And greetings from Finland. We have got summer at latest. I've tought many times how do You explane that conduct of Jesus what is depicted in St. Matthew 15:22 - 28 and how do You under- stand the words of eg. in St. Luke 9:27, St. Mark 9:1 and 13:3o or St Matthew 10:23, 16:28, 23:36 and 24:34? Let's remember that every single word spoken by Jesus was absolutely troe.
I visited Your fine home page but couldn't leave any feedback then of. You can ( if You are willig of course ) answer via my e-mail or air mail. My replys are ready already.
Have a sunny late summer.
Nice that You exist, Glenn!
Thanks for the questions...
You list 8 verses, which fall into a couple of groupings.
First, the verses Luke 9.27, Mark 9.1, and Mt 16.28 are all about the same event--Jesus' announcement of the Transfiguration....................................................................
Second, verses Mark 13.30 and Mt 24.34 seem to relate to the destruction of Jerusalem.
Third, a statement about the culmination of guilt in the generation of Jesus' day (Mt 23.36)
Fourth, a statement about the rapidity of end-time events (once they start)-Mt 10.23.
Fifth, the dialogue with the Canaanite woman (Mt 15.22-28)-- [Answered elsewhere]
Let me deal with these in turn.
First, the verses Luke 9.27, Mark 9.1, and Mt 16.28:
I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God." (Lk)Now, some have seen these to be a mistake by Jesus--that He honestly believed that He would return before the death of all His disciples, but the data is decidedly against this understanding of His words.
And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power." (Mark)
28 I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." (Matthew)
These verses are generally understood to refer to the Transfiguration event which IMMEDIATELY follows them in EACH gospel narrative. (Remember, the chapter and verse divisions are NOT in the original text--they were added for referencing centuries and centuries later.) In this event, Jesus takes three of his disciples ("some standing here") up a mountainside, where he is transfigured before them into His exalted form (similar in appearance to that of Rev 1), talks with Moses and Elijah about the coming Crucifixion(!), and is spoken about to the three by God the Father in the Shekinah Glory (i.e. the cloud that accompanied the Israelites in the post-exodus journey).
It may be important to note :
"The transfiguration was a momentary, but real (and witnessed) manifestation of Jesus' sovereign power which pointed beyond itself to the parousia, when he will come 'with power and glory' (Ch 13.26)."So, the evidence seems to support the notion that Jesus was referring to the Transfiguration event, which was a fore-shadowing of His return in glory and power later.
Second, verses Mark 13.30 and Mt 24.34 seem to relate to the destruction of Jerusalem.
30 I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. 32 "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 33 Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come. (Mark)(Although the e-writer does not mention it, Luke also has the passage in 21.32ff)
34 I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. 36 "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left. 42 "Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43 But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him. (Matthew)
32 "I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 33 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. 34 "Be careful, or your hearts will be weighed down with dissipation, drunkenness and the anxieties of life, and that day will close on you unexpectedly like a trap. 35 For it will come upon all those who live on the face of the whole earth. 36 Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man."These passages form the various endings to a teaching session by Jesus known as the Olivet Discourse or Judgment Discourse. As Jesus is leaving the Temple, his disciples draw his attention to the grandeur of the building complex. Jesus prophesies of the coming destruction of the Temple (and the city) and then, later, this teaching session begins with questions (in various forms) from the disciples (three in Matthew, two in Mark and Luke.):
It should be noticed almost immediately that this is more than three questions! What we have here is a summary of probably many questions, and the ones we do have recorded are multifaceted. Notice, for example, that in Mark the 2nd question is when 'all these things are to be COMPLETED" whereas in Luke it is when do "these things ALMOST START". The questions are interwoven about the destruction of the Temple, the return of Christ, and the end of the Age. In the disciples' minds (as in the wide spectrum of Jewish eschatology of the day-see Messianic Expectation in the Times of Jesus), there were probably no clear distinctions between these events (they were having trouble understanding the messianic prophecies of death/resurrection, remember?).
What we seem to have in the response of Jesus are answers to all of the above (for example, the 'when to start' question seems to find its point in Mt vs 8--"the beginning of birth pangs" while the 'when to end' question can be seen in Mt vs. 14--"and then shall the end come"), "mixed together" as in the OT prophets. It was common in the OT prophets to (1) group things thematically--not chronologically [e.g. prophecies of nations were often arranged together] ; and (2) to collapse multiple events into one [For example, Isaiah typically collapses the 1st and 2nd Comings into single passages, whereas when Jesus uses these passages for 'identification purposes' to John the Baptist's disciples in Luke 7.22, He only cites the 'healing' verses and NOT the 'vengeance/judgment' verses--those are later, at the 2nd coming]
Even though the initial verses seem to focus on the destruction of the Temple, there are indications in the passage that the two items of questioning--destruction of the Temple and the Return of the King--are kept distinct from one another, addressed individually, and NOT assumed to be identical (albeit closely related theologically).
What this means for our study is simply that we need to find out WHICH "question" is MOST LIKELY to be under discussion in Jesus' words in his closing statement about "this generation." If it is the destruction of the Temple, which DID occur in that generation, then the 'problem' disappears. If it is the 2nd Advent, then the 'problem' will require further work (yet, in all honestly, even this 'problem' can be satisfactorily addressed without resorting to exegetical or theological subterfuge.)
So, let's make some observations from the text.
He replied: "Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, `I am he,' and, `The time is near.' Do not follow them. 9 When you hear of wars and revolutions, do not be frightened. These things must happen first, but the end will not come right away." 10 Then he said to them: "Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. 11 There will be great earthquakes, famines and pestilences in various places, and fearful events and great signs from heaven. 12 "But before all this, they will lay hands on you and persecute you. They will deliver you to synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors, and all on account of my name. 13 This will result in your being witnesses to them.We see some time-events (many will come claiming to be the returned Christ and claiming the "end"; there will be rumors of wars; natural disasters will be noticeable, cosmological signs, persecution), but the sequence-relationships among these are few. For example, verse 9 ("When you hear of wars and revolutions, do not be frightened. These things must happen first, but the end will not come right away) is tied very closely to verse 8. In fact, the beginning of the verse is more closely translated (roughly, of course) as "but (after you hear the false Christs), you will be ABOUT TO HEAR of wars and rumors of wars." This indicates a rather tight connection between two events (false Christs, hearing of wars), but in the same verse this is DISTANCED from the "real" end ("will not come right away"). So we have a sequence (false Christs, rumors of wars, (real wars-"these things must happen first"), a later End).
Now, what are we to do with vss. 10-12? If verse 10 ("nation against nation") is the same as the 'real wars', then the persecution of verse 12 occurs BEFORE that. But where?--before the 'rumors'? or before the false Christs? Or between them? Or overlapping? Since the events of these verses closely approximate those in the known history before the fall of the Temple in 70 ad, it seems very reasonable to identify those, especially in light of the "these things" question of the disciples. This would mean that the pre-70 history is merely the 'beginning of birthpangs' (Mt 24.8), and marks the beginning of an escalating history of such events (i.e. increased wars, natural disasters, international disorder).
Hence what we have in this passage is a description of a unitary period, that is marked off on one end by the destruction of the Temple and the other end by the End of the Age. How all the events WITHIN the period relate is not specified.
If prayer can effect the outcome by as much as 3-9 months (to avoid winter), there must be some 'conditional' aspects to at least the events of Matt 24.15-22.
There is also some divine 'play' in the timeframe. The current interim period is lengthened because of the patience of God (II Peter 3:9ff: The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.) and the persecution/suffering period is shortened because of the mercy of God (Mrk 13.20: If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them.. "Shortened" sort of implies a "change in the program")
Jewish teachers struggled with a tension between two positions: (1) one could predict when the Messiah would come, in a time ordained only by God; and (2) one could not predict his coming, but he would come whenever Israel repented and wholly followed God.This is a distinct possibility.]
The ending has four points:
With this "end" of the end-time continuum being identified in Point 1 (as the "these things" question of the disciples), Jesus then solemnly announces WHEN this 'beginning of the end-times' will occur--within that generation (Point 2). With this, He has answered the initial question of the 'these things'--the immediate historical context of the question of the destruction of the temple.
He then turns (in point 3 above) to describe the "other end" of the end-times continuum--the destruction of the universe (cf. 2 Peter 2.10: But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.). Here Jesus is pointing back to those descriptions of the very end, as in Mt 24.29: "Immediately after the distress of those days "`the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.' and Lk 21.25f: On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. 26 Men will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. He points out that the Great End will be certain, as the continuance of His word is certain (yes!).
And then we have Point 4--the comment that no one but the Father knows the time of the Very-End. [The subsequent parables by Matt in 24.42ff and Luke in 12.39ff, which use the 'thief' image, connect this piece--via the 2 Peter quote above--with the Great-End, and NOT with the destruction of the Temple.]
So we have a reasonable structure for the ending sequence-(Point 1) pay attention to the beginning of signs; (Point 2) some of you will definitely see these beginnings; (Point 3) the Big-End pointed to by these signs will surely come; and (Point 4) but none of you can know when (with the implications that are immediately drawn in several of the texts to watchfulness, faithfulness, and industry.)
Thus, Bruce summarizes the same conclusion reached here, in HSOJ:229-230:
Jesus, as in Mark, foretells how not one stone of the temple will be left standing on another, and the disciples say, 'Tell us, (a) when will these things be, and (b) what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?' (Matt. 24:3). Then, at the end of the following discourse, Jesus answers their twofold question by saying that (a) 'this generation will not pass away till all these things take place (Mtt 24.34) while, (b) with regard to his coming and 'the close of the age', he tells them that 'of that day and hour no one knows...'This would yield a very nice Hebraic parallelism:
(A) Pay attention to my words--they come before (pre-announce) these things--the beginning of the end-times (destruction of Temple).........................................................................................
(B) When will it occur?--You know when, within your generation
(A') Pay attention to my words--they outlast that day--the ending of the end-times
(B') When will it occur?--No one knows when (except the Father)
Let me first quote it in its larger context:
33 "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.
37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. 38 Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, `Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'"
Let's deal with the historical question first.
The background of this question is interesting in itself. The Hebrew bible is laid out in a different order than the "Christian Old Testament." The Christian OT ends with the book of Malachi; the Hebrew bible ended with Chronicles. In the Hebrew bible, the first martyr-victim of pre-meditated violence was Abel (Gen 4.8); the last was Zechariah ben Jehoiada (2 Chrn 24:20-22). "Genesis to Chronicles" was to the Jew of Jesus' time what "Genesis to Revelation" would be to a Christian of today--a statement of completeness. In one phrase "Jesus was summing up the history of martyrdom in the OT. " (NIV Study Bible, notes, in.loc.)
The 'problem' with Jesus' reference here is that the Zech killed in Chronicles in called the 'son of Jehoiada', whereas the Zech b. Berekiah refers to a much later prophet in Israel's history (Zech 1.1)--one of the very last, one of the most messianic, and one of whom we have no biblical data about the manner of his death.
In this case, we have several good options--and so the challenge is picking the BEST one [any standard , semi-evangelical commentary will survey the 10 or so possible answers].
The most probable one (IMO) is also the one that makes the most sense as a 'summary of OT martyrdom'-that Zech. b.Berekiah was ALSO killed the same way as Zech. b.Jehoiada. This actually makes the 'time span' of Jesus' statement even broader (and therefore more in keeping with the sweeping character of His statement and the thematic context of the statement.)
This is a clean 'solution' if this can be made into a plausible suggestion, but is there any evidence to suggest this possibility?
We know from the genealogical records in the Synoptic gospels, that the writers of the NT (and the participants in the narratives of the gospels) had access to extra-biblical information that we do NOT have access to. For example, there is genealogical information preserved, that spans the gap between the close of the OT writing and the beginning of the NT era, in Jesus' family tree. Those family/legal records were not included in the NT, but only those relevant to the appearing of Jesus and, to a limited extent, to John the Baptist.
If Jesus, then, refers to some of this extra-biblical material in his discussions with other 1st century Jews, we are not confined to finding it in the OT text--it would be perfectly natural to find such material.
In the case of Jesus' assertion that Z.b.B was killed in the same way as Z.b.J, we actually have several strands of extra-biblical material that suggest/support this.
David H. Stern (JNTC:in. loc.) mentions two: "Josephus speaks of Zechariah the son of Barach as having been killed in the temple, and Targum Yonatan assigns the same kind of death to Zechariah the prophet."
Blomberg (BLOM:194) gives two other external data points and points out that the similarities would not be that surprising:
Now, the theological question is not a 'problem', but simply an interpretive difficulty.
We are 'tipped off' as to the meaning in verse 36 by the expressions used in verse 32--"fill up the measure of the sin of your forefathers".
D.A. Carson (EBC: in.loc.) summarizes:
Factor One: This principle (and related ones)--that God generally does not intervene in international politics broadly without a sufficient 'warrant' for judgment--appears in a number of places in the bible:
Notice how this was theoretically applied to Israel in Lev 18.26ff: But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the aliens living among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.. Just as the 'sins of the Amorites' caused their expulsion from the Land, so too Israel was threatened with that historical consequent of 'defiling the Land'.
Factor Two: Kings were often compared to the 'evil level' of other kings in the biblical history:
Factor Three: National evil was cumulative--judgment built up, but righteous reigns of kings/people could 'postpone' getting the needle into the red. So in 2 Chronicles 21, God judges Manassah as doing more evil than the displaced nations of Canaan (vss. 10-16), but the godly reign of Josiah (chapter 22) put the judgment off for a while:
Factor Four: Generations of guilt would finally climax in the guiltiest generation, upon which the entire historical judgment (not actually all of the 'legal guilt') would fall (Keener, REF:BBC:111). So, Jeremiah 16.10-13:
Factor Five: These killings of YHWH's messengers were preceded by explicit warnings by God! Even in the first case Jesus mentions--that of Cain and Abel--God had admonished Cain "earnestly and even tenderly" (Hendriksen, loc. Mtt 23.36). Each of the 'rebuking prophets' carried the message of YHWH's reluctant judgment (cf. Ezek 18.32 and Lam 3.33).
Factor Six: These killings of YHWH's messengers were not only CUMULATIVE, but they were PROGRESSIVE as well. Each new generation of prophets carried greater and greater detail in its messages of the kingdom and its requirements for covenant loyalty and personal ethical purity. In the parable of the Wicked Tenants (Mt 21.33-46; Mk 12.1-12; Lk 20.9-19) there is a discernible progression from 'some slaves' to 'some slaves--more than the first' to 'my beloved son'. So, too, the rejection of the King's Son out-did the previous 'high water mark' of evil of previous generations, and prompted the 'triggering' of the judgment in history upon 'that generation.'
And, as horrible as the cumulative crimes of violence against the stream of messengers from God was, yet God's distaste for judgment and His love and compassion for His people are so obvious from the lament passage that follows Jesus' words of judgment. The "Jerusalem, Jerusalem" passage is a touching passage that illustrates that judgment is God's "strange work" (cf. Is 28.21)
So, the theological issue in the passage is relatively straightforward. According to the context before and after the verse 36, the cumulative and progressive rejection of God's reasonable demands upon His special, covenant people, will finally convince God that He has been patient long enough--it is now time for judgment upon the nation. Just as He judged the pagan nations before Israel (Gen 15.16), and Israel herself at the time of the Exile (Jer 16.10-13), once again Israel had failed to take advantage of the gracious patience of the Lord, to pursue righteousness.
Fourth, a statement about the rapidity of end-time events (once they start)-Mt 10.23: When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
This verse falls in the "coming persecutions" section--Mt 10.17-25, which comes immediately after the event known as the Sending of the Twelve (Mt 10.1-16; Mark 6.7ff; 9.1-9) in Matthew's narrative. On first glance, the sequence (without major breaks in it) might suggest that Jesus was promising to Return BEFORE the Twelve Apostles finished the short missionary trip He was sending them on. However, most of the textual data supports a conclusion that the "immediate", short-term Mission of the Twelve (10.1-16) is NOT under discussion in the following "coming persecutions" passage. In other words, the subject of the 10:17-25 passage is some FUTURE missionary work.
Let's make a few observations first:
This supports the general argument that Matthew has used the Sending
of the Twelve passage to 'springboard into' the early-warning of Jesus
to the disciples that the future work will not be as easy as the mission
trip they are ABOUT TO experience!
[Curiously enough, this could almost be seen as a promise of the 'unless the days had been shortened, no flesh would have survived' type. Since the disciples are told to 'flee' to the next city when they are persecuted (vs. 23), the promise of the return COULD be understood as "before you run out of places to escape to, I will return for you". Thus it would be an assurance of rescue. This would certainly make sense here.]
Fifth, the dialogue with the Canaanite woman (Mt 15.22-28)
[This is more related to how Jesus treated people, than to questions about His return, so I have answered it in a different place.]
The passages above are often used by skeptics to argue that Jesus made mistakes (and therefore could NOT have been God--so Betrand Russel in Why I am not a Christian), but a close examination of the passages shows that this view is simply shallow exegesis, and without substance. Jesus admitted to not knowing something (in only one case that we know of), but He never claimed to know something in which we found Him to be wrong! (And for those of us who have been 'testing' His words for decades--a la Luke 6.48-49--most of us have to be honest and say He seems to know what He's talking about--whatEVER He says!)...fortunately for us...
glenn miller, 10/22/96
[ .... qaim.html ........ ]