How would the Disciples
have Understood the
Words of
Jesus on Olivet recorded in Matthew 24?
Chris
Mack
12886 63A Ave
Surrey, BC
Ph: 604-590-1349
chriswmack@hotmail.com
© 2004
(Updated 2004)
Abstract. Matthew chapter 24, which records the words of Jesus on the
Mount of Olives, is a difficult passage to interpret and explain. Some scholars
would apply Jesus’ Olivet Discourse to the fall of
Christ and Daniel
The Olivet Discourse
contains many clear connections with the book of Daniel and is regarded by
scholars as Christ’s midrash/pesher, (inspired
explanation) and commentary on Daniel’s apocalyptic prophecies. I would contend
that it is all of that and more. Some would contend that Daniel’s prophecies
encompass the nation of
Israel’s Expectation
It is my opinion that it
is essential to understand the expectation of the Jews at the time of
Christ, and especially the understanding and expectation of the disciples in
order to get to the bottom of this passage. Significantly, the prophecy of
Matt. 24 is addressed to the disciples. (Matt.24:1&3) The words
"you" and "your" were used 21 times in Matthew chapter 24
because Jesus was speaking to them. Who were these disciples? Who was
the Christ? They were all Jews. They were all Israelites. Matthew’s
gospel, which is universally recognized by scholars as the gospel of Christ to
the Jews, begins with the genealogy of Israel, from Abraham down to Jesus
Christ. Matt.1. In Matt.2, Jesus is depicted as the
King of the Jews, who was born in
What we need to remember
is that Israel was promised the rulership of the
entire world, which included the Gentiles. Satan, in addressing Christ when he
tempted Him in the wilderness, revealed that he also understood that the
intention of God was that Israel’s King would rule the earth. The devil "showed
Him all the kingdoms of the world … and he said to Him, all these
things will I give You, if You will fall down and
worship me." Matt.4:8&9. Satan was offering Jesus the opportunity to
be seated as vice-regent under Him, and to receive it easily. Jesus refused. He
would go the way of the cross and establish a "covenant" with God for
the rulership of the world.
Matthew 24 is Linked to Matthew 10
It should be noted that
Matthew chapter 24 does not stand alone. It is part of a package running
from Matthew chapter 19 through Matthew chapter 26. With the exception of some
minor commentary by Matthew in Matt.23:1 and Matt.24:1-4; the words of Matthew
chapters 23, 24 &25 are all the words of Jesus. Matthew 24 also needs to be
understood in light of Matthew chapter 10 with which it shares
many similarities. Some real perplexities are found in Matt.10. Jesus said to
His disciples in Matt.10:5&6; "Do not go the way of the Gentiles, and
do not enter any city of the Samaritans; but rather goto
the lost sheep of the house of Israel." In Matt.10:23, Jesus said; "you
shall not finish going through the cities of Israel, until the Son of Mancomes." Clearly, the allusion to the "Son
of Man" and His "coming" is from Dan.7:13. In Matt.10, Jesus
spoke of how His disciples would be delivered up ‘hated’, ‘persecuted’, and
‘put to death/killed’ "The one who has endured to the end will be saved".
Christ "did not come to bring peace but a sword", as in "wars
and rumors of wars". These are the same warnings that Jesus gave in the
Olivet Discourse, thereby revealing the connection between the two passages.
Matt.10:21,22,23,28,34; 24:6,9,10,13,23. In
light of the connections between these two passages, and that Jesus was
exclusively speaking of Israel in Matthew chapter 10, we now have a key that
will prove helpful in terms of interpreting the Olivet Discourse.
The Olivet Discourse and
Revelation
It is interesting to note
that Matthew chapters 24 and 10 are both heavily alluded to in Revelation,
especially Revelation chapter 6 and the exposition of the 7 seals. But more
than that, the Olivet Discourse contains all the major components of Revelation
in seed form. Jerusalem, the place where all the righteous blood of the saints
has been shed, now becomes Babylon. Rev.11:18; 18:2,8,18,24;
Matt.23:37&35. The desolated Temple of Matt.24 becomes a symbol of the
people of God who are trampled in Rev.11. Matthew’s ‘abomination of desolation’
becomes the anti-Christ of Rev.13. The warning to flee from Jerusalem now
becomes the warning in Rev.18:4 to flee from Babylon. The great tribulation of
Jerusalem now becomes religious persecution on a worldwide scale.
Rev.13:8&15. The phenomenal signs of Matt.24 take on spiritual implications
in the book of Revelation. Rev.6:12-14;
The connections between
the Olivet Discourse and Revelation are undeniable. In fact, some scholars
believe that all the major themes of Revelation are rooted in the Olivet
Discourse, (and it’s wider context). Certainly we need
to ask why and how John utilized the words of the Olivet Discourse.
Nevertheless, any secondary meaning and interpretation applied by John must be
held in abeyance until we have come to grips with and have dealt with Matthew’s
meaning and purpose for his original hearers. We come to the Olivet Discourse
with 2000 years between the disciples and us. In hindsight we have seen the
rejection of Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ by the nation of Israel, we have
seen the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans in 70 A.D., and
we have pondered the Apocalypse written by John in approximately 96A.D. on the
isle of Patmos. We must, however, not be too hasty to
interpret the passage in question through our twenty first century lens.
Another matter that
demands our consideration is the ongoing discussion regarding the dating of the
gospels and the book of Revelation. I would contend that internal evidence
in the gospels demands that the warnings of Christ to His disciples and to the
Jews must predate 70 A.D. or they would be no warning at all. On the
other hand, the symbolic language found especially in Revelation 14 & 18 looks
back to a Jerusalem that has already been destroyed and uses it as a
picture of the end of the world. If the leadership of Israel had responded to
the Prophet Jesus’ call to repentance, and had received Him as the Son of
David, as Christ and King; 70 A.D. would have been realized as the anti-typical
fulfillment of the Danielic prophecies and the end of
the age in which the Messianic King began His earthly rule. Therefore, the
interpretation and understanding of the Olivet Discourse that was held
to by the disciples before 70 A.D. was significantly different than the way
that John utilized the words of Jesus on Olivet in Revelation after 70 A.D.
We need to remember
that the disciples who heard the words of Jesus on Olivet had a thoroughly ‘Israel
centered’ view of the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies. Could we
deny the information that leads us to believe that Jesus encouraged their
point of view? In Matt.15:21-24; we read of a Canaanite woman who cried
out; "have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David" in regards to her
demon-possessed daughter. Jesus then said to her and to His disciples;
"I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
In Matt.16:28 Jesus said; "Truly I say to you, there are some of those
who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of
Man coming in His kingdom." In Matt.19:28 Jesus said; "Truly I
say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the
regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you
also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."
When Jesus spoke of "the regeneration", was there any reason to
believe that the disciples understood that Jesus was referring to anything
else but the "regeneration" of Israel? In the next chapter of
Matt.20:20-24, James and John sent their mother in to Jesus to ask Him for the
two highest seats next to Him in the Kingdom. Hearing about the attempted
back room deal, the ten other disciples became indignant because they
themselves wanted these seats. In light of the words of Jesus and the actions
of the disciples, how could readers of Matthew’s gospel not understand that
the disciples believed that the Kingdom was anything but imminent, and that
Israel would be at the center of it? For forty days after His resurrection,
Jesus spoke to His disciples "of things concerning the Kingdom of God."
Acts 1:3. The question asked of Jesus just before
His ascension illustrates again the mindset of the disciples. "Lord, is
it at this time that you are restoring the kingdom to Israel?" Acts 1:6. What is clear is that the dominion and
everlasting kingdom of Daniel’s "Son of Man" was imminent in the
minds of the disciples and Jesus continued to encourage this view. Was Jesus
a deluded prophet? Was He mistaken? Or is there a new way of looking at the
facts?
A New Paradigm for
Prophetic Interpretation
It has been generally
recognized that John’s "Revelation of Jesus Christ" contains 100’s
of allusions and echoes from the Old Testament, yet has no direct quotations
or citations. This connection to the Old Testament has been generally
recognized. What has not been generally recognized is that not only the
Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24, Mark 13 & Luke 21 are alluded to in
Revelation, but the bulk of the gospels themselves contain connections by
way of the words of Jesus, with the book of Revelation. (See my paper:
"The Synoptic Traditions in the Apocalypse").
It is if after seeing the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., John felt
compelled to recast the vision of the future for the people of God.
It is as if a door was closed in 70 A.D. The Old Testament was no longer to
be used as a direct predictive tool in the hands of the prophet. The
connections made in the book of Revelation with the Old Testament are not concrete.
We do not read; "it is written" or "that the prophecy might be
fulfilled". On the other hand we see a partial mention of a
stream of recognizable Old Testament passages. Sometimes we will even see a
blending of two or more of these Old Testament allusions in the same verse.
As previously stated, it is important to note that the words of Jesus
recorded in the gospels are intermingled with these Old Testament echoes
and allusions.
We know that John
utilized the Old Testament. The question is this: How did he utilize it?
After seeing the destruction of Jerusalem in 70A.D.,
John realized that the ‘Israel centered’ paradigm for prophetic
interpretation was finished. John understood that the Old Testament, of which
Matt.24 is the fulfillment, could no longer to be used as a direct literal
predictive tool in the hands of the prophet. This of course, if it is
correct, begs the question. Is there a basis and a
principled method of interpretation that has replaced a literal utilization
of the Old Testament? We would also need to ask those who have moved beyond
the literal to a spiritual and worldwide approach if they have taken their
theology to its ultimate conclusion. Are they still continuing to interpret
the Olivet Discourse with a modified ‘Israel centered" approach? The
fact that John realized that the ‘Israel centered’ paradigm for prophetic
interpretation was finished is revealed in the way that he has shifted to a ‘Christ
centered’ paradigm of understanding how the eternal purpose of God will
find ultimate fulfillment. Have we overlooked the fact that the book of
Revelation is not the "Revelation of Israel" but is the
"Revelation of Jesus Christ"?
What can we learn from
this? This question touches the central core of this paper. The Old
Testament is primarily (at least on the surface) interested with the
relationship between God and the theocracy of Israel. The nation of
Israel was given 490 (years) to bring in everlasting righteousness.
(Dan.9:24) The Messiah to come was to be cut off in the middle of the last
week, the seventieth week. This left 3 ½ (years) for the leadership of Israel
to still accept Jesus as the Christ. In His mercy, God extended
probation to the nation of Israel for a generation, that
is 40 years. Matt.24:34 (The term "generation" has a much deeper
meaning. Nevertheless, this does not need to deter us from also understanding
it as representing 40 years.) My point, however, is this: the nation of
Israel could have accepted Jesus as their King and Savior right up to the
destruction of the city of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D.
This brings me to the next point.
The Sign of Jonah
How were the Jews
to learn that Jesus was the Messiah? They were to learn it from the witness
and teaching of the disciples. They were to accept it in light of the sign
of Jonah and the circumstances of Christ’s resurrection from the dead. In
the book of Acts, we see occasion after occasion in which the disciples
witnessed to the hierarchy of the Jews about the resurrection of Jesus,
the Messiah. It naturally follows that if the Jews had believed in His
resurrection, they could have repented over
their part in His crucifixion and have accepted Him as their King.
The book of Matthew was
written to and for the Jews. It was written during probationary time. (Most
scholars make Mark the first gospel, and conclude that Matthew borrowed from
Mark, and that Mark was essentially Peter’s spokesman. I would swim against
the current and contend that Matthew was the earliest gospel, used as a
catechism for the Jewish Christians, was possibly
written around 41 A.D., and that it was definitely written before the
destruction of Jerusalem.) There are important implications of
a pre-70 A.D. dating of Matthew. Israel was given a window of time to accept
their Messiah. If the nation of Israel had accepted Jesus as the
Messiah, even after His resurrection; they would have continued to be God’s
vehicle of expression. The Old Testament is replete with passages that
describe the glory of Israel as the center of God’s evangelistic outreach to
the nations of the world. (Zech. 8:3-23; Isa.
56:4-8; Isa. 60:1-11)
The theme of the book
of Matthew is the Kingdom of God. And what is a kingdom without a king?
Matthew has gone to great lengths to prove that Jesus is the Messianic King to
the Jews. Would he have gone to such trouble if it were not
possible for the Jews to receive Jesus as King and thus usher in the long
awaited Kingdom of God?
It is of course possible
to cite the multitude of threats and warnings from the lips of Jesus to the
leaders of the Jews. But were these threats and woes unconditional? By no means. John the Baptist and Jesus Himself preached
"repent for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand". Why preach repentance
if it is not a distinct possibility? Why preach the fulfillment of
Daniel’s prophecy regarding the "Kingdom of God" in which the
Jewish Messiah will rule with Israel over "all the peoples,
nations, and men of every language", if this prophecy was not on the
verge of being fulfilled. Dan. 2:35,44; 7:14. Have
we been so busy reading Daniel with our Gentile Christian glasses on that we
have failed to see that God’s original intention was that He would rule the
world not only through His Messiah but with the nation of Israel? Matthew and
Jesus appear to be giving a mixed message. On one hand, we hear the threats
and warnings of Jesus that "your house is being left to you
desolate". Matt.23:38. On the other hand, the nation of Israel seemed to
be standing on the threshold of the Kingdom. The disciples in Matthew 10 were
commissioned by Jesus to go out and preach that the "kingdom is at
hand". Matt.10:7. They were not to "go the way of the Gentiles
or to enter any city of the Samaritans, but were rather to go to the lost
sheep of the house of Israel". Matt10:5&6. They
"will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son
of Man comes." Matt.10:23. (The interpretation of this text in
Matt.10:23 has been deeply problematic for many theologians.
This paper will offer a solution to the problem.) The clear implication of
the words of Jesus recorded in Matthew 10 is that the dominion and
everlasting kingdom of the seventh chapter of Daniel’s "Son of Man"
was imminent, and would be experienced by those who had been present to hear
these words of Jesus. See also Matt.16:27-28.
Jesus saw John the
Baptist as the last and the greatest of the Old Testament
prophets. "For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John."
(Matt. 11:11-14) He was to prepare the way for the LORD. (Matt. 3:3, Isa. 40:3) John the Baptist preached; "repent, for
the Kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matt. 3:2. Are we to suppose that the
Baptist’s mission was predetermined for failure? When Jesus reproached the
cities of Israel where most of His miracles were done because they did not
repent, did He have a valid reason for doing so? Of course He did, because
they could have repented. (Matt. 11:9-13, 20-22)
In Matthew 12:41, Jesus
said "something greater than Jonah is here."
In the context, we hear Jesus telling the scribes and Pharisees that the only
sign that they will receive will be the sign of Jonah. "As Jonah
was 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the sea monster, so shall the Son of
Man be 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth." The sign
that Jesus gave these representatives of the theocracy of Israel was His own resurrection
from the dead. This sign was adequate and powerful. They had ample evidence
of His resurrection. It was God’s intention that they believe and they
could have.
As Jonah witnessed to
Nineveh without any apparent mention of a willingness on God’s part to turn
away from His wrath, we also see Jesus communicating a message of apparent
certain doom on Jerusalem and on the Temple. Jesus used spoken and acted
parables and declared, not only to His disciples, but to the chief priests
and elders, that the glory was about to depart from the Sanctuary. His acted
parable of overturning of the tables of the moneychangers in the
immediate context of the healing of the blind and the lame was significant.
(Matt.21:12-14) So also was the spoken parable and prophetic prediction:
"The king was enraged and sent his armies, and destroyed those
murderers, and set their city on fire." Herein we see Jesus’ prophecy
in regards to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70A.D. by the Romans who acted
as agents of God; in the same way as the LORD had sent His servant
Nebuchadnezzar to take Jerusalem and burn it with fire. Jer.21:4-10;
32:28&29. Significant it is to note how the language of Covenant, and the principle of covenantal conditionality
flows through the passages in Jeremiah that speak of Jerusalem’s destruction
in the past. (Matt22:7, Jer.17:19-27, 18:1-12) We also hear Jesus speaking in
a straightforward manner in His plain statement to the disciples regarding
the Temple: "not one stone shall be left upon another, which will
not be torn down". (Matt.24:2,1) "Behold,
your house is being left to you desolate." (Matt.23:38) These powerful
unambiguous statements of Jesus, linked with the
fact that this is exactly what actually transpired, has led many to believe
that this was the only way in which the prophecy of Jesus could have been
fulfilled.
Nevertheless, would it not
also be reasonable in every way to understand that in the same way as
repentance on the part of the king and people of Nineveh averted the certain
judgment of God, repentance on the part of the leadership of Israel would
also have averted the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 A.D. It
is only in hindsight that we see that the "great city" (Jerusalem)
did not repent at the preaching and sign of "Something greater
than Jonah". (Matt.12:41) Why indeed would Jesus have likened
Himself to Jonah and why would the prophet Matthew have recorded it if it
were not the case? We need to ask ourselves the question; how
would history have enfolded if the leadership and the nation of Israel has corporately
repented and accepted the disciple’s witness of the risen Lord?
Israel’s Two Options
What we need to
recognize is that there were two possible scenarios. There were two
options for Israel. It has been generally noted that the book of Matthew
and the book of Daniel share the same theme, which is the
"Kingdom of God". When we do a comparison between Matthew 24
and the book of Daniel, we see clear connections. As previously noted, many
scholars see Matt.24 as a midrash/pesher (inspired
explanation) of Daniel by the Prophet Jesus. Matthew recorded how Jesus spoke
of the destruction of the temple, the abomination of desolation, the
tribulation, the end, the Coming of the Son of Man on the clouds, and even
His specific mention of the book of Daniel. This is all in keeping with the
prediction in the book of Daniel (Dan. 9:26) that after the Messiah is cut
off, "the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the City
and the Sanctuary". But did this scenario have to take place? Did
this prophecy have to be fulfilled in exactly the same way as it was
fulfilled?
The leaders of Israel
didn’t like the Danielic scenario. Who could blame
them? It is important to note that the most important evidence that the
witnesses against Jesus brought was His own statement that He was able to
destroy the Temple and rebuild it in three days. Matt. 26:61. Their most
sacred edifice was the Temple. It was a symbol of their identity and the last
remaining vestige wherein their power and authority resided. When the high
priest who was bent on killing Jesus asked Him, "tell us whether you are
the Christ, the Son of God", Jesus knew that they weren’t interested in
the truth, but were only interested in murdering Him. In light of this, Jesus
gave them the Daniel scenario when He answered him; "You have said it
yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you shall see the Son of Man
sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven".
(Dan.7:13; Matt.26:60-66) In other words, Jesus was declaring Himself to be
the "Son of Man", the Messianic King. But more than that, Jesus was
declaring to the High Priest that He was going to fulfill Daniel’s prophecy
by destroying the City and the Sanctuary. Dan.9:26. At this statement of
Jesus, the High Priest erupted like a volcano. He tore his High Priestly
robe. He accused Jesus of blasphemy. He condemned Jesus to death on the spot.
It is important to get
into the minds of the Jewish leaders. They had returned from Babylonian
captivity five hundred years earlier. They now abhorred idolatry that was the
cause of their earlier captivity. They had developed a stringent standard of
righteousness that they sincerely believed would recommend them to God. After
the restoration of the Sanctuary and the Jewish form of worship by Judas Maccabaeus two hundred years earlier from the desecration
at the hands of the Greek King Antiochos Epiphanes, the Jewish religious leaders had become
extremely zealous for their religious traditions. How could God be anything
but pleased with them? They were also very much aware of the tenuous
situation that existed under Roman domination. Any threats of insurrection
could potentially damage their relatively comfortable situation and could
place them in a situation wherein they could lose their last remaining
vestiges of power.
Another statement of
the High Priest is significant. "If we let Him go on like this, all men
will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place
and our nation."…. "it is expedient for
you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should
not perish." (John 11:48, 50) The "place" the High Priest was
referring to here is the Temple, the Sanctuary. They were willing to defend
the Temple at all costs, from threats imagined or real. With the ground swell
of public opinion gaining strength in terms of recognizing Jesus of Nazareth
as the Messianic King, they were in potential danger from the Romans who
considered the recognition of any King other than Caesar as sedition. The
only Messiah that they were ready to receive was a King who would deliver
them from Roman domination.
In light of their
relatively recent past history, and their current political situation,
combined with their religious mindset, their need to remove Jesus from the
scene seems like a forgone conclusion. With the enormous emphasis by Matthew
on the book of Daniel, it seems as if the actual historical outcome was
inevitable. But was it? What we do know is that not only the Jewish leaders
but the disciples themselves were not at all clear in regards to the mission
of Jesus until after His resurrection.
Was it necessary for
Jesus to die? In a word, yes. The enormous amount of information in the Old
and New Testaments testify to this truth. Jesus, ‘the Lamb slain from the
foundation of the world", was "delivered up by the predetermined
plan and foreknowledge of God". The representatives of the Romans, the
Gentiles and the people of Israel gathered together against Jesus "to do
whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur". Jesus Himself
said after His resurrection, "was it not necessary for the Christ
to suffer these things?" At the Passover meal, Jesus said: "it
is written, I will strike down the Shepherd, and the sheep of the flock
will be scattered." (Luke 24:25, 26, 46. Rev.13:8; Acts 2:23; 3:17, 18;
4:27, 28. Matt.26:31)
It was necessary for
Jesus to die so that the entire nation might not perish. But was it possible
for the nation to have accepted Jesus as Messianic King after His
resurrection? Once again we have arrived at the very question that I am
seeking to deal with. I believe that it was possible for the nation of
Israel to have accepted Jesus as the Messiah after His resurrection.
The book of Matthew contains not only a Danielic
scenario that the Jewish leaders despised so much but a Zechariah scenario
that was more to their liking.
The Zechariah Scenario
versus the Danielic Scenario
Let us consider the
Zechariah scenario. The Zechariah scenario doesn’t see God allowing the
destruction of Jerusalem or the Temple, but conversely speaks of God coming
as a warrior to defend the City and the Temple. Peace, safety, and prosperity
are the predictions of Zechariah. I can just imagine the false prophets
running to and fro inside Jerusalem in 70 A.D. predicting deliverance in
accordance with the prophecy of Zechariah while the Roman armies laid siege
to Jerusalem. (See Josephus: Complete Works, Wars of the Jews 6.5.2.) Rescue
is always a much more palatable prediction than destruction. What the false prophets
and the Jewish leaders failed to recognize was that deliverance and their
continuance in the position as God’s servant and representative was contingent
on repentance and their corporate reception of Christ as Messianic King.
We need to recognize that Matthew incorporated not only the Danielic scenario, but the Zechariah scenario into his gospel. At the end of Christ’s 3 ½ year ministry, Jesus entered Jerusalem riding on a donkey, reminiscent of the entry of the kings of Israel at their anointing and coronation. Matthew 21:2-6 says that "this took place that what was spoken through the prophet might be fulfilled." He went on to quote Zechariah 9:9. Jesus has just announced Himself as the son of David in this act. He declared Himself to be the Messianic King.
Jesus’ next act will be
to overturn the tables of the moneychangers and cast the traders out of the
temple. The chief priests and elders asked Him by what authority that He was
doing these things. Then, after asking them about the source of John the
Baptist’s authority, Jesus went on to speak to them about the corner stone of
the Temple. This stone mentioned in Matt.21:42-44 not only finds its basis in
the "stone" of Dan. 2:34, 44, 45 but also
in the "stone" of Zech. 12:3. When they understood that Jesus was
speaking of their destruction, along with the implication that the present
Temple that they were fully in control of would be destroyed to make a place
for the new one, they sought to seize Him.
The book of Zechariah
not only speaks of the coming King but the building of the Temple.
(Zech. 6:12,13) For the Jews, the only reason that
the Temple would be destroyed and a new one would be needed to replace it was
the arrival of the eschaton and the final destruction
of the enemies of God’s people. Any other sort of destruction of the Temple
would be premature. Any so called Messiah that would threaten to destroy
their present Temple without bringing about the demise of their enemies and
thereby bringing in an age of peace and security must be regarded as a false
Messiah. The Jews were unwilling to believe the words of Jesus that He spoke
in regards to Himself "that Something greater
than the Temple is here". Matt.12:6. They were unwilling to
believe that the purpose and function of the Sanctuary had found its
fulfillment in the Christ. They did not understand that the King, that is the
Temple Builder, had laid the foundation of the new Temple at His resurrection
from the dead. A suffering Servant who would die for the sins of the people
was the farthest thing from their minds.
At the Passover meal
Jesus reinterpreted the Passover in terms of covenant. In Matt.26:28,
Jesus stated: "this is the blood of the covenant", which
sounds very much like Zech.9:11. He then went on to state in v31; "for
it is written, I will strike the Shepherd, and the sheep of the flock
will be scattered" which is a verbatim statement from Zech13:7. The
Great Shepherd of the sheep will receive wounds in His hands in the
house of His friends. (Zech.13:6,7) It is
significant to note that the Zechariah scenario contains the account of a
slain Messiah.
It is in Matthew
chapter 23 that Jesus pronounced 8 woes on the scribes and Pharisees. Instead
of feeding, nurturing, and protecting the flock, they ravaged the flock as
murderers and hypocrites. We also hear the LORD cursing the worthless
shepherds in Zech. 11:15-17. We know the rest of the story. One of His own
disciples betrayed Him for 30 pieces of silver, the price of a slave. (Matt.
27:9,10; Zech. 11:12,13) The King would die in
battle, but He would nevertheless rise from the dead and the new and more
glorious Temple would be built. Jesus, after cleansing the Temple in John 2:14,15 spoke of His own resurrection in terms of raising
up the new Temple which is His own Body. In the first case, He was
speaking of Himself. In the secondary case, He was speaking of the church.
Jesus specifically
mentioned the prophet Daniel in Matthew 24. It should be noted that
Jesus had already mentioned the prophet Zechariah by name in
Matt. 23:35. In Matthew 21:1, 24:3 & 26:30, the prophet Matthew
significantly recorded that Jesus was at the Mount of Olives. The
Mount of Olives is mentioned three times in the Old Testament. Once it is
mentioned typologically in 2Sam.15:30 of David and twice in Zech. 14:4 in
the context ofthe Lord fighting for Jerusalem.
We also see Zechariah’s words mentioned in Matt. 24:31. Matthew blended
Zechariah’s prophecy of the four winds of heaven, (Zech. 2:6.) and the
arrival of the LORD God blowing the trumpet. (Zech. 9:14.) These words of
Jesus recorded by Matthew depict the rescue of God’s people ‘Zechariah
style’. Jesus went on to say, in the same passage; "Truly I say to you,
this generation will not pass away until all these things (that He had just
mentioned) take place. Matt. 24:34. The significant number of quotations
from the book of Zechariah and their pivotal and prominent place in the mind
of Jesus cannot be ignored. Clearly, it as if Matthew has
incorporated two distinct possibilities into his gospel.
The crux of the matter
for the Jewish nation was whether or not they would repent and receive their
King.
It is significant that the book of Zechariah begins with a call to repentance.
So also does the gospel of Matthew. (Zech.1:1-6; Matt.3:2; 4:17.)
The LORD brought it to their attention that He had dealt with them in the
past in accordance with their deeds. Their only hope for protection by God in
the future was to return to the LORD. This is in line with the entire
Old Testament, and especially with the covenant curses and blessings.
(See Deut.27&28; Lev.26.) God has always set a choice before
His people. He continually admonished them to walk with Him in Covenant
loyalty and solidarity and thus to receive the blessing. On the other hand,
He continually warned them that He Himself would judge them if they
rebelliously moved away from Him into idolatry.
The Covenantal Key
The covenantal
structure with which Matthew wrote his gospel corroborates this. The gospel
of Matthew begins with a historical prologue that identifies the covenant
partners, (God and Abraham, Jacob, and David) and includes the mention of a
past deliverance, (from Egypt). Past beneficences are the foundation of future
covenantal solidarity on the part of the vassal and look ahead to the promise
of future deliverances of a God who will "save His people from their
sins". Matt.1:21. The Davidic "beloved Son" has declared His
covenantal solidarity with the LORD in the wilderness as He Himself
"lived by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God".
Matt.4:4. Significant it is that Matthew stated the blessings in Matthew
chapter 5 and the woes or curses in Matthew chapter 23. The "blood of
the covenant" that would provide a premier blessing manifested in the
"forgiveness of sins" was ratified between the King of Israel and
the God of heaven when He died in battle on Calvary’s cross in the ultimate
statement of covenant faithfulness. Matt.26:28. The disciples were given the
privilege of eating the covenant meal in solidarity with their King and
Covenant Mediator, Christ Jesus. The King and Covenant Enforcer, even the
"Son of Man" will enforce the curse of the covenant when He comes
to judge His enemies and gather the elect. Matt.13:41; 24:30&31.
What Could Have Been
Zechariah 12 speaks of
how the Lord would make Jerusalem a cup of reeling to all the peoples around
her. Jerusalem will be a heavy stone for all the peoples. A siege will
be laid against her. This is also picked up by Luke 19:43,44;
21:20. The outcome in Zechariah’s prophecy, however, is different than
in Daniel’s prophecy. In Zechariah’s prophecy, we see the characteristics of
holy war where it was prophesied that the Covenant God of Israel would arise
to fight for, defend, and save His people. Quoting Zechariah 12:9, "And
it will come about in that day that I will set about to destroy all the
nations that come against Jerusalem." Why was God willing to allow
the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in the Danielic
scenario, yet conversely, willing to defend the City and the
Temple in the Zechariah scenario? The next verse in Zechariah’s prophecy
answers this question. "And I will pour out on the house of David and on
the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and supplication, so
they will look on Me Whom they have pierced (John 19:37) and they will mourn
for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly
over Him, like the bitter weeping over a first-born. Zech.12:10. "In
that day there will be a great mourning in Jerusalem". Zech.12:11. The
difference between the Danielic scenario and the
Zechariah scenario is that in the Zechariah scenario, the nation of
Israel was depicted as repenting and mourning over their great sin
of piercing their Shepherd King. The subsequent result of their
repentance was for Israel to corporately receive a circumcision of the
heart by the Spirit of God. They were to come to the fountain of the blood of
their Messiah for the cleansing of their sin and impurity. (Zech.13:1)
They were to receive the blessing that those who mourn over their sins
receive. (Matt.5:4) The Zechariah scenario could have been theirs
if only they had repented and received their King.
It cannot be argued
that the writings of Zechariah met their fulfillment in the gospels.
Certainly some aspects have been picked up by the New Testament prophets, but
Zechariah’s central point in regards to the deliverance of
Israel from the surrounding armies never happened. This truth is
echoed by many of the other Old Testament prophets that have also cast a
scenario which is much in keeping with Zechariah’s. Honest exegesis demands
that we must come to grips with the meaning of Old Testament prophet’s
statements as the people to whom it was spoken would have naturally
understood them. The dispensationalists would compartmentalize them, honestly
admit that the promises to Israel never did meet their complete fulfillment,
and push them off to the future where they will ultimately find their
fulfillment.
The Conditional Nature
of Prophecy
My study, however, has
led me to the conclusion that due to the conditional nature of prophecy,
these promises will never be literally fulfilled to the nation of
Israel. I see the New Testament prophets offering a heightened explanation of
the nature and characteristics of a new believing Israel (the
church) who surround in worship the Son of God. The church
nevertheless, is the Israel of God in the secondary sense. The Divine directive
for Israel in Dan.9:24 was to "finish the
transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to
bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to
anoint the most holy". God’s purpose was to accomplish all of these
things for His people in the Person of Christ. All that they had to do
was recognize the time of their visitation and
receive their King. The prophet Matthew went to great lengths to show that
Jesus saw Himself reliving Israel’s experiences and replacing her failures
with His holy history. In other words, Christ Himself was the embodiment of
the Israel of God. Matthew went beyond the nation of Israel and saw Jesus as
the fulfillment of the Old Testament types and therefore gave them a Christological interpretation. By doing this, Matthew
has not made the nation of Israel, but the Christ, the superlative point
of focus in regards to prophetic interpretation. In other words, Matthew
has included another level of interpretation in his gospel. Matthew has gone
beyond Israel to deal with the deeper issues of the battle of God’s Christ
against Satan, sin, and death.
Conclusions
If my hypothesis
regarding the two options for the nation of Israel is correct, this point has
several important ramifications.
The first point
is that the Old Testament must be interpreted in its historical context. Care
must be used in superimposing an Old Testament interpretation and
explanation; that coincides with apparent historical events transpiring since
the Christ event or since 70A.D., onto the New
Testament. An example would be to use the book of Daniel to give us a
concrete explanation of the future. We well may observe that the mystery of
God and the mystery of iniquity and the principles contained therein may have
reoccurring and multiple fulfillments throughout time until the return of
Christ and the consummation of all things, but we do not have a basis for
seeing an exact literal fulfillment of any of the Old Testament prophecies.
The second point
is that the gospels must be re-evaluated in light of this information.
The phrase, "the gospel of the Kingdom" now becomes decipherable in
light of the Jews expectation that the literal kingdom of God as spoken by
the Old Testament prophets could have literally been set up by 70 A.D. This
insight helps to make sense of the problematic passages (especially Matt. 24
& 10) that appear to be speaking to the Jewish people in the context of
the situation that the nation was in then. It is my opinion, therefore, that
it is a mistake to arbitrarily apply the prophetic message of Matthew
24 to our own day, even to the twentieth century. We know that John the
revelator utilizes the Olivet Discourse in the book of Revelation.
The real question is: how does he use it?
The problem of an
apparent contradiction between Matthew’s "gospel of the Kingdom"
and Paul’s "gospel of the cross" can be solved when we consider
that that the nation of Israel could have received Jesus as their
Messiah and been very much in keeping with Matthew’s "gospel of the
Kingdom". It is in Acts 2, after Christ’s resurrection, that we see the
melding and progression in terms of the interpretation and explanation of the
gospel. Jesus is not only Christ but Lord. As the Son of David, He now has
been crucified, raised from the dead, and seated at the right hand of God.
This information is at the very core of "Paul’s gospel" to the
Romans as he explained how "Christ Jesus was born of the seed of David
according to the flesh and was declared with power to be the Son of God by
the resurrection from the dead" and that the "righteousness of God
was being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets". Rom.1:1-4; 3:21. One
way or another, God’s plan for the inauguration of His Kingdom was going
to be fulfilled. All is in keeping with the foreknowledge and
predetermined plan of God according to God’s sworn covenant promise to David.
The third point
is that we can gain more insight into Paul’s anguish of heart as he
considered the plight of his fellow Israelites. Paul, in
the midst of revealing who the true Israel of God is in terms of the church,
the remnant according to grace, the people whose faith is in the Messiah; had
nevertheless opened the door for the acceptance of Jesus as the Christ by the
Jews. One cannot help but wonder if Paul, writing before 70 A.D;
held out the hope that somehow the nation still might repent
and corporately recognize their Savior. In Romans 11:26, we see Paul quoting Isa. 59:17-21, which is a passage very much in keeping
with the Zechariah scenario. This passage speaks of a repentant Israel
receiving miraculous help when their Redeemer returns in power to defend them
from their enemies.
The fourth point
is that after 70 A.D., and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in
fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy, the Old Testament era had drawn to a
complete close. After their failure to repent and receive Jesusas Messianic King, what might have been was
no longer a possibility for the nation of Israel. The conditional
Old Testament prophecies had met their outworking. A new vision of hope
for the future was needed.
It is at this juncture
that our eyes are drawn to John, the last living apostle, on the isle of Patmos where he had been imprisoned. The year was
approximately 96 A.D. John saw it as his role to recast the vision of
the future for the people of God. We hear John using the language of the past
to give us perspective into "the things which must shortly come to
pass". He used the language of the Old Testament but he did not cite
it. He used it in an imaginative new way. The Old Testament had
met its fulfillment. The new age, the new era had arrived. Eternal
principles are still viable. The events, nevertheless, are new.
Much more than that, though seldom recognized, John the revelator utilized
the words and concepts that Jesus spoke and taught, as recorded in the
gospels.
The fifth point is that
the Christ, the New Embodiment of the Israel of God is now the control
and measuring stick by which the interpretation of all prophecy
must now be judged. Everything is now Christianized. The prototype and
pattern for the church which is composed of believing Jews and
Gentiles is not the Old Testament but Christ. Christ; His person, His
mission, His teachings, His atonement, His passion, His death, His
resurrection, His ascension as anointed and coronated
King and High Priest who is seated at the right hand of God, has now
become the KEY to all prophecy. His holy history has
overtaken the Old Testament as the consistent norm by which all future
prophecy must be judged.
The church is the new
Israel of God in the secondary sense. Her future is cast and finds its
fullest explanation, not in light of the Old Testament,
nor the Old Testament Israel of God, but in the light of the
Pattern Man, the New Israel of God. Certainly John utilized the language
of the Old Testament, but it only has validity in the sense that
the spiritual principles contained therein are a tool in John’s hand to
illustrate the new age of our Savior and Lord, Jesus Christ. Truly,
the future is found in the Revelation of Jesus Christ.