Buy me a coffeeBuy me a coffee

Support via Patreon | Subscribe

Advertisement

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 1.1K times   Liked 2 times

Subscribe to Updates

If you enjoyed this, why not subscribe to free email updates and join over 136 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

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...

What does the word "Catholic" mean?

| 08th March 2021 | Etymology

What does the word "Catholic" mean?

For many people today, non-Christians and (low church) Christians alike, when they hear the word “Catholic”, certain images spring to mind: the Pope, the rosery, Catholic school, big old churches buildings, choirboys, maybe monks or statues of Mary even; and sadly more recently, sex abuse scandals. But generally speaking, all of these are actually aspects of Roman Catholicism — a particular branch of Christianity, and not what the word “catholic” truly means as we’ll see when examining how the early church used the word and what the original Greek word means. καθολικός (katholikos) The Greek word where we get the English word “catholic” from is καθολικός (katholikos) meaning “universal”, which comes from the Greek phrase καθόλου (katholou), meaning “on the whole”, “according to the whole” or “in general” (catholicus in Latin). In non-ecclesiastical use, it still retained its root meaning in English in some literature from the 1800s, though that usage has fallen out of common use in modern times. The first reference to this word can be found in Acts 9:31 when speaking about “the church throughout [all] Judea, Galilee, and Samaria...”. The words “throughout” and “all” are καθ (κατά) and ὅλης (ὅλος) respectively in Greek, which together come to form the word καθολικός. The earliest historical use of the word in the context of the Church can be found in one of the letters of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written around AD 107, where he writes: Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. From here on we begin to see that the word catholic was used in reference to mean “orthodoxy” (the word “orthodox” means “right belief”) as opposed to the non-orthodox heretics who were then by definition not catholic as they were not ‘according to the whole’ which was, as Jude wrote, “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3). The Catholic Church, in its original and Apostolic sense, would have meant the entirety of the Body of Christ across the world; i.e. all of the believers wherever they may be, rather than it being “universal” in the physical sense that the institution of “church” should be all encompassing (like as an official, global institution that all must attend). The difference may be subtle, but it’s an important one. Historical Use of the Term As we saw above, Ignatius was the earliest Christian writer we have who applied the word katholikos to the Church. Some people object to using Ignatius as evidence of this, as some of the letters attributed to him are considered spurious (not authentic), though scholarly opinion on this is pretty universal in which are genuine letters as neither Eusebius nor Jerome makes any reference to the eight spurious epistles. Justo L. Gonzalez explains in his book, The Story of Christianity: Volume 1: The Early Church to the Reformation, Volume One: The original meaning of Catholic church referred to this episcopal collegiality, as well as with the multiform witness to the gospel in several canonical gospels. … It was the church “according to the whole,” that is, according to the total witness of all the apostles and all the evangelists. The various Gnostic groups were not “Catholic” because they could not claim this broad foundation. … Only the Church Catholic, the church “according to the whole,” could lay claim to the entire apostolic witness. (pp.81,82). The other early uses that appear after Ignatius are in the Martyrdom of Polycarp (around AD 150), “…and to all the congregations of the Holy and Catholic Church in every place…”, and then also in the earliest New Testament list from around AD 177, the Muratorian fragment the phrase is found three times: “…in the esteem of the Church catholic …...

Is The Rapture Biblical?

| 21st September 2020 | Eschatology

Is The Rapture Biblical?

Most people have some idea about what the rapture is – or do they? Generally there is an idea or concept of a form of escapism from the world when Jesus returns, which happens pre, mid or post tribulation and in some connection to the millenium. Now, if you understood any of those terms, you are most likely on, or aware of, the Dispensationalism side of things. There’s a lot of doctrine all bundled together in “end times” beliefs, and a fair bit of speculation around “the rapture” with its timing and logistics etc. which makes the whole thing a but murky, but nonetheless, it’s pretty much taken for granted as a staple belief within the Evangelical world. But has this always been so, and does it have any biblical basis? In short: sort of. What is The Rapture? This is the primary verse where the doctrine finds its footing: …then we that are alive, that are left, shall together with them be caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. — 1 Thessalonians 4:17 On the face of it, that is a pretty obscure (and short) text, yet so much has been written on and speculated about around this event.  I’m not going to cover every aspect of rapture doctrine here, but rather want to just highlight the context of this verse and its parallels in Paul’s other letters, as this seems to get lost under centuries of doctrinal baggage, which, incidentally, also the leads to the next point to look at: is the rapture biblical? The origin of The Rapture The word “rapture” itself comes from the Latin word rapere, which means: “to seize” or “to abduct”. It is a translation from the Greek word that is rendered as “caught up” (ἁρπάζω / harpázō) in our English Bibles today. For many, asking if this belief is biblical is a non-starter because it is assumed so based on 1 Thess. 4 so obviously it is. But this is a presupposition, reading the modern ideas of what “the rapture” means into the text. The modern idea being that Jesus comes back briefly (and maybe secretly), whooses all the Christians into the sky and takes them to heaven, away from all the troubles on the earth, before coming back later to do a proper “second coming”. John Nelson Darby, a 19th-century theologian, is often credited with creating this premillennial rapture doctrine, followed closely by C.I. Scofield who wrote a best-selling annotated Bible which promoted Darby’s rapture views in its footnote commentary. This particular Bible became wildly popular across America in the early 1900s and ended up solidifying the futurist dispensational viewpoint for generations to come within Evangelicalism. Despite the popularity of Scofield’s Bible, what it (and Darby) taught was a novel idea which had not been seen nor heard of before in the previous 1800 years of Church History, yet many Christians accepted it without hesitation, likely due to it being part of the exposition alongside the Scripture they were reading, and therefore a seeming authority. I realise there is somewhat of an irony here in that I’m acting similarly like an authority telling you that this belief is wrong whereas Scofield was writing as though it were accurate, but in an even more ironic twist, just a handful of verses later, the same letter to the Thessalonians says to “test everything; hold fast to what is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). This is what I would invite you to do: don’t just take my word for it, test everything and see if what I say is accurate. The context of The Rapture So what is the context of these verses, if not about being whisked away into the sky with Jesus? A couple of things, but one slightly more obvious than the other, though still overlooked by people, I’ve noticed; the other requires knowing some more about the ancient Greco-Roman culture of the time. Firstly, we only need go back a few verses to see what Paul is writing about here: he begins the passage in verse 13 by say...