A few weeks ago, I was preaching through Matthew's Gospel and got to the apocalyptic material in chapter 24 and following. In the first week I preached on Matthew 24:1-35. The context is Jesus' prediction of the temple's destruction (vv. 1-2). In response, the disciples raise a question of timing concerning three matters (which were, presumably, linked in their minds): “Tell us, when will this [i.e. every temple stone being cast down] happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” (NIV). The section mentions a couple of other key events: verse 15's abomination that causes desolation standing in the holy place and verse 30's Son of Man coming on the clouds with great power. The big question is what does this chapter refers to? In particular, what event does the coming of the Son of Man refer to? There are three main options:

1. The return of Christ at the end of the age (yet to occur today)
2. The destruction of Jerusalem and its temple (which we know occurred in 70 AD)
3. The complex of events at the end of Christ's earthly ministry: his death, resurrection and ascension (which occurred within the framework of the Gospel itself).

At the end of this section there is a strong note of imminence, with Jesus stating in verse 34 that “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place”. For this reason, in my sermon on this section, I stated that I could not accept Option 1 because it required a linguistically dodgy redefinition of the word “generation”, since the return of Christ certainly didn't occur within the lifetime of the first generation of believers.

Option 2 fits within the lifetime of that generation and the initial context of verses 1-2, and the “holy place” reference of verse 15. A problem is that it gives enormous theological weight to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, which appears to be marginal in the rest of the New Testament.

Theologically, with the coming of Jesus, physical Jerusalem and the physical temple are already irrelevancies because Jesus is the fulfilment of the temple and heaven is the fulfilment of Jerusalem. Also this view struggles to explain in exactly what sense the Son of Man actually came in the fall of Jerusalem.

Many people in our Moore College circles have been attracted to Option 3, especially through the persuasive work of New Testament Lecturer and Sola Panellist Peter Bolt. This view sees verse 15's abomination of desolation and the dramatic language around it as referring in a symbolic way to the most terrible event of world history: the crucifixion of Christ. What could be more desolating and abominable that that? And the Gospel records that, like verse 29 suggests, the sun was darkened while Jesus was on the cross. Other views make verse 30 refer to his coming to earth from God. This view sees it as referring to the coming of Jesus to the Father in heaven to receive his position of power—that is, it's his ascension (or ‘coming up’) to heaven after his resurrection. This view fits the Old Testament background neatly, where the Son of Man comes to God, like Daniel 7:13 says. And from here, as verse 31 mentions, Jesus ushers in the age of gospel preaching to gather the elect.

However, this view fits even more neatly into Mark's parallel version of this chapter than to Matthew itself. And it struggles to account for the temple context, and the command to flee and the intense period of suffering—not just for Jesus but his followers.

I told the church that I swing between option 2 and option 3, and that it tends to depend on which book I read last. But even as I preached (the same sermon three times on the Sunday), I started to feel I had not done justice to the issues. In particular, I felt I was too quick to dismiss the chapter having any reference to the final return of Christ.

My fears were confirmed in preparing my sermon for the following week's section: Matthew 24:36-25:13. More on that in my next post ...

4 Comments »