Support via Patreon | Subscribe

Header Image: Biblia Komiks

The importance of context of what's being said, and to whom, in Scripture.

I came across this image the other day (in the header above; see larger here) that links together three parts of Matthew’s Gospel to highlight the connection which many often miss, or read as separate events. I like the image because it shows that when Jesus spoke these things, he would have been saying them directly to the disciples and others who were listening to his teaching, and not in some cryptic, ambiguous dictation to a prophetic scribe, devoid of all context and meaning to those around him at the time.

Update Feb 2017: I am adding some additional information to this to display some of the counter arguments/alternative interpretations used by dispensationalists, sometimes also called “Futurists” (those who believe these passages refer to a distant future event centred around the “Second Coming” of Jesus, and is typically the most popular and recent interpretive framework taught in churches today) to try and give a more well rounded view and a defense of the non-dispensational interpretation.

So let's break it down and look at each quote in a bit more detail to see how these all connect together coherently.

Advertisement

 

Matt 10:23

Matthew 10:23
Matthew 10:23

Matthew 10 is Jesus telling his disciples about their mission and the persecutions it would entail. He explains to them all the things that would happen to them –  "they will hand you over to councils and flog you in their synagogues; and you will be dragged before governors and kings because of me" (Matt 10:17), which we can see fulfilled in Acts (cf. Acts 8:1; Acts 11:19; Acts 13:50; Acts 14:22; Acts 20:23).

Jesus rounds this short discussion off by telling them to flee from one town to the next and that they "will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes." (Matt 10:23), which gives us a time statement and some parameters about the coming of the Son of Man.

On the face of it, this sounds like any other eschatological statement by Jesus in regards to his “coming” at the end of the age, which he mentions a few times using this same or similar terminology (see: Matt 24:27; 25:31; Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26; 18:8). But the Futurist interpretation would say that this isn’t what Jesus refers to at all, but rather is a convoluted way of him saying “you won’t have travelled far until I catch up with you later” – ie. until Jesus (the Son of Man) comes [back to the apostles]. That conclusion is quite a stretch of the imagination and, like the other dispensationalist interpretation which says that this refers to some far future event, it completely rips it from its direct and immediate context: a message to the apostles.

Advertisement

But, as many commentaries point out, the Futurist interpretation was not the common view until recent times, nor the historical position of the Church for millennia. As the Benson commentary (amongst others) puts it:

...until the Son of man shall come — To destroy their capital city, temple, and nation. The destruction of Jerusalem by Titus is often called the coming of the Son of man. See Matthew 24:27; Matthew 24:37; Matthew 24:39; Matthew 24:44; Luke 18:5.


"The son of man comes" or the "coming of the son of man" is a phrase only used in one particular way all the way throughout the Gospels: to mean the judgement of God on a nation. This is seen in many places in the Old Testament, often called the Day of the Lord. The same is true here, Jesus is once again teaching about the impending doom of Jerusalem as punishment. Hence the urgency towards his disciples to flee towns that won't listen and go to where they do accept the Gospel.

 

Matthew 24:34

Matthew 24:34
Matthew 24:34
Advertisement

Matthew 24 is a similar conversation, but with some more details.

Whilst walking by the temple, the disciples point out the magnificence of the building, and Jesus responds by saying "Truly I tell you, not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down." (v.2)

So obviously, the disciples ask the poignant question: "Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" (v.3) – notice here that they also link the tearing down of the temple with the “end of the age”.

To which Jesus begins his long monologue on what is going to happen, the destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem, and the signs leading up to this event for his followers to watch out for. Again, he tells them of the impending persecutions that will befall them because of this ("Then they will hand you over to be tortured and will put you to death").

Advertisement

The parallel account in Luke 21 words this persecution almost word-for-word with Matt 10:23 –

"But before all this [the signs and destruction] occurs, they will arrest you and persecute you; they will hand you over to synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors because of my name."

Luke 21:12

 

Advertisement

Now, Jesus goes further with his explanation and shows how this ties in with Daniel's prophecy (Daniel 9:20-27), which his Jewish audience would have understood. Matthew's Gospel was written to a Jewish community, and so keeps this language:

"So when you see the desolating sacrilege standing in the holy place, as was spoken of by the prophet Daniel (let the reader understand), then those in Judea must flee to the mountains..." (Matt 24:15)

 

Whereas Luke's Gospel was written by a Gentile, to Gentiles, and thus clarifies certain things so that non-Jews will understand, such as what that the “desolating sacrilege” is:

"When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then those in Judea must flee to the mountains..."

Luke 21:20

 

Jesus then rounds up with more apocalyptic imagery from Daniel's prophecy which speaks of the Son of Man coming on clouds – a direct quote of Dan 7:14;

"Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see ‘the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven’ with power and great glory. "

Matt 24:30

 

If we also look at when Jesus was before the Council being accused in his trial, the High Priest asks Jesus directly if he is the Messiah, to which he says "I am" and then quotes Dan 7:14 to prove his point and tells them what they will soon see (Matt 26:57-68).

Advertisement

Towards the end of this chapter, Jesus uses a fig tree to emphasise the need to be watchful for the signs he already explained, and then concludes by saying "this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place" (Matt 24:34), once again giving a pretty solid time frame for when those listening should expect to see these things come to pass.

But despite all of this, the Futurist will argue that when Jesus said “this generation”, he actually meant “that future generation who live to see these signs” which completely strips this of any context and meaning to those people he spoke to. There are some Dispensationalist teachers who say that the Greek word for “generation” should be translated as “race”, changing the meaning to say “this race shall not pass away” despite all other instances of the word “generation” meaning just that: a generation. You can read a more detailed counter-argument to this “race” claim, and all the implications of it, here: americanvision.org/1689/norman-l-geisler-generation/.


Jesus talks about judgement coming on "this generation" more than just here in Matt 24 where the context and grammar is the same (Matt 12:41-45; 23:36; Mark 8:36; Luke 11:50 to name a few). This interpretation is just a weak argument which willfully ignores other parts of Scripture or reinterprets words, to force a doctrine (Futurism/Dispensationalism) into the text rather than let Scripture dictate doctrine.

 

Matthew 16:28

Matthew 16:28
Matthew 16:28
Advertisement

The final quote in the image comes from Matt 16:28 where Jesus rounds off his dialogue foretelling his death and resurrection, and subsequent coming Kingdom. Taken in the context of verse 27, this again harkens back to the prophecy in Daniel 7 about the Son of Man coming into power with his eternal kingdom and the position of judgement he will have over the nations: "For the Son of Man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay everyone for what has been done" (v.27).

After saying this, Jesus emphasises the imminence of this event by saying that "there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom".

The Futurist argument says that coming kingdom is referring to the transfiguration, and that the suicide of Judas fulfils Jesus’ words about some of those with him not “tasting death” before they see the kingdom come. On the face of it, this sounds like a fair counterpoint, until you consider the situation and see that there are a couple of reasons why this doesn’t make sense.

The first reason being the most striking, is that after Jesus spoke these words, the transfiguration happened only six days later and we know this because Scripture gives us the time in Matt 17:1 (and Mark 9:2). That makes Jesus’ statement about some people not dying before seeing the kingdom a little bit over-dramatic if it was only less than a week away! The second point being that Jesus only took Peter, James and John with him, so Judas wasn’t even there to witness the transfiguration before his death — not to mention that he wouldn’t have even known about it since Jesus swore the three disciples to silence until after the resurrection (Matt 17:9).

Advertisement

Still, there are some Bible teachers who would use a "slice and dice" Futurist hermeneutic. What I mean by this is that sometimes certain scholars will "slice" up a passage of Scripture, in arbitrary places like mid-sentence, to make it fit a particular theological interpretation (the same thing is often done with parts of Matt 24). For example, some would say verses 27 and 28 are not dealing with the same subject, and that verse 27 is about the end of time but suddenly verse 28 is about the transfiguration!

But we can see from examples like John 21:20-23 that Jesus' followers believed that some of them would not die before his coming, as we can see Peter trying to quiz Jesus on whether one of them would die or not before then (thus starting a rumour among the disciples that John wouldn't die!).

This outlook and expectation can be seen throughout the New Testament, with so many references to these things happening "soon" or in a "very little while" (Heb 10:37), or it being the "last hour" (1 John 2:18) and what "must soon take place" (Rev 1:1), plus many more similar phrases.

 

To Summarise

Advertisement

Each of these quotes are different conversations and various times of teaching by Jesus to his disciples, and whoever else was around at the time, which all talk about the same event: the coming of the Kingdom of the Son of Man, and the signs and things to look out for in the lead up to said event. Namely, the destruction of Jerusalem being the obvious and most catastrophic event which his followers would notice, which God was bringing as a judgement against the nation of Israel like he did in former times, and the establishment of the Church in power!

 


This is just a brief look at this topic and the few passages surrounding it, but if it’s sparked your interest, then you can read more about this by following through my seven part study on the “Second Coming of Jesus”.

 


Advertisement

Further Reading:

Contribute on Patreon

Enjoying this? Consider contributing regular gifts for this content on Patreon.
* Patreon is a way to join your favorite creator's community and pay them for making the stuff you love. You can simply pay a few pounds per month or per post that a creator makes, and in return receive some perks!

Subscribe to Updates
Order my new book today from Amazon or fortydays.co.uk

Subscribe to:

Have something to say? Leave a comment below.

Leave a comment   Like   Back to Top   Seen 1.2K times   Liked 2 times

Subscribe to Updates

If you enjoyed this, why not subscribe to free email updates and join over 240 subscribers today!

Order my new book today from Amazon or fortydays.co.uk

Subscribe to Blog updates

Enter your email address to be notified of new posts:

Subscribe to:

Alternatively, you can subscribe via RSS RSS

‹ Return to Blog

All email subscriptions must be confirmed to comply with GDPR.

I've already subscribed / don't show me this again

Recent Posts

The Relationship Between Jesus and Sophia

| 22nd July 2021 | Christology

The Relationship Between Jesus and Sophia

Now you may be wondering about the title, or thinking “who the heck is Sophia??” — well, bear with me, and all will be revealed. It’s not as sinister or weird as it may first appear. I saw a post on my Instagram feed the other day that just got me a little riled up. I’ll admit it, I can be a little short-tempered at times, especially around the subject of Jesus and seeing him/the Christian faith misrepresented to such a degree that it could mislead others down the wrong path. I don’t normally write responses to things like this, but I felt this one deserved it, mainly just to add some clarity to a somewhat confusing topic, and so there’s a place I (or you, if you fancy sharing my posts!) can point people to if this type of ideology is going to spread. Here’s the Instagram post in question, but it’s the caption below it that got to me. I’ll quote the caption below, too, in case the embedded post doesn't work (here’s a direct link too). View this post on Instagram A post shared by Adam Ericksen (@adamericksen)   Jesus had two moms.Their names areMary and Sophia.You’ve heard about Mary, but do you know about Sophia?Sophia is the Greek word for God’s Wisdom.And God’s Wisdom is a Woman. Her name is Sophia.Sophia was there at the beginning of creation. She birthed the world into existence.Deuteronomy 32 says that God gave birth to the people. That was Sophia.Christians began to associate Sophia with the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is Sophia. She is the divine feminine who is the Third Person of the Trinity.Sophia is our divine Mother.God is She who loves you.❤️❤️❤️ — via @adamericksen A lot of the comments under that post seemed to find it quite affirming in some ways, others were confused as they’d never heard this before (and rightly so) but were keen to look into it. There were also a lot of references to a single author, and book, called, She Who Is, by Elizabeth A. Johnson, where this idea seemed to have originated in some form. In fact, the majority of the comments were wanting to explore this idea in more depth. So, I think maybe there’s something to be said there for the lack of female representation in the Church if it garnered this type of response, but I also thought if people are this taken by the idea, I wanted to write something to offer some Biblical and historical views on this “Sophia”, as she isn’t a new concept at all. The caption under the Instagram post sounds nice, but it’s ever so slightly off-kilter that it misrepresents everything. Let’s look at the claims line by line: Jesus had two moms.Their names areMary and Sophia. Well, not much to say here yet, but… nope. You’ve heard about Mary, but do you know about Sophia? Well, yes, I do. Maybe you, dear reader, know as well. But I began to question whether the author of the caption did. Sophia is the Greek word for God’s Wisdom. OK, finally. Getting to some facts and less conjecture. Although I would clarify that “sophia” (σοφία) is simply the Greek word for “wisdom”, not specifically “God’s wisdom” (or a name), per se. It’s a minor point though, I’m just nit-picking now. Sophia was there at the beginning of creation. She birthed the world into existence. Right, so here’s where it gets a little “squiffy”. It’s true that Wisdom, or “Sophia”, was there at the very beginning before anything was created, and that she stood beside God during creation. We can see all of this in the book of Proverbs, and it’s all very interesting. I’m sure you’ll notice parallels with John 1. But was this Sophia a separate entity from who we normally think of as being there in the beginning? Who created everything — the Word or the Holy Spirit? Proverbs 8:22–31The Lord created me at the beginning of his work,the first of his acts of long ago.Ages ago I was set up...

An Examination of Conditional Immortality (Part Two)

| 03rd July 2021 | Hell

An Examination of Conditional Immortality (Part Two)

Welcome to Part Two of my study and examination of Conditional Immortality (aka Annihilationism). If you missed part one, you can read that one here. As with part one, this will be a long post as there is still much ground to cover before we can really grasp the bigger picture about what Scripture teaches. So with that said, I’ll pick right up where we left off. In part one, I covered a lot of New Testament texts, a few Old Testament passages, plus a look at what some of the earliest church leaders also wrote on the topic to the early church. In this one, we will be looking at a few more Old Testament examples and how they relate to the imagery used in Revelation, amongst other things. Unquenchable Fire and Undying Worms What of unquenchable fire and undying worms? Do these phrases really mean that the fuel of the fire and the worms must last forever and ever? We have a few references to shed some light on the meaning of these phrases which we can examine below: Ezekiel 20:46–48Mortal, set your face toward the south, preach against the south, and prophesy against the forest land in the Negeb; say to the forest of the Negeb, Hear the word of the Lord: Thus says the Lord God, I will kindle a fire in you, and it shall devour every green tree in you and every dry tree; the blazing flame shall not be quenched, and all faces from south to north shall be scorched by it. All flesh shall see that I the Lord have kindled it; it shall not be quenched. So, in our first example, Ezekiel was obviously not prophesying that the forests of Negeb would burn forever and never go out. Instead, fire that “shall not be quenched” is used to mean fire that cannot be interrupted or stopped in its destructive purpose. No one is able to stop a fire like this until it has run its course, or it is stopped by something greater, which is what the word “quench” actually means. It is an action performed by something external which stops the flames — what it doesn’t mean is a fire burning out naturally once it consumes its fuel. The fire will continue regardless. Jeremiah 17:27But if you do not listen to me, to keep the sabbath day holy, and to carry in no burden through the gates of Jerusalem on the sabbath day, then I will kindle a fire in its gates; it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem and shall not be quenched. Here is another reference to an unquenchable fire consuming something and not being stopped even after the object of destruction has been “devour[ed]”. The image is one of a fire which rages on and on, even after everything in it is burnt up and destroyed. Now let’s move onto the “undying worms” and see how that phrase is used. In the New Testament we see this phrase used in Mark 9:47–48, which originally comes from Isaiah, and also a similar theme in Jeremiah. Isaiah 66:24And they shall go out and look at the dead bodies of the people who have rebelled against me; for their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh. A little earlier in Isaiah 66 (v.16) we see that God executes judgement with fire and “by his sword, on all flesh”, and that the dead will be many, ending the chapter with the verse quoted above. Jeremiah picks up on a similar theme of God’s judgement, people being killed to such an extent there won’t be room to bury them. This is also where we find a reference to Gehenna, or the valley of the son of Hinnom, as its name means (also called Topheth), in chapters 7 and 19. The concept of Gehenna as a place of punishment is then picked up by Jesus in Matthew 10:28, which he uses in a more eschatological sense. Jeremiah 7:32–33Therefore, the days are surely coming, says the Lord, when it will no more be called Topheth, or the valley of the son of Hinnom, but the valley of Slaughter: for they will bury in Topheth until there is no more room. The corpses of this people will be food for the birds of the air, and for the animals of ...

Does Easter Have Pagan Origins?

| 22nd March 2021 | Easter

Does Easter Have Pagan Origins?

Much like any major Christian holiday, there are the usual arguments and accusations about how it’s all just pagan festivities with a “Christian mask”. Easter is no different, and usually gets hit the hardest over its so-called “pagan roots”, or in the month or so preceding it, Lent being some “invention of the Catholic Church”. Table of Contents The Lenten Fast The Easter controversy and why we celebrate it when we do Is the Name “Easter” really the Anglo-Saxon goddess Eostre? Chocolate eggs and bunnies? Concluding Thoughts Further Reading and Sources I like to try and observe Lent, as it is one of the most ancient customs in the Church, which led me to researching its origins, along with the Easter celebration, to see where they have their basis. Unsurprisingly, it turns out that much of the accusations against Easter and Lent as “pagan” are either fabricated or is just misinformation. So let’s examine the different aspects of Easter to see how we got from Passover to resurrection, to little bunnies and chocolate eggs! The Lenten Fast A forty day fast prior to Easter has been a long established practice within the Church dating back to possibly within the first century. This is well established from ancient letters we still have available, such as from Irenaeus in the second century: For some consider themselves bound to fast one day, others two days, others still more. In fact, others fast forty days … And this variety among observers [of the fasts] did not have its origin in our time, but long before in that of our predecessors.–Irenaeus (c.180) Notice here that Irenaeus mentions that this was a practice passed onto them by their “predecessors”, a term often used in conjunction with the Apostles themselves, or those who immediately came after them, putting the origins of this Lenten fast much earlier than when Irenaeus wrote in 180, and also possibly having Apostolic origin. The Easter controversy and why we celebrate it when we do Back in the days of the early church, there arose a controversy around the celebration of Easter (or “pascha” as it was known then). But no, before your imagination runs wild, it wasn’t quite as exciting as it sounds and still had nothing to do with “paganism”. The dispute was over which day to hold the festival! Yep, the controversy really is as mundane as that. In fact, it was one of the issues raised at the council of Nicea to be discussed and hopefully settled, and is officially known as the Quartodeciman (lit. Fourteenth) controversy/dispute. It’s called this due to the issue being over whether the Easter celebration should follow the Jewish pattern of Passover on the 14 Nisan or not and simply follow the days of the week (Friday and Sunday). It became a bigger issue when the not only the Jewish community of believers wanted to follow this method, but when the Gentile Asian communities also claimed that their Quartodeciman practice was of Apostolic origin! It was a disciple of John the Apostle, and bishop of Smyrna, called Polycarp (c.69–c.155) who followed this practice in one of the seven churches of Asia as well as Melito, bishop of Sardis (died c.180). Irenaeus tells us that, in his old age, Polycarp visited the bishop of Rome to discuss this matter with him as the Roman church had diverged from the Quartodeciman custom and celebrated the resurrection according to the day Jesus rose instead: Sunday (the first day of the week). We gain an important glimpse about this whole dispute from Irenaeus though, when he tells us of the meeting between Polycarp and Anicetus: Neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it, as he said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him. … And they parted from each...

BOOK REVIEW: Four Views on Hell 2nd edition

| 17th March 2021 | Book Review

BOOK REVIEW: Four Views on Hell 2nd edition

This is a guest post by David Jakubovic. The views are that of the author and don't necessarily reflect the views of That Ancient Faith. A 20 year update of the 1996 book by the same name, this slim volume (211 pages) is a helpful cross-section of current evangelical thought on Final Punishment, sampling Denny Burk on Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT hereafter), John Stackhouse Jr on Conditional immortality (CI hereafter), Robin Parry on Christian Universalism (CU hereafter) and Jerry Walls on (a Protestant) Purgatory. Preston Sprinkle pens both Introduction and Conclusion, plus there are Scripture, Author and Subject indices. The Introduction sets the scene, listing the 3 historically available views along with speculation about post-mortem purgatorial sanctification, before clarifying that it is not the existence of hell that is here in doubt: “They agree that hell exists, but they differ on what this hell is like.” (11) Sprinkle lists verses used by all 4 views, then introduces the academic background of the 4 essayists. He finally issues a substantial challenge to the reader: “You, of course, will probably agree with only one of the following essays and disagree with the other three. But keep in mind: disagreement is not refutation. We must be able to refute the evidence of the views that we disagree with and then provide more compelling biblical evidence for the view that we uphold.” (15) Burk kicks off Chapter One (‘Eternal Conscious Torment’) with a startling parable. He visualizes a man torturing creatures in increasing order of complexity and dignity: first torturing a grasshopper, a frog, a bird, a puppy and finally a human baby. Burk states: “In each of the scenarios above, the ‘sin’ is the same – pulling the legs off. The only difference in each of these scenarios is the one sinned against…The seriousness of the sin is not measured merely by the sin itself (pulling off the legs) but by the value and the worth of the one being sinned against.” (19, italics his) This macabre thought-experiment is of course a gruesome version of Anselm’s ‘Status Principle’, namely that to sin against an infinitely good God merits infinite or eternal punishment. But fellow pro-ECT essayist Walls squashes this analogy: “There is profound disanalogy in the parable that undermines the central point he wants to establish. This resides in the fact that we do not have the power to do anything to God that is remotely analogous to the harm the character in the parable inflicts on helpless creatures ranging from grasshoppers to human infants. Indeed, God is so far above us in power, glory, and moral perfection that we are utterly incapable of harming him.”1 Burk even ventures that ECT “will ultimately become a source of joy and praise for the saints as they witness the infinite goodness and justice of God.” (20) Yet it is grossly incongruous to place ECT side by side with notions of ‘joy’, ‘goodness’ or ‘justice’ as these are universally understood. The very philosophical logic behind the ‘Status Principle’ is itself highly suspect, as Kronen points out when dismantling the ‘Classical Doctrine of Hell’ (CDH): “It is by no means obvious that an offense against an infinite being must be punished by the sorts of torments envisioned by CDH. One might sin more or less gravely against such a being, and in that case it does not seem that just any sin against an infinite being would merit eternal, continuous, and excruciating pain.”2 Spiegel adds that “human guilt is at most maximally great, not infinitely great”3, meaning that human guilt is still finite: “Finite guilt, however great, presumably does not warrant endless punishment in the form of ECT.” (Spiegel, op. cit. 41) He adds that, under the ‘Status Principle’, even the first sin you commit as a child is enough to incur ‘infinite guilt’, but this does not allow for the vast spectrum of p...