Matthew 10 - Introduction

INTRODUCTION TO CHAPTER TEN

IS THIS SERMON OF WHOLE CLOTH, OR PATCHWORK?

On first reading this entire chapter it has the appearance of uniform wholeness. It requires only a glance at other Gospels, however, to cause the reader to realize at once that he has encountered some of this same material in quite different places and connections. A bit of first-hand familiarity with Matthew's neat organization of his materials according to topical, rather than strictly chronological, considerations, is almost sufficient to tip the balance in favor of the conclusion that the publican-Apostle is again organizing by collecting materials out of other discourses given on other occasions.
The modern Christian, hurried by immediate, practical concerns, is tempted to ask, almost with impatience: Why bother to dig into this old question? After all, the chapter has come down to us all in one piece. What is there to gain by puzzling over the problem? The seriousness of this problem lies in two directions: (1) Matthew's good judgment is placed in doubt, since he seems to ignore propriety by setting down in this place admonitions and predictions that not only were not given so early in the Apostle's training, but would have no connection with their immediate work, necessities or understanding.
(2) If the material, however, is set forth in its proper place in the self-revelation of Jesus to His disciples, then there is much to gain from this vision of Him as Prophet of the finest order, as General briefing His staff, and as Supreme Lord demanding loyalty due only to God. So, what are the evidences? -
A. Arguments offered against the unity of the discourse:

1.

Matthew stands alone giving this message in relation to the limited mission of the Apostles in Galilee, whereas the other Synoptic writers include large parts of this discourse in different contexts as messages preached much later on other occasions. (See, for example, Mark 13:9-13; Luke 12:4-9; Luke 12:11-12; Luke 12:49-53; Luke 21:12-19) Moreover, in his version of the great sermon on the end of the Jewish nation and of the world, Matthew seems deliberately to omit most of those statements of Jesus he has already included in his report of the Apostolic Commission (Matthew 10), though Mark and Luke both include them in the great eschatological message.

2.

In the Lord's farewell address to the apostles during the Last Supper, Jesus specifically remarked, (John 16:1-4)

I have said all this to you to keep you from falling away. They will put you out of the synagogues; indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God. And they will do this because they have not known the Father, nor me. But I have said these things to you, that when their hour comes you may remember that I told you of them. I did not say these things to you from the beginning, because I was with you.

So it would seem to some that this obvious declaration eliminates categorically any predictions of persecution, prior to the discourses of the Last Week. Consequently, Matthew has placed the material describing persecutions in quite the wrong place.

3.

Considering the immaturity and inexperience of the Apostles, it is thought quite unlikely that Jesus would disturb His yet untried warriors by making allusions to perils not likely to menace their simple, limited labors in Galilee.

B.

Considerations strongly recommending the unity of the section:

1.

The first and most obvious factor that argues the unity of this discourse is the fact that Matthew intends to give the clear impression that he is signaling both the beginning and the end of one discourse.

Matthew 10:5

Matthew 11:1

These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them,.

And when Jesus had finished instructing His twelve disciples, He went on from there to teach and preach.

2.

The mere fact, that Matthew omits from his report of the great sermon on the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the world (Matthew 24) some materials which he already used earlier (Matthew 10), is no indication that he was ignorant of the fact that Jesus made the declarations reported by Mark and Luke in that great eschatological pronouncement. His deliberateness, rather, is evidence that he DID know about those Last Week statements and chose not to use them again. The inclusion of those remarks by Mark and Luke, on the other hand, does not prove that these sayings were exclusively said by Jesus during the great discussion of Jerusalem's fall and could not have been repeated often earlier. The very sayings themselves are of such nature that they conflict deeply with the then-popular notions about the Messianic Kingdom, held even by the Apostles themselves. So it would not be at all surprising if Jesus had to repeat in similar language on several occasions the very same warnings and the same instructions about how to react.

3.

A misplaced emphasis in the reading of John 16:4 can give the impression that Jesus had never before prophesied persecutions, a view which would of course leave Matthew's record under suspicion of forgery or, at least, of improper appropriation of materials, if not outright contradiction. The case stands, however, as Hendriksen, (John, II, 322) puts it.

To be sure, there had been predictions of coming persecution (Matthew 5:10-12; Matthew 10:16-39). But these things (Matthew 15:18 to Matthew 16:3)the fact that the world hates the disciples because Jesus has chosen them out of the world; that this hatred was in reality directed against Jesus and against the Father, that it was absolutely inexcusable and was rooted in the sinister condition of the heart which deliberately refused to acknowledge the true God, that the time was actually coming when men would regard the putting to death of Christ'S followers to be tantamount to an act of worship altogether pleasing to Godthese things, with that emphasis and in that forthright manner, had never been revealed before. One does not find these things in Matthew 5:10-12, which speaks only of persecution in general and of slander in particular, nor in Matthew 10:16-29, which describes the outward forms of persecution (arrest, flogging, death, name-calling), but says very little about the hidden root from which this persecution springs (only Matthew 10:22; Matthew 10:24-25; Matthew 10:40; cf. John 15:20-21). The reason why Jesus had not said these things from the beginning was that it had not been necessary then, because he was still with them. As long as he was physically present, the brunt of the attack was directed against him, not against his disciples.

4.

It is a false assumption that the allusions to persecutions had no potential connection with realities involved in the Apostles-' first, limited evangelistic activity in Galilee. Jesus was about to dispatch His missionaries right in the very bailiwick of that treacherous king whose command would shortly bring about the brutal murder of John the Baptist. The Twelve, commissioned especially to proclaim the identical message of that wilderness voice, must certainly come under the surveillance of that suspicious, testy old king.

5.

Objections to Matthew's recording of the latter portion of this sermon (Matthew 10:16-42) disregard the obvious desire of the Lord to charge the minds of His Apostles on the occasion of their commission with a long-range, perspective view of the issues, conflicts and consequences of their ministry. His purpose is not, as is assumed by those who see this chapter as patchwork, merely to prepare His servants to experiment with their abilities in a county-wide campaign in tiny Galilee. No, it is as Bruce (Training, 106ff) thinks:

This Galilean mission, though humble and limited compared with the great undertaking of after years, was really a solemn event. It was the beginning of that vast work for which the twelve had been chosen, which embraced the world in its scope, and aimed at setting up on earth the kingdom of God.

G. C.

Morgan (Matthew, 102, 103) agrees:

As the King stood in the midst of the twelve, He looked at them and at the immediate present; but He also looked with those clear, far-seeing eyes into the near decades; and still further He looked down all the centuries; and speaking to the first apostles, He delivered a charge which in its comprehensiveness and finality is applicable to the whole movement of His enterprise, until His second advent. He declared the abiding principles, which must obtain through all the ages; and He described the changing conditions which necessitate changing methods.

So it is of real value to His Apostles, that Jesus should lay before them from the first moment of their commission in no uncertain terms the duties, dangers, instructions and encouragements in His description of the complete apostolic mission. From that moment on no disciple could complain, Why didn-'t Jesus tell us this was going to happen? Any repetition of portions of this charge on later occasions is naturally to be expected due to their importance.

6.

Objections based upon allusions to distant dangers are groundless, since upon closer reflection even these warnings are reassuring and timely, with the result that the disciples, far from being frightened by them, could draw great strength from their memory of Jesus-' words. Since they had been warned beforehand, their very suffering when it came would serve to justify and strengthen their faith in Jesus. Further, who can demonstrate it mathematically certain that the Apostles did not in fact encounter much on their first tour that tried their souls? Granted the almost certain probability that whatever they encountered was very light in comparison to later opposition, yet Jesus-' forewarning them, and their own success in overcoming, was excellent training to endure even greater obstacles later.

C.

Conclusions assuming the unity of the passage;

1.

Edersheim (Life, I, 640f) decides:

It is evident, that the Discourse reported by St. Matthew goes far beyond that Mission of the Twelve, beyond even that of the early Church, indeed sketches the history of the Church's Mission in a hostile world, -up to the end.-'

2. Morgan's thinking (Matthew, 102ff) suggests the following comparative outlines of the three fundamental portions of the message, as if Jesus has three clearly distinct periods in view. The division into difierent periods comes, not out of textual exegesis only, but also from the fulfilment of these words of Jesus in the history of the Church.

THE ENTIRE APOSTOLIC MISSION

a. First Galilean Tour (Matthew 10:5-15)

b. The Apostolic Church (Matthew 10:16-23)

c. The Whole Church (Matthew 10:24-42)

(1)

From the Apostles-' ordination until the beginning of the Church.

(1)

From the beginning of the Church until the end of the Jewish state and Jerusalem.

(1)

From the fall of Jerusalem to the end of the world.

(2)

Period of relative popularity, no serious persecution.

(2)

Period of Jewish persecution from Pentecost till fall of Jerusalem.

(2)

Period of general difficulty, rejection, death.

(3)

Particular zone of operation only among Jewish people.

(3)

Wider sphere of influence even among Gentiles.

(3)

General work: Confession of Jesus by ALL slaves and disciples of Jesus.

(4)

Particular preparation: light equipment, dependence on Jewish hospitality.

(4)

More thorough preparation and equipment, not based on hospitality. (Luke 22:35-36)

(4)

Emphasis on moral preparation, less on mechanical.

(5)

Particular message: coming messianic kingdom.

(5)

Open proclamation of accomplished facts; special help of the Spirit.

(5)

Widest possible proclamation of Jesus-' message.

(6)

Particular credential: miracles as identification with Jesus.

(6)

General credential: immediate inspiration as identification.

(6)

Moral credential: suffering as identification.

But after making such a neat outline of this chapter, which upon first, even on the second, reading of the discourse, is perhaps not so obvious as the neat rows of the outline would suggest, we might well ask ourselves if this outline is so important and necessary to the communication Jesus intended. For example, why did not Jesus come right out and identify the precise time periods to which each portion of instruction belongs? This would eliminate our having to guess at the applications. But this very observation may be the key: He did not wish His Apostles to concern themselves with a misplaced emphasis on apocalyptic times and seasons or to apply general principles only to particular periods and not to the whole of their ministry. As Edersheim (Life, I, 640f) has it:

At the same time it is equally evident, that the predictions, warnings and promises applicable to a later period in the Church's history, hold equally true in principle in reference to the first Mission of the Twelve; and conversely, that what specially applied to it, also holds true in principle of the whole subsequent history of the Church in its relation to a hostile world. Thus, what was specially spoken at this time to the Twelve, has ever since, and rightly, been applied to the Church; while that in it, which specially refers to the Church of the future, would in principle apply also to the Twelve.

If the outline suggested above has value, it is because we, who have appeared on the scene in our historic time period, have the distinct advantage of historical perspective, which the Apostles themselves, as men, standing there before Jesus, prior to the fulfilment, did not have. Even with the haunting spectre of reading into Jesus-' words ideas that are not there, we believe we can make out in this sermon the prophetic foresight of the Master as He describes with unerring precision the pattern, problems and progress of the entire Apostolic mission. If it be objected that with the death of the Apostles themselves their mission ceased, then let it be said that if the Church exists today, it does so in direct proportion to its recognition and acceptance of the Apostles-' mission. No, the Apostles-' mission is not, and will not be, completed until Jesus comes again to call a halt to the Apostles-' work. No, the Apostles are not through working, for they though dead, yet speak through that permanent teaching medium they prepared for areas and eras where they personally could not labor: the Scriptures. Any Church today may judge itself truly apostolic by its fidelity to that message which the Apostles taught and recorded for all ages.

Returning to the question of this study, we conclude that this sermon of Jesus is all of a piece, a fitting charge given to the Apostles on the occasion of their entering upon the very work to which they had been earlier called, in the same way that the Sermon on the Mount was a fitting message of ordination for the occasion of their calling to the Apostleship. (Cf. Luke 6:12-49)

One final word is in order about Matthew's orderly argument which this entire chapter exemplifies, Note how this section beautifully carries forward his presentation of the ministry of Jesus the Messiah:

1.

Jesus the Messiah as proclaimer of the Kingdom of God (chap. 5, 6, 7). In that message typical of Jesus-' preaching, the Master describes the Kingdom of God. He is elaborating His edicts.

2.

Jesus the Messiah supernaturally accredited by miracle-working power (chap. 8, 9). In this section presenting a collection of miracles typical of Jesus-' power, the Master proves His right to say the things He is. He is exhibiting His evidence.

3.

Jesus the Messiah expanding His effort, multiplying His ministry and enlarging His effectiveness. (chap. 10)

SPECIAL STUDY THE AUTHORITY OF THE APOSTLES

Many self-appointed theologians still echo the ancient lie of Satan asking, Yea, hath God said thus and so? hardly comprehending that to pose such a question is to question and quibble the eternal authority of the Author of their salvation. It is one thing to seek the clear evidences which would point to the revelation of God in human history, and quite another to seek, by feigned wisdom, to evade its message. Jesus clearly declares in this section that God will be revealing Himself through Jesus-' twelve appointed and empowered ambassadors. It is sufficient to investigate with a true and honest heart whether God has truly spoken in human history. But, having discerned this, it is sufficient to obey.
The question of this study is not, then, why or how or should God speak through human messengers, but did He, in fact do so? Since we have the accurate message of Jesus recorded by honest, competent, reliable witnesses, we may assume that God's Son is competent to empower His rather ordinary disciples, thereby enabling them to speak extra-ordinarily the very word of the Almighty. Study these four major points of proof that the Apostles-' ministry at this time was but the extension of Jesus-' own:

I.

God would verify their message as God's own by supernatural demonstrations of His presence and approval (Matthew 10:7-8; compare Hebrews 2:3-4; Mark 6:12-13; Luke 9:6).

II.

Jesus declared that those who would reject His Apostles-' message would surely receive heavier condemnation than the wickedest of Sodom and Gomorrah (Matthew 10:14-15).

III.

Jesus promised that God's Spirit would speak directly in those human messengers in the hour of trial (Matthew 10:19-20)

IV.

Jesus concludes His charge by asserting that to receive and hearken to the words of the Apostles is precisely equivalent to receiving Jesus Himself and the God who sent Him. (Matthew 10:40)

It was perfectly legitimate for every devout son of Abraham to require the credentials of those who claimed to speak for God. But, having received them, he must obey.
How often do we refuse God's proffered mercies merely because we reject the instrument through which He would make them available to us? Some would rather be accursed from God than receive God's bounties at the hands of Judas, who later betrayed Jesus! But in this ministry Judas assisted Jesus. Judas worked miracles probably along with the other Apostles. At this time all Twelve Apostles are but the multiplication of Jesus-' personal ministry, even though these men were largely ignorant of Jesus-' deeper meaning behind His messages, largely unaware of the necessity of the cross and deeply in need of further training. But they were nonetheless messengers of Jesus, hence, sent by the living God! Woe to that individual or city that rejects them! How blessed is that village or people that heard the voice of God in the Galilean accent of these simple men sent out by Jesus!
It should not be at all surprising, therefore, to see develop in the continuing revelation of Jesus, the Apostolic office, endowed with all the authority of the Holy Spirit. But now they are in training. Let us hear Jesus as He prepares them for this first task on their own.

WHY TWELVE APOSTLES?

It is obvious, from the emphasis Matthew gives to it, that this commission given to the Twelve represents an important advance in the progress of Jesus-' self-revelation, but what is its exact meaning? Mechanically, the number twelve represents a group of men small enough to be able to teach effectively and large enough to get the work done. But in reference to the mission they were to accomplish, what moved Jesus to set apart these twelve as APOSTLES?

I. Jesus desired to multiply the effectiveness of His own ministry.

A.

A. B. Bruce (Training, 96) thinks that this mission of the disciples as evangelists or miniature apostles was partly without doubt, an educational experiment for their own benefit; but its direct design was to meet the spiritual necessities of the people, whose neglected condition lay heavy on Christ's heart.

B.

Reed (PHC, 248) observes astutely: The man who seeks to do the largest amount of good will recognize that far higher results may be attained by instructing a few persons of influence -who shall be able to teach others also,-' than by working always upon an inert mass, destitute of life and reproductive energy.

C.

As this chapter shows, Jesus conferred upon His Apostles:

1.

His own mission: to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Cf. Matthew 15:24)

2.

His own message: The kingdom of heaven is at hand. (Cf. Matthew 4:17)

3.

His own miracles: cf. Matthew 10:1; Matthew 10:8 with Matthew 9:35.

4.

His own miseries: A disciple is not above his Teacher. (Matthew 10:24-25)

5.

His own mastery: He who receives you, receives me. (Matthew 10:40)

D.

The result of this commission was that it turned the Twelve into just that many more Jesus Christs to reach out into those areas of needy humanity where Jesus Himself could not go.

II.

Jesus planned that the Apostles become personal eye-witnesses of all that transpired while they were with Him.

A.

While their very title signifies that they were to be men sent forth on special missions for the Master, yet they were specifically called to be with Jesus, to be His companions (Mark 3:14; cf. Luke 8:1 later)

B.

In fact, as McGarvey (Powfold, 221) judges: (contrary to the opinion of Lightfoot, Galatians, 92f and Lambert, ISBE, 202f):

A necessary condition of their apostleship was this seeing of Jesus and the consequent ability to testify as to his actions, especially as to his resurrection (Acts 1:8; Acts 1:21-22; 1 Corinthians 9:1; Acts 22:14-15). They could therefore have no successors.

C.

Reed (PHC, 247) asks: But granted the need for witnesses, were the men upon whom the solemn -choice fell, competent for the discharge of so grave a function? He then answers:

1.

The miracles of Jesus were of a kind which the humblest observer could judge, and perhaps judge even better than his superiors in rank.

2.

.. even if the Twelve were in any measure disqualified in inferior station from bearing trustworthy evidence, they were thereby just as much incapacitated for the concoction of a clever forgery, and, of course, their writings must be explained in some reasonable manner.

3.

Barnes (Matthew-Mark, 107) adds that they were not especially learned men, who could spread Christianity by their erudition;

4.

They were not wealthy men who could bribe others to join their movement by offers of wealth or worldly advancement;

5.

They were not men of positions of authority who could compel others to believe.

6.

They were just good men who make the best witnesses in a court of law: plain men of good sense, fair character, of great honesty with a favorable opportunity to ascertain the facts to which they bear witness. They were the kind of men everybody believes and especially when they are willing to lay down their lives to prove their sincerity.

D.

R. C. Foster's splendid description (Standard Lesson Commentary 1957, 44) deserves wider hearing:

The roster of the leaders whom Jesus had assembled to assist Him in His campaign and to receive intensified training from Him is given just before this commission is recorded. The list starts the reader into meditation upon the known and the unknown in their lives. But little is known beyond the name of most of these men. Yet how many significant accounts of their heroic faith and consistent victories might have been written!.

We are immediately impressed by the fact that these were what the intelligentsia of that day called ignorant and unlearned men. Good and honest hearts constituted the first prerequisite. The simplicity, humility, teachableness, and burning devotion of these men made them choice material for the Son of God to fashion into noble leaders of the church, Some who read the historical accounts of the New Testament are prone to magnify the mistakes of these apostles and to sneer at their slow comprehension. Such hypercriticism needs to be reminded how much more rapidly the apostles apprehended the truth about Jesus than did the college trained scholars, the scribes and Pharisees from Jerusalem. The apostles heard and saw much more of the revelation Jesus presented than did these scholars, but the latter saw and heard enough to prove their unwillingness or their inability to learn and accept the truth which threatened their wicked way of life and their false leadership over the people.
The apostles lacked the formal training which the scribes possessed, but they were free from all the excess baggage of false ideas and ideals which overloaded the scholars. When Saul of Tarsus met Jesus and gave his life to Christ, he became the great apostle, for he had the natural ability, the intellectual discipline which men could give, plus God's divine revelation to him and a flaming faith and courage which enabled him to turn the world upside down. But Paul had a desperate time recovering from the false conceptions which the scribes had given him. It took a face-to-face meeting with the risen Christ before he was able to rise above the handicap of a false education.
The apostles came from different walks of life with the advantage of varied backgrounds giving peculiar points of contact with different people they met and peculiar power to their testimony as it was reflected against their own personal background. Being experienced in hardships, privation, and burdensome toil, they were qualified to become veterans in such strenuous campaigns as Jesus carried on. They could make long, forced marches; they could listen or proclaim; they could lend the helping hand in public ministry or in necessary arrangements for the physical necessities of their journeys; they could lie down on the hard cold ground at night for rest if no home opened a welcome to the divine One who had no place to lay his head. In less than four years they reached the heights: they could -walk with crowds and keep their virtue, or talk with kings, nor lost the common touch.-' They could stand unafraid in the midst of the high tribunals of state and under threat of death proclaim, with the utter simplicity of the truth, their testimony to the facts of the gospel and the divine revelation which Christ had committed to them. What a moving example they have set before us!

III.

Jesus intended for the Twelve to learn evangelism, share in His own service and then continue His work in the world after His ascension.

A.

On this staff of co-workers depended the immediate effect, as well as the long-range future success, of His mission to earth.

B.

This is why He chose them from among the disciples, the learners, from among men whose minds were open. (Cf. Luke 6:13) Barclay (Matthew, I, 370) quips: The shut mind cannot serve Jesus Christ.

C.

He called them, but they could accept or refuse that summons: they were present because they chose to be with Him. (Cf. Mark 3:14) Their acceptance of His calling to be with Him was extremely important, for, before they had anything worthwhile to say to men, they must learn to live in His presence, embibe of His Spirit, think His thoughts after Him.

D.

He appointed them (Mark 3:14). This officially set them apart as The Twelve, as Apostles. Barclay (Matthew, I, 370) thinks that it was not a case of drifting unconsciously into the service of Jesus Christ; it was a case of definitely being appointed to it.

E.

He sent them forth (Luke 9:2): their lives were not meant to be spent in contemplation and study, even though, until they had done this, they had little to say. They must begin their service.

F.

He commanded them to herald His message, not their own views or traditions, as Barclay (Matthew, I, 371) writes: The Christian is not meant to bring to men his own opinions or his views; he brings a message of divine certainties from Jesus Christ.

Section 23
JESUS COMMISSIONS TWELVE APOSTLES TO EVANGELIZE GALILEE

(Parallels: Mark 6:7-13; Luke 9:1-6)

PREVIEWING IN OUTLINE FORM

I.

Jesus Calls the Twelve and Empowers Them For Special Service (Matthew 10:1-4; Mark 6:7; Luke 9:1)

II.

Jesus Instructs and Charges the Twelve How to Proceed (Matthew 10:5-15; Mark 6:8-11; Luke 9:2-5)

A.

Their Words and Works (Matthew 10:5-8; Luke 9:2)

B.

Their Equipment and Conduct (Matthew 10:9-15; Mark 6:8-11; Luke 9:3-5)

III.

Jesus Challenges and Warns the Twelve of the Dangers and Difficulties That Lie Ahead (Matthew 10:16-31)

A.

General Warning (Matthew 10:16)

B.

Persecution by the State Church (Matthew 10:17)

C.

Persecution by the State Government (Matthew 10:18)

D.

Promise of Power in the Hour of Peril (Matthew 10:19-20)

E.

Persecution by Their Own Families (Matthew 10:21-22)

F.

Prudence in Persecution (Matthew 10:23)

G.

Suffering of the Savior and His Servants (Matthew 10:24-25)

H.

Freedom From Fear (Matthew 10:26-31)

1.

The Triumph of Truth (Matthew 10:26-27)

2.

The Right Reverence (Matthew 10:28)

3.

The Care of the Creator (Matthew 10:29-31)

IV.

Jesus Requires and Rewards Loyalty of His Servants (Matthew 10:32-39)

A.

The Supreme Honor For Loyalty (Matthew 10:32)

B.

The Supreme Disgrace For Disloyalty or Cowardice (Matthew 10:33)

C.

The Inevitable Enmities in Loyalty to Jesus (Matthew 10:34-36)

D.

The Secret of [??] Through Sacrifice and Surrender (Matthew 10:37-39)

V.

Jesus Rewards Those Who Welcome His Servants (Matthew 10:40-42)

A.

The Authority of His Messengers (Matthew 10:40)

B.

The Reward of Those Who Help His Messengers (Matthew 10:41-42)

VI.

The Twelve Apostles Depart to Evangelize (Mark 6:12-13; Luke 9:6)

VII.

Jesus Also Goes to Evangelize Galilee (Matthew 11:1)

SPECIAL STUDY

THE SUPREMACY OF PETER

The fact that the Apostle Peter is personally mentioned first in every list of the Apostles, and in Matthew's list is marked for special preeminence by the expression: The first, Simon, who is called Peter, has certainly been misinterpreted by many as expressing the ecclesiastical supremacy of the Lord's fisherman-Apostle.
For the following basic outline, which brings together important evidences to the contrary, we are endebted to McGarvey (Four-fold Gospel, 221f), to which is added a note here and there:

1.

Peter's natural talents gave a personal, but not an ecclesiastical, preeminence over his fellows. This explains not only the Lord's natural preference for this boisterous ex-fisherman over the other less expressive, though nonetheless sensitive, Apostles.

2.

That Peter had supremacy or authority over his brethren is

a.

nowhere stated by Christ, (Matthew 16:18-19 notwithstanding, see Notes)

b.

nor claimed by Peter himself; (see below under 4)

c.

nor stated by the rest of the Twelve.

The total blackout in the New Testament on this subject, so important to the development of the Biblical doctrines of the Church, is incomprehensible in light of the papal claims made for him. For, if this primate position were essential to the nature of the Church, the Apostles could hardly be thought to have omitted reference to it, even if only in passing. But this total silence is most significant: it cannot mean that the other Apostles had no opportunity to mention it, since many Pauline discussions, for example, describe the fundamental unity and nature of the Church without ever once touching the (reputed) primacy of Peter as unitary head of the Church on earth.

3.

The clear declarations of Christ place the Apostles upon the same level with each other. (Cf. Matthew 23:8-11; Matthew 18:18; Matthew 19:27-28; Matthew 20:20-27; John 20:21-23; Acts 1:8; Luke 22:24-27) As will be seen in the study of Matthew 18, in its entirety, had Jesus wanted to clarify the burning question of hierarchy in favor of any one of the Apostles, the opportunity offered Him in that context could not have been better. In that case, had He needed to clarify the proper spirit in which to serve Him, while explaining the structure of ecclesiastical hierarchy, which was the practical import of the disciples-' question (Matthew 18:1; cf. Mark 9:33-34; Luke 9:46-48), He missed His chance. Evidence that the supposed primacy of Peter was not settled in his favor by the declarations in Matthew 16:18-19 is to be found in the fact that long after Jesus-' promises and predictions about Peter, the disciples dispute about which of them was to be regarded as the greatest (Luke 22:24 ff.). In both of these situations, just a word from Jesus explaining that, despite His demands for humility of spirit and a willingness to serve others, yet Peter was to take command of the Church, would have sufficed for all ages to establish Peter's ecclesiastical primacy.

4.

Peter's own declaration, rather than assert his supposed primacy, claims no more than a position equal to that of other officers in the Church under Christ (1 Peter 5:1; 1 Peter 5:4). That any of his supposed successors do not follow in the footsteps of Peter is revealed in the chasm that separates his doctrine from theirs. Peter himself shows that the Church was not established upon him as petra (cf. 1 Peter 2:4-9, especially in Greek).

5.

Paul's attitude toward Peter is incredible in light of the latter's supposed supremacy:

a.

Paul withstood Peter to his face, a fact that is unbelievable in light of the theory of practically total infallibility (Galatians 2:11-14). Practical total infallibility, not merely when the Roman pontiff speaks ex cathedra, is fundamental to modern Catholic belief:

The bishops when they teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff, must be heard by all with veneration, as witnesses of the divine and catholic truth; and the faithful must accept the judgment of their Bishop given in the name of Christ in matters of faith and morals, and adhere to it with religious respect. But this religious respect of will and intelligence is in a special manner due to be given to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra, with the result that his supreme teaching authority be accepted with reverence, and that the pronouncements given by him be adhered to with sincerity, according to the mind and will manifested by him, which is made clear especially either by the nature of the documents or by the frequent reproposing of the same doctrine, or by the tenor of the verbal expression.
(Documents of the Vatican II Council, Lumen Gentium, on the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, paragraph 25, my translation from the Italian text.)

b.

If lists in themselves are important, Paul lists Peter as second in importance to James the Lord's brother (Galatians 2:9). Although this is no complete list of the leading figures in the Jerusalem Church, it shows Paul did not consider the order of names in his sentence of great importance, as might be supposed to be the case in a tightly organized hierarchy of which the Roman system is the best example.

c.

Paul did not despise Peter, but sought him out especially (Galatians 1:18-19), but this is stated in a context where Paul vigorously denies any dependence upon other Apostles for the authority of his own apostolic mission. (Galatians 1:11-12; Galatians 1:16 b, Galatians 1:17; cf. Matthew 2:6-9)

6.

The attitude of James at the Jerusalem council is incredible, since after the speech of the infallible Peter, James requires, Brethren, hearken unto me. my judgment is.., These words of James would be rendered utterly superfluous after the declarations of Peter, were he really supreme. Further, it is the decision of the assembled Apostles and elders to follow the advice of James. (Cf. Acts 15:7-11 with Acts 15:13-21).

McGarvey concludes that, were it possible even to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Peter were actually primate in the ecclesiastical sense among the Apostles, the papacy would still be left without a valid claim to its pretended honors, since it would still have to prove that it was heir to the rights and honors of Peter, which is something it has never yet done. The papal claim rests not upon facts, but upon several assumptions:

1.

That Peter had supreme authority among the Apostles and evident infallibility;

2.

That he was the first bishop of Rome (important, because all successive bishops of Rome are thought to be his lineal successors.)

3.

That the peculiar powers and privileges of Peter (if he had any) passed at the time of his death from his own person, to which they belonged, to the chair of office which he thus vacated.

4.

That ANY Apostle had a successor.

5.

That the bishop of Rome is Peter's direct and personal successor.

6.

That any successor of the bishop of Rome possesses the infallibility invested in him as the supreme teaching authority of the Church.

It might be getting too far afield from our principle theme, the supremacy of Peter, but in connection with the misuse of any evidence of Peter's preeminence, it would be well to remember that the so-called lineal successors of the Apostles do not at all qualify for the office to which they lay claim, inasmuch as the following qualifications identify an apostle:

1.

They must have seen the risen Lord. (Acts 1:21-22; 1 Corinthians 9:1)

2.

They must have been called to Apostleship by the Lord to fulfil that mission assigned to them particularly by the Lord who sent them. (John 20:21) In the absence of positive proof that the Apostles left behind specific directions for their own succession, we are obligated to believe that they left none, hence did not pass on their unique mission.

3.

They must perform the signs of an Apostle:

a.

In miraculous gifts (2 Corinthians 12:12) that authenticate their message and their doctrines as from God;

b.

In the conversion of souls to the Lord (1 Corinthians 9:2), not in drawing away disciples after them (Acts 20:30)

c.

In the establishment of churches in all the world (Galatians 2:8)

d.

In divine revelations (1 Corinthians 11:2; 1 Corinthians 15:1-3; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 2 Thessalonians 3:6; Romans 6:17; Galatians 1:9-12; Philippians 4:9; Colossians 2:6-8) not in the imposition of human traditions that contradict God's revelation.

4.

They must serve as the foundation of the Church (Ephesians 2:20), i.e. their word given under the direct supervision of the Holy Spirit must serve as direction and support for the Church throughout all ages of its existence (Jude 1:3; 2 Peter 1:3-4; Revelation 22:18-19; 1 John 4:6; Hebrews 2:1-4; Hebrews 13:7, etc.)

For a discussion of Peter's peculiar responsibility to use the keys of the kingdom, see notes on Matthew 16:18-19.

DO YOU HAVE THE WORD IN YOUR HEART?

Matthew 10

Who said the following statements? On what occasion? To whom? Why did they say it? What did they mean? Are there parallel passages? variant manuscript readings? important variant translations? Are there any problems of interpretation? How or to what extent should we apply it to our lives?

1.

Get you no wallet for your journey, neither two coats, nor shoes, nor staff.

2.

The kingdom of heaven is at hand.

3.

If the house be worthy let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.

4.

But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

5.

Ye shall not have gone through the cities of Israel till the Son of man be come.

6.

For it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you.

7.

... rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. .

8.

I came not to send peace, but a sword.

9.

It is enough for the disciple that he be as his teacher..

10.

It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city.

11.

He that receiveth you receiveth me.

SPECIAL STUDY

THE COMING OF THE SON OF MAN

Cryptic statements keep cropping up in the Gospels, which speak of a coming of Jesus in His glory during the lifetime of that generation in which the Apostles lived. At first reading, one would think, however, that such notices would be interpreted with primary reference to the second coming of Christ at the end of this age of the world. In fact, some commentators have accused the early Christians, notably Paul, of mistakenly expecting the imminent return of Christ in his own era, whereas that event has not yet taken place.
On the other hand, there are intriguing coincidences and factors that present quite another picture of Christian eschatology in the first century. Some of the points to be noticed are the following:

1.

It is generally presumed that Paul died around 67 or 68 A.D., thus prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the virtual end of the Jewish state. Thus, his references to the coming glorification of Christ during his own lifetime might be affected in part by this fact. This same observation would be generally true of most of the other writing Apostles or Evangelists, except John, if our present state of information (or ignorance) be any indication. In the cases where we have no definite dates for the death of the NT writers, it becomes necessary to depend upon their last message which expresses their views. For this reason we must found our under standing of their doctrine on the best information available to us regarding the date of their writings that have come down to us. While there is by no means unanimity of opinion among scholars about the dating of each NT book, there is reasonably general agreement that all but the Johannine books were written prior to 70 A.D. (See critical introductions to individual books in encyclopedic articles, e.g. ISBE, as well as the formal critical introductions to the NT and its books, for delineation of the traditional datings as well as the problems and arguments for dates after 70 A.D.)

2.

While the coming of Christ back to earth in the person of the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-28) was to be an event with world-shaking consequences, yet the actual narrations of the activity of the Holy Spirit, that was witnessed from the day of pentecost onward until the conclusion of the history included in the NT, do not exhaust all the meaning of those passages which speak of a glorious appearing of the Lord in the lifetime of the Twelve. Nor yet do the strictly Pentecostal manifestations of the coming of the Spirit exhaust the prophecy of Joel (Joel 2:28-32) cited by Peter (Acts 2:16-21; see below on this text.) Those texts which seem to describe a first-century coming of the Son of man seem to be picturing an event which is to occur following, but not immediately connected with, the glorious establishment of Christ's Kingdom in its visible manifestation as the Church. Nor yet are these passages especially connected with the final appearance of the Lord at the end of this age. (See below on Matthew 16:28.)

3.

A third suggestion is here offered, but not adequately defined, with respect to the Apocalypse of John. It cannot be dealt with adequately here, and must be offered only as a suggestive comment to stimulate further research, since it is not the purpose of this article to deal with all the problems that arise in the interpretation of that book. However, the thorough treatment of this important subject would demand that this exegesis of John's Revelation be made, before any certain conclusions can be drawn regarding the coming of the Son of man. This is true especially if the apocalyptic methodology of Revelation in any way touches that period covering the lifetime of the Apostles. (See below on VI, VII.)

The visions of the Revelation are specifically called apocalyptic, (from apokalypsis, Revelation 1:1). It would therefore be expected that THIS Apocalypse share something of the nature of apocalyptic literature, with the single exception that this Apocalypse, as opposed to all others, is inspired by Jesus-' direct revelation of the visions John saw. J.E.H. Thompson (ISBE, 161-178) describes the character of apocalypses as a literary method, contrasting this with the method of prophetic books.

Both in matter and form apocalyptic literature and the writings associated with it differ from the prophetic writings of the preceding periods. while the predictive element is present in Apocalypses, as in Prophecy, it is more prominent and relates to longer periods and involves a wider grasp of the state of the world at large. Apocalypse could only have been possible under the domination of the great empires. Alike in Prophecy and in Apocalypse there is reference to the coming of the Messiah, but in the latter not only is the Messianic hope more defined, it has a wider reference. In the Prophets and Psalmists the Messiah had mainly to do with Israel.. In the Apocalypses the imperial outlook is prominent, beginning with Daniel in which we find the Messianic kingdom represented by a son of man over against the bestial empires that had preceded (Daniel 7:13) and reaching the acme of Apocalypse, if not its conclusion in the Revelation of St. John: The kingdom of the world is become the kingdom of our Lord, and of his Christ (Revelation 11:15). While the prophet was primarily a preacher of righteousness and used prediction either as a guarantee, by its fulfilment of his Divine mission, or as an exhibition of the natural result of rebellion against God's righteous laws, to the Apocalyptist prediction was the thing of most importance, and in the more typical Apocalypse there is no moral exhortation whatever.. In the literary form employed there are marked differences between Apocalyptic and Prophecy. Both make use of vision, but in Prophecy, in the more restricted sense of the word, these visions are as a rule implied, rather than being described.. In the case of the Apocalypses the vision is the vehicle by which the prediction is conveyed.. In (Prophecy) the symbols used are natural, not, as always in Apocalypses, arbitrary. (In Apocalypses) there is no natural reason for the changes that take place, only a symbolical one.. The apocalyptists always used pure prose, without the elaborate parallelism or cadenced diction of Hebrew poetry. The weird, the gorgeous, or the terrible features of the vision described are thrown into all the higher relief by the baldness of the narrative.. (Of the works entitled Apocalyptic) they all claim to be revelations of the futurea future which begins, however, from the days of some ancient saintand then, passing over the time of its actual composition, ends with the coming of the Messiah, the setting up of the Messianic kingdom and the end of the world. There are others. in which the revelation avowedly looks back, and which thus contain an amount of legendary matter.

While the Revelation is both epistolary with regard to its readers and prophecy in its essential spirit and message, it is an apocalypse with respect to its contents. The Revelation honors apocalyptic methodology but makes it subserve genuine prophecy. (Harrison, Introductions, 431)

Thus, while this use of John's Revelation to discuss events prior to its actual composition during the reign of Domitian during John's exile to Patmos (c. 96 A.D.) would perhaps raise objections, since the book is also confessedly a prophecy (cf. Revelation 1:3; Revelation 22:6-7; Revelation 22:18-19) regarding things that must soon take place, i.e. after the writing of the book itself (cf. Revelation 1:1; Revelation 1:19; Revelation 4:1; Revelation 22:6-7), yet if it be assumed that John's Revelation partook of the literary form of other apocalyptic books, a form which enclosed within its cosmic sweep the writing of history to show some purpose of God seen in the sequence of events, as well as to predict the future, then this objection would have less force. The Revelation could conceivably describe some events prior to, during, and after, the beginning of the Church, the early evangelization, the persecutions, the Jewish War, the destruction of Jerusalem and proceed right on to picture those elements signaling the beginning of the fall of the Roman empire and look out into the distant future to the end of time. It remains then, a matter of careful exegesis both of the relative Bible texts involved, as well as a careful reading of history, to determine whether or not this is, in fact, the case.

Besides the foregoing, there are a number of Matthean texts, which seem to picture the coming of the Son of man in judgment upon the Jewish nation during the lifetime of the Apostles.

I.

When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes. (Matthew 10:23)

At first glance, it would seem that Jesus is speaking here of His following up the advance preparation for His coming made by the disciples. In this case, they would merely have gone ahead of Him as an advance advertising committee, in order to assure Him a large interest and popularity in the cities of Israel. Then the point of this exhortation would be haste, since it would be impossible to cover all the Jewish cities before Jesus Himself arrived. But the very context of this solemn admonition demands a graver explanation, more harmonious with the immediate context itself and with the subsequent events. The assumption here is that Jesus-' discourse in Matthew 10 is one entire message delivered on the same occasion. (See arguments in the Introduction to chapter 10.)

1.

The context, as well as the verse itself, describes fearful persecutions and harassment by both religious and political rulers, incomprehension within the families of His disciples, universal hatred of Jesus-' followers, leadership of the Holy Spirit, betrayals to death and, finally, the necessity to flee, faithful endurance and open confession of allegiance to Jesus in face of certain death.

2.

Further, the paragraph in which this admonition is found (Matthew 10:16-23) is itself repeated in the great discourse concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the Jewish state (Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21). Interestingly, though Mark and Luke both record without significant variations these words contained in Matthew 10:16-23, Matthew himself, while recording the prophetic discourse in his 24th chapter, does not repeat this paragraph. Instead, he limits himself to a couple of summary sentences that are necessary for the connection of thought. Though some would give another explanation to this phenomenon, we believe that Matthew deliberately omitted to repeat this particular material (even though he does repeat some other obviously repeated events and sayings of Jesus elsewhere), not only because he had recorded this sermon in chapter 10. He probably omitted the repetition of this material (Matthew 10:16-23) because he intended to develop the theme of moral preparation required for the great cataclysmic events. This is a hypothesis developed, of course, from what he actually did. (Cf. Matthew 24:37 to Matthew 25:46) By contrast, Mark and Luke, who neither one had recorded this complete discourse in one place (however, see Luke 12:2-12), give their testimony regarding Jesus-' great prophetic discourse and omit, or greatly abbreviate, the material Matthew includes on watchful preparation, The point is, of course, that Jesus intended for this material (i.e. Matthew 10:16-23) to be understood primarily in the framework of that period following His ascension into heaven and not in connection with the early efforts at evangelization by the Apostles or the Seventy.

3.

Subsequent events in the ministry of the Apostles themselves as they labored under the limited commission (Matthew 10:5-15) until they were reassembled (Matthew 6:30; Luke 9:10), indicate no such difficulties as are here pictured. This indication is based solely on the information about the Apostles transmitted to us in the four Gospels. If they did in fact encounter persecutions prior to Jesus-' crucifixion, we cannot know about it.

But lest Jesus be accused of exaggerating the trials to which the Apostles would be subjected, let it be remembered that Jesus is fully justified in preparing His men in exactly this fashion, since they must face, from the very first of their own ministry, the stubborn reality of opposition to the truth they must preach. Whether this opposition began soon or later should make no difference to them: they must steel themselves for its eventual arrival. The appropriateness of Jesus-' warnings during His first commission is seen in the fact that He sends them out fully prepared for whatever may come, even if the worst does not appear until much later when intransigent opposition to Jesus Himself will have hardened and expressed itself in His crucifixion. Psychologically, His men will have already been inured to trouble by His many previous warnings and by their own personal experiences in the field when not under His direct supervision.

While the Apostles did not have to face the pictured trials during their early missions, they certainly did have to meet them later. And to deflate any tendency to overconfidence based upon the seemingly overwhelming successes of their first missions, Jesus repeated these warnings in His great prophetic discourse (Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 2 l) just two months before He sent them out to evangelize the entire world. At THAT time they would begin to grasp the significance behind those cryptic words uttered earlier (Matthew 10:23).

It is obvious, therefore, that the coming of the Son of man must have a direct relationship to the ministry of the Apostles AT SUCH TIME AS THEY ACTUALLY FACED THE PERSECUTIONS AND CONSEQUENT NECESSITY TO FLEE pictured in this text. Since they apparently faced the trials and difficulties, that Jesus describes, only after Pentecost and before their own deaths, which, in the case of most of them, occurred before 70 A.D., if tradition may be relied upon to furnish the dates, the coming of the Son of man must have some reference to that period. This coming of the Son of man must have relationship also to the cities of Israel; and not to the world in general. The beginning of the end of those cities of Israel as a corporate, national entity, can be dated about the same time as the disastrous Jewish War (66-70 A.D.), even though the final, bitter end did not come until the devastations by the Romans after the uprising of Bar-Cochba (132-135 A.D.) Morgan (Matthew, 106) poses the intriguing query:

Who shall say that in His Personal Form He did not guide the Roman legions as they took Jerusalem? It is quite certain that there can be no explanation of the coming of the Son of Man in this case except in the sense of judgment. His coming at the fall of Jerusalem, ended the cities of Israel, and this accounted for His urgency and haste in driving His apostles out to tell the story of the King and the Kingdom.

While it is somewhat inexact to say that the cities of Israel, meaning the existing villages and towns, came to an end with the fall of Jerusalem, yet the national identity of Judaism was completely and forever lost. The last two institutions of their distinctly national life, the Sanhedrin and the sacrifice, were abolished, never to reappear. (Dana, NT World, 105) Judaism persisted as a religion, but disassociated from any political organization or state. (Tenney, NT Times, 307)

The above considerations strongly suggest that Jesus intended to intimate to His Apostles that His coming would take place during that period of their ministry in which (1) they faced terrible persecutions; (2) while there were yet in existence the cities of Israel; and (3), in some connection with the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the state of Israel.

II. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in His kingdom. (Matthew 16:28)

Needless to say, this verse and its parallels must be considered apart from the verses preceding (i.e. Matthew 16:27; Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26), which describe the second coming of Jesus in judgment of the whole world, an event which none of the Apostles lived to see, since this has not yet occurred. Therefore, what Jesus intends by the declaration in question has nothing to do with His return to earth at the end of this age: there are two specific events clearly before His mind.

A quick comparison of the parallel texts of this same saying reveals all Jesus said at that moment:

Matthew 16:28

Mark 9:1

Luke 9:27

And he said to them,

Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here

Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here

But I tell you truly, there are some standing here

who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

who will not taste death before they see

who will not taste of death before they see

the kingdom of God come with power.

the kingdom of God.

This glorious coming of the Son of man, within the lifetime of the Apostles, which is seen as a manifestation of the Kingdom of Christ and God, is susceptible of application to those events later described as the coming of Christ's Kingdom with power. It is important to remember the larger context of this declaration is the promise that Jesus would establish His Church, an event for which He promised Peter the keys of the Kingdom. This event obviously began to occur on Pentecost 30 A.D. But this latter fact by no means signifies that the complete fulfilment of Jesus-' promise, that the Apostles would live to see His coming in His kingdom, occurred only on that day and did not also find fulfilment in events even after that date which continued to establish the obvious rule of Christ.

The coming of the Kingdom of God with power from God certainly took place and visibly on the first Pentecost after Jesus-' ascension into heaven. (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:3; Acts 1:8; Acts 2:1-47) But despite the marvellous manifestation of God's power by means of the visible and audible demonstrations of the Holy Spirit's presence, obvious to all then present in Jerusalem, this did not signal the public, definitive and final repudiation of the Jewish nation by God nor the end of the theocracy. The Jewish nation and religion continued on a business-as-usual basis at least for another forty years, during which time even the Jewish Christians maintained relatively close relations with the Temple and its rites. (Cf. Acts 21:20 b - Acts 21:26) While the Church actually came into existence and preached its message, yet the full vindication of Christ's claims and the tangible evidence of God's rule (Kingdom) were not so clearly seen until the permanent destruction of Jerusalem as the effective center of Judaism and the total collapse of the Temple and its ministry took place.

But if Jesus-' promise (Matthew 16:28) be thought to refer to Pentecost, the spread of Christianity or the internal development of the Gospel in the life of the Church, it is necessary to point out that Jesus does not comfort all of His Apostles by affirming that they would all live to see these glorious expressions of God's Kingdom. Rather, there are some standing here. (eisín times: all Synoptics) This limitation, as Plummer (Luke, 250) notes, implies the exceptional privilege of some, as distinct from the common experience of all, and provides a test regarding the time meant, a test that excludes Pentecost, the spread of Christianity, at least, as the first or primary reference of this prophecy. This, because all the Apostles and most of Jesus-' disciples lived to see those great events, while that to which Jesus now makes reference was to be the exceptional privilege of only John and perhaps a few others of those present who lived to witness the destruction of Jerusalem, an event which signaled the end of the old dispensation and left the Church of Christ fully vindicated and identified as the only bearer of the divine oracles.

It is revealing in this connection to recall that Jesus promised that the very generation of which He was a part would live to see the fulfilment of His prophecy would be desecrated after a disastrous war. The things which took place at that time Jesus describes as the nearing of the kingdom of God. (Luke 21:31-32; cf. Matthew 24:33-34; Mark 13:29-30) But this latter prophecy cannot in any sense refer to the beginnings of the Church but has reference to the destruction of Jerusalem.

In order, therefore, to concede as much as possible to those who view Jesus-' prophecies that His death would not hinder the establishment of the Church and that, rather, some of those then present would live to see Him come in His Kingdom with power, as having some reference to the establishment of the Church, let us admit that the fulfilment of Jesus-' words may have included that. But it is urgent that we recall that the Kingdom of God and Christ is always greater than the Church and includes it. It is never exact to say that the Kingdom equals the Church and vice versa. It is better to define the Kingdom as the Government of God, the dominion of His laws. The Church is that group of people who willingly submit themselves to God's Kingdom. But there are millions of people who still fall under the rule of God who neither accept that dominion nor are members of the Church. Therefore God's Kingdom includes within its sphere of influence all the wicked, and any time God wants to make His powerful rule felt, by bringing swift punishment upon them, He can and He does. This He did in the lifetime of the Apostles and in that generation of Jews by giving sudden, shocking but deserved punishment to those who had rejected Jesus. While this was not specifically a revelation of His Church (although the Church was revealed as the authentic bearer of the divine oracles of God and finally freed from the vestigial shackles of Judaism), it was a definitive revelation of God's Government, or, the Kingdom of God.

If we have correctly understood Jesus-' meaning in this text, then, according to the exact wording of Matthew 16:28, this entire revelation of the Kingdom of God is to be spoken of as the coming of the Son of man.

III. Therefore I tell you, the Kingdom of God will be taken away from you and giver to a nation producing the fruits of it. (Matthew 21:43)

While this passage does not speak directly of a coming of the Son of man during the generation of His earthly sojourn, its reference to the transfer of the Kingdom of God is most appropriate and interesting. Coming as it does at the conclusion of the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen, and specifically stated as its outcome, it clarifies the entire point of the parable and sheds light on some of its terms. The historical moment suggested within the parable itself, when the Kingdom of God would be conspicuously taken from the Jews who had rejected Jesus and the messages of all the prophets, and turned over to another group that would produce the results God intended, is precisely when the Lord of the vineyard comes to His vineyard to put those wretches to a miserable death. At that historical juncture, the Kingdom of God will manifestly become the sole responsibility of a separate group of people. At exactly this point in the narrative (Matthew 21:44; Luke 20:18) the Lord summarizes two prophecies that describe the menace to the wicked represented by the Messiah Himself. (Cf. Psalms 118:22-23; Isaiah 8:14-15; Daniel 2:34-35; Daniel 2:44) He Himself is such a menace, for He is the Stone upon which those, who do not see Him for what He is, break themselves; He it is who will fall upon Israel to crush that wicked nation.

Should it be objected that the coming of the Lord of the Vineyard, to be true to the figure of the parable, refers to God, not to the Son who was cast out of the vineyard dead, it must be recalled that (1) the parable could go only so far in describing the reality without inserting the specific information that the Son then arose from the dead and reentered the vineyard, destroyed those wicked husbandmen, etc... It was Jesus-' purpose, obvious from what He actually did say, to evoke a moral judgment from His hearers-' sense of right. It was not His purpose to shock their minds with the resurrection, a point actually unnecessary to carry His meaning. (2) The identification of the Lord of the vineyard with His Son is certainly possible, once we understand the unique character of Jesus-' relationship to the Father.

IV.

The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. (Matthew 22:7)

The parable of the Marriage of the King's Son (Matthew 22:1-14) covers exactly the same ground as the preceding one (Matthew 21:33-46), with but one major advance in thought. The two parables have two common sections:

The Wicked Husbandmen

The Marriage of the King's Son

1.

God's dealing with Israel (Matthew 21:33-41 a)

1.

God's dealings with Israel (Matthew 22:2-7)

2.

God's dealings with the Gentiles (Matthew 21:41 b - Matthew 21:43)

2.

God's dealings with the Gentiles (Matthew 22:8-10)

3.

God's dealings with individual Christians (Matthew 22:11-14)

Notice that the turning point between the first and second sections of both parables is the same and significant for our purpose here: after God had sent many messengers to those who had a covenant with Him, i.e. those who were His subjects, and after these had rejected His longsuffering mercy, He visited judgment upon them, taking away their rights, their privileged position as His subjects. What He had intended for their blessing, He immediately turned over to others who would appreciate His bounty. A closer look at the key verse, which marks the transfer, shows that in this latter parable Jesus bares the method by which God would put those ungrateful wretches to a miserable death: He would use troops to destroy those murderers and burn their city. While it may be fairly objected that this detail is but part of the scenery of the parable, necessary to its comprehension but not to be taken literally, it is worthy of note that the literal interpretation of this detail does find an exact fulfilment of Jesus-' words when in 70 A.D. the Roman Tenth Legion under Titus battered and burned Jerusalem to the ground.

Further, after the removal of those murderers who spurned God's grace, God throws open the invitation to enjoy His blessings to just any and everybody, in contrast to those who thought they had most right to them, since they had been invited and should have been prepared. At a particular point in Jewish history this great transfer took place: God's army shattered Jewish nationalism for centuries to come, releasing the Church from any further relationship to Judaism, permitting the world to see the universal character of the Church made up of believing Jews and Gentiles.

In light of these two parables, it is not surprising to hear the Master finish describing the true signs, which precede the destruction of Jerusalem, by mentioning the disastrous war in which this people will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. (Luke 21:23-24) In literal language He predicts the character of the age to follow that of Jewish opportunity: it shall be a Gentile age. Not only would God use Gentiles to initiate the period by punishing the Jews, but the period would be one of gracious opportunity for the conversion of the Gentiles.

V.

Behold, your house is forsaken and desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, -Blessed be He who comes in the name of the Lord.-' (Matthew 23:38-39)

These heart-broken words of the rejected Messiah were spoken at a point in Jesus-' last week in Jerusalem that is important to note and probably surprising to some: they were pronounced AFTER the Triumphal Entry (Matthew 21:1-11). Notwithstanding the certainty that He had already pronounced the same lament regarding Jerusalem the killer of prophets (see Luke 13:31-35), since it is uttered here at the conclusion of Jesus-' exposure of the true character of the corrupt leaders of Judaism whose sins defied Divine Justice, this dark warning becomes the sad farewell of Israel'S-' truest Patriot as well as the solemn sentence pronounced by Israel's true Judge. The obvious import of His words announces the desolation and abandonment of your house. Whether this house is to be understood with reference to the Temple, to the city of Jerusalem (see Plummer, Matthew, 325), or to the people of Israel (the house of Israel), makes no fundamental difference, since they were to be desolated together. Should it be asked when this national disaster would occur, the context of this lament provides the general time-period: Upon you (will) come all the righteous blood shed on earth. all this will come upon this generation. (Matthew 23:35-36) That the expression Generation is to be taken in its literal, usual sense, and not broadly defined to mean this race or nation, will be noted later on Matthew 24:34, where the meaning is the same.

The point to notice in this warning is Jesus-' cryptic prediction that that generation of wicked, unbelieving Jews would certainly live to see the day when He would appear to them under quite other circumstances than those under which they had brutally rejected Him Who was God's last offer of mercy. But such an appearance does not necessitate a personal visible coming, such as He will make visible to all at the end of the world (cf. Matthew 24:27; Revelation 1:7), but rather a coming in judgment upon Palestine. Should it be objected that You will not see me until. signifies You will see me after. i.e. that this coming to Israel must be visible to the naked eye, we would respond that it was not a visible personal coming to which Jesus referred when He promised His disciples that they too would live to see the Son of man coming in His Kingdom. (Matthew 16:28)

Further, Jesus would be hidden, from the then living generation, in a certain sense and for a certain period of time which He describes as not. until you say, -Blessed be He. -' Some feel that this pictures a future conversion of the Jews. If so, this suggestion, in effect, becomes equivalent to saying: You will truly see me for what I am: your Messiah, when you can join your voices to those who recently acclaimed me their Christ during the Triumphal Entry three days ago. That is, when the Jews were individually converted to Him, they would be able to take up this welcome. However, rather than promising any future wholesale conversion of Israel, according to some millennial theories, this is a threat! I hereby leave your house desolate. You must preserve as best you can this city and Temple which have been under Divine protection until now. You will never see me again as your Messiah, until you yourselves can take up the joyous welcome to me. My mission to you as your Savior is finished, What I have said and done for you should have been enough to convert you. From now on I personally will not disturb you. If you wish to be taught and saved by me, the initiative must come from you, This interpretation is possible, but there is another emphasis that can also be harmonized with the judgment Jesus pronounced upon the Hebrew nation: You will not see me again until that moment when I bring devastating punishment upon the house and nation of Israel. In that horrible moment from you will be wrung that cry, that confession, now willingly owned by others, for which you would even this week crucify me! I will come again in judgment and this generation will see it and acknowledge that I was truly the Messiah, but then it will be too late. Jesus has nothing to say about the willingness of those who thus make the cry He predicts. (Cf. similar cases: Philippians 2:9-11; Revelation 5:13; Revelation 6:12-17; Romans 14:11)

Since the day of grace was not yet completely over for Jerusalem and since Pentecost was yet future, some Jews actually did repent and see Jesus as Messiah, as witnessed in the book of Acts, but by no means all of them did so. This simple decision separated the obdurate from the obedient.
If we have understood this text correctly, Jesus is predicting a moment when He Himself would return during that generation, a time when Judaism would behold and acknowledge as vindicated Him Whom they had rejected. It would be a moment of Divine Justice, resulting in the permanent desertion and desolation of Israel's famous house,

VI.

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 till all these things take place. (Matthew 24:33-34)

Before dealing with this text it must be observed that there is no masculine pronoun (he) in the Greek text, as represented here by the RSV text; the he may well be substituted with it or any indefinite subject, since there is no subject expressed in Greek either in this verse or in the text of Mark 13:29. Something is very near, even at the very gates, about to take place or become visible, of which the signs Jesus had just mentioned are indications (Matthew 24:14-22 and perhaps also Matthew 24:23-31). It is Luke (Luke 21:29-32) who, in recording the same material, fills in the blank and identifies theit left unspecified by Matthew and Mark: So also when you see these things taking place, you know that THE KINGDOM OF GOD is near. The very things the disciples will have seen taking place are easily identified. They are the many false alarms preceding the universal proclamation of the Gospel for a testimony to the nations, the specific sign of Jerusalem being surrounded by armies and Jerusalem's fall which included the crushing end of classic Judaism. This, says Luke's narrative, is but a herald of the exceeding nearness of the Kingdom of God. The important Lucan text to remember in this connection is Luke 9:27 (see under point II above) which recorded Jesus-' exciting promise: But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste of death before they see the KINGDOM OF GOD. Out of this similarity we detect two tempting conclusions:

1.

That the expression this generation (Matthew 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32) is to be taken in its natural sense, referring to the people living in Jesus-' time. This phrase is not to be applied to the entire race of the Jews living down through the centuries to the present time, however tempting it might be to see their continued existence, despite the terrible judgments just mentioned, as a real wonder, or sign. This definition is sound since Jesus is talking about the same manifestation of the Kingdom of God during the lifetime of the Apostles. So this generation means the people living right now, in these times, i.e. the generation in which Jesus was on earth.

2.

That a significant manifestation of God's Kingdom would take place in Jesus-' own generation, long after the beginning of the Church and somehow connected with the destruction of Jerusalem is also deduced from this information.

If the identification of this manifestation of the Kingdom of God with the Son of man coming in His Kingdom with power, be valid (Matthew 16:28; Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27), then that generation of Jewish people would live to see Jesus coming in punitive judgment upon those very people who would have murdered Him. Even. if they did not see Him personally coming from heaven in triumphant glory in that era, they would certainly be forced to recognize that their own divine punishment was just, that the Rule of God has passed out of their hands, that the Kingdom of God is now of another people. We who have accepted Jesus recognize that His prophetic words were true and that there is a new people of God, a new holy and royal priesthood, elect out of every nation.

Should it be objected either that all these things must include Jesus-' prophecies concerning what may be taken to be the events surrounding His own Second Coming (i.e. Matthew 24:23-31; Mark 13:21-27; Luke 21:25-28) and therefore Jesus erroneously thought that His own return must occur within that generation, or. that all these things must include the Second Coming and therefore this generation must include all the generations of Jews down to Christ's Second Coming, we respond that all the facts may be otherwise harmonized, rendering both-these conclusions incorrect.

J. Marcellus Kik (Matthew XXIV) has shown in his excellent exposition of that critical chapter in Christian eschatology that ALL the information in the first section (Matthew 24:4-35) can be interpreted in connection either with the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the Jewish nation or with the theological significance of those events. He considers Matthew 24:34 to be the key to the understanding of the times and seasons involved in Jesus-' discourse, since he places all that follows that verse within the unknown time limits within which Jesus will return the second time. In the section that most assume has reference to Christ's second coming (Matthew 24:23-31; Mark 13:21-27; Luke 21:25-28), Kik believes Jesus is using standardized apocalyptical language for completely earthly events. He feels that this apocalyptic dialect, created by Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Joel and others, was used by Jesus to convey the fundamentally theological notion that universal dominion, glory and a kingdom has been given to Him as the Son of man par excellence. (Cf. Daniel 7:13-14) Kik's contention is that Jesus-' coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory (Matthew 24:30), as well as all the other concomitant phenomena in this section (Matthew 24:27-31), may be so interpreted in light of the apocalyptic language of the OT that even this coming of Jesus, seen by the Jews of that generation, found it fulfilment in the judgment of the Jews and the vindication of Christ's rule in the Church.

While Kik's thesis regarding this section (Matthew 24:23-31) demands further study, it is certainly undeniable that anyone who deals with prophecies given in a Jewish context must also deal with the problem of apocalyptic language which cannot, repeat, must not, be taken literally without doing violence to the meaning intended by the author. This is true whether one is interpreting Matthew 24. the prophecies of Ezekiel or Daniel or the book of Revelation which calls itself the Apocalypse of Jesus Christ. (See above on apocalypses.) Kik has shown us a consistent interpretation of the sentences (Matthew 24:33-34) which includes all the information that precedes them (Matthew 24:4-32). Before we can refute his thesis we must see whether it is reasonable to suppose that Jesus would have inserted a full paragraph of apocalyptic dialect into a discourse made up of normal prophetic language (to be taken more or less literally). But before passing on, it is worthy of notice that this thesis posits a coming of the Son of man at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the nation.

VII. Jesus said to him, You have said so. But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven, (Matthew 26:64)

Under oath before the whole council of the Jews, Jesus not only confessed to being the Christ, the Son of God. He added, without its being required, that a time would come when those seated there before Him, those who were almost entirely and immediately responsible for His judicial murder, would, in a certain sense, behold Him fully vindicated for the magnificent claims He had just made. These tremendous and magnificent claims are stated before the highest court in the Jewish nation. They are stated, therefore, in the most public way, not only as Jesus-' self-incrimination in the eyes of that court, but most especially are these words Jesus-' highest revelation of Himself, given in the most formal, public way. But what did He mean?

It is no little temptation to regard these claims literally, i.e. with reference to Jesus-' Second Coming, especially since John repeats the latter figure in the Revelation (Matthew 1:7), a book believed to have been written long after the destruction of Jerusalem. But even John's use of these figures in that place cannot be considered definitive, since he may be citing the OT expressions in regard to Jesus, even as Jesus Himself is apparently doing here. The point of both passages (i.e. Matthew 26:64 and Revelation 1:7) will have to be sought in the use each makes of those expressions.

In the claim itself we have two separate Messianic references:

1.

Seated at the right hand, as an application of Psalms 110:1 becomes a high claim to messiahship, since this passage was held to be messianic, (Cf. Matthew 22:43-45; Edersheim, Life, II, 720, 721) Taken also in connection with the formulation of the oath by which the high priest held Jesus obligated to commit Himself (Tell us of you are the Christ, the Son of God, Matthew 26:63), this phrase might also call to mind the great Anointed Son of God who as King would rule the nations (Psalms 2; Cf. John 1:49; Edersheim, Life, II, 716, 717).

2.

Son of man. coming on the clouds of heaven, is a phrase which the high priest would have recognized as a reference to Daniel 7:13-14. (Cf. Edersheim, Life, II, 733, 734)

While it may be possible to view these two references as two separate eschatological events or phases of Christ's ultimate divine majesty and coming to judgment in divine glory at the conclusion of the world, yet it would harmonize better with Jesus-' immediate situation to interpret His admittedly apocalyptic language in literal language thus: I admit to being the Christ, the Son of God. Though you consider this blasphemy, nevertheless I can tell you that you will live to see my most daring claims vindicated! You will see my messianic majesty and greatness and dominion as spoken of by the Psalmist and Daniel. Rather than quote the entire passages in each case, Jesus chose key phrases that rapidly summarized the messianic impact of His sovereignty. Lenski (Matthew, 1066) is probably right in deciding that

Jesus adds this statement in order to bring his judges to a realization of just whom they are about to condemn to death. He is defining for them who the Messiah, the Son of God is: he whom they themselves will see in his divine power, rule and majesty.

No, those Sanhedrists were not to be through with Jesus when they had crucified Him, for just four days later God would designate Him Son of God in power. by His resurrection from the dead (Romans 1:5). Not long thereafter this same Sanhedrin had to deal with the rapidly spreading Gospel of the risen Christ preached by a handful of disciples. The chief point of the Apostles-' preaching was let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God had designated both Lord and Christ this Jesus whom you crucified! (Acts 2:33; Acts 2:36; Acts 4:10-12; Acts 5:29-32) God's mercy with these Jewish leaders lasted yet 36 years longer (30-66 A.D.), until the Jewish War began. It was then that the storm broke over Palestine that lashed the nation economically, politically and religiously reducing it to a smoking shambles of its former glory. It was then that Jesus came in judgment upon that people, and the Sanhedrists lived to see it.

There are several problems involved in this interpretation of this text:

1.

Jesus does not here in the trial scene predict the fall of Jerusalem and His coming in judgment, as He had done earlier on many other public and private occasions. (Cf. Luke 13:35; Luke 19:41-44; Matthew 23:29-39) It would have been so much more convenient for the theory of His coming in judgment upon Jerusalem and Judaism, had He done so. But He did not clearly speak of this, so, so much the worse for the theory if it fails to explain the language He used.

2.

If we believe that Jesus were using apocalyptic language derived from the Psalms and Daniel to express His meaning, then, when this same apocalyptic jargon is reduced to literal language by expressing the literal meaning of the figures usedby Daniel especiallythen there is left no literal Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven, (itself part of the vision). What is left is Jesus-' claim to be vindicated as the reigning, glorious Messiah in the near future in a manner observable by His jurors. One cannot translate figurative language into literal, and still hope to make direct use of some part of that figure in his literal interpretation. This is having one's cake and eating it too! This observation is not fatal to the theory sustained here, because it is not argued that Jesus appeared over Jerusalem in a manner visible to the Jews, when He punished that city and nation. So the coming (of the Son of man) on the clouds of heaven harmonizes perfectly as a concept, with the coming of the Son of man described elsewhere.

Answers to these problems may be the following: Jesus meant more than His vindication upon the Jews in the destruction of their Temple and nation, so He did not limit this appearance to the Sanhedrists to merely that single event. He meant His resurrection, the establishment of His Church, the victory of His Gospel, the validation of His claims in the Apostles-' ministry and finally, in the generation, the total collapse of all that those Sanhedrists stood for: the Temple, its ministry, their nation and the place that these Sanhedrists held dear. (Cf. John 11:48) There is no doubting the obvious reference to Daniel 7:13-14, because of the special rage, scorn and incredulity of the high priest that Jesus would commit Himself so far, incriminate Himself so completely. What is sure is that these Jewish rulers were not to see a personal and visible coming in their generation. Rather, as Kik (Matthew XXIV, 84) puts it:

This high priest was to see Christ sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven. Can this possibly refer to Christ's second coming when the description sitting on the right hand of power precludes such interpretation? It means rather that after the crucifixion and resurrection, Jesus would ascend into heaven and take his place on the right hand of God, the Father, as described in Daniel 7:13-14.. When Christ ascended into heaven he was seated upon his Messianic throne. This is in full accord with the declaration of Christ as he was about to ascend into heaven: All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. One of the first manifestations of the power and the glory of the Messiah was the destruction of the city that refused to accept him as King and Savior. This act of judgment gave evidence that all power had indeed been given unto him. He did come in the clouds of heaven and rained destruction upon those who had rejected and crucified him, This caused the tribes of the earth to mourn. The sign of the reigning Christ was seen in the destruction of Jerusalem. And the contemporary generation, indicated in verse 34 (i.e., Matthew 24:34), witnessed fulfilment of these things as Christ had prophesied.

Outside of Matthew, let us notice some other texts that suggest the same sort of a coming of Christ in judgment.

VIII. The coming of the Lord is at hand. (James 5:8)

This verse has particular force, inasmuch as James, if he be identified with James the Just, is remembered by tradition as spending most of his labors in Palestine and particularly in Jerusalem. Accordingly, his death in that city prior to its destruction would lend particular force to the admonitions to patient, uncomplaining endurance, since within a few short years, historically speaking, the Lord would actually come in judgment upon Judaism, snatching away from the unbelievers among the Jews the power to persecute Christians. Objections to this view come from the text itself where the actual wording used by James may be much more technically intended than this interpretation permits. In James 5:7-8 he adopts the expression parousìa toû kurìou, a phrase almost if not always used with reference to Christ's Second Coming.

IX.

Not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the day drawing near. (Hebrews 10:25)

While this verse has no direct reference to a coming of the Son of man in the lifetime of the Apostles, it does make use of another technical term usually thought of as having reference to the great day of the Lord's wrath and judgment, especially that to be witnessed at the end of the world. But in the same context the writer cites Habakkuk 2:3-4 with specific reference to the Messiah (Hebrews 10:37, ho erchòmenos hçxei) On this unusual rendering of the Hebrew text, Keil (Minor Prophets, II, 71) comments:

The LXX have rendered chi boh jaboh: hòti erchòmenos hçxei, which the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Hebrews 10:37) has still further defined by adding the article, and, connecting it with mikròn hòson hòson of Isaiah 26:20 (LXX), has taken it as Messianic, and applied to the speedy coming of the Messiah to judgment; not, however, according to the exact meaning of the words, but according to the fundamental idea of the prophetic announcement. For the vision, the certain fulfilment of which is proclaimed by Habakkuk, predicts the judgment upon the power of the world, which the Messiah will bring to completion.

The notes of Milligan (Hebrews, 284, 292ff) may be of help here:

To what day does our author here refer? To the day of judgment, say Delitzsch, Alford, Moll and others; when Christ will come in person to raise the dead and reward every man according to his works. But this interpretation is manifestly erroneous. To me at least it seems perfectly obvious that the Apostle refers here to a day which both he and his brethren were looking for as a day that was very near at hand: a day that was about to come on that generation, and try the faith of many. And hence I am constrained to think that Macknight, Scott, Stuart, and others, that the reference is most likely to the day of Jerusalem's overthrow. Christ himself had foretold the near approach of that event (Matthew 24:34); he had also spoken of the signs of its coming and of the great calamities that would accompany it (Matthew 24:4-41 sic: Matthew 24:29-31?). No doubt, therefore, the Christians in Palestine were all looking forward with much anxiety to the time when this prophecy would be fulfilled, They would naturally speak of it as the day, the day of trial; the day when seeing Jerusalem encompassed with armies, they would themselves have to flee to the mountains (Luke 21:20-22).. But to refer to it exclusively to the day when Christ will come in person to judge the world is clearly inadmissible. See notes on vers. 37..

37. For yet a little while, etc. More literally: for yet a little while (that is, a very little while), He who is coming (ho erchòmenos) will come, and will not tarry. The coming One here spoken of is manifestly Christ himself. But what is meant by his coming? To what coming does our author here refer? Many say, To His second personal coming. But this is plainly inconsistent with the scope of the Apostle's exhortation, as well as with the truth itself. His obvious design in the passage is to encourage the Hebrew brethren in their begun Christian course, on the ground that the coming of Christ was then very near at hand, when they would all be delivered from the snares, reproaches and violence of their persecutors. But how could he consistently and truthfully encourage them to do this, on the ground that the second personal advent of Christ was then very near at hand? It will not do to say with some that the Apostles themselves so believed and so taught. They did neither, but just the reverse. For when some of the Thessalonian brethren so understood Paul's teaching (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17), he promptly addressed to them a second letter, in which he very emphatically corrected their mistake.. (2 Thessalonians 2:1-3). This, then is a clear and satisfactory refutation of the charge that the Apostles believed and taught that the second personal coming of Christ was near at hand in their own day. And so also is the book of Revelation a refutation of it.. The coming of Christ, as referred to in our text, must therefore mean, not his second personal coming but, his coming in providence most likely, to destroy Jerusalem, and so to deliver his elect from the violent persecutions to which they had long been subjected by the unbelieving Jews (Matthew 24:29-41 sic: Matthew 24:29-31?) To this Christ himself refers encouragingly in Luke 21:28, where, speaking of the signs of Jerusalem's approaching ruin, he says, When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draweth nigh..

This view of the matter is also further corroborated by the fact that our author finds in the prophecy of Habakkuk, concerning the overthrow of the Chaldean monarchy, language so appropriate to his purpose that he here takes and applies it to his own; thereby showing that the two cases are very analogous. it will be seen that our author does not quote the exact words of God's reply to the Prophet; but as is usual in such cases of accommodation (see Romans 10:6-8), he so modifies the language as to adapt it to the case in hand. The main lesson is, however, the same in both Hebrews and Habakkuk; viz.: that God would certainly come and execute his purposes at the appointed time: and that while the proud and self-reliant would of necessity perish under the righteous judgments of God, the just man's faith, if it wavered not, would certainly support him under the severest trials.

This was all impressively illustrated in the fall of Jerusalem. The unbelieving Jews were all slain or taken captive; but not a Christian perished in the siege..

X.

The sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood, before the day of the Lord comes, the great and manifest day. (Acts 2:20)

Did the events prophetically described by Joel (Joel 2:28-32) and cited by Peter (Acts 2:17-21) find exhaustive fulfilment on the day Pentecost, or were they not rather but the beginning of a series of events that began that day, but did not receive complete expression until the final fall of the judgment of God upon the Jewish nation, the destruction of Jerusalem and the conclusive end of the Jewish economy based upon its priesthood, sacrifices and Temple? One feature of Joel's prophecy, yet cited by Peter, that has no apparent fulfilment at all on Pentecost is the figure of the great astronomical portents: And I will give portents in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and columns of smoke. The sun shall be turned to darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the Lord comes. (Joel 2:30; Acts 2:19-20)

The day of the Lord, as shown by Butler (Minor Prophets, 84ff), is a technical term used in the OT with four major significations, hence, having as many different kinds of realization in the history of God's dealings with men: (1) judgments upon the covenant people; (2) redemptions of the covenant people; (3) judgments upon the nations; (4) redemptions of the nations. Joel himself in this case describes the particular day of the Lord that must occur in his own rime, using the same apocalyptic language of judgment. Several times in his description he speaks of astronomical cataclysms (Joel 2:1-2; Joel 2:10-11; Joel 3:15) This gives a specific flavor of punitive judgment to these symbols, so that when they are used by Peter, his audience could not but shiver at the awesome threat and divine warning implied in those figures.

If we have understood Matthew 24:4-32 correctly (see above under Matthew 24:34, point VI), it may be that the celestial phenomena, described in the section most often interpreted with reference to the Second Coming (i.e. Matthew 24:29-31) have nothing at all to do with those heavenly bodies. Instead, there, as here, we may see the standard apocalyptic vision of divine judgment. As has been repeated many times before, divine judgment did actually fall on Palestine many years after Pentecost. But is it possible to apply this prophecy just to the fall of the Jewish nation? What has been said earlier about the use of apocalyptic stereotyped language might be true here, inasmuch as we have a clear example of an OT prophet cited whose own contextual information leads us to view his language as highly figurative, hence NOT intending LITERAL celestial phenomena. (Cf. Joel 1:15; Joel 2:1-2; Joel 2:10-11; Joel 3:14-15 with Isaiah 13:1-22 esp. Isaiah 13:9-10; Isaiah 5:30; Isaiah 24:21-23; Isaiah 50:3) While it is true that the Christian writers can speak of the final judgment as the great and notable day of the Lord, yet the use of this phrase in the OT makes it doubtful whether every appearance of this phrase in the NT must necessarily be applied exclusively and always to the great final judgment at the end of the world. Even the salvation of the believers here predicted (Acts 2:21) proved to be two-fold salvation, not only of their souls, but also of their lives. They believed Jesus and so were saved from their sins; they believed Jesus-' prophecies and so were not destroyed on the great day of the Lord when Jesus judged Jerusalem and the unbelieving Jews.

XI.

The end of all things is at hand; therefore keep sane and sober for your prayers. (1 Peter 4:7)

These words were addressed by Peter to the exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, (1 Peter 1:1) probably prior to 70 A.D., since traditional dating of Peter's own martyrdom is placed prior to that date. But would this sentence have much point for the exiles of the Diaspora living in lands distant from Palestine, whose lives and security would not be materially affected by the vicissitudes in Judea? If these are primarily Jewish Christians, as the words of the inscription imply, Peter's admonition would take on particular strength and receive special fulfilment as the nerve center of world-wide Judaism would be torn to the ground, never to rise again for centuries, if ever. The value of this exhortation to these distant Christians would be obvious, since the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple, God's chosen house, would probably be looked upon as almost, if not entirely incredible. It would probably be less incredible to these Christians than it was to the disciples who heard Jesus predict these events originally (Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21), since the Apostles themselves could have repeated much of the Lord's prophetic discourse to their converts. Hence, just a word of reminder, such as this exhortation of Peter'S, would suffice.

But should it be objected that Peter says The end of ALL things is at hand, it must be remembered that Jesus used similar language to describe the destruction of Jerusalem. (Cf. all these things Matthew 24:33-34 and parallels) Or if it be objected that Peter's words, being indefinitely stated, are also capable of double entendre, this is true, but not fatal to the theory suggested here. If it be thought that Peter's words here should be interpreted in light of his later message (2 Peter 3:8-13), then we respond that here the words are indefinitely aimed at some end near at hand, whereas Peter in the other passage addressed himself to the scornful demand made by mockers: Where is the promise of His coming (parousìa)? an obvious reference to the Second Coming.

PROBLEMS INVOLVED IN THIS THEORY OR ITS PRESENTATION

1. One of the most painfully obvious weaknesses of this study is the fact that it does not take into adequate account the various differing views of each single passage. There are certainly other passages that should be presented here, just as there are more objections to some used here. As a necessary consequence, the presentation of the evidence is quite one-sided, The justification for this presentation lies therefore in the hope that the reader is already familiar with the other views to which this presentation is but an alternative. This collection of coincidences and single texts must be examined in their contexts in their entirety to appreciate the impact they represent.

2. Another weakness, more serious to the suggestion that the special coming of the Son of man refers to Jesus-' coming in judgment upon the Jewish nation, is the fact that none of the inspired writers ever declares this interpretation to be the theological meaning of the demise of the Jewish city and nation, This is true, unless the figures of Revelation be so interpreted. (Cf. Revelation 11) Our present state of knowledge regarding the date of NT books gives no mathematical certainty regarding the relationship between the writing of the bulk of the NT books and the date of the Jewish War (66-70 A.D.) While the conservative scholars tend to place the dates of most of them before that tragedy, yet the enigma remains when the Johannine Scriptures are considered. If John wrote considerably after the fall of Jerusalem, why did he not once mention that fact, even though he talked all around the subject of Jerusalem itself in his Gospel and in his Apocalypse could have made reference to it?

There may be other weaknesses too, but let us ask ourselves:

WHAT IS TO BE GAINED IF THIS THEORY BE ACCEPTED AS TRUE?

1. This suggestion provides a possible harmonization for other passages of the NT that contained problems that had seemed insoluble under other schemes, rendering it more difficult to accept the Gospel at face value, for those who did not see this solution. It is not necessary, on the basis of Gospel studies, to conclude that Jesus was mistaken, since He thought that His own second coming must take place shortly after the fall of the Jewish economy. Nor is it necessary to conclude that the Apostles themselves and the early Christians erroneously presumed that they would live until the Second Coming. Worse yet, is the opinion that the discourses in which the eschatological events are predicted are not factual recordings of anything Jesus ever actually said, but are the theological opinions of later ages put into the mouth of Jesus to give them greater credibility. Instead, if this solution here offered be valid, then the exegesis upon which these unbelieving conclusions were based, may need correction.

2. If this suggestion be true, that Jesus actually came in judgment upon the Jews, then, of course, many texts that were formerly considered as dealing exclusively with the Second Coming will now be subtracted from discussions of that subject. As a result, the texts that actually deal with the Second Coming will be seen much more clearly, since the confusion, created by trying to weigh texts on the destruction of Jerusalem into the conclusions about the Second Coming, would, presumably, no longer exist, since the texts about Jesus-' judgment on Judaism would not have to be considered. Needless to say, such clarity made available for eschatological studies surrounding the Second Coming would be of great value. (Revelation 1:3) This clarity would help to place eschatological studies on a surer basis and give them respectability in the eyes of the average Christian who must throw up his hands in despair in face of the present state of confusion in the field.

3. Out of this last expression comes another conclusion. This suggestion that Jesus actually came in judgment upon the Jewish world in the first century would provide us one more reasonably clear evidence that Jesus intends to keep His Word about that future great day of the Lord when He will come personally and visibly to judge the nations. His promise would be enough for the average believer. But the certainty of His promise is driven home with redoubled force, when men realize that He has already clearly shown the greatness of His power and the dependability of His promises in the historically verifiable act of judgment upon Judaism in the events beginning with the unsuccessful Jewish Revolt and the disastrous fall of Jerusalem with all its religious consequences for all future ages of both Jerusalem and the Church. Jesus is a Gentleman who keeps His appointments! This, of course, poses an unveiled threat to every complacent person who frankly enjoys his sinful way of life. The eschatological hope of the Christians is not unfounded, wishful thinking, but rather a splendidly concrete reality already in motion, of which the smashing judgment of unbelieving Judaism and the glorious vindication of the Church's claims was but an earnest and evidence.
4. The historical importance of the destruction of Jerusalem and the blotting out of the Jewish theocracy is inestimable to Christianity in the following ways, listed by Newman (Manual of Church History, I, 118, 119; see also Schaff, History of the Christian Church, I, 402, 403):

a.

It marked in the most unmistakable way the end of the old dispensation and the complete emancipation of Christianity from the thraldom of Judaism. It was henceforth impossible for any one to observe the ceremonial law in its fullness. No doubt the Pauline type of Christianity would ultimately have become dominant apart from this fearful interposition of Divine Providence. Judaistic Christianity was to persist in the form of sects, but catholic Christianity could no longer be Judaizing.

b.

The destruction of the city was very commonly looked upon by Christians as a divine judgment on the Jewish people for their rejection and crucifixion of the Messiah. It may safely be said that if the Jews as a body, or a large portion of them, had accepted Christ as their Saviour and had become partakers of the Spirit of Christ, the Jewish Zealots, who brought ruin upon their people, would not have arisen or would not have secured popular support.

c.

The great catastrophe may be regarded as a direct fulfilment of our Lord's predictions as recorded in Matthew 21:43; Matthew 23:37-39 and in Luke 21:20-28.

d.

This great event is regarded by many as a fulfilment of our Lord's prophecies regarding his speedy coming in his kingdom (Matthew 10:23; Matthew 16:28; Matthew 24:34), and of such passages in the apostolic Epistles and the Acts of the Apostles as represent the Lord's advent as imminent. It seems harsh to associate so glorious an event as the Lord's coming with a catastrophe so terrible; yet there can be no question but that the destruction of the city and the theocracy gave a freedom and a universality to the gospel which mark an epoch in the history of Christianity and placed the gradually advancing kingdom of Christ on a firm basis.

e.

There is no reason to think that the Roman authorities at this time discriminated carefully between Christianity and Judaism in favor of the former; but the time had past when the accusations of Jews against Christians would be heeded by the civil courts. Henceforth the Jews were without political influence and were treated with contempt by the Roman officials.

In view of the foregoing, consider the following

SKETCH OF THE ESCHATOTLOGICAL CONCLUSIONS REPRESENTED

SOME FURTHER COMMENTS ON ARGUMENTS FOR JESUS-' DEITY AND AUTHORITY

I. HIS PRECISION AS A PROPHET

G. C. Morgan (Matthew, 104): One of the most profound reasons for trusting Christ today in the matter of all Christian service is that here and elsewhere He revealed His perfect knowledge of conditions which no man could forecast, and which yet have transpired exactly as He foretold them. What is more significant, as Morgan declares, is that the keenest of human foresight could not foresee the distinct changes of direction that history, in direct relationship to His disciples, would have taken. Let us notice that the change of conditions created by the crucifixion of Jesus, and again by the fall of Jerusalem, are self-evident. The position of these men was greatly changed after the crucifixion of Jesus; and it was greatly changed again when the principal force in persecuting them was broken. It is perfectly clear that the King foresaw these things, and that He understood perfectly the whole movement of the years that stretched before Him.

II. HIS CANDOR, HONESTY AND COMPASSION

Barclay (Matthew I, 385): Here is my task for youat its grimmest and at its worstdo you accept it?

McGarvey, (Matthew-Mark. 95): There is a contrast between Jesus and the originators of earthly enterprises, whether secular or religious. It is the custom of the latter to paint in glowing colors the brighter prospects of the causes they plead, and to conceal from both themselves and others the darker side of the picture. But Jesus presents faithfully before His disciples all of the hardships and sufferings which await them, not omitting death itselfand death, it may be, on the cross. The foreknowledge displayed is proof of His divinity, while the compassion and the candor which accompany it are such as we would expect in the Son of God.

Notice that His revelations of the brutal realities in the fearful future are not given in a brutal manner. The Lord compassionately shows the help available in time of need.

Though it is not the usual way to win followers, nevertheless Jesus appeals to that adventurer hidden in the heart of every man. In the long run, one does not attract MEN to the easy way by inducements of comfort, advancement, ease, and fulfilment of worldly ambitions. It is the honest challenge of the heroic that ultimately appeals to men. The Church softens this approach and waters her message to her peril!

III. HIS ROYAL DEMANDS

Plummer (Matthew, 157): -For My sake.-' Again we have a claim which is monstrous if He who makes it is not conscious of being Divine. Who is it that is going to own us or renounce us before God's judgment-seat (32, 33)? Who is it that promises with such confidence that the man who loses his life for His sake shall find it? And these momentous utterances are spoken as if the Speaker had no shadow of doubt as to their truth, and as if He expected that His hearers would at once accept them. What is more, thousands of Christians, generation after generation, have shaped their lives by them and have proved their truth by repeated experience.

IV. HIS ASSUMED AUTHORITY

Bengal, (cited in PHC, 242): Great is the authority of conferring authority. Notice how simply Jesus is reported to have done it. (Matthew 10:1) There is no great apologetic which lists reasons why Jesus should have the right to confer authority upon His disciples. Matthew says, He simply did it, and that was that!

Note His claim, everywhere implicit in the chapter, that our faith in Jesus determines our standing before God.

Other points suggested by Lewis and Booth, PHC, XXII, 245:

V.

THE CONSISTENCY OF THE SAVIORThe prayers He enjoins, the provisions He makes, the instructions He gives, are all of a piece.

VI.

THE CONSIDERATION OF THE SAVIOR.He does not set His workmen to begin at the top of the ladder. He does not ask them at first what, to many among them, will not be too easy at last. Not first apart from Him, but first by His side.

VII. THE FORETHOUGHT OF THE SAVIOR.He sets them at first to that which will help to qualify them for what has to be done at the last.