I preached the first of two apocalyptic sermons at Foothills Church in Stayton. It was on Matthew 24, done on the 10th anniversary of 9/11! Just before I left to preach the sermon, I read DA Carson’s New Bible Commentary which gave me a different and better perspective on 24:29-35. Now, mind you, this is in the final moments of getting everything into my head, days after the Power Point and sermon outline went in. And now a key interpretation changes!
Matthew 24 is Jesus answering the disciples questions: when will the Temple be destroyed and what will be the signs of Your coming? Jesus begins by telling them there will be many terrors — false messiahs, wars, hostilities, famines, earthquakes â€“ but donâ€™t give in to deception or fear for that sort of thing will typify the whole time. It is not the end of the age or the failure of Jesus (though it may be the failure of the religion, Christianity). In all these things, the gospel will be proclaimed and the kingdom will be real even if like yeast. Then He gives signs of the destruction of the Temple â€“ the arrival of the abomination which turns out to be Titus. There are recognizable signs of this and Christians are warned to get out of town, which they did in 66 AD. Those are the days of terrible tribulation.
I thought verse 29 began speaking of the second question, the coming of Jesus with cosmic signs, leading up to â€œthis generation will not pass away before all these things happen.â€ This is very difficult since Jesus did not come back in that generation. But Carson took me to what I have dedicated myself to: interpret NT symbols by how they are used in the OT. He observes that the language of sun darkening and stars falling comes from Isaiah 13 and 34. There it speaks of the fall of Babylon not the end of the times. The Son of Man language of v. 30 is from Daniel 7 where it is anointing of Messiah rather than the second coming of Messiah. Using that perspective means that the section from 29-35 is speaking to the change from God meeting humans at the Jerusalem Temple to the Him meeting us in One greater than the Temple, i.e., Jesus. The long promised New Covenant is inaugurated, Messiah is anointed King and Messiah, and the time of the Jerusalem Temple is ended. The language uses powerful images from the OT to help us see that change which is typified by the destruction of the Temple is â€œcosmicâ€!
That means the generation of verse 34 is the people listening to Him as He speaks the prophecy. It is about the time of the destruction of the Temple. There are signs of that event which actually comes less than 35 years later, just as Jesus said.
Verse 36 begins speaking of the second coming, referred to specifically as the parousia in verse 37. Unlike the destruction of the Temple, there are no signs of that event. Even Jesus, in His incarnate state where He has laid aside the use of His divine powers to live as a perfectly Spirit filled human, does not know. It is like a thief in the night. We are ready not because we have some magic decoder ring to predict the date, but because we are doing the consistent work of living and declaring the reality of the kingdom.
The second is on the whole book of Revelation in a single sermon. A bit of a task.
Really interesting read! I just opened up Logos and read through the New Bible Commentary and notice that Carson admits that Matt. 24:21 would be an exaggeration (hyperbole?).
I’m not sure I’m convinced that v.21 (or it’s corresponding Dan. 12:1) can be so quickly reduced to Jewish hyperbole. What do you think?
I certainly agree that the Olivet Discourse is often filtered to be completely futuristic and that a lot of the obvious context points to 1st century fulfillment…
Morris’ Pillar commentary notes that extreme language by writing, “This is underlined with the information that it will be of a magnitude unparalleled in the entire history of the world; such trouble has never been, nor will it be equalled thereafter” (p.605) with a footnote acknowledging that the Greek has multiple piled up negatives. Blomberg seems to agree (New American) and seems to indicate the “telescopic” fulfillment view.
What do you think about how v.21 fits into the interpretation?
Loved this post though… thanks for it!