Matthew 24 Overview This chapter is probably the most challenging one in the book- at least from the standpoint of interpretation. Apocalyptic prophecies are usually challenging because of their highly figurative nature, and this one certainly follows that tendency. Fortunately, apocalyptic prophecies aren’t really used to teach doctrinal lessons pertaining to righteousness. Instead, they are used to predict the destruction of the wicked, or the salvation of the righteous (or both). So, their correct and proper applications were/are not typically necessary to attain heaven (though they were/are necessary to avoid the physical calamity predicted!).

Matthew 24 Overview Why I think Jesus speaks of the destruction of the Temple/Jerusalem and His coming/end of the age as two separate events: 1.When speaking of the destruction of T/J, He uses “those days” (general & plural), vv.19,22,29; but after vv.34-35, He uses “that day” or “a/the day” (specific & singular) apparently to refer to His second coming/end of the age, vv.36,42,50. 2.Abundant signs were given to warn of the nearness of the destruction of T/J, vv.3-15; but for His second coming/end of the age, no signs were or could be given, vv.36ff.

Matthew 24 Overview Why I think Jesus speaks of the destruction of the Temple/Jerusalem and His coming/end of the age as two separate events: 3.Jesus seems to deny His personal presence at the destruction of T/J, vv.23-26; but affirms it with regard to the end of the age, v.27. (Please note that v.27 is the only time Jesus uses parousia prior to vv , but does so by comparison to show that He would be physically present at the second coming / end of the age, v.27, in contrast to the destruction of T/J, vv thus it is an apparent exception to the rule.) 4.Jesus uses erchomai to refer to both the destruction of T/J and His coming / end of the age (erchomai may or may not include personal presence- context must determine), vv.30,42,44. But….

Matthew 24 Overview Why I think Jesus speaks of the destruction of the Temple/Jerusalem and His coming/end of the age as two separate events: 5.Never uses parousia (which does require personal presence) to refer to the destruction of T/J, but only to refer to the second coming/end of the age, vv.27b,37,39. There is no reason for this significant change of words if He is always referencing the same event. 6.Jesus places responsibility on the individual to see, recognize, and flee in regard to the destruction of T/J, vv.5-33; but speaks only of being ready to be taken in regards to His second coming / end of the age, vv

Matthew 24 Overview Why I think Jesus speaks of the destruction of the Temple/Jerusalem and His coming/end of the age as two separate events: 7.The language of v.44, “coming at an hour when you do not expect,” just doesn’t seem to fit with all of the signs Jesus has just given to enable them to recognize and flee from the destruction of T/J, vv.5-33; but does fit with His second coming / end of the age. 8.If the whole 24 th chapter is about the destruction of T/J, with no contextual shift to Jesus’ second coming / end of the age at v.36, then are the parables and teachings of the 25 th chapter also about the destruction of the T/J since 25:1ff is an obvious continuation of the previous thoughts/teachings?

Matthew 24 Overview Why I think Jesus speaks of the destruction of the Temple/Jerusalem and His coming/end of the age as two separate events: 9.While one might could force some applications of chp.25 to the destruction of the T/J, they obviously more naturally fit His second coming / end of the age / final judgment, cf. 25:13, 30, 31-33, 34, 41, The contextual challenges presented in #8 and #9 are eliminated when we see the contextual shift at 24:36 from the destruction of T/J to His second coming / end of the age / final judgment. Then, the context naturally flows into 25:1ff without difficulty.

Matthew 24 Overview Now: I have no doubt that Matthew and the other disciples assumed that the destruction of the T/J would be accompanied by the second coming of Jesus and the end of the age, cf. v.3. Thus, in their minds, they were essentially asking about one connected string of events: When will all of these things be, and how will we recognize their coming? But, the distinctions Jesus makes in His answers indicate (to me at least) that He is describing two separate events: 1.The destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem in vv.3- 34; and 2.His second coming at the end of the age in vv.27, (and in chp.25).

Matthew 24 Overview What difference does all of this make? With regard to the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem, very little. We are not Jews who need to recognize the coming destruction of the Temple and our city- which took place in 70 A.D., vv With regard to the second coming and the end of the age, a lot. We need to be constantly vigilant and ready, vv But….

Matthew 24 Overview What difference does all of this make? Some, thinking this chapter is all about the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem: 1.Make no further significant applications of the text- which is fine. However, still others… 2.Insist that the church was not “fully formed” until after the destruction of Jerusalem, and make additional applications which are not supported by, and are in conflict with, other clearer passages (this is generally known as “Realized Eschatology” and to great or lesser degrees, “A.D. 70 Doctrine”). With regard to these kinds of applications (in #2), I must disagree, and say that how we view this text does make a significant difference.