First off, what is “eschatology”? “Eschatology” means the study of “last things”. Christians hold a very wide variety of eschatological views. One point of divergence (and a convenient starting point) is the Millennium, mentioned in Revelation 20:1-10. Catholics and some Protestants (e.g. Lutherans) hold to the Amillennial (No Millennium) view of end times, which sees that 1000 years as symbolic (of what, I honestly don't know), in which at some point in time Jesus returns and the final judgment follows. The Post-Millennial view is that at some point in time the church somehow gets its act together, prevails in the world by persuasion (not force or violence), rules the Earth for 1000 years, and then Jesus returns. The Pre-Millennial view understands the 1000 years of Revelation 20 to be a literal future time period, before which Jesus would return for believers and then the Earth for 1000 years. The Pre-, Mid- and Post-Tribulation views are variants of the Pre-Millennial view and refer to a period of some 7 years immediately before the start of the Millennium, called the Great Tribulation. These three variants differ on whether Jesus returns for believers before, some time in the middle of, or after the Great Tribulation. Personally, I'm Pan-Millennial and Pan-Tribulation - I know it all pans out in the end. Joking aside, while I'm most familiar with the Pre-Tribulation view, I really don't hold solidly to it or any specific other view. While I'm inclined to see the Millennium as an literal future event, I must admit that I don't see what the point of the Millennium would be. OTOH, I don't see a critical need to know, and maybe that is the reason relatively little is said in Scripture of the Millennium.
At this point, I do not believe that Israel's restoration in 1948 is relevant to the timing of Jesus' return, other than that the restoration would necessarily precede Jesus' return. I do believe Israel's restoration was prophesied (whether it was fully accomplished in 1948 is another question). A Gospel passage commonly cited during discussions of eschatology generally and with reference to Israel's restoration specifically is the so-called Olivet Discourse, found in Matthew 24 and 25. The time-place-event context for this teaching by Jesus is: a day or two after Palm Sunday; Jesus had just gone through a couple of days of teaching, challenges from the Jewish Powers That Be (PTBs) and chewing out those same PTBs. While our traditional chapter-and-verse divisions were not part of the original Greek texts of New Testament books (possibly a 16th Century creation), Matthew 24 and 25 do form a single context. It begins as Jesus and His disciples are leaving the Jerusalem temple complex and the disciples were pointing out to Him the magnificence of the buildings (verse 1). Jesus responded with a prophecy (verse 2) of the destruction of the temple (which, as we know, happened some 40 years later). When they arrived at the Mount of Olives the disciples asked Jesus (verse 3), “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?” The rest of chapter 24 and 25 is Jesus' response. Here are verses 1-3, from the ESV (as are other verses I quote in this post):
Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered them, "You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down."
As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?"
The disciples probably thought their question concerned a single time period. The temple had, for their lifetimes, been at the center of their personal-religious worlds. Whether or not my guess about their thinking is correct, we now know that the destruction of the temple and Jesus' return are widely separated in time. While it is true that, “concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only,” (verse 36) I think it very probable that Jesus did know the two events would not be around the same time. Thus 24:4-35 appears principally to be His answer to, “(W)hen will these things be?” And 24:36-51 appears to be His answer to, “(W)hat will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?” The division between answers to the two questions is not quite that neatly clear-cut, though. Chapter 25 is a series of three parables whose primary focus seems to be admonitions to be ready for His return and to use our time wisely. As far as I can see, there is no prophecy of nor a reference or allusion to Israel being restored in Matthew 24 or 25.
The phrase “this generation” – given particular significance in Pre-Tribulation teaching – is in Matthew 24:34, the section of Jesus' response that mainly pertains to warnings of sign of the upcoming destruction of the temple. I think Jesus' use of the word “this” is significant. The adjective “this” means something that is immediately at hand, actually present; I think that had Jesus meant to indicate a generation in the distant future, he would have used the adjective “that”. Another clue pointing to immediate relevance (i.e., relevance to the disciples in their time) is back in the first verse of Jesus' response:
And Jesus answered them, "See that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and they will lead many astray. And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet.
The “you” whom Jesus is addressing (used 3 times) at that moment is the disciples. Many of them would still be alive and leading the church when the temple would be destroyed. They are the ones Jesus warns not to be led astray (twice!) and not to be alarmed. Jesus spoke to an immediate need – one we now know was some 40 years in the future – not of a distant future event that would not be not relevant to the disciples.
In saying above, “As far as I can see, there is no prophecy of nor a reference or allusion to Israel being restored in Matthew 24 or 25,” I am well aware that there is verse 24:32, which some claim refers to a restored Israel by way of a symbol. In its context:
From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.
Those who see Israel in verse 32 claim the fig tree is a symbol for Israel. If you search on “fig” in the Old Testament in a concordance you will find figs and fig trees were used literally, metaphorically and as symbols. But never as a symbol denoting the nation Israel. Consequently, Jesus' disciples would not from their Scripture training have understood “fig tree” in Matthew 24:32 to mean the nation Israel. How, then, would they have understood the metaphor? First Century Israel was an agrarian society. Jesus' disciples very likely would have had friends and customers who were farmers and orchardists. Even town- and city-dwelling Jews would have had some understanding of agriculture. So, Jesus used an agricultural analogy they would understand: a fig tree does certain things that point to the coming of summer. Similarly, certain signs, verses 4-31, would indicate the impending conquest of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple.
What about the “apocalyptic language” Jesus used in verses 4-31? We think of “apocalyptic” in terms of the book of Revelation and the “end of the world”. But what we think of as “apocalyptic language” was familiar language to Jews of Jesus' time. Jewish prophets used clouds, trumpets and the like as metaphors in predictions of judgments such as the conquest of Israel (the northern kingdom) by Assyria and the conquest of Judah by Babylon. So Jesus' disciples would have understood the “apocalyptic language” Jesus used to mean catastrophic judgment (e.g. the Babylonian conquest, which ended the kingdom of Judah but not the entire world), but they would not automatically think He meant world-ending judgment.
Looking at the “apocalyptic language” Jesus used from a historical perspective, the conquest of Israel and Jerusalem and destruction of the temple really were horrible, catastrophic. I highly recommend that Christians read the works of Flavius Josephus, which cover this time and much else of interest (I found his picture of Herod the Great particularly informative, if horrifying). This war lasted some 7 years (AD 66-73) and had its denouement in the falls of Jerusalem and the Masada. Josephus estimates that well over a million people were killed in putting down this Jewish revolt – most of them Jews – and over 100K were enslaved (flooding the empire's slave market) or dispersed around the Roman Empire. I do not mean to diminish the Holocaust in any way, but proportionally, in the context of the Roman world, these 7 years were worse than the Holocaust. And at the very same time, the Roman Empire experienced a horrible upheaval known as the Year of the Four Emperors. The Twelve Caesars by Suetonius includes a very readable account of this painful time in Roman history. The life and integrity of the Roman Empire literally hung by a thin thread for an entire year! To sum up, if Jesus' “apocalyptic language” in 24:4-31 seems disproportionate to the time of the destruction of the temple, the disproportion is in our knowledge of history, not Jesus' words and the context of that time.
Looking more closely at some verses in Matthew 24:4-31 that some say (I am paraphrasing arguments I've seen made) refer to a restored Israel rather than the church:
Matthew 24:11, 24 – The warning against “false prophets” is particularly relevant to Jews, whose Scriptures contain the writings of many prophets. Since the church also had prophets – e.g. Romans 12:6, 1 Corinthians 12:10, 28-29, much of 1 Corinthians 14, Ephesians 4:11, the prophet Agabus (Acts 11:28, 21:10) and Philip's daughters (Acts 21:9) – false prophets would be a very real and immediate concern to the church. See also 1 Thessalonians 5:20-21, "Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good," in which Paul instructs the church at Thessalonica that prophecies should be both respected and tested.
Matthew 24:15 – This would have significance to Jews, as they had and will have a temple with a Holy Place, while Christians are the temple of the Holy Spirit. On the other hand if this passage is part of a warning of the impending destruction of the then-standing temple, Christian believers would understand this as referring to a very familiar familiar place in Jerusalem.
Matthew 24:20 – Not fleeing on the Sabbath would only be relevant to observant Jews. If, as I believe correct, this passage is part of a warning of the impending destruction of the temple, this also would be a familiar concept to Christian believers living in and about Jerusalem, many of whom were Jewish and observant of the Jewish Law.
Matthew 24:30 – The word “tribes” in this verse refers to Israel. The New Testament does not use the word “tribes” in reference to Gentiles. Using BibleStudyTools.com, I did a search on the Greek word translated "tribes". It is used 23 times in the New Testament, and usually does refer to Israel. However, the Greek word is used 5 times, in Revelation 1:7, 5:9, 11:9, 13:7, 14:6, to refer to all peoples. So the idea that the word in the New Testament only refers to Israel is incorrect. Going further, the context for each usage specifies to whom the word refers. If one or more tribe of Israel is intended, Israel or the particular tribe(s) are specifically mentioned. And in the context of Matt. 24:30? The verse says, "all the tribes of the earth." Unless the context indicates that hyperbole is used – not the case here – “all” means “all”. So the verse itself contradicts the idea that “tribes” only refers to Israel.
At the least, I think these verses are as consistent with a warning of the impending conquest of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple as with an end-times prophecy referring a future Jewish nation and temple. In the context of verses Matthew 24:1-3, I think it much more likely that verses 4-31 are principally a warning of the impending conquest of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple.
In closing this post I need to state clearly that I am no expert in eschatology. I don't hold to a specific eschatological view. I am just “a certain disciple” trying to understand what a particular passage of Scripture has to say. I invite and urge anyone who reads this to read and endeavor to understand Matthew 24 for themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment