By: K. B. Napier

Matthew 24

In Matthew 24, do we have Jesus’ description of a far future event, or a near future event? I will not pretend that this text is easy to interpret, but here are some thoughts...

Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, just outside Jerusalem. He had just told his disciples that Jerusalem would be torn down, stone by stone, and this, of course, actually happened less than forty years after Jesus’ death and resurrection.

Now, are we to understand this text in the light of this? That is, when the disciples came to Him privately, was His answer for them specifically, or was it a kind of universal answer to be applied to all peoples in any age? This is an important question (if the question itself is valid, of course), for those who wish to confirm or deny the existence of a future, special, ‘tribulation’ period.

The disciples asked a question that, to us non-Jews many centuries later, could be put thus: “What clues will we be given to tell us you have returned? And, how will we know the end of the world has come?” Are these two separate questions, or are they linked in a way not obvious to us because we were not there?

It is my personal conclusion that Jesus was talking specifically to the disciples at this point, and that He was referring partly to events that would come to them in their own lifetimes and, partly to far future events. This is by no means my definite conclusion, for unlike brethren who are easily able to say the answer ‘must’ be one or the other, I cannot give such an answer. Therefore, any conclusion I come to must be regarded as tentative. The theories set out by many theologians have not convinced me, yet!

The Path Affects Outcome

If I take the path that Jesus was telling the disciples what would happen in their lifetime, then the first part of the chapter makes a lot of sense. In verse 4 we have Jesus talking to ‘you’...this I take to mean the disciples and not ‘you’ in the generic sense, applied to anybody in any age.

If this is the case, then the many false Christ’s must have been selling their wares to the young Church between about 33AD and 70AD (and still do). In verse 6 Jesus’ words seem to be aimed only at the disciples (to whom He was talking face to face), for He says ‘ye’ shall hear...and ‘see that ye...’ are not troubled. This is very specific to the disciples. And if this is so, the rest of the text must obviously refer to events in their own lifetime, and not to a far future tribulation. Thus, the ‘tribulation’ was right on their doorstep, ready to be unleashed on the entire Jewish nation. And that is exactly what happened, for the Jews lost their homeland and were spread over all the earth like dust. To a Jew, this would indeed be the ‘end of the world’. That Jesus was talking about the Temple is clear, so the link is not fantasy.

If the above path of supposition is correct, then the overall national upheavals also took place at that time, plus the famines, etc. Perhaps historical data can supply the facts on that, but I am only going by the direct sense (as I perceive it) of the scriptural text.

Taking the same path, the ‘you’ who shall be afflicted and who shall be killed and hated (verse 9) must refer to the disciples...and we know that many were martyred ‘for my name’s sake’.

End of a Condition, Not of Time

False prophets would come along after these disciples had been dealt with, leading to apostasy and loss of brotherly love (as is also happening today). Then comes Jesus’ declaration that the Gospel would be preached to everyone before the ‘end’. Now, we must interpret the word according to the text, so this means the end of an act or state. It does not, in this text at least, refer to the end of time itself.

In which case, the ‘end’ spoken of here is not the end of the world referred to in later texts. Rather, it refers to the end of the current condition e.g. if we relate it to what Jesus was talking about, then it had to be about the end of the troubles (‘condition’) to be experienced by the Jews before the destruction of Jerusalem. The purpose or aim of the period (the chastisement of the Jewish people) would be fulfilled. Thus, the ‘abomination of desolation’ spoken of by Daniel would be the destruction of Jerusalem, which confirms that the period Jesus was talking about was that period following His death and within the lifetimes of his disciples.

Verse 15 appears to support this interpretation, for it begins ‘When ye therefore shall see...’. Remember, Jesus was talking face to face with his disciples, so ‘ye’ were the disciples. This is reinforced geographically also – ‘Then’, (i.e. following this awful event, the fall of Jerusalem) ‘let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains...’.

The problem I have with treating all this as a far future event is that such words would need to be interpreted figuratively, whereas the preceding words are given literally.

The text, then, speaks of the disciples in Judaea, and the mountains in the proximity of that geographical area....not of the whole world.; there are very few mountains in Australia, for example! No, just as David fled to the mountains and deserts to hide, so the Jews would have to flee and hide in the same places to escape the onslaught of a murderous Roman army. Such advice is quite conducive with the area and the era. The urgency of this very practical advice is extended in to the following verses, 17 – 20. Jesus then warns that if they flee in winter, or on the sabbath day, they would have even more trouble.

The Crux of the Matter

We now reach the crux of this path of interpretation...verse 21. ‘For then shall be great tribulation...’. That is, ‘after those things have occurred, the real persecution will begin!’. Evidently, then, the days following the destruction of Jerusalem (if this is still the sense of the text) would bring immense danger, trials and death, to the fleeing Jews. After all, where, in a Roman dominated world, could they hide successfully for any length of time?

As if that were not enough, it seems that in their panic many would say that Christ had returned and could be found in such and such a place. And many would try to deceive by showing supposed signs and wonders. I have already warned you about this, said Jesus (verses 23 – 25).

That this is in the disciples’ lifetime can be deduced from verse 26, where, again, we have the personal pronoun ‘you’ and ‘go not forth’...these are references to an immediate person and action.

The verses up to this juncture appear, then, to support the idea that Jesus is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem. But then, as a summation of His warning, Jesus inserts a ‘clue’ as to the real second coming of Himself...’For as the lightning...so shall the coming of the Son of man be.’ We can note that Jesus does not link the disciples with this declaration, by saying ‘ye shall see me coming’, etc. It appears to be a declaration that stands alone. He has already told them that Jerusalem would be destroyed and gave timely advice about that event.

Then, he tells them that false Christs would arise and the brethren would be pulled this way and that, by people who would claim Jesus had returned. Then, in verse 27, Jesus says...’By contrast, my second coming will be so sudden, no-one will have the chance to blink, let alone prepare!’ Such a form of argumentation is quite Hebraic – where points are given and then summarised, to be followed by a similar structure of argument, again summarised, and so on.  (Sometimes, the summary comes first). Of course, this is based on a particular path of interpretation, which seems reasonable up to this verse (and, maybe, beyond).

No Easy conclusion!

Now, (assuming the verity of the path taken) in verse 28, is Jesus then returning to His discourse about the fall of Jerusalem...or is He now talking about the ‘end of the world’? As I have said before, it is far from easy to tackle this matter!

I ask this because the description in verse 29 can be either literal or figurative. If literal, it would have to refer to the actual end of the whole world, for such signs would hardly go unnoticed! But if figurative – and the language certainly can bear such an interpretation – then the verse is merely an Hebraic expression used to describe a great destruction of the people and homeland. The terms used would have been typical of usual Hebrew expression.

But, then comes the most difficult part – verses 30 and 31. Here we see Jesus coming in the clouds, with trumpet sounds and angels, gathering His elect! Yet, He also adds (verse 34) that ‘This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled’. The crucial word here is ‘generation’...does it mean the generation of the disciples, or the ‘generation’ of all life?

Up to verse 30, we could easily interpret the text as referring to the destruction of Jerusalem, without a single doubt. But verses 30 and 31 appear to be rather different (‘appear’ being the operative word).

Of course, if we look at the whole text as containing a division between Jesus’ warning of the coming disaster of the destruction of Jerusalem and His description of His second coming, perhaps we can divide the text beginning at verse 26...’Wherefore’, or ‘knowing all this, bear in mind that all talk of me being found in this or that place will be false...now, this is how I will return...’. Then, from that verse, He gives a description of how He will return in the far future.

Some say that the reference to the ‘carcase’ and the ‘eagle’ could be another Hebraic expression...’carcase’ meaning the fallen Jerusalem and ‘eagle’ meaning the emblem of the Roman empire. On the other hand, if we put it in to a wider context, it can simply mean that evil men will gather when they think all is lost and Christian faith is dead! Either suggestion is possible.

What I am saying is, that the various stances taken by theologians are all supposition, just as some of this article is supposition. This is a clear indication that no-one seems to have the final answer. Maybe this portion of scripture is deliberately kept vague, so that we do not improperly determine the time of His coming? I do not know! Nor does anyone else.

Which Path is Correct?

If we take the path of two distinct descriptions in one text, then we might interpret the ensuing verses, to the end, as being a description of the second coming. Even so, note that the idea of one being taken and the other left (e.g. verses 40 and 41) do not necessarily mean that there is a lapse of time. It could just be meaning that people will be separated, emphasising the difference between the saved and the unsaved.

What we can definitely say, is that there will be ‘tribulation’ before Jesus comes. But, it takes a big speculative jump to suggest that this tribulation will be ‘special’, something other than intensified persecution against Christians...an extension of what has been happening ever since the Christian Church began. If this is so, then the ‘tribulation’ will just be a worsening of persecution that already exists, with all people’s remaining on this earth. Then, suddenly and without warning, will come the actual end, with Jesus arriving with His angels and a great and obvious commotion. Note that Christians have known ‘tribulation’ since the time of Christ.

Where we read of this second coming there is the firm description of an event that is swift and final. This appears to be followed by an equally swift judgement and then the separation of people in to either heaven or hell. Thus, for me, there is no 1000 year reign at all, even though many Christians think this will occur.

I may be wrong – but thus far, even the best of theologians have not agreed on what will happen, so I never bother to argue the case. For me the most important factor is the one given by Jesus – seeing as how we do not know when He will come again, we ought to live pure lives, as though He was coming the very next moment.

Do I detect the wry smile of God in all this, as He watches us scrabble on earth to impose our own ideas on to a waiting public?

Tribulation Follows Faithfulness

Tribulation is the lot of all Believers who live in purity. This is spoken of in scripture and is a promise to all who are of Christ. Yet, God will bring comfort and His presence to those who believe and remain faithful to the end. That this ‘tribulation’ ought, perhaps, to be seen as a usual part of every Christian’s life, and may be what Jesus was referring to, can be seen in John’s words: ‘I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation...’ (Revelation 1:9). That is, John had evidently been suffering persecution in his lifetime, as did his brethren.

No doubt, all actively loyal, faithful, Christians, will suffer the same persecution or ‘tribulation’, so there will not be a specially set-apart time in history for some kind of different activity...as time progresses, so the persecution will increase, that is all.  For example, the angel talking to the church at Smyrna, was talking to an actual church of the time. The letter of Revelation would have been read by that church in the time of John. The angel was to pass on the words of Jesus – that the Smyrnan church was poor and was suffering persecution, but that Jesus knew and would uphold them. So, this was ‘tribulation’ in their own lifetime.

We cannot be sure what ‘ten days’ means in this text, but we can be sure that they occurred in the lifetime of the Christians at Smyrna. I have heard preachers liken the churches mentioned in Revelation to future churches, making them ‘types’. But, we have no real evidence that John was writing about ‘types’. The evidence suggests actual churches that existed at the time. So, the messages for them were not meant to be taken as futuristic.

As for the people who ‘came out of great tribulation’ (Revelation 7:14), well, there is no need to force a particular theology upon them. Why can it not simply mean, those who suffered intense persecution, possibly to martyrdom? This is a reasonable way to look at it. There is no need to insert some kind of spectacular event called ‘THE tribulation’ on them that is separate from every day life. One could do so – but I am saying that there is no need to. If we read these texts without the supposed ‘benefit’ of particular theological stances, then we come to rather different conclusions.

Do Not Be ‘Driven’

Some are driven to dot every ‘i’ and cross every ‘t’. This can lead to much anxiety and even shunning of the brethren. Why not, then, admit that some texts cannot be fathomed fully, and leave it at that? I love to study God’s word but there is something anomalous about being driven to fill in ‘gaps’ we think are there!

For myself, I am content to acknowledge that I do not have all the answers. Nor can I honestly make certain texts ‘fit’ any preconceived meaning derived from a particular stance. I do not care if this or that stance is ‘mainstream’ evangelical theology or not – what matters is that we remain true to God’s word alone, even if we have not yet reached a final conclusion. That is my humble view.

I have said it before – whilst the idea of persecution is daunting and the end of the world is so awful that we cannot possibly know what it will be like, it makes no difference to my faith. It is a factual statement made by Jesus about the ultimate end of this world. I cannot alter that, nor can I alter the conditions that lead up to it. It is my task – as Jesus commands – to preach to all people and to remain faithful. Only by looking back on an event prophesied that has come to pass can we really determine its fullest meaning.

That is how I see the matter of tribulation. It is only when we are in heaven that we will know the real and full meaning of ‘tribulation’. And even then, such meaning will be couched in terms of testing and purification, and not in terms of suffering, blood and tears. Thus, I am not driven to dot every ‘i’ or cross every ‘t’, when the texts themselves have meanings I do not yet know. May I recommend the same attitude to my brethren?.

Bible Theology Ministries

© October 2000

PO Box 415, SWANSEA  SA5 8YH

Wales

United Kingdom

Make a Donation to support the work of Bible Theology Ministries

info@christiandoctrine.net

www.christiandoctrine.net