Back to The PreteristSite Home Page
The Scripture Index and the Bibliography can be viewed in new tabs or pop-up windows convenient for checking references and further reading.
In October 2003, I did a TheologyWeb sponsored PalTalk Question and Answer session with a futurist. Though I had the pleasure of tossing out many heretical Preterists who disobeyed the room rules, the discussion itself was extremely frustrating. So, I started this project of going verse by verse through the Olivet Discourse.
That futurist kept snagging the discussion on the first few verses. I wanted to beat the wall with my head in frustration. However, there were several guys in the audience who wished to know more about Preterism, and I offered to go verse by verse with them through the Discourse in a discussion thread on the TheologyWeb forum. During this process I realized I was authoring a pretty detailed commentary and made it then a goal to finish the discussion and compile all the various posts into a consolidated and evolving cyber-commentary. If anyone has any additional resources or arguments that you think should be included, or you see any areas that are duplicative or could be organized a bit better, please drop me a note, it would be most appreciated. Also, I am by no means a professional writer and tend to get long-winded and repetitive.
The point of view presented will be the orthodox Preterist perspective. I condemn with the strongest possible terms the modern cultic movement of NeoHymenæanism - a.k.a. full Preterism, hyper-preterism, and pantelism as well as some self-serving labels used by its adherents.
I discuss Matthew 24 verse by verse; the Table of Contents enables easy navigation to the discussion of each verse group. The Scripture Index at the end lists every Bible verse cited. This work will be updated as new information comes up and/or the author changes her views or opinions. Original source citations will be noted within brackets and linked to Bibliography. Since this commentary originally started as a bulletin board discussion thread at TheologyWeb, the tone is purposefully casual, conversational, and ripe with my personal quirkiness. When viewing this work online, red boxes are used to highlight Olivet Discourse or introductory passages; black boxes, other Bible verses.
The Scripture references in the following Table of Contents are not exhaustive but rather the primary place(s) that I begin to deal with those particular verse(s). A complete Scripture index is located here.
Jesus Christ's Olivet discourse, near the end of His ministry, has sparked endless eschatological speculations, and is now overwhelmingly believed, at least in American Christian culture, to refer to the Second Coming and a future horrific world-wife Tribulation. That will not be the interpretation offered here, which though it may not be as, well, frankly titillatingly exciting as what is proffered by some of today's prophecy teachers, it is what I have come down a long and painful road to believe is Biblical. Although Christ's words are recorded in three parallel passages (Luke 21, Mark 13, and Matthew 24), our foundational text will be the Olivet Discourse as recorded in Matthew 24 with reference to the Marcan and Lukan accounts, as well as other passages as needed. The primary goal is to remain as tightly focused as possible on this particular prophecy to see what sense can be made of it to aid us in interpreting more difficult passages such as those found in Revelation. The methodology for this study is exegetical, a verse or group of verses will be examined systematically and comprehensively before moving on to the next verse or group. A secondary goal is to at least allow futurist brethren to see that we Preterists are really not smoking crack - there is a legitimate and orthodox exegetical foundation for our whacky beliefs. Also perhaps mutual understanding and respect can be fostered.
As Tommy Ice has humourously said: ". . . when you talk to a Preterist, get ready to hear the words, "this generation" at least eight dozen times if you have an extended conversation" [Ic DVP 393]. Tommy was, of course, referring to the preteristic penchant for this verse:
Matthew 24:34: Most assuredly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.
. . . that is in fact the pivotal verse, or at least the initial pivotal verse that drives this discussion from a Preterist point of view. In the Paltalk discussion that I had which was the catalyst for this commentary, I was attempting to focus on the significance of "this generation" as a timing verse, and the Frustrating Futuristtm said that it was improper to just look at that verse, but that one must look at the context. I couldn't agree more, and that is where we will start this commentary.
So let's get started with some contextual background. We all know that the chapter divisions in our text are not inspired and in fact the divisions they place in the text can be quite artificial. So while this commentary is focused upon an exegesis of Matthew 24, we actually do need to back up a little bit and go through the context in the preceding chapters.
The Gospel writers did not include everything that Jesus ever said and did - they chose (or more appropriately the Holy Spirit chose through them) what they wanted to record and very often in what order they wanted to record it in. Their narratives are much more than mere chronological recitations of historical events; they are the framing of historical events for a redemptive story and very often a polemical point. This is particularly true in Matthew who was writing specifically to the Jews. The entire context of the Gospel of Matthew must be taken into consideration when attempting to interpret Matthew 24, which is a carefully crafted climax of a particular theme by Matthew.
Kenneth Gentry shows the importance of examining the preceding contextual themes before getting into Matthew 24 as it will give some clear markers to the point that Matthew is highlighting [Ge TGT 16-26].
While all the Gospels do focus on the rejection of Christ by His own people[Sch M24GT 4], Matthew's Gospel is uniquely focused on judgment and condemnation of the Jewish apostates, and in fact so much so, that critics and Jewish anti-missionary types argue that it is anti-Semitic!! Matthew also portray Gentiles in a favourable light to again contrast the theme of judgment upon the apostates among the Jews. As Gentry put it, "Matthew forecasts a gathering storm drifting towards Israel." Going into detail into each of the proceeding Chapters is beyond the scope of this work so I will simply highlight some important portions and recommend Gentry's material to the interested reader.
Right at the beginning of Matthew's Gospel, the ministry of John the Baptist is presented, who speaks with great vitriol to the Jewish leadership of his day and warns the people of the wrath to come and that the ax is NOW laid at the root of the tree. He proclaims that the Kingdom is AT HAND. The winnowing fork is ALREADY in God's hand. The contemporary urgency and time referents simply cannot be mistaken. Here is the passage to let the force of it speak for itself:
Matthew 3:7-12: But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, "Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not think to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire."
There are many themes introduced in that passage which will recur in the Gospel including the condemnation of the religious leaders and the warning of wrath due to judgment upon apostasy. The leaders were confident that their lineage from Abraham was sufficient, yet, as Jesus later graphically denounced, they had the lineage of the murderers of the righteous. For our purposes, it is very important to note that John was emphatic about the immediate urgency of his appeal. The "one who is coming" after John will already have His winnowing fan in His hand to separate out the wheat from the chaff. This separation is not something that will wait until some other phase of the purpose of the Coming One, it will be one of His first orders of business. The two-fold theme of judgment and blessing is also introduced. The winnowing process is blessing to the wheat, but destruction for the chaff. They are the two sides of the one reality.
The themes of destruction and judgment continue as Matthew progresses with the added explicit and scandalous teaching that in fact the Gentiles will prove to be more righteous than the apostate Jews based upon faith and not upon bloodlines. For example:
Matthew 8:10-12: When Jesus heard it [the reports of the faith of a Gentile centurion], He marveled, and said to those who followed, "Assuredly, I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel! And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Matthew 11:20-24: Then He began to rebuke the cities in which most of His mighty works had been done, because they did not repent: "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you."
Scattered throughout the chapters leading up to our point of study, there is also a deliberate repetition of the phrase "this generation" almost as an epithet against the apostates of Jesus' day (11:16; 12:41; 12:42 and soon 23:36). This will be explored in greater detail when we get to that exact same phrase in Chapters 23 and 24.
Things worsen considerably in Chapters 21 and 22 where the contemporary judgment references are more explicit, frequent, and unmistakably directed towards His immediate audience. The clear Messianic claims also increase. In Chapter 21, Jesus cleanses the Temple and very shortly later permanently curses the fig tree which in context obviously represents barren Israel (which presents quite a pickle for those dispensationalists who want to say that the fig tree in the Discourse is the sign of Isreal bearing fruit.) But even more explicitly, there is the parable of the Wicked Vinedressers:
Matthew 21:33-39: "Hear another parable: There was a certain landowner who planted a vineyard and set a hedge around it, dug a winepress in it and built a tower. And he leased it to vinedressers and went into a far country. Now when vintage-time drew near, he sent his servants to the vinedressers, that they might receive its fruit. And the vinedressers took his servants, beat one, killed one, and stoned another. Again he sent other servants, more than the first, and they did likewise to them. Then last of all he sent his son to them, saying, 'They will respect my son.' But when the vinedressers saw the son, they said among themselves, 'This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.' So they took him and cast him out of the vineyard and killed him."
The meaning of this parable in the context of Matthew is clear. God established Israel, His vineyard, (typified as Jerusalem, the seat of the Temple) and expected it to bear Him fruit. When it failed, He would send prophets and messengers, yet the people killed them. Finally, He sent His Son, but the people did not want to be under God's rule, they wanted independence, thus, they killed the Heir - Jesus, outside of the vineyard (Jerusalem.) Not convinced of this imagery? Check out:
Hebrews 1:1-2: God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things. . .
And (getting a bit ahead of ourselves):
Matthew 23:37-38: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! See! Your house is left to you desolate. . . "
The Son was sent to the vineyard keepers who would not receive Him.
Jesus continues:
Matthew 21:40-41: "Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?" They said to Him, "He will destroy those wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons."
Notice the connection between the owner [God] "coming" and destruction of the disobedient. Jesus then appropriates a Messianic passage to Himself and declares:
Matthew 21:42-45: Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: 'The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone. This was the LORD's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes'? "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it. And whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder." Now when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they perceived that He was speaking of them.
They understood that Jesus was speaking of them, back then - who would reject the Son, who would lose the Kingdom, and upon whom the stone would fall.
We then creep closer to the Discourse with Chapter 22.
Matthew 22:1-7And Jesus answered and spoke to them again by parables and said: "The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son, and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding; and they were not willing to come. Again, he sent out other servants, saying, 'Tell those who are invited, "See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding."' But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. And the rest seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them. But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.
This parable of the wedding feast illustrates Israel's resistance to God's call which results in fiery judgment when "the king was enraged and sent his armies and destroyed those murderers and set their city on fire" (and God gathers Gentiles to the wedding feast. Interesting, as Gentry notes [Ge TGT 20], this utterly clear reference to AD70 has caused some "higher" critics (ha!) to declare it an ex eventu (after the fact) prophecy. R.T. France notes helpfully, "Jesus' prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple are too many and varied to be dismissed as vaticinia ex eventu." [Fr JOT 71] But we cannot miss the importance of Chapter 21 and following - the judgments here are vivid, clear, and pronounced and nearly everyone concedes (as even the apostate Jews who were Jesus' audience conceded), He was "talking about them" (21:45) within this clear reference to the destruction of Jerusalem.
Now as we are leading into the opening scene that immediately precedes the Discourse which is the subject of our study. . .
Matthew 23:29-30: Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, and say, 'If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.'
Jesus finishes utterly reaming the top religious dogs of His day:
Matthew 23:31-36: "Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers' guilt. Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation."
The lock tumblers fall into place! Judgment comes upon "this generation" - upon THEM. He tells them that they have filled up the measure of their fathers' guilt. Why? All of the Old Testament testified about Christ (John 5:39) - All of the prophets testified about Christ (Luke 24:27). Now Christ was actually there, so in denying and murdering Christ, they confirmed and recommitted all of the lesser sins of their fathers, who just denied and murdered the messengers [De LDM 53] [Ge TGT 20-22] [Sch M24GT 6-8].
It is key that Christ tells them to fill up then on the measure of their father's guilt. God tells us in the OT that He visits the iniquity of the fathers unto the children if the children confirm and continue in their father's way (Exodus 20:5). Their guilt is greater as they have the witness of their fathers and did not learn their lessons. God said that same thing when condemning the nation of Judah for not learning the lesson from watching her wicked sister, the nation of Israel, fall into harlotry (Jeremiah 3:7-8). Having reminded people of what the Scriptures warned about, Jesus goes on to warn that those who rejected Him while He walked among them would receive greater punishment that those in the past who just rejected His messengers and not Him personally (Luke 11:29-32; Matthew 11:20-24) [De LDM 54]. And lastly it brings to mind Genesis 15:16 when God mentioned that the "iniquity of the Amorites was not yet full" and that it would take many generations (in the normal sense of the word) for that fullness to be complete. Christ is making an allusion to that passage and in fact to Daniel 9:24 in which a set amount of time was determined for Jerusalem and her people. His first century audience would have immediately recognized those allusions. Also remember that God took vengeance on the people of Amalek for the acts of their ancestors generations earlier who victimized the Israelites during their Exodus by killing the stragglers and the sick (1 Samuel 15:3). Why? Because the current Amalekites continued in and confirmed those sins. When all this is understood, it is patently obvious who "this generation" is and why it is consistently Biblical for this justice to be meted out on them. Thus there we have a clear passage pronouncing that the blood-guilt of the death of the faithful witnesses to YHWH throughout the ages would fall on them ("this generation") [Ge TGT 20-22] [Sch M24GT 6-8].
Some object that the Jews of that generation did not in fact kill the son of Berechiah as Jesus stated, thus the "you" being addressed could not be time-bound to the people then listening. However, as explained above, it is a corporate responsibility that is coming to a head as His audience would ratify and typify all of the sins that came before. Jesus specifically addresses the Pharisees standing before Him (Mark 7:6-7), Jesus states:
Well did Isaiah prophesy of YOU hypocrites, as it is written: This people honors Me with their lips but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.
Yet the original context (Isaiah 29:13) was clearly to the Jews living in the 8th century BC - yet Christ was able to say it was also specifically about THOSE hypocrites standing right before Him. [Fr JOT 69]
Now continuing. . .
Matthew 23:37-39: O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! See! Your house is left to you desolate; for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!"
Jesus in light of this pronounced condemnation laments over the city of Jerusalem. Why the city? Cities and their leadership are often intertwined in the Bible. He makes it explicit here that in pronouncing doom upon the leadership, He was pronouncing doom upon Jerusalem, and makes reference to His longing for her faithfulness throughout the ages, and that now, the penalty for her harlotry has come home to roost. The city and Temple are also bound up together for it is the Temple that is the "House" that is left desolate - and the Discourse must be understood with that very specific backdrop. Jesus didn't pronounce doom upon the whole planet, but rather on the religious hierarchy and system of His day - Jerusalem and the Temple. We today, two thousand years removed, have a hard time really grasping just how heavy this was, and the utter shock this must have caused His disciples. This was made all the more shocking by the fact that Jesus was in the Temple itself as He was saying these things - and from that day forward, He never entered the Temple again. This milieu cannot be ignored or separated from the verses that follow. [Blu M24].
This same thought of impending and shattering judgment is repeated by Jesus on the Via Dolorosa to those who mourned Him:
Luke 23:28-31: But Jesus, turning to them, said, "Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for Me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. For indeed the days are coming in which they will say, 'Blessed are the barren, wombs that never bore, and breasts which never nursed!' Then they will begin to say to the mountains, 'Fall on us!' and to the hills, 'Cover us!' For if they do these things in the green wood, what will be done in the dry?"
That generation of Jews did in fact call down that anathema upon themselves and their children:
Matthew 27:24-26: When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, "I am innocent of the blood of this just Person. You see to it." And all the people answered and said, "His blood be on us and on our children." Then he released Barabbas to them; and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified.
PLEASE carefully note that this is a time-specific "curse" - it is not a curse upon Jews from that day forward, through even this day, until the Second Coming (which is a logical conclusion of consistently applied dispensationalism, by the way.) Also, in somewhat of a sidenote, this is a good place to begin to point out some of the parallels between the doomed city of Jerusalem in the Olivet Discourse and the harlot "Mystery Babylon" in Revelation which are in fact, upon examination, one and the same. A full examination obviously is beyond the scope of this piece, but compare the verse just quoted above with this Old Testament passage [Bal Bab 77-80]:
Jeremiah 51:35: May the violence done to our flesh [alt. reading - done to us and to our children] be upon Babylon, say the inhabitants of Zion, may our blood be on those who live in Babylonia, says Jerusalem. [NIV]
The city which was called to be faithful to God has become like her ancient enemy, persecuting the righteous, murdering her bridegroom, and pridefully calling down the very same curses upon her. So much more could be said, but let this verse suffice for now:
Isaiah 1:21 See how the faithful city [Jerusalem] has become a harlot! She once was full of justice; righteousness used to dwell in her - but now murderers! [NIV]
Now, there is a difficult statement here that some futurists clutch unto, but it cannot mean what they attempt to say. We may have some differences as to what it does mean, but we can rule some things out.
Matthew 23:39: . . . you shall see Me no more till you say, "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!"
Now what in the world does this mean? Well one thing it cannot be referring to is "physical sight" as they certainly "saw" Him after that statement. It certainly is a promise of the withdrawal of Himself in some way until they repented, without any assurance that they would in fact repent. It is an utterly conditional promise [De LDM 60-62], and has nothing directly to do with "seeing" Christ at the Second Coming. The Second Coming is utterly foreign thus far to anything said. Jesus was not talking about leaving at all, never mind having to come back. His statements utterly focused on His rejection of the Old Covenant order and the Old Covenant system.
Futurists have a habit of interpreting this verse as a future certain promise - i.e. that one day the Jews will certainly repent and welcome the returning Messiah. However, the word "until" does not indicate certainty but conditionality. For example: [De WATV]
Matthew 5:26: Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny.
Jesus is not stating a certainty that the parabolic prisoner will be released, He is stating the conditions for release (see also Matthew 18:20, Matthew 18:34, and Acts 23:12) [De WATV]. The meaning of "until" in that verse may be certain (as, "not until the next solar eclipse") rather than conditional (as, "not until you give me that!"). To determine which meaning, contextual indicators must be used. As we'll see, futurism has no warrant to pick the former meaning here. And in fact thousands of Jews did acknowledge their Messiah prior to God's vengeance on Jerusalem and were saved[De WATV] by looking unto Jesus.
Somewhat of a side-note is in order. To bolster the claim of a future ethnic Israel restored as a physical kingdom, dispensational futurists often quote:
Acts 1:6: Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, "Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?"
The futurists suggest that Jesus is affirming the disciple's alleged belief in a future physical kingdom but merely rebuffs them on the timing. NT Wright is instructive:
[Jesus] gives an answer which many have taken as 'no' [He will not at this time restore the Kingdom to Israel], but which Luke almost certainly intends as a 'yes'. They will not know about particular times, but this is how the kingdom will come: by their Spirit-driven witness to him in Jerusalem, Judaea, Samaria and to the ends of the earth. [Acts 1:7-9] As has often been pointed out, this sentence is progammatic for the entire book, moving as it does from the initial preaching in Jerusalem and the surrounding area, through a specifically Samaritan mission in chapter 8, on to the worldwide reach of the gospel. . . . [NTW Rez 654]
Matthew 24:1-3: Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said to them, "Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down." Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?"
The context has been set perfectly clear. The astounded disciples just heard Jesus denounce and pronounce judgment upon literally the whole Jewish "world" - the religious leaders, Jerusalem, and the Temple. They, in a typical way, wanted to ask Him about these pronouncements because in their flesh they cannot believe that He really meant what He said, so they point out to Him the seemingly "permanent" Temple and its beauty. How could God want to destroy this?
Let's dissect these verses first and then the parallel verses in Mark 13 and Luke 21 to see that Jesus made Himself abundantly clear. . . first up is the Matthean text
Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple. (the Temple that existed back then) And Jesus said to them, "Do you not see all these things? (the Temple that existed back then) Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here (notice the word "here" - it is referring to those actual stones, the ones that existed then ) upon another, that shall not be thrown down."
Next using Mark 13:3-4 as a source:
Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives (opposite the Temple that existed back then) Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked Him privately, "Tell us, when will these things be?" (it matters not that they asked Him more questions, obviously one of the things that they wanted to know was when the Temple that existed back then would be destroyed)
Lastly using Luke 21:5-7 as a source:
Then, as some spoke of the temple, (the Temple that existed back then) how it was adorned with beautiful stones and donations, He said, "These things which you see - (the Temple that was before their very eyes right then) the days will come in which not one stone shall be left upon another that shall not be thrown down." So they asked Him, saying, "Teacher, but when will these things be? (again, part of "these things" MUST include the destruction that He just prophesied that prompted their questions to begin with)
So the context is still undeniably the first century. There has been nothing said about the end of the earth, the Second Coming, black helicopters, etc. The context has been devastatingly local and Jewish and centered around the Temple and Jerusalem as it existed back then.
In Mark and Luke, just prior to this parallel condemnation on the Temple, Jesus, while IN the Temple, taught on Psalm 110, a fact which is usually overlooked. The importance of Psalm 110 to NT eschatology and Christology cannot be over-stressed as it is the most quoted or alluded to OT passage in the NT [Bau GC 29-34].
Luke 20:41-44 and Mark 12:35-37: And He said to them, "How can they say that the Christ is the Son of David? Now David himself said in the Book of Psalms: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool."' Therefore David calls Him 'Lord'; how is He then his Son?"
This is an extraordinary pronouncement that silenced His critics, made IN the Temple, and then while leaving the Temple Jesus makes the most extraordinary claim of all - that VERY Temple would be destroyed. We today may not grasp the absurdity and gravity of such an idea - it would be only equivalent to someone predicting the utter destruction of the World Trade Centers before it happened. Actually with our "worship" of material success and status perhaps a parallel to the Temple is uncomfortably close. The Temple was a glorious structure that inspired awe in the ancient world:
"So Herod took away the old foundations, and laid others, and erected the temple upon them, being in length twenty additional cubits, and in height twenty additional cubits. . . Now the temple was built of stones that were white and strong, and each of their length was twenty-five cubits, their height was eight, and their breadth about twelve; and the whole structure, as also the structure of the royal cloister, was on each side much lower, but the middle was much higher, till they were visible to those that dwelt in the country for a great many furlongs, but chiefly to such as lived over against them and those that approached them. The temple had doors also at the entrance, and lintels over them, of the same height with the temple itself. They were adorned with embroidered veils, with their flowers of purple, and pillars interwoven: and over these, but under the crown-work, was spread a golden vine, with its branches hanging down from a great height, the largeness and fine workmanship of which was a surprising sight to the spectators, to see what vast materials there were, and with what great skill the workmanship was done. He also encompassed the entire temple with very large cloisters, contriving them to be in due proportion thereto; and he laid out larger sums of money upon them than had been done before him, till it seemed that no one else had so greatly adorned the temple as he had done. There was a large wall to both the cloisters; which wall was itself the most prodigious work that was ever heard of by man. This hill it was which Solomon, who was the first of our kings, by divine revelation, encompassed with a wall; it was excellent workmanship upwards, and round the top of it. He also built a wall below, beginning at the bottom, which was encompassed by a deep valley; and at the south side he laid rocks together and bound them one to another with lead, and included some of the inner parts, till it proceeded to a great height, and till both the largeness of the square edifice and its altitude were immense, and till the vastness of the stones in the front were plainly visible on the outside, yet so that the inward parts were fastened together with iron, and preserved the joints immovable for all future times. . . and round about the entire temple were fixed the spoils taken from barbarous nations; all these had been dedicated to the temple by Herod, with the addition of these he had taken from the Arabians." ("Jewish Antiquities" 15.11.3) cited in [Gh Per 2-3]
This is not the only place where Jesus clearly prophesies the fate of the Temple (and the city) then standing.
Luke 19:41-44: Now as He drew near, He saw the city and wept over it, saying, "If you had known, even you, especially in this your day, the things that make for your peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. For days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment around you, surround you and close you in on every side, and level you, and your children within you, to the ground; and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not know the time of your visitation."
This also remarkably fulfills Old Testament prophecy [Blu M24] [Cu Rap 156]:
Micah 3:9-12: Now hear this,you heads of the house of Jacob and rulers of the house of Israel, who abhor justice and pervert all equity, who build up Zion with bloodshed and Jerusalem with iniquity: her heads judge for a bribe, her priests teach for pay, and her prophets divine for money. Yet they lean on the LORD, and say,"Is not the LORD among us? No harm can come upon us." Therefore because of you Zion shall be plowed like a field, Jerusalem shall become heaps of ruins, and the mountain of the temple like the bare hills of the forest.
Quite honestly, I do not know how God could have made it any plainer. There is NO rebuilt Temple in view, but the one that existed when Jesus spoke. He not only made the limited location specific, He also made known the reason: because they did not know the time of their visitation. Further the fact is that the Romans DID plough through and level the Temple Mount and the city in the first century [Blu M24].
How can we deny such plain proof?As an interesting historical aside, despite several attempts in the past, the Temple has not been rebuilt, with one such attempt mounted by the Emperor Julian with the specific intent to disprove Christianity by such an act only to be thwarted by spontaneous fireballs and other destructive signs [Hol DoJ 48-50] and another attempted by Bar Kochba which resulted only in further miseries for the Jews [Gh Per 4]. It has been noted by many that as of the present it is unlikely that the Temple can be rebuilt as God has seen fit to allow the Dome of the Rock to be erected on what is commonly believed to be the exact former site on the Temple Mount [Gh Per 3-4]. In destroying the Temple, God completely shut the door to the possibility of anyone attempting to follow the Old Testament types and shadows. That is HUGE! [Mor Des].
Matthew 24:3: Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?"
Oftentimes futurists make a very big deal out of the fact that the disciples asked more than one question in Matthew's account. It really doesn't matter if they asked one or twenty. Let's take a look at the parallels:
Mark 13:4: "Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign when all these things will be fulfilled?"
Luke 21:7: So they asked Him, saying, "Teacher, but when will these things be? And what sign will there be when these things are about to take place?"
In Mark and Luke any references to "coming" are missing. That is strange if this passage were talking about the Second Coming - that would mean Mark and Luke entirely omitted the Main Eventtm. If we line up Matthew, Mark, and Luke we appear to have these equivalent phrases.
Matthew:What will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?
Mark: What will be the sign when all these things will be fulfilled?
Luke: And what sign will there be when these things are about to take place?
Interesting. The narratives equate "these things" with "Your coming and of the end of the age?"
We have to ask at this point (and there is a BIG hint above) why did Matthew include a reference to Christ's "coming" when, as we have seen, there is nothing in the context so far that refers to Christ's Second Coming (or even a First Going), and the other Gospel authors didn't record the disciples even asking a thing about that event? Doesn't that seem odd to you?
The fact is that the disciples had NO concept that Jesus was to die, rise again, and return again to consummate redemption.
These men, followers and disciples of Jesus though they were, did not look for a resurrection.... While Jesus on several occasions referred to His death and rising again, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the disciples ever glimpsed what He meant. On the contrary, they appear upon each occasion to have received His references with at most only academic interest, as if He spoke of something that in no way concerned them.
A notable instance of this attitude is revealed during the descent from the Mount of Transfiguration. It will be recalled that on that occasion Jesus enjoined silence upon Peter, James, and John, the three disciples accompanying Him, as to the stirring event recently witnessed by them until the Son of man should have risen again from the dead. The reaction of His disciples to this and other references by Jesus to His rising again is clearly revealed by the expression of puzzlement recorded by the gospel historian, Mark, who was undoubtedly quoting Simon Peter, when he states that they kept the saying, questioning among themselves what the rising from the dead should mean (Mark 9:10).
Such was the response to each reference by Jesus to His rising again. The meaning of His revelations to them did not register. They rebuked Him even for suggesting His impending death at the hands of the high priests (Matthew 16:21, 23).
If they could not envision a crucifixion, the prelude to His rising again, surely it is incredible that they could have foreseen and believed in a resurrection. Indeed the disciples had been unable to look upon Him as doing more than ushering in a new and better temporal state.[Rop Rise 37-39]
That last paragraph is crucial. If they could not envision a going, they certainly were not envisioning a coming in the way that futurists claim. They were asking when He would usher in the new order and do away with those that opposed Him. That of course doesn't mean that Jesus could not still be talking about a coming in the futurist sense, and they just wouldn't understand, but one absolutely cannot say that the disciples were asking about His Second Coming. Such a concept was utterly foreign to them.
I am indebted to Ron C. Fay for this insight [FAY GG]. Does any prior Gospel narrative give us insight into the expected future "coming" of the Messiah? Yes.
John 11:17-20 :So when Jesus came, He found that he had already been in the tomb four days. Now Bethany was near Jerusalem, about two miles away. And many of the Jews had joined the women around Martha and Mary, to comfort them concerning their brother. Now Martha, as soon as she heard that Jesus was coming, went and met Him, but Mary was sitting in the house. Now Martha said to Jesus, "Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died. But even now I know that whatever You ask of God, God will give You." Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again." Martha said to Him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day." Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?" She said to Him, "Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world."
Whoa, back up there Martha, "Is to come into the world"? Wasn't He already there? It is clear (to the embarassment of hyperpreterists) that Martha expected a physical resurrection at the last day. However, it is equally clear that she expected this to be somehow in conjunction with Christ's "coming" in a way that was not already present, though He was already present. I submit (and as the exposition will later bear out) that the "coming" expected by Martha was the final victory of the Messiah without a thought as to whether He would be leaving and coming and when it would happen. Thus, after Jesus spoke of the destruction of the Temple, the disciples were somewhat short-sighted and might have expected the complete victory at that time - but His "going" and "coming back" simply were not on the radar screen. We learn that is indeed what will happen, but that meaning cannot be imported back into Martha's and the disciples' questions. The only thing for certain is that "to come" and "coming" are closely tied into Messianic victory. It is my current position that this present time is the "coming" of the Christ which will be bookmarked by two physical advents, one in the first century and one in our future at the resurrection. Thus indeed, He cometh with clouds even in our age as another enemy is put under His feet.
Just as a side-note before we proceed, a great deal of the historical documentation will come from the Jewish historian Josephus. Some persons object to this use, but I have yet to find a good reason to do so. The areas of potential shortcomings with Josephus are well-known and few, and it is hardly a legitimate objection to complain that he is an unbelieving source - what better record could be found as he certainly would not be embellishing the record to fit Christian prophecy. Furthermore, considering the importance of the Temple and the sacrificial cult to this area of Scripture, and the focus on the Jews, the fact that not only was Josephus a Jew, but also a Priest, makes his testimony all the more relevant.
As a preterist I think we are incredibly fortunate to have such detailed historical records of the period as we find in Josephus. However, let's say that Josephus never wrote any histories or none of them survived, that would not make many of the things we know that happened through Josephus any less true. So there may be many cases where I might not have any historical events that I can specifically point to, but rather principles. We do not have complete records of that time, but from what we do have, I am very confident even of the things for which I cannot point to a specific document.
Matthew 24:4-5: And Jesus answered and said to them: "Take heed that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many.
Now do these warnings apply to the future (i.e. to us) or to His immediate listening audience? Now, I think that some preterists make the mistake of rigidity when they lay so much weight on passages simply because the word "you" is used. It is not unusual to hear a preterist expound such passages (Gary DeMar does this frequently) by stressing, "Take heed that no one deceives YOU" and similarly. I don't tend to do this. I think that the "you" is important, but it cannot bear all of the weight that some claim. Note the following observation by Walter C. Kaiser:
The precise specificness and paticularity of the Bible was not meant to prejudice its universal usefulness, but to make the principles involved all the more concrete, real, and personal. The problem of particularity occurs in other aspects of biblical studies, but even there one can witness the Bible's own direct application of earlier historical events. The use of first person "we" or "us," as if the people addressed several centuries after the event took place were still participating in that ancient event bears witness to the Bible's refusal to let the specific and particular block any appeal to universals or general applications. This principle is strikingly exhibited in Hosea's use (Hos. 12:3-6) of Genesis 25:26 and 32:24ff. Thus, while there are fewer general principles than there are specific commands, this should not affect the eventual usefulness of most, if not all of the injunctions. [Ka TOTE 42]
Now all this being said, I do think the "you" in this entire Discourse are the "yous" He was speaking to back then. However, I derive this from the context and other time indicators in which "you" (rather than "them" or "they") is only a part. So as we look at this passage, the context has not changed, making it extraordinarily unlikely (though not impossible) that the "you" has changed to mean some distant group of persons in the future. It is also even possible that this in fact has happened after the explicit timing statement in verse 34.
In a debate on this verse with a skeptic (and believers do advance a similar argument), it was asserted that "until the time of Bar Kochba, there is no evidence of any person actually coming forth and saying, 'I am Messiah.'" I was taking and am now taking the opposing position of affirming that there were definitely persons coming forward and claiming to be the Messiah, though possibly not one said explicitly, "I am the Messiah." However, this being said, I do affirm that we have no undisputed recorded instance of anyone actually mouthing those exact words, "I am the Messiah" before AD70. That is an argument from silence as we do not have a tape recorder for the every word of every would-be contender, but for purposes of this discussion, I will stipulate for the sake of argument there were in fact none who did - in those exact words.
However, Jesus' prediction does not require a word for word recital it merely requires that people overtly make Messianic claims. It is an absolutely untenable position to force Jesus to mean that those exact words would have to be parroted for fulfillment. It is irrelevant if they ever used those exact words for that is not the point that Christ was communicating. To demonstrate this, let's pretend that a guy (we'll call him Roger) appeared on the scene and had this similar conversation that Jesus had with Peter (whom we will call Harry)
Roger: Harry who do other people say that I am?
Harry: Well some say that you are John the Baptist, some say Elijah, or one of the prophets.
Roger: But who do you say that I am?
Harry: You are the Messiah.
Roger: Bingo!
Now let's say all of this happened after Jesus' prediction about false Messiahs and His death. According to this assertion, Roger would not qualify to fulfill Christ's words because he did not mouth the words "I am the Messiah!" and thus cannot have claimed to be the Messiah!! How patently absurd and even beyond banal anachronism since we would not even in today's vernacular hyper-literalize to that extent. It is extreme error to infuse mojo magic into an exact wording when all that is being communicated is that people will come along with Messianic claims.
Also, notice this ridiculous logical outworking of this position. By its own standard, someone who came along and did and said the exact same things as Jesus would not be a fulfillment because Jesus Himself never uttered the words "I am the Christ." Does that make any sense at all? Did Jesus not claim to be the Messiah? In context of the Discourse, what was Jesus warning about? Was He really concerned that His disciples just keep a look out for people that uttered a certain magic phrase? Or was He concerned that they would be deceived and follow after false messiahs? If the latter, how would simply listening for a catch phrase have any merit whatsoever? It wouldn't.
Now there is a second, more reasonable prong, to this objection that states that not only did no one make this claim, there was no one who was identified as such.
A lot of how we go about looking at this question will hinge upon the issue of Messianic expectations and ideas in first century Judaism, which were not monolithic but most often, a Messianic figure would certainly have "Davidic" and kingship overtones and would be a deliverer of Israel often acting under overt claims of divine sanction and guidance, sometimes including actual prophetic status. All kinds of writers agree on that.
In that debate, I had made the mistake of incorrectly naming Theudas and Judas of Acts as fulfillments of Christ's words. Actually they preceded Christ by a number of years (but Horsley and Hanson state that the Biblical text which places Theudas prior to Judas the Galilean is incorrect, and thus dispute this timing [Hor BPM 165] - as an inerrantist, I cannot agree with their assertion). However, this turned out to be a very helpful mistake for me. There is no doubt that the early Christians were participants of a Messianic movement within Judaism claiming Jesus as the Messiah. Gamaliel in Acts 5:33-39 in reasoning what to do about these Christians compared them with other failed Messianic movements such as the prior ones led by Theudas and Judas. This of course proves my point that a Messianic contender can be identified by other means than a signed and dated transcript saying, "I am the Messiah." Thus, while Theudas and Judas of Acts were not the men prophesied by Christ, they are examples of Messianic contenders of the time period and are usable as controls for other proposed contenders. Theudas "rose up, claiming to be somebody" and drew off a large number of people to follow him as did Judas of Galilee.
Glenn Miller in addressing this issue has identified the following [Mi ME]. The italicized entries predate Christ's ministry and are not cited as fulfillments but as controls for the type of figures in question.
Messianic Kings
Messianic Prophets
Now though before delving deeper, I submit that often what we are asking of the data is woefully anachronistic, i.e. we are not asking of potential contenders if they have characteristics that would have been considered Messianic in the first century, or even what it meant to be Messianic in the first century - we are filtering everything through two thousand years of Christian doctrine and tradition - much of which does not reflect the wide diversity of "messianism" of that time [Mi ME]. A very useful book for this subject is Bandits, Prophets,& Messiahs, especially chapter 3. The expectations of that day revolved much more around the "son of David" imagery and kingship. As Horsley and Hanson explain, "Another presupposition for election as popular king is an organized following, indeed, a fighting force. In David's case, in a time of social, political, and economic turmoil, he had became the leader of a sizable band of brigands." [Hor BPM 95] This becomes a model for a particular species of popular kingship, and kings were in fact, "anointed ones," i.e. messiahs.
As far as the specifics for some that I would now propose as fulfillments for Christ's words and as others which are stated as control examples, I will utilize five that were proposed (not necessarily as a fulfillment of this prophecy but as historical figures of that time) by ultra-liberal, "Let Us Vote on What Jesus Actually Said," Crossan [Cr THJ Chapter 9] so I cannot be accused of only using a Preterist or conservative source for my argument, see also generally [Hor BPM chapter 3](a conservative source). In addition to these specific works cited below, I also generally utilized [De LDM 72-74] [Bra M24F 25-27] [Pa M24 81-82] [Sch M24GT 16-17].
For this period, Crossan recognizes at least three Messianic claimants: Judas in Galilee, Simon in Perea, and Athronges in Judea [Cr THJ 198-202] .
1. Judas in Galilee (son of the bandit chieftain Ezekias whom Herod had executed)
Note well how he was the son of a brigand, and became a royal contender [Hor BPM 115].
"At Sepphoris in Galilee. . . [he]raised a considerable body of followers, broke open the royal arsenals, and having armed his companions, attacked the other aspirants to power." ("Jewish Wars" 2.56) cited in [Hor BPM 112]
"Judas got together a large number of desperate men at Sepphoris in Galilee and there made an assault on the royal palace, and having seized all the arms that were stored there, he armed every single one of his men and made off with all the property that had been seized there. He became an object of terror to all men by plundering those he came across in his desire for great possession and his ambition for royal rank, a prize that he expected to obtain not through the practice of virtue but through excessive ill treatment of others."("Jewish Antiquities" 17:271-272) cited in [Cr THJ 200] [Hor BPM 112, different translation cited]
Notice that Crossan recognized that royal contenders were recognized as "Messianic" consistent with the research of Horsley and Hanson [Cr THJ 198-202].
2, Simon in Perea (a slave of Herod's)
First Crossan notes that Tacitus in "Histories" 5:9 says of Simon, "..he assumed the name of king without waiting for Caesar's decision [about Herod's will and heirs]."[Cr THJ 200]
"Simon. . . proud of his tall and handsome figure, assumed the diadem. Perambulating about the country with the brigands whom he had collected he burnt down the royal palace at Jericho and many other stately mansions, such incendiarism providing him with an easy opportunity for plunder. Not a house of any respectability would have escaped the flames, had not. . . the. . . troops gone out to encounter this rascal." (Jewish War 2:57-58) cited in [Cr THJ 200-201] [Hor BPM 112-113, different translation cited]
"Simon. . . a handsome man, who took pre-eminence by size and bodily strength. . . was expected to go farther. Elated by the unsettled conditions of affairs, he was bold enough to place the diadem on his head, and having got together a body of men, he was himself also proclaimed king by them in their madness, and he rated himself worthy of this beyond anyone else. After burning the royal palace in Jericho, he plundered and carried off the things that had been seized there. He also set fire to many other royal residences in many parts of the country and utterly destroyed them after permitting his fellow rebels to take as booty whatever had been left in them." ("Jewish Antiquities" 17:273-274) cited in [Cr THJ 201]
And further Crossan characterizes this as an "oblique and indirect reference of popular Messianic hopes" [Cr THJ 201]
"Such was the great madness that settled upon the nation because they had no king of their own to restrain the populace by his pre-eminence, and because of the foreigners who came among them to suppress the rebellion were themselves a cause of provocation through their arrogance and their greed." ("Jewish Antiquities" 17:277b) cited in [Cr THJ 201]
3. Athronges in Judea
"Now, too, a mere shepherd had the temerity to aspire to the throne. He was called Athronges, and his sole recommendations, to raise such hopes, were vigor of body, a soul contemptuous of death, and four brothers resembling himself. To each of them he entrusted an armed band. . . while he himself, like a king, handled matters of graver moment. It was not that he donned the diadem, but his raiding expeditions continued long afterwards." (Jewish War 2:60-62) cited in [Cr THJ 201-202]
"There was a certain Athronges, a man distinguished neither for the position of his ancestors nor by the excellence of his character, nor for any abundance of means but merely a shepherd completely unknown to everybody although he was remarkable for his great stature and feats of strength. This man had the temerity to spire to the kingship thinking that if he obtained it he would enjoy freedom to act more outrageously; as for meeting death, he did not attach much importance to the loss of his life under such circumstances. He also had four brothers and they too were tall men and confident of being successful through their feats of strength, and he believed them to be a strong point in his bid for the kingdom.. Athronges himself put on the diadem. . . This man kept his power for a long while, for he had the title of king and nothing to prevent him from doing what he wished." ("Jewish Antiquities" 17:278) cited in [Cr THJ 202] [Hor BPM 113-114, different translation cited]
Horsley and Hanson note how seriously these kind of threats were historically considered by gauging the reaction of the Varus, legate of Syria:
"Abandoned by its inhabitants, Emmaus was also burned to the ground when Varus ordered it to avenge the slaying of Arius and his troops. He then marched on to Jerusalem where at the mere sight of him and his forces the Jewish armies dissolved and fled into the countryside. Those in the city, however, welcomed him and disclaimed all responsibility for the revolt. They explained that they had done nothing, but had been forced to put up with the swarm of visitors on account of the festival, so that far from joining the rebel attack they were themselves besieged, as were the Romans. . . . Varus dispatched parts of his army around the countryside to go after those responsible for the revolt, and among the many apprehended he imprisoned those who seemed to have taken a less active role, and crucified those most responsible - about two thousand in all." ("Jewish Antiquities", 2.71-75) cited in [Hor BPM 116-117]
In addition to kingly Messianic claims, there were also Messianic prophets who made claims to be harbingers of divine acts of deliverance. Josephus notes:
"Impostors and demagogues, under the guise of divine inspiration, provoked revolutionary actions and impelled the masses to act like madmen. They led them out into the wilderness so that there God would show them signs of imminent liberation." ("Jewish Wars" 2.259) cited in [Hor BPM 161]
"For they said that they would display unmistakable signs and wonders done according to God's plan." ("Jewish Antiquities" 20.168) cited in [Hor BPM 161]
1. The Anonymous Samaritan (AD35)
"Nor was the Samaritan nation free from disturbance. For a man who had no qualms about deceit and freely used it to sway the crowd, commanded them to go up with him as a group to Mount Gerizim, which is for them the most sacred mountain. He promised to show them, when they got there, the holy vessels buried at the spot where Moses had put them. Those who thought his speech convincing came with arms and stationed themselves at a village called Tirathana. There they welcomed late-comers so that they might make the climb up the mountain in a great throng. But Pilate was quick to prevent their ascent with a contingent of cavalry and armed infantry. They attacked those who had assembled beforehand into the village, killed some, routed others, and took many into captivity. From this group Pilate executed the ringleaders as well as the most able among the fugitives." ("Jewish Antiquities" 18:85-87) cited in [Hor BPM 163]
The claim to be able to reclaim the vessels of Moses is a claim to be the "prophet" like unto Moses, an eschatological claim. Pilate's reaction shows that he understood the potential gravity of this situation [Hor BPM 164].
2. Theudas (AD45) - Horsley and Hanson recognize this as the Theudas of Acts 5:36 but dispute the timing presented in that passage, placing this Theudas after the death of Christ [Hor BPM 165])
When Fadus was governor of Judea, a charlatan named Theudas persuaded most of the common people to take their possessions and follow him to the Jordan River. He said he was a prophet, and that at his command the river would be divided and allow an easy crossing. Through such words he deceived many. But Fadus hardly let them consummate such foolishness. He sent out a cavalry unit against them, which killed many in a surprise attack, though they also took many alive. Having captured Theudas himself, they cut off his head and carried it off to Jerusalem." ("Jewish Antiquities" 20:97-98) cited in [Hor BPM 164-165]
Notice again the symbolic eschatological action - the parting of waters which represent both deliverance and conquest [Hor BPM 165-166].
3. The Anonymous Egyptian (Jew) (AD56)
"At this time, a certain man from Egypt arrived at Jerusalem, saying he was a prophet and advising the mass of common people to go with him to the Mount of Olives, which is opposite the city. . . . He said that from there he wanted to show them that at his command the walls of Jerusalem would fall down and they could then make an entry into the city. But when Felix learned of these things, he commanded his soldiers to take up their weapons. Marching from Jerusalem with many horsemen and foot-soldiers, he attacked the Egyptian and his followers, killed four hundred of them and took two hundred alive. The Egyptian himself fled the battle and vanished without a trace." ("Jewish Antiquities" 20:169-71) cited in [Hor BPM 168]
"The Egyptian false-prophet. . . when he arrived in the countryside, though an imposter, made himself credible as a prophet and railed about thirty thousand dupes and took them around through the wilderness to the Mount of Olives. From there he intended to force an entry into Jerusalem, overpower the Roman garrison, and become ruler of the citizen body, using his fellow-raiders as bodyguards. Felix anticipated his assault and met him with heavily armed Roman troops, with the whole citizen body joining in the defense. In the aftermath, the Egyptian escaped with a few of his followers, but most of them were killed or captured; the rest scattered and hid out in their homes. ("Jewish Wars" 2.261-63) cited in [Hor BPM 169]
And yet again, the Old Testament "conquest" imagery is present (i.e. the walls of a city falling down like Jericho) and the Mount of Olives (i.e. the deliverance of Jerusalem prophesied by Zechariah). Horsley and Hanson mention that it appears that Luke was "confused" in Acts 21 in associating the "Egyptian" with the Sicarii. That explanation is not acceptable to me as an inerrantist, but in any event, that is not a concern here - this is a historical figure (and perhaps Luke was referring to someone completely different that Josephus did not). Most importantly for this study they note:
"Most significant is the clear pattern of symbolic correspondence between the great historical acts of redemption and the new eschatological acts anticipated by these prophetic movements. As was the mighty act of God in the formative history of early Israel, so would be God's imminent eschatological act of deliverance. Just as Moses led the people through the divided waters and into the wilderness so would the prophet Theudas lead a new exodus through the waters of the Jordan and into the wilderness. As God's agent Joshua led the battle of Jericho, so the prophet from Egypt would lead the people to the Mount of Olives, expecting the walls of Jerusalem to fall so they could 'liberate' the city." [Hor BPM 169-171]
Now during the Jewish War, Crossan recognizes two Messianic claimants: Menahem, son of Judas the Galilean, and Simon son of Gioras [Cr THJ 202-206].
1. Menahem, son of Judas the Galilean
"Menahem. . . took his intimate friends off with him to Masada, where he broke into king Herod's armory and provided arms both for his fellow-townsmen and for other brigands; then, with these men for his bodyguard, he returned like a veritable king to Jerusalem, became the leader of the revolution, and directed the siege of the place. . . So they laid their plans to attack him in the Temple, whither he had gone up in state to pay his devotions, arrayed in royal robes and attend his suite of armed fanatics." (Jewish War 2:434, 444) cited in [Cr THJ 203] [Hor BPM 118, a different translation cited]
Menahem not only presented himself as King, he came from an organized group of brigands known as the Sicarii in which teaching ability was part of their leadership; thus he also was a "teacher-messiah" which type of figure was already in popular expectation in such communities as the Essenes due to such passages as Ps. Sol. 17 [Hor BPM 119 and Chapter 3 generally].
2. Simon son of Gioras (AD68)
First Crossan notes that Simon "was ritually executed as the official Jewish leader during the Roman triumph towards its end." [Cr THJ 202] Horsley and Hanson go into detail to show how his treatment and actions leading up to and after his capture show that both he considered himself the messiah and that the conquering Romans recognized him as the leader - Simon was killed in the manner of the conquered rebel ruler while John of Gischala suffered imprisonment. Most strikingly after attempting to escape and finding no exit, he openly presented himself arrayed in royal attire in the spot where the Temple once stood. It is speculated that he was attempting to divert further agony to his people by self-sacrifice/surrender or to offer one last plea to God for divine deliverance at the last moment [Hor BPM 126-127].
"He withdrew to the hills, where, by proclaiming liberty for slaves and rewards for free, he gathered around him the villains from every quarter. . . And now when he was becoming a terror to the towns, many men of standing were seduced by his strength and career of unbroken success into joining him; and his was no longer an army of mere serfs or brigands, but one including numerous citizen recruits, subservient to his command as to a king." (Jewish War 4:508, 510) cited in [Cr THJ 204] [Hor BPM 120-121, different translation cited]
This next incident is interesting in showing how Simon had succeeded in getting some Idumean leadership to make arrangements for his take-over of that area - notice how he arrives with a sizeable trailing entourage [Hor BPM 121].
"Contrary to expectation, Simon invaded Idumea without bloodshed. In a surprise attack, he first overpowers the small town of Hebron where he seized a great deal of booty and carried away a vast quantity of grain. As the natives of Hebron say, the town is not only older than any of the other towns in the country, it is also older than Memphis in Egypt. . . . There Abraham, forefather of the Jews, has his home after his departure from Mesopotamia, and it was from there that his descendants went down into Egypt. . . . From Hebron, Simon advanced through all of Idumea, not only sacking villages and town, but plundering the countryside as well, since his supplies were not adequate for such a huge multitude, his followers now numbering forty thousand, not counting his armed men. ("Jewish Wars" 4.529-34) cited in [Hor BPM 121].
It is interesting that Simon's stated agenda was to set aright social injustices and declared that he would give "freedom for slaves and rewards for the free." ("Jewish Wars" 4.508) When Simon entered Jerusalem, he was one of two major leaders, residing and ruling principally in the city while the followers of John of Gischala and the Zealots remained in the Temple environs. Strife arose between the two factions as John's party were betraying the Jews to the Romans so that they might survive (my note: the idea of the priestly class and families as the false prophet of the beast) [Hor BPM 122-124].
Crossan particularly notes the Davidic parallels in the Messianic contenders, most specifically in Simon who started for Jerusalem from Hebron just as David as done, has references to his "wives, and who like David progressed from bandit to general to King." [Cr THJ 204-206] Horsley and Hanson note similar Davidic patterns: both were popular leaders that were a threat to the current establishment; in narratives their physical characteristics and prowess are mentioned; the political state was one of crisis; initially joined by bands of discontents that were joined later by large numbers of the more respectable; and, both captured Hebron[Hor BPM 121-122].
That last observation is very important for some try to dismiss some contenders as being mere bandits and not Messianic contenders, but fail to realized the very close connection in the concept with certain of the banditry which is evidenced by Rome's treatment of them as a different class than mere robbers or criminals, but as actual threats to the rulership. This is explained by the fact that banditry in the ancient world was often the path to legitimate rulership (i.e. the examples given from Horsley and Hanson regarding the Davidic theme in which David himself assembled a group of brigands). Some examples include. . .
Viriathus (Spain circa 140s-130s BC) who went from being a shepherd to a hunter to a bandit to a general; Tacfarinas (North Africa circa 20s AD) who went from shepherd to soldier to bandit to general; and Maximus (Thrace 230s AD) who went from shepherd to bandit to soldier to emperor. As Crossan asked, "What was a bandit but an emperor on the make, what was an emperor but a bandit on the throne? Such men were never seen simply as common criminals." [Cr THJ 172] So to dismiss the widespread banditry as not being indicative of Messianic contenders is misplaced and anachronistic and does not take into consideration the Davidic typology of his own "banditry" before assuming the kingship. Though Crossan apparently dismisses it, Josephus at times "confuses" bandits with prophets or as Joe prefers to call them - "impostoers and deceivers." This adds another element to strengthen the Messianic claim, the claim of divine inspiration and guidance for the deliverance activities.
"In Judea matters were constantly going from bad to worse. For the country was again infested with bands of brigands and impostors who deceived the mob. Not a day passed, however, but that Felix captured and put to death many of these impostors and brigands. He also, by a ruse, took alive Eleazar the son of Dinaeus, who had organized the company of brigands; for by offering a pledge that he would suffer no harm, Felix induced him to appear before him. Felix then imprisoned him and dispatched him to Rome." ("Jewish Antiquities" 20.160-161) cited in [Cr THJ 184-185]
"No sooner were these disorders reduced than the inflammation, as in a sick man's body, broke out again in another quarter. The impostors and brigands, banding together, incited numbers to revolt, exhorting them to assert their independence and threatening to kill any who submitted to Roman domination and forcibly to suppress those who voluntarily accepted servitude, Distributing themselves in companies throughout the country, they looted the houses of the wealthy, murdered their owners, and set the villages on fire. The effects of their frenzy were thus felt throughout all Judea, and every day saw this war being fanned into fiercer flame." ("Jewish Antiquities" 20.172b) cited in [Cr THJ 185]
And as Miller noted [Mi ME]:
"Besides these there arose another body of villains, with purer hands but more impious intentions, who no less that the assassins ruined the peace of the city. Deceivers and impostors, under the pretense of divine inspiration fostering revolutionary changes, they persuaded the multitude to act like madmen, and led them out into the desert under the belief that God would give them tokens of deliverance."(Jewish War 2.258-60)
Interestingly for this study, Josephus is silent about bandits during the lifetime of Christ and at the time Christ would have uttered this prediction, which was in fact during the famous Pax Romana (the peace of Rome, more on that later in this study); however, for the years following 44AD they are mentioned for almost every period of time save one.
"The country, also, in various districts, was a prey to disorder, and the opportunity induced numbers of persons to aspire to sovereignty. And so Judea was filled with brigandage. Anyone might make himself king as head of a band of rebels whom he fell in with, and then would press on to the destruction of the community causing trouble to few Romans and then only to a small degree but brining the greatest slaughter upon their own people." ("Jewish Wars" 2.55a, "Jewish Antiquities" 17:285) cited in [Hor BPM 115]
We're not yet done with those people, but let's look at another aspect of the verse.
Some note that Mark 13:5-6 and Luke 21:8 phrase this passage differently, putting "I AM" (often translated "I am he" though the pronoun is really absent) instead of "I am the Christ" in Matthew.. The argument then follows that Jesus is requiring that the candidates make a claim to divinity. I am ambivalent on this line of reasoning, but do note that Simon made claims to deity, and Justin Martyr cited Simon as one among others who were "put forth by demons who claim to be gods"[Gh Per 12-13].
But were great numbers actually deceived? Enough that the whole nation and city were lost:
"Thus it was that the wretched people were deluded at that time by charlatans and pretended messengers of the deity; while they neither heeded nor believed in the manifest portents that foretold the coming desolation, but, as if thunderstruck and bereft of eyes and mind, disregarded the plain warnings of God." ("Jewish Wars" 6:288) cited in [Mar SOT 6]
St. Jerome (4th century) stated:
At the time of the Jewish captivity, there were many leaders who declared themselves to be Christs, so that while the Romans were actually beseiging them, there were three factions within. (Golden Chain by Thomas Aquinas cited by [Cu Rap 157])
This same theme is repeated later in verses 23-24:
Then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'There!' do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.
This verse became a bone of contention in a TheologyWeb (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=80079) debate in which my futurist opponent (Jeff), unlike most futurist opponents, did concede that false Christs did indeed appear prior to A.D. 70. However, he also made the highly unusual claims that the mention of false Christs seems to be completely disconnected from the rest of the Discourse, which was given to the Disciples and not to the general public and also that this idea of false Christs is a central theme of this passage. Thus, he believes that it makes much more sense in the whole scheme of the context if Christ was predicting not merely false messiahs, but impostors actually claiming to be Him personally. He did not see how this warning would be important or related to the rest of the passage if the preterist interpretation is correct.
Now while I don't agree with his objection at all which seems to me to be little more than a tempest in a teapot; however, I believe I have found a good answer to Jeff's point in N.T. Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God. On this matter, here's what Wright has to say [NTW Rez 557-559]:
Messiahship in Judaism
The problem is, of course, that the varied pictures of a coming Anointed One in the varied Judaisms of the time do not conform to what Jesus did and said, still less to what happened to him. . . In so far as we can generalize about such complex things, three interrelated themes emerge, stressed variously in different sources: the Messiah was supposed to win the decisive victory over the pagans, to rebuild or cleanse the temple, and in some way or other to bring true, god-given justice and peace to the whole world. What nobody expected the Messiah to do was to die at the hands of the pagans instead of defeating them; to mount a symbolic attack on the Temple, warning it of imminent judgment, instead of rebuilding or cleansing it; and to suffer unjust violence at the hands of the pagans instead of bringing them justice and peace. The crucifixion of Jesus, understood from the point of view of any onlooker, whether sympathetic or not, was bound to have appeared as the complete destruction of any messianic pretensions or possibilities he or his followers might have hinted at. The violent execution of the prophet (which, uncontroversially, was how Jesus was regarded in by many), still more of a would-be Messiah, did not say to any Jewish onlooker that he really was the Messiah after all, or that if YHWH's kingdom had come through his work. It said, powerfully and irresistibly, that he wasn't and that it hadn't.
We can see this clearly enough if we imagine for a moment the situation after the death of two of the most famous would-be Messiahs of the period, Simeon bar-Giora or during the first to revolt (AD 66-70) and Simeon ben Kosiba (i.e. Bar-Kochba) during the second (AD 132-5). Simon was killed at the climax of Vespasian's triumph in Rome; Simeon, we assume, died as the Romans crushed his movement and with it all prospect of Jewish liberation. We only have to exercise appropriate historical imagination, thinking into the situation a few days after their deaths, to see how it would look.
Take Simon, for example. The year it is AD 70. Vespasian has become emperor. Titus, his son and heir, has obliterated the Jewish rebellion, destroying Jerusalem the process. He returns to Rome to celebrate a magnificent triumph, pictured in stone to this day on Titus's arch at the east end of the Forum. The bedraggled Jewish prisoners are displayed within the pageant telling the story of the war; the spoils, particularly those from the Temple, are carried through the city. Finally there comes the conquering heroes: Vespasian himself, followed by Titus, with Titus's younger brother Domitian riding beside them. But there remains one ceremony:
The triumphal procession stopped in front of the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus. . . it was an ancient custom to wait there until it was announced that the enemy general has been put to death. This was Simon son of Gioras, who had featured in the pageant among the prisoners, and then, with a halter thrown around him, was dragged to the spot beside the Forum were Roman law requires that criminals under the sentence of death should be killed. The people leading him there scorched him as they went. After the announcement of his death, and the universal shouts of rejoicing that followed, the princes began the sacrifices; when they had been duly offered, they went back to the palace. . . The city of Rome hold a celebration that day for its victory in the war against its enemies, for the stopping of civil disturbances, and the beginning of hopes of prosperity.
When the triumphal ceremonies were over, and the empire of the Romans had been established on the firmest possible foundation, Vespasian decided to set up a temple of Peace. . . Josephus Wars of the Jews 7.153-8)
Roman victory; Roman justice; Roman empire; Roman peace; all because the Jewish leader had been killed. An interesting parallel to the Christian claim, that salvation had come to the world because of the death of the Messiah; but we will let that pass for the moment. Instead, as our immediate task, imagine two or three of Simon's supporters - if there were any of them left, hiding in caves or secret cellars - a few days later. Supposing one is said to another, 'Actually, I think Simon really was the Messiah.' The kindest view the others might take would be that the speaker had gone mad. Alternatively, the statement might be understood as heavily ironic: he really was our Messiah - in other words, our god has forgotten us, this is the best we can expect, we may as well admit there is no more hope! But if the case were pressed: Simon really was the Messiah, so we should now launch a movement which hails them as such, which declares to our fellow Jews that YHWH's anointed has been in their midst and has established the kingdom (at the very moment when Caesar's kingdom seems more firmly established than ever!), and which may then go out into the world to declare that Simon, as the King of the Jews, is really the Lord of the whole world. . . then the verdict of madness, of a kind of criminal lunacy which turns reality upside down and inside out, seems inevitable. And if (to anticipate the sort of theory we shall discuss later) the speaker, realizing his companions' horror at his proposal, were to explain it all by saying that he had received a vision of Simon being with him; that he had a strong sense that Israel's god had forgiven them for their failure to support him properly; that he had enjoyed a wonderful and heartwarming spiritual experience as he thought about the death of Simon; then his companions would have shaken their heads sorrowfully. None of this would remotely mean that Simon was the Messiah after all. None of it would mean that the long-awaited of Israel's god had come. None of it would mean, either, that Simon had been 'raised from the dead'.
A moment's disciplined historical imagination, then (something 'historical criticism' has often been unwilling to employ), is enough to make the point. Jewish beliefs about a coming Messiah, and about the deeds is such a figure would be expected to accomplish, came in the areas of shapes and sizes, but they did not include a shameful death which left the Roman empire celebrating its usual victory.[NTW Rez 557-559]
To bring this back to the point at hand. Jesus was an "unexpected Messiah" in many respects, and while His disciples and post-Ascension converts had many proofs and witnessed many things, as the years wore on, and other more "Jewish" (or in line with Jewish expectations) appeared, the potential for deception and temptation for apostasy and doubt would be great. They did not yet have the destruction of the entire "world" that they knew which removed forever that possibly and completely annihilated any inkling of this former expectation to the rest of us who believe in Christ. This was a uniquely first-century problem, and explains quite handily why there was a concern for false Christs in the Discourse in a unique way that will not again be possible.
So in final answer to Jeff's objections, the Discourse was not solely to warn the three dudes who went up on the hill with Jesus, they were expected to teach these things to the others and those that would come after. Even if we limited it to the Disciples (which I do not and can't imagine any preterist who would), we already do have an example of a major New Testament figure doubting that Christ was the coming Messiah (or in the two Messiah theory, the only coming Messiah):
Luke 7:19 And John, calling two of his disciples to him, sent them to Jesus, saying, "Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?"
And as to the importance of Jerusalem to Jesus' immediate audience, i.e. the Apostles, they stayed in Jersualem even in the midst of persecution when others fled.
Acts 8:1 At that time a great persecution arose against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles.
Further the Christian community in Jersualem, knowing of the coming destruction, (Acts 6:14) lived communally (Acts 4), selling their possessions and sharing all things in common in this aberrant time of distress. In fact Paul even advocated that during this time, it was better to remain single. This period of time was obviously very significant for the life of the whole Christian community (1 Corin. 7:26.)
Matthew 24:6-8: And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass but the end is not yet. Nation will rise against nation, and Kingdom will rise against Kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of sorrows.
Jesus now gives many "signs" for the disciples to look out for, but to be assured that these were harbingers of the end, not the end itself, so as not to get alarmed at every erupting disorder, but rather to take it in stride. Let's go through each of these signs to see if in fact they did occur.
The world has always been troubled by wars, yet Jesus declares that a "sign" of the approaching Tribulation would be "wars and rumours of wars." Now think about it. Wars can only be a sign if they occur after a long time of prior peace, otherwise they are not a sign but rather business as usual. The fact is that when Jesus uttered the Discourse, the Roman Empire was in a time of peace called the Pax Romana (the peace of Rome) since about 17BC with the last major uprising occurring in Palestine in 7BC. [Sch M24GT 17-18] [Ge TGT 36]. Other sources will date the period from 27BC beginning with Augustus [UNRVPAX]. However, as the years ground on after His death, violence increasingly deranged the peace. Historians of that time such as Tacitus record the disturbances of that day thusly:
"Disturbances in Germany; commotions in Africa; commotions in Thrace; insurrections in Gaul; intrigues among the Parthians; the war in Britain; the war in Armenia." ("The Annals of Tacitus") cited in [De LDM 78-79]
And
"The history on which I am entering [just following Nero's death] is that of a period rich in disaster, terrible with battles, torn by civil struggles, horrible even in peace. Four emperors failed by the sword; there were three civil wars, more foreign wars and often both at the same time." ("Histories" 1:2) cited in [Ge TGT 37]
Here are some historical nuggets of uprisings and disturbances that I gathered:
| DATE | LOCATION | DETAILS | SOURCE |
| A.D. 40 | Mesopotamia | Josephus records more than 50,000 killed | [Sch M24GT 82, footnote
34] [Bra M24F 28] |
| A.D. 49 | Jerusalem | 10,000 to 20,000 dead at Passover | [Sch M24GT 82, footnote 34] [Bra M24F 28] |
| Unknown | Caesarea | 20,000 Jewish deaths with 20,000 more being killed by Syrians as they moved to other regions | [Sch M24GT 82, footnote 34] [Bra M24F 28] |
| Unknown | Alexandria | 50,000 dead | [Sch M24GT 82, footnote 34] [Bra M24F 28] |
| Unknown | Scythopolis | 13,000 Jewish deaths | [Sch M24GT 82, footnote 34] [Bra M24F 28] |
| Unknown | Damascus | 10,000 dead in an hour's time | [Sch M24GT 82, footnote 34] [Bra M24F 28] |
Josephus went so far to state:
I have omitted to give an exact account of them [the Roman civil wars], because they are well known by all, and they are described by a great number of Greek and Roman authors; yet for the sake of the connection of matters, and that my history may not be incoherent, I have touched upon everything briefly. ("Jewish Wars" 4:9:2) cited in [De LDM 78-79]
Remember (tying in to the above section about the false christs), Josephus stated of these times and men:
The country, also, in various districts, was a prey to disorder, and the opportunity induced numbers of persons to aspire to sovereignty. And so Judea was filled with brigandage. Anyone might make himself king as head of a band of rebels whom he fell in with, and then would press on to the destruction of the community causing trouble to few Romans and then only to a small degree but brining the greatest slaughter upon their own people. ("Jewish Wars" 2.55a, "Jewish Antiquities" 17:285) [Hor BPM 115]
In fact these totals of lives lost were in the hundreds of thousands. As the wars progressed, four Roman Emperors were violently killed (murder and suicide) in the space of under two years. Now some may object that these internal turmoils within the Roman empire do not count as "nation rising against nation." In response it can be noted that Tacitus (above) noted these events in places outside the Empire; however, and even more importantly, the Roman Empire was not ONE nation, but an empire made up of many conquered nations and persons, thus, the internal conflicts were indeed "nation rising against nation "[Sch M24GT 18].
Now, to bring in a potential parallel to the Book of Revelation, Chilton brings up a very interesting point with regards to the "red horse" (representing war) of Revelation 6; and that is that the rider does not bring war, he simply takes away peace, or God's restraining hand upon the wickedness of men so that they turn on each other [Ch DOV 188-189]. This is interesting to tie in to Gentry's observation that it was "wars and rumours" of wars that began the downfall of the apostate Jews, for it was the news of the Jewish victory in A.D. 66 against Cestius Gallus and the Twelfth Legion that emboldened the Jews in Jerusalem to believe that they could win a revolt [Ge TGT 38].
Josephus described these events as occurring during the Jewish War:
. . . every city was divided into two armies encamped against one another, and the preservation of the one party was in the destruction of the other; so that the day-time was spent in the shedding of blood, and the night in fear. It was then common to see cities filled with dead bodies, still lying unburied, and those of old men, mixed with infants, all dead, and scattered about together; women also lay amongst them, without any covering for their nakedness; you might then see the whole province full of inexpressible calamities, while dread of still more barbarous practices which were threatened, was everywhere greater than what had already perpetrated. ("Jewish Wars" 2.18.2) cited in [Ch DOV 189]
Don't skim that, absorb the weight of those eyewitness words.
Jesus predicted famines and pestilences? Did those happen? And of course the answer is yes. In fact, the answer would remain yes even I had not one ounce of historical backup because Jesus said that those things would happen within the first century generation. However, happily we do have historical evidence. I have already demonstrated there were wars. Famine with pestilences is war's ugly red-haired step-sister, especially in the ancient world. Where there was war, famine and pestilence followed [Sch M24GT 18] [Ge PT 49].
Even without the causation of war, there were four famines during Claudius' reign, including the one recorded in Acts 11:28 (circa A.D. 49). . .
Acts 11:28: Then one of them, named Agabus, stood up and showed by the Spirit that there was going to be a great famine throughout all the world [interesting - all the world], which also happened in the days of Claudius Caesar.
This is likely the famine that Josephus wrote about:
A famine did oppress them at that time, and many people died for want of what was necessary to procure food withal. ("Jewish Antiquities" 20:2:5) cited in [Ge PT 49]
Pestilences and famines were recorded throughout the whole known world during this time by Suetonius, Dio Cassius, Eusebius, Tacitus, and Orosius [Ge PT 49].
Tacitus records a famine occurring about 51AD in Rome:
"This year witnessed many prodigies; repeated earthquakes. . . further portents were seen in a shortage of corn, resulting in famine. It was established that there was no more than fifteen days' supply of food in the city. Only heaven's special favor and a mild winter prevented catastrophe." ("Annals" 12:43) cited in [De LDM 79] [Ge PT 49]
These things grew more intense during the time of the Jewish Wars of AD67-70. Josephus describes what had happened:
As the famine grew worse, the frenzy of the insurgents kept pace with it, and every day these horrors burned more fiercely. For, since nowhere was grain to be seen, men would break into houses, and if they found some they mistreated the occupants for having denied their possession of it; if they found none, they tortured them as if they had concealed it more carefully. Proof whether they had food or not was provided by the physical appearance of the wretches; those still in good condition were deemed to be well-provided with food, while those who were already wasting away were passed over, for it seemed pointless to kill persons who would soon die of starvation. Many secretly bartered their possessions for a single measure of wheat if they happened to be rich, barley if they were poor. Then they shut themselves up in the darkest corners of their houses; in the extremity of hunger some even ate their grain underground, while others baked it, guided by necessity and fear. Nowhere was a table laid - the food was snatched half-cooked from the fire and torn into pieces. ("Jewish Wars" 5:10:2) cited in [Ch TGT 75-76]
And
Then did the famine widen its progress, and devoured the people by whole houses and families; the upper rooms were full of women and children that were dying by famine; and the lanes of the city were full of the dead bodies of the aged; the children also and the young men wandered about the marketplaces like shadows, all swelled with the famine, and fell down dead whosever their misery seized them. (Jewish War 5:12:3, 723) cited in [De LDM 80]
Suetonius noted:
In a single autumn 30,000 deaths from plague were registered at the Temple of Libitina. ("Nero" 39) cited in [Ge PT 49]
Tacitus wrote:
At Rome, a plaque devastated the entire population. . . . The houses were full of corpses, and the streets of funerals. ("Annals" 16:13) cited in [Ge PT 49]
Chilton also provides a great short history lesson for us [Ch TGT 14-15]:
Josephus has left us an eyewitness record of much of the horror of those years, and especially of the final days in Jerusalem. It was a time when 'the day-time was spent in the shedding of blood, and the night in fear'; when it was 'common to see cities filled with dead bodies'; when Jews panicked and began indiscriminately killing each other; when fathers tearfully slaughtered their entire families, in order to prevent them from receiving worse treatment from the Romans; when, in the midst of terrible famine, mothers killed, roasted, and ate their own children (cf. Deut 28:53); when the whole land 'was all over filled with fire and blood'; when the lakes and seas turned red, dead bodies floating everywhere, littering the shores, bloating in the sun, rotting and splitting apart; when the Roman soldiers captured people attempting to escape and then crucified them - at the rate of 500 per day.
'Let Him be crucified! Let Him be crucified! His blood be on us, and on our children!' the apostates had cried forty years earlier (Matthew 27:22-25); and when it was all over, more than a million Jews had been killed in the siege of Jerusalem; close to a million more were sold into slavery throughout the empire, and the whole of Judea lay smoldering in ruins, virtually depopulated. The Days of Vengeance had come with horrifying, unpitying intensity. In breaking her covenant, the holy city had become the Babylonish whore; and now she was a desert, 'the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.' (Revelation 18:2).
This should bring to mind the promised Covenant curses that God had threatened upon Israel should she apostatize from Him. . . . quite frighteningly literally [Ge PT 49]:
Deut. 28:53-57:You shall eat the fruit of your own body, the flesh of your sons and your daughters whom the Lord your God has given you, in the siege and desperate straits in which your enemy shall distress you. The sensitive and very refined man among you will be hostile toward his brother, toward the wife of his bosom, and toward the rest of his children whom he leaves behind, so that he will not give any of them the flesh of his children whom he will eat, because he has nothing left in the siege and desperate straits in which your enemy shall distress you at all your gates. The tender and delicate woman among you, who would not venture to set the sole of her foot on the ground because of her delicateness and sensitivity, will refuse to the husband of her bosom, and to her son and her daughter, her placenta which comes out from between her feet and her children whom she bears; for she will eat them secretly for lack of everything in the siege and desperate straits in which your enemy shall distress you at all your gates.
Lamentations 2:20: "See, O Lord, and consider! To whom have You done this? Should the women eat their offspring, the children they have cuddled? Should the priest and prophet be slain in the sanctuary of the Lord?"
We cannot talk about the earthquakes without dealing with the issue of the phrase "beginning of sorrows." Futurists will point to this and note that this phrase literally means "birth pangs" and then take this to analogize the signs to a woman giving birth; that is, that they will increase in frequency and intensity up to the end. The text, however, does not say that [De LDM 80]. It is an analogy that cannot be pressed to walk on all fours. To then use this phrase to attempt to chart the record of earthquakes so as to try and predict the end is nonsensical. My Nelson NJKV Study Bible contains this honking assumption:
Sorrows literally means "birth pangs." The earth continually has birth pangs today (see Romans 8:22); during the tribulation, these "sorrows" will increase in intensity and frequency until Jesus returns in glory (see 19:28; Acts 3:21) [NSB 1621].
First, the two supporting references say no such thing. Second, the Romans passage cited shows how off-base this theory is. If the creation continually has had birth pangs, has everything really gotten more frequent and with greater intensity? No. History has shown us that natural devastations are often local and cyclical, and there are periods of time with relatively few. In other words, the analogy just cannot be stretched (pun intended) that far. I believe that Biblical symbolism and redemptive typology also requires us to remember that these "pangs" are emblematic of the curse. First the general curse over the earth, but in this passage specifically, Jerusalem and the apostates have just been condemned and cursed. Understanding this context, it is interesting that this phrase "sorrows" (odinon) is also used for the pains of death.
Acts 2:24: . . . whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death.
Also, and much more in line with the whole theme and tenor of this passage, God's divine judgment is often cast in terms of birth pangs, in fact such is the first judgment upon humanity recorded in Scripture:
Genesis 3:16: To the woman He said:"I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in pain you shall bring forth children. . . ."
Isaiah 13:8: And they will be afraid. Pangs and sorrows will take hold of them; they will be in pain as a woman in childbirth.
Isaiah 26:16-17: LORD, in trouble they have visited You, they poured out a prayer when Your chastening was upon them. As a woman with child is in pain and cries out in her pangs, when she draws near the time of her delivery, so have we been in Your sight, O LORD. We have been with child, we have been in pain; we have, as it were, brought forth wind; we have not accomplished any deliverance in the earth, nor have the inhabitants of the world fallen.
Jeremiah 4:31: For I have heard a voice as of a woman in labor, the anguish as of her who brings forth her first child, the voice of the daughter of Zion bewailing herself; She spreads her hands, saying, "Woe is me now, for my soul is weary because of murderers!"
Jeremiah 6:24: We have heard the report of it; our hands grow feeble. Anguish has taken hold of us, pain as of a woman in labor. . .
Jeremiah 13:21: What will you say when He punishes you? For you have taught them to be chieftains, to be head over you. Will not pangs seize you, like a woman in labor?
Jeremiah 22:23: O inhabitant of Lebanon, making your nest in the cedars,how gracious will you be when pangs come upon you, like the pain of a woman in labor?
Jeremiah 50:43: The king of Babylon has heard the report about them, and his hands grow feeble; anguish has taken hold of him, pangs as of a woman in childbirth.
Hosea 13:13: The sorrows of a woman in childbirth shall come upon him.
Micah 4:9: Now why do you cry aloud? Is there no king in your midst? Has your counselor perished? For pangs have seized you like a woman in labor.
The point was not at all that these pains would be increasing in frequency and intensity (Luke's account simply states that there will be "great earthquakes" - Luke 21:11) , but rather that while they would be intense signs of judgment, Christ is reassuring them that these things are just the beginning. There is still time [Sch M24GT 19].
Now with this in mind, were there intense earthquakes during this time? Yes. Scripture itself records three of them: when Jesus was murdered (Matthew 27:54); when the stone was rolled away from His tomb (Matthew 28:2); and when Paul and Silas were imprisoned (Acts 16:26).
Historians note the following earthquakes [Sch M24GT 19]:
This activity was so noteworthy that Seneca wrote:
"How often the cities of Africa and Achea have fallen with one fatal shock! How many cities have been swallowed up in Syria, how many in Macedonia! How often have Pathos become a ruin! News has often been brought of the demolition of whole cities at once. quoted in [Sch M24GT 19]
Commentator Edward Hayes Plumptre wrote, "Perhaps no period in the world's history has ever been so marked by these convulsions as that which intervenes between the crucifixion and the destruction of Jerusalem." quoted in [De LDM 81]
And there is something else that we must note. Remember that Romans 8 states that the whole creation is having birth pangs. If these signs are to occur anywhere on the whole planet, how are they signs? Areas on the whole planet at any given time may be experiencing such distress, but if these signs are confined to a specified area, such as the Roman Empire, they are meaningful, and the whole context of the passage is thus restricted [Sch M24GT 19].
I am finding I need to back up a bit. Although we are dealing primarily with the text of Matthew, I notice something important that was mentioned by Luke that we should discuss.
Luke 21:11: And there will be great earthquakes in various places, and famines and pestilences; and there will be fearful sights and great signs from heaven.
We already dealt with the earthquakes, famines, and pestilences, but the Matthean passage did not mention "signs from heaven." Now I would point out that this was paired with very natural phenomena, but since the ancients saw natural phenomena as portents and signs from heaven, this is quite expected, thus this really need not need anything more than what was already stated. The wars and natural disturbances were indeed fearful sights and great signs which were in providence, from heaven. The "natural" signs were evidence of supernatural judgment [Sch M24GT 18-19]. But there is more that we can point to.
Josephus reports the following events all occurring during AD66:
While the people were assembling for the Feast of Unleavened Bread, on the eight of the month of Nisan, at the ninth hour of the night [3am] so a bright a line shone round the altar and Temple that it looked like broad daylight, and this lasted for a half an hour. The inexperienced regarded it as a good omen, but it was immediately interpreted by the Scribes in conformity with subsequent events. cited in [Ch TGT 114-115]
Also during the same feast:
The East Gate of the inner sanctuary was a very massive gate made of brass and so heavy that it could scarcely be moved every evening by twenty men; it was fastened by iron-bound bars and secured by bolts that were sunk very deep into a threshold that was fashioned from a single stone block; yet this gate was seen to open of its own accord at the sixth hour of the night. The Temple guards ran and reported the news to the captain and he came up and by strenuous efforts managed to close it. To the uninitiated this also appeared to be the best of omens as they had assumed that God had opened to them the gate of happiness. But wiser people realized that the security of the Temple was breaking down of its own accord and that the opening of the gates was a present to the enemy; and they interpreted this in their own minds as a portent of the coming desolation. cited in [Ch TGT 114-115]
A supernatural apparition was seen, too amazing to be believed. What I am now to relate would, I imagine, be dismissed as imaginary, had this not been vouched for by eyewitnesses, then followed by subsequent disasters that deserved to be thus signalized. For before sunset chariots were seen in the air over the whole country, and armed battalions speeding through the clouds and encircling the cities. cited in [Ch TGT 116]
And:
"At the feast called Pentecost, when the priests had entered the inner courts of the Temple by night to perform their usual ministrations, they declared that they were aware first, of a violent commotion and din, then of a voice as of a host crying, 'We are departing hence!'" cited in [Ch TGT 116]
And the fifth sign in the heavens that year: "A star that looked like a sword stood over the city and a comet that continued for a whole year." It was obvious, as Josephus says, that Jerusalem was "no longer the dwelling place of God." cited in [Ch TGT 116]
These are in addition to the signs recorded in the NT such as the tearing of the veil. The Talmud also records that in AD30 the gates of the Temple opened by themselves, apparently due to the collapse of the overhead lintel, a stone weighing about 30 tons [Ch TGT 115-116]. Comets at that time were held to be frightful omens of disaster, and there were two in the reign of Nero alone just prior to the AD70 events, one in AD60 and one in AD66. The first one caused Nero to murder potential successors to his throne (i.e.his own offspring) in order to avoid the upheaval portended by the comet, and the second one was just before his suicide. Gary DeMar states something interesting:
Historians have linked the appearance of Halley's Comet not only with the death of Nero, but with the destruction of Jerusalem four years later. A seventeenth-century print graphically depicts the phenomenon as it passes over Jerusalem. The following caption accompanies the print: "Halley's Comet of AD 66 shown over Jerusalem. . . The Comet was regarded as an omen predicting the fall of the city to the Romans which occurred four years later." [De LDM 81-82]
Okay back to Matthew 24, we left off with. . .
Matthew 24:9-13: Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name's sake. And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. But he who endures to the end shall be saved.
Who would deny that first century Christians were persecuted, as Christ himself prophesized?
John 15:19: If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you