowing their
thoughts, called them around and promptly corrected
their lack of understanding.
We ask again: Where in Matthew 24 is any indication that
Jesus knew the disciples were mistaken about their ideas
of the end of the age and his coming? Further, where is
a text in which we can confidently assert the disciples were
mistaken; in which Jesus did not rebuke or correct their
error; or the writers do not tell us of their failure to
understand? If the writers do not tell us the disciples
were in error how can we know? But since they often
do tell us, should not their silence about any supposed
lack of comprehension in Matthew 24 cause us to be
cautious in assigning error to the disciples?
Another Text
This widespread assumption about disciple error is present
in regard to another important text. In Acts 1:6 Jesus was
asked, "Will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?".
Most amillennial writers aver the disciples were (mistakenly)
asking Jesus to restore the old nationalistic kingdom;
and they further insist Jesus rebuked them for their error.
Closer examination will reveal disturbing discrepancies
in this theory however.
The disciples had spent three years at Jesus' feet. When
he was crucified their hopes were dashed, Luke 24:18-21.
Yet, as he appeared to two disciples we are informed Jesus
opened their eyes so they might understand the scriptures
in regard to his suffering and glorification, Luke 24:25-27.
Later, with the disciples, he "opened their understanding
that they might comprehend the scriptures", vs. 45.
For forty days after his resurrection Jesus appeared to his
disciples "speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom
of God", Acts 1:3. Can we assume that after 3 1/2 years
at Jesus' feet; after having their eyes opened to understand
the scriptures; after 40 days of intense final instructions;
the disciples did not understand about the kingdom?
How far shall we stretch our credulity?
Look close at Acts 1:6. What do the disciples ask about?
They ask about TIME! "Will you at this time restore the
kingdom?". Did Jesus rebuke their understanding about
the nature of the kingdom? Read: "It is not for you to know
the times of seasons the Father has put in His own authority",
vs. 7, (emphasis mine). They asked about time--Jesus
responded about time! Not one word of rebuke for failing
to see the truth about the nature of the kingdom!
They understood! We need to understand!
Restoration of the Kingdom
As one writer correctly notes: "...the kingdom of the gospels
is a restored kingdom" (his emphasis). The prophetess Anna,
Luke 2:36-38, said Jesus was for the "redemption of
Jerusalem". Mary was told Jesus would sit on the throne of
David, Luke 1:32-34. Yes, the kingdom was to be restored.
The millennialist fails to grasp the New Covenant teaching
about the kingdom. He fails to see that Jesus is now on
David's throne--in heaven, Acts 2:29ff. He fails to see
WHAT THE DISCIPLES HAD BEEN TAUGHT AND WHAT
THEY IN TURN TAUGHT, THAT THE CHURCH IS THE
RESTORED KINGDOM OF ISRAEL!
Peter, Acts 3, said Jesus would return after the "restoration
of all things foretold by the Old Prophets, v.21. His
emphatic words limiting that fulfillment to those days are
ignored or overlooked by the millennialist. See verse 24.
Acts 3:19-25
19) Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may
be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from
the presence of the Lord,
20) and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached
to you before,
21) whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration
of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His
holy prophets since the world began.
22) For Moses truly said to the fathers, The LORD your God
will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your brethren.
Him you shall hear in all things, whatever He says to you.
23) And it shall be that every soul who will not hear that
Prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.
24) Yes, and all the prophets, from Samuel and those who
follow, as many as have spoken, have also foretold THESE
days.
25) YOU are sons of the prophets, and of the covenant
which God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham,
And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be
blessed.
A first century crowd was being addressed there.
The events of those days were fulfilling the prophecies of
the restoration of all things. But the events of those days
were events surrounding the establishment of the church!
In Acts 15:13ff James rehearsed the conversion of the
Gentiles. He said this was in fulfillment of Amos 9:11ff
which had predicted the restoration of the "tabernacle of
David" so that Gentiles could be saved. Gentiles had been
saved, therefore the tabernacle of David has been restored.
This proves that the establishment of the church was the
"restoration of the kingdom". We believe this was in the
apostles' minds when they, after having their eyes opened
to understand the scriptures and 40 days of final instruction
asked, "Will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?".
Final Point
It might be argued that, granted in Acts 1 the disciples did
indeed properly understand, but this does not prove they
did in Matthew 24. This would be true except we have
unequivocal proof that the disciples had a better grasp of
the concept of the end of the age and coming of the Lord
than is normally granted.
In the parable of the tares, Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43 and
the correlative parables following it, 45-46, 47-52, we have
reference to the end of the age. There can be no doubt,
if we accept inspiration, that the reference to the end of
the age/world is referent to the end of the Jewish Age/world.
The key is verse 43.
Jesus said at the end of the age the Lord would send
the angels who would gather the tares and burn them,
and "then the righteous will shine forth as the stars in the
kingdom of their Father". This is a quote from Daniel 12:3.
But Daniel's vision would be "for the time of the end", vs. 9,
and would be fulfilled "when the power of the holy people
has been completely shattered", vs. 7. When was the power
of the holy people completely shattered? Without question
it was at the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. at the full end of
the Jewish polity.
Now the final point in regard to the disciples' comprehension
of these matters. After telling the parables of the tares,
pearl, and fish net, Jesus asked his disciples, "Have you
understood all these things?" (Remember now we are dealing
with matters relating to the time of the end of the age).
Did the disciples understand? Hear them: "Yes, Lord",
Matthew 13:51. The disciples did understand when Jesus
spoke of the end of the age! If they did not they lied.
If they did not and the writers by inspiration knew it,
they failed to inform us! Or are we prepared to say
that the New Testament is full of their lies, because
they didn't want to look like they didn't understand,
so that we can keep this vain idea that we're right
and they were wrong, so that we can keep our preferred
personal doctrines, while hypocritically claiming that
we hold the Bible to be the true word of God and that
we learned our doctrine from the Bible? Huh?!?
Summary--In Matthew 13 Jesus told parables concerning
the end of the age (sunteleia aionos) and his coming.
Inspiration says this was to be the time when the power
of the holy people was completely shattered, Daniel 12:7.
Asked if they understood, the disciples insisted they did.
In Matthew 24, Jesus consigned the city to destruction.
His disciples, in response to his prediction, asked about
the end of the age (sunteleias tou aionos).
Now since we know the disciples understood about the end
of the age in Matthew 13, and that it referred to Judaism's
demise, how can we insist they did not understand in Matthew
24 where the subject is that very demise? Had they forgotten?
It is easy, 2000 years removed from the scene, to insist the
disciples were guilty of an "appalling lack of understanding",
especially when we don't want to admit that maybe it's us
who's wrong. But as we have seen, when they were guilty
of such, the Bible tells us. In Matthew 24 we are not told
they misunderstood. On the contrary, we are told (Matthew 13)
they did understand in matters directly related to the subject
of Matthew 24.
Since the disciples did not lack understanding as has
been generally assumed, it is easy to correlate the parallel
passages of Mark 13 and Luke 21 with Matthew 24. In
those texts it is patent they asked only about the fall of
Jerusalem. An insistence that in Matthew 24 the disciples
did not understand the issues at hand forces one to
manipulate the Markan and Lukan texts to fit modern
assumptions. Acceptance of the disciples' comprehension
allows us to avoid artificial and untenable interpretations
of Matthew 24. It then becomes a singular discourse about
the Parousia of Jesus at the full end of the Jewish Age.
Based on the Biblical evidence it seems to this scribe that
it is not the disciples who have been guilty of an "appalling
lack of understanding."
--
Pastor Dave
People are so afraid to reject doctrine, that they just
don't give a damn what the Bible actually says! Sad!
.
|
