Matthew 10:23

“But when they persecute you in this city, flee into the next, for truly I say to you, You will not have gone through (literally ‘finished') the towns of Israel, till the Son of man be come.”

The disciples are not to allow persecution to depress them, rather they are to see it as a spur driving them on. The principle is clear. Where a whole city is against them they are to move on to the next. For the task is so great, and the labourers are so few, and there are so many towns to be reached, that they will not have covered all that need to be covered prior to the ‘coming' of the Son of Man. It should here be noted that the emphasis of the words is not on the coming of the Son of Man, but on the urgency and size of the task ahead. It is a never ending one which will never be fully accomplished, and one in which the most fruitful opportunities must be taken, while on the other hand the dogs must not be given what is holy, and pearls must not be cast before swine.

Note especially Jesus' command not to invite persecution. They are if possible to flee from it. Not because they are cowards but because they are thinking of what is best for the spreading of the truth (compare how Jesus also knew how to strategically withdraw - Matthew 12:15; Matthew 14:13; Matthew 15:21; Matthew 4:12). Many a Christian has died in persecution who should have fled and lived, just as many have lived (by renouncing Christ) who should have died. Some have stood and bravely faced martyrdom because they felt that their position required it of them. It encouraged the flock who might have been devastated by desertion. And in many cases they were right. The balance is a fine one, but we must ever remember that Jesus did teach us to pray, ‘do not lead me into testing' (Matthew 6:13). Courting persecution for its own sake is not godly. Accepting it humbly and with joy when it necessarily comes is extremely godly. Then we should ‘rejoice and be exceedingly glad' (Matthew 5:11). (Although in the end our judgments on others in this regard, once their decision is made, should be left to God. He guides some in one way and some in another. None, however, should actually seek persecution).

This ‘difficult' verse has been interpreted in a number of ways, although the principle behind it is clear, and the main difficulty rests on the meaning of the words ‘until the Son of Man comes'. But this must certainly be seen in the light of the context (as revealed by the chiasmus) where there is a great emphasis on heavenly realities (Matthew 10:26; Matthew 10:32) and on eternal judgment (Matthew 10:26; Matthew 10:28), and on man's accountability to the Father in Heaven, where the ‘confession' or denial by the Son will be so important to every one (Matthew 10:32). This suggests that ‘Son of Man' must therefore be seen in this ‘heavenly' context. With that in mind we must now ask ourselves, what does ‘the coming of the Son of Man' refer to?

* One possibility is that ‘the Son of Man' is the equivalent of ‘I'. Compare its use in Matthew 8:20; Matthew 16:13 where He is simply referring to Himself by the title, although undoubtedly with the humiliation that the Son of Man (and Servant) must suffer in view. Thus on this view He would be saying, ‘I am sending you out and will not be with you for a while, for I also am going out to preach (Matthew 11:1), but I will shortly come to you again, and you can be sure that that will be long before you have been able to cover all the towns in Israel who are open to receiving you, even if you move quickly from one to the other. Do not therefore be held up by towns who are unwilling to listen to you, but go on to those who will welcome you, for you will certainly not have time even then to cover them all'. This view is strongly supported by the fact that up to this point Matthew has only depicted Jesus as speaking of ‘the Son of Man' as Himself as One Who is present on earth (Matthew 8:20; Matthew 9:6). But it does ignore the stress on the heavenly in the context.

* Some think that in these words He is seeing ahead to the fact that Galilee and Israel as a whole will not have been fully evangelised before the invasion of Palestine and the siege of Jerusalem forecast by Jesus have taken place. They suggest that in the light of Matthew 23:37 to Matthew 24:22; Matthew 26:64 that event itself may then be seen as ‘the Son of Man coming' in order to manifest to the chief priests and elders the fact that He has indeed received His power and authority as the Son of Man at the throne of God (Matthew 26:64; Daniel 7:13). Indeed some see Matthew 24:27 (compare Luke 17:22) as speaking of those events, that is as indicating that the destruction of Jerusalem will happen as a result of ‘the Son of Man coming with the speed of lightning' (with lightning emphasising suddenness rather than light, although any light could be a spiritual one as in Matthew 4:16, and only observed by those who ‘see'). The siege of Jerusalem may not shake us, but it certainly shook the world of that day, and its ramifications were in different ways huge, both for Jewish Christianity and for Judaism. It freed the church from its last ties with Jerusalem.

We should notice that the connection of the siege of Jerusalem with ‘the coming of the Son of Man' is also further supported in the context of chapter 24, for it then goes on to speak about the Son of Man manifesting even greater power in a further glorious appearance (Matthew 24:30) when the believers among those scattered people who have since been evangelised have to be gathered in (Matthew 24:31). We should note in this regard that Matthew uses the expression ‘the Son of Man coming in His Kingly Rule' where Mark 9:1 speaks of ‘the Kingly Rule of God coming in Power' (i.e. in the resurrected Christ and the Holy Spirit), and Luke speaks of ‘seeing the Kingly Rule of God' (Luke 9:27; compare Matthew 26:64). The idea there would seem to be of the manifestation of His Kingly Rule in power by the events that result in Acts onwards. But it supports the idea that to Matthew ‘the coming of the Son of Man' is parallel to ‘the coming of the Kingly Rule'.

Thus Jesus may be seen as arguing for the need for haste, with no delay, because of the fact that the scattering of the lost sheep of the house of Israel far and wide at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem will leave even more towns to be visited. Indeed He may be seen as declaring that in order to reach them it will then be necessary for the Gospel to be proclaimed in ‘the whole inhabited earth' (Matthew 24:14; compare Acts 2:5), with the final result being that at His second coming He will have to gather the elect from the four winds of Heaven.

That being so the ‘coming of the Son of Man' here in Matthew 10:23 may be intended to signify that the Son of Man will shortly come in speedy judgment on Palestine and Jerusalem (Matthew 24:27, there could be no siege of Jerusalem without a bitter war throughout the whole of Palestine, as events would prove), which would explain why at present there can be no delay allowed in their outreach. For once the people are scattered to all nations (Luke 21:24), and that happened to a shattered Galilee as well as to a devastated Jerusalem, the evangelisation of them will depend on going to all nations (Mark 13:10).

For while it is true that He has not yet spoken of it we must remember here that later on He will make clear in no uncertain terms the devastating judgment that is coming on Jerusalem (Matthew 23:37 to Matthew 24:22) and should note in this regard the warning that He will give to the chief priests concerning their seeing ‘the Son of Man come to receive heavenly power on the clouds of Heaven' (Matthew 26:64), an event which will in some way be manifested to them. And what greater demonstration could there have been than the destruction of their holy city?

* Others think that He is talking of the time when He will come as the Son of Man to His Father's throne immediately after His resurrection (Daniel 7:13), to be declared both Lord and Messiah (Acts 2:36), after which He will return in person to be with His disciples in glorious power as they go out to reach all the towns in the world (Matthew 28:19), and will then reveal Himself as the Son of Man to His people through Stephen, being then revealed in all His glory (Acts 7:55). This interpretation would be typical of Matthaean eschatological language (compare Matthew 16:28; Matthew 26:64 with Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27; Luke 22:69). We should remember again in this regard that Matthew uses the expression ‘the Son of Man coming in His Kingly Rule' where Mark 9:1 speaks of ‘the Kingly Rule of God coming in Power' (i.e. in the resurrected Christ and the Holy Spirit), and Luke speaks of ‘seeing the Kingly Rule of God' (Luke 9:27; compare Matthew 26:64). The idea there would seem to be of the manifestation of His Kingly Rule in power by the events that result in Acts onwards.

* Others think that He had a foreboding that the towns of Israel would never be satisfactorily evangelised, simply because of the historical events that would overtake them, even by the time of His second coming. Thus He knew within Himself that they would never run out of towns to evangelise. Certainly their full evangelisation was never accomplished, and has not been to this day, so that the promise cannot be said to have failed in fulfilment. (We must also remember that He specifically stated that He did not know the time of His second coming, a statement that no one else could possibly have made up - Mark 13:32).

* One thing, however, we should note, and that is that at the time of writing Matthew must have had no doubt that either this had been fulfilled, or that it was a valid claim which he saw as still capable of fulfilment. For in a passage where he was very much selecting his material, he would hardly have cited it otherwise.

Whichever view we take we should note the truth behind all the views. There were certainly so many to be reached that they would not be able to cover them all on their present mission; the shadow of the destruction of Jerusalem and Galilee by the Romans certainly did hang over them until that destruction was accomplished, and it did catch the towns of Galilee not properly prepared and certainly not sufficiently evangelised (otherwise they would not have rebelled) and it did result in the mass slaughter of many of their inhabitants and the scattering of others; the resurrection and enthronement of Jesus did certainly reveal a new impetus in carrying forward the Gospel, which would include the insufficiently evangelised towns of Galilee (Acts 9:31), and would then result in going beyond Galilee so that if all the towns had not been ‘finished' it would be too late as far as the Apostles were concerned; and finally we are reminded that even today the evangelisation of the towns of Israel is one of the urgent tasks facing Jesus followers. For the more that His disciples have sought to evangelise them the more their sinfulness and stubbornness towards the Gospel has been revealed. And it is so to this day. Thus Jesus' words have indeed proved true, fulfilling His expectations. And it may well be that He intended it to have plural application, so that the Apostles could take it with a local reference, and then when they later thought about it in the light of all that happened, an eschatological reference.