The Fall of Jerusalem is either 100% or 98% of the content of Matt 24/ Mk 13 / Lk 21. I lean toward 100% as when Luke who writes for a Gentile audience reinterprets what is going on such as ‘when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies’ for ‘the abomination that causes desolation’. The descriptions are geo-specific: flee to Judea; they are seasonal: not in winter; they are Jewish: not on the Sabbath. The assault on Jerusalem was horrendous with cannibalism, false Messiahs rose up etc.
9) It marks the end of the Jewish era – 40 years after the cross. The length of a generation that could respond or die in the wilderness. After that there is an increasing focus on the ends of the earth.
10) The sign of the coming of the Son of Man which appears in those passages is also on the lips of Jesus to the High Priest. This is not the Coming as in Second Coming – it is from Daniel 7, where one comes like a son of Man to the Ancient of Days in the heavens to be vindicated and to receive vindication on behalf of the people who are being oppressed by the beasts. Further Jesus here calls it is the sign of his coming – not his coming. The sign of his vindication is in AD70 so clear: the words of the Messiah have to come to pass – ‘these things will come to pass in this generation’.
Martin,
Could you elaborate in more detail on #10 please? It’s always been this “coming of the Son of Man” part of the argument that “this was all done in AD70″ that’s been the hardest to grasp with verbiage in Matt 24:27-31, Mark 13:26-27, Luke 21:27 being far easier for me to understand in a “2nd Coming/from heaven to earth movement” manner.
I’ve gotten it for the other aspects of those passages and have realized a ton lately (listening to Skip Moen’s stuff and more Tom Wright) about how the context of the hearers would have given them such different understandings of what Jesus said/did than we see from our cultural/time vantage point. But that particular part remains fuzzy for me. I’m sure that there’s a key or a hook for my understanding that I’ve just not heard yet and I’m guessing you have it!
David
Hi David,
Of course I have everything sown up!!! No loop holes in my understanding… For me too this was a tough one, and I certainly think that there is a possibility of a divide in Matthew from ‘this generation’ type language to ‘that day…’ – though I am more convinced now it is all AD70.
So what do I make of this ‘sign of the coming…’?
1) It is the sign of the coming not the coming.
2) It is the same promise made to the High Priest. Matt. 26: 64
Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
You will see – unless we make this a promise to him but only as a representative of (who?). It is either to him, or to who he represents – he is the Jewish HP. If we then understand that there are horizons – AD70 being a major one, it makes sense (to me at least) to understand that Jesus seen to be the one vindicated on behalf of the saints takes place at the resurrection and in the events of AD70 showing two things: not one stone left upon another, and the words of the prophet fulfilled.
3) And the background is of Dan. 7: I saw in the night visions,
and behold, with the clouds of heaven
there came one like a son of man,
and he came to the Ancient of Days
and was presented before him.
14 And to him was given dominion
and glory and a kingdom,
that all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve him;
his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away,
and his kingdom one
that shall not be destroyed.
Now of course we could make that future… but the coming is in the heavens in Daniel.
4) Not a novel interp (at least for Matt 24 and AD70) – Spurgeon, John Wesley for example.
For an interp that pushes things further check out: postost.net. Andrew’s writings take things further than Wright… and I find it hard to see as he does Christendom – the victory of God over pagan kings as a fulfilment. But maybe another story. His description of horizons I have found very helpful.
Your comment on Andrew’s way of wrapping the judgment of the pagan world in the form of the Constantinian negotiation, or aftewards, I have exactly the same problem with Andrew’s model. The fact that the western empire was overrun and fell while the eastern, in one form or another, continued for another thousand years, hardly relates to the kingdom of God in any recognizable form.
It becomes interesting once one takes into the picture what the temple (a temple) means in relationship to stabilising the cosmos, i.e. creation, history and society, and introducing God’s righteousness. The temple is a blueprint and salt sustaining and correcting what is going on.
The question from Mk 13 parr links in with the question what was to come for our societies and our world if our Churches and Christendoms were to come crashing down in a day with no ashlar or even brick left left standing on the other.
Ok, we are used to considering this in relationship to traditional, ‘religious’ forms of the Church. But what, if it also meant that prayer meetings would not happening any longer because we all were scattered and had lost our faith? (Who knows where we are heading…) The good news is that there is something to come after that!