|
| |
Matthew 24:
Prophecies of Destruction -- Part 2
Jack Van Deventer
Mathew 24 Prophecies of
Destruction Part 1
In Part 1, I looked at futuristic and preteristic views of Matthew 24 and
observed that dispensational futurists tend to be literalists, while preterists
preferred a hermeneutic which allowed Scripture to interpret Scripture. For
example, the futurist would say the prophecy of the sun, moon, and stars being
darkened (Matthew 24:29) has not been literally fulfilled and therefore could
not have taken place yet. The preterist would point out that this verse is a
direct quote of figurative passages which declared impending judgment in past
biblical history (Is. 13:9-10; Is. 34:4; Ez. 32: 7-8; Joel 2:20 which is quoted
in Acts 2:20; Amos 8:9, ). Consistent interpretation would require the
expectation of fulfillment consistent with the quoted passages, i.e., a
widespread destruction such as what occurred in Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
Preterists maintain their belief that the prophecies of Matthew 24 were
fulfilled on the basis of passages such as v. 34: "Assuredly, I say to you, this
generation will by no means pass away till all these things are fulfilled." This
verse is a problem passage for futurists who must abandon a literal hermeneutic
and claim that "generation" really means "race," even though the term is never
used that way in Scripture.
Meanwhile preterists contend that Jesus' hearers believed His message and
escaped the wholesale slaughter of Jerusalem. Had not Jesus warned his hearers
(v. 15) to flee to the mountains? The parallel passage in Luke is very specific:
"But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its
desolation is near. Then let those in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who
are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter
her. For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may
be fulfilled" (Luke 21:20-22).
History records that the Jews, believing they would be safer in the walled
city, stayed in Jerusalem while the Christians fled to the mountains. Jewish
historian Eusebius (A.D. 260-340) records the following events:
"But the people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by a
revelation, vouchsafed to approved men there before the war, to leave the city
and to dwell in a certain town of Perea called Pella. And when those that
believed in Christ had come thither from Jerusalem, then, as if the royal city
of the Jews and the whole land of Judea were entirely destitute of holy men, the
judgment of God at length overtook those who had committed such outrages against
Christ and his apostles, and totally destroyed that generation of impious men."[1]
Quite literally, Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D. 70 such that "not one stone
[was] left upon another" (v. 2). However, there are a variety of objections to
be considered. Someone might ask "How can Matthew 24:1-34 possibly be understood
from a preterist standpoint in light of v. 30 which refers to the Son of Man
`coming on the clouds of the sky'? After all, isn't Christ's Second Coming
future?" While most preterists are quick to agree that the Second Coming is
future, they would also point to numerous occurrences in the Old Testament where
clouds are frequent symbols of divine judgment and wrath. Cloud comings are
divine judgments against men (Psalm 18:7-15; 104:3; Is. 19:1; Joel 2:1; Nah.
1:2ff; Zeph. 1:14-15).[2]
So, most preterists point to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 as a
"cloud coming" judgment rather than the Second Coming, but other preterists
argue that the Second Coming did occur in A.D. 70 based on, among others, v. 30
(which we've discussed) and verses 36-51. This latter group of preterists
(sometimes called hyper-preterists) maintain that the same context that argues
for preterism in verses 1-35 (Section 1) also argues for preterism in the verses
which follow (Section 2).
Marcellus Kik responds to this objection by pointing out that the two
sections are markedly different and stem from the two-part question Jesus was
asked in v. 3: "Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of
Your coming, and of the end of the age?" Kik writes:
"The careful reader cannot help but be impressed with the difference of
content and emphasis between Matthew 24:1-35 and 24:36-25:46. The First Section
gives impression of abnormal times: wars, famine, pestilences, earthquakes,
persecution and great tribulation; the Second Section of normal times: eating
and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, peaceful employment. The First
Section relates specific signs in relation to judgment upon Jerusalem; in the
Second such specific signs are absent in regard to the final judgment. The First
Section is concerned with "those days"; the Second, with "that day." The First
Section limits the judgment to Palestine; the Second embraces all nations . . .
The First pictures a judgment upon earth; the Second, judgment in heaven. All
this points to a vivid and clear contrast of content. The two sections have
different subject matter."[3]
In summary, though it is often not taught from the pulpits, Jesus' prophecies
in Matthew 24 and the parallel passages of the Olivet Discourse are very
adequately explained in preterist fashion as God's holy judgment against
unbelieving Israel in A.D. 70.
Credenda/Agenda Vol. 8, No. 3
|
|
