Matthew 24: A Fresh Start

[TheForgiven]

This topic has been discussed over and over, but with each time, the thread skews off into other discussions. Let's try to establish a simple set of rules to keep it on topic.

1. Stay within the boundaries of Matthew 24 (or the Gospels dealing with the same subject.

2. Do not quote or skew the topic with other Prophesy, no matter how similar, or different they are; stay in the OD and not Daniel, or even Revelation.

3. Please end with a summary or conclusion of your post for clarification.

The Objective: To logically identify the context of Matthew 24 (or the other Gospels) without applying our preconceived ideas. I say this because preconceived ideas will cause an alteration of the textual context, thereby alluding to a message that does not exist within the text itself.

I will begin.

Matthew 24:1-2 (New King James Version)

1 Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple. 2 And Jesus said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”

Here we have the beginning of the OD. The Apostles are showing Jesus the temple and it's buildings. It is quite obvious that the Apostles were remarking how beautiful the temple was. This is further proved by the fact that Luke 21:1 records the discussion of the wealthy gifts over the poor giving gifts. According to Luke's account, Jesus commended the old lady for giving all that she had, being less than an American penny, while the rich only gave out of their wealth.

Luke 21: 5-6
5 Then, as some spoke of the temple, how it was adorned with beautiful stones and donations, He said, 6 “These things which you see—the days will come in which not one stone shall be left upon another that shall not be thrown down.”

The Apostles were probably confused because Jesus commended the poor womans offering over the wealthy. Yet the Apostles were trying to show that the gifts from the wealthy is what made the temple as beautiful as it was. Thus, I believe they were a bit astonished at what Christ was about to say. For He says, "Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

So far the message within the context seems to show that the building itself, although beautiful, was not enough to keep God from allowing its destruction. But why? If the Jews were commanded to build the temple, although not necessarily Herod's temple, why then was it of no value? I believe the answer has to do with the old woman. The rich gave some of their wealth for the beauty of the temple, but that of course showed where their heart was; on the temple and not their neighbor; the poor old woman would NOT be poor if the wealthy would have shared their gifts to EVERYONE, instead of EVERYTHING; that is, buildings. For those with wealth should have shared all things in common, so that all would be blessed by the gifts of God, and not have gifts being wasted on a simple building. The Apostles were then confused as to why Christ would not recognize the contributions of the wealthy, obviously because the old woman should have not been in the position where she is so poor that all she had was less than an American penny.

Summary:

Christ shows that the gifts offered to God are supposed to be for people, and not the building. Christ thus exclaims to them (The Apostles) that the building which they viewed as beautiful, and important, was going to be brought down to the ground, with not one stone being left unturned. This is the start of the context.

[Note: If the temple meant very little to Christ in the first century, are Christians who spend thousands, if not millions of dollars, on buildings (Churches) today any different? If Christians (wealthy ones that is) shared their wealth among the others within their congregation, would, or should, there be any poor person within the assembly? Just something for you to think about..]

Anyone care to contribute? Remember, try to remain within the passages above.

Joe

[TheForgiven]

Greetings all in the Name of the Lord Jesus.

My last post discussed Matthew 24:1-2. Verses 1-2 establishes the point of the entire presentation involving a few questions spawned out of fascination and curiosity regarding the beauty of the temple, and how the money spent on beautifying the temple would ultimately turn out to be wasted funds. In the Gospel of Luke, prior to the discussion of the temple, we saw that Christ praised the gift offered by a poor old lady, while He scorned the gifts of the wealthy, despite their great contributions used in building the temple. Yet Christ was displeased, partly for two reasons:

1. The money spent on the temple represented their pride, but should not have been done at the sacrifice of the poor.
2. The temple was their true love, and had little to do with their service to God.

Matthew 23 explains how Christ ridiculed the Jews for turning the temple into a financial institution for profit. Thus, Christ calls the temple a place for thieves. How does this make them thieves? Because the money applied towards the temple was supposed to be used for the common welfare of the people, and not the rich. Thus, they were basically stealing money from the public by utilizing the temple for personal profit, and not for holy services as was required.

We now come to the heart of the story; the questions aroused from the Apostles with regards to the temple's destruction. Upon hearing that all the stones would be brought down, the Apostles asked the following questions:

Matthew 24:3

3 Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”

The Gospels of Mark and Luke do not include the latter half of Matthew question. However, this does not mean that Matthew recorded a question that Luke and Mark hadn't thought about; for they were all together with the Lord when they asked Him the same questions. Thus, the context doesn't demand 3 separate questions, but actually 2 questions.

1. How will we know that the destruction of the temple is going to take place?

2. What is the sign of your presence (coming) to accomplish the destruction of the temple, leading up to the end of the age?

As Due32, and brother Richard have pointed out, "Age" is the correct translation as opposed to the error in the 1611 King James version. I do not have a clue as to why the scribes under King James used the word "World" instead of "Age". Since "Age' is the correct translation, what age could they be talking about? Obviously, the age they resided under. What age was that? The age under the Law, and not the coming age of grace. However, because this is not part of the context (I just violated my own rule! ) I will not state anymore regarding the word "Age".

Summary:

Thus far, the Apostles were astonished at Christ's foretelling of the Temple's destruction; a temple so beautiful afforded by the rich, yet would be brought to an end. Having heard this, they asked the two main questions above:

* When is the temple going to be destroyed, and what signs will there be that we may know you are going to fulfill this, thereby bringing about the end of the age?

My next post will begin with the answers to the questions of the Apostles involving the Temples destruction.

[note: The temple was the center focal point with the Apostles questions. To interject a preconceived idea of the questions, particularly the popular myth of a 2nd coming is a fallacy, and is NOT within context of the main idea. The temple's coming destruction is what spawned curiosity within the Apostles, and thus the questions they asked (within context) must be relative to that alone. All other theories are external in thought and perception, and thus cannot be considered contextual]

Look forward to your responses.

Joe

[CWH]

Wait a minute Joe,

I think you are inputting some pre-conceived preterist's ideas into this post already and that you have violated the rules, otherwise I agree whole-heartedly what you said about the poor woman putting her donation versus the rich and about God's temple into a den for thieves.

My suggestion is to let individual people with their individual eschatological belief comes out with their interpretations of Matthew 24. In other words, let preterist, futurist, historist and idealist (if any) comes out with their interpretations of the verses in Matthew 24 that you cite based on their individual eschatological belief. I have already said from the futurist's perspective in agreement.

Many Blessings to you.

[Rose]

Wait a minute Joe,

I think you are inputting some pre-conceived preterist's ideas into this post already and that you have violated the rules, otherwise I agree whole-heartedly what you said about the poor woman putting her donation versus the rich and about God's temple into a den for thieves.

My suggestion is to let individual people with their individual eschatological belief comes out with their interpretations of Matthew 24. In other words, let preterist, futurist, historist and idealist (if any) comes out with their interpretations of the verses in Matthew 24 that you cite based on their individual eschatological belief. I have already said from the futurist's perspective in agreement.

Many Blessings to you.

Hey Cheow,

You didn't state what preconceived Preterist ideas that you think Joe is inputting into his post.

Please state what you disagree with, and why....

God Bless

Rose

[CWH]

Hi Rose,

This is one which I feel is a pre-conceived preterist idea about "the end of the age" which is different from my idea of the end of the age:

* When is the temple going to be destroyed, and what signs will there be that we may know you are going to fulfill this, thereby bringing about the end of the age?

Many Blessings.

[Rose]

Hi Rose,

This is one which I feel is a pre-conceived preterist idea about "the end of the age" which is different from my idea of the end of the age:

* When is the temple going to be destroyed, and what signs will there be that we may know you are going to fulfill this, thereby bringing about the end of the age?

Many Blessings.

I'm not sure what you mean? That is the question the disciples asked Jesus.

Rose

[gregoryfl]

I think I know what he is thinking. From a some futurists point of view, the destruction of the temple is considered separate from the sign of his coming, and of the end of the age.

Of course, I see this as Joe bringing out his eschatalogical view, as Cheow suggested. So perhaps more needs to be said as to what is expected in this discussion?


Am I on the right track Cheow?

Ron

[basilfo]

I think I know what he is thinking. From a some futurists point of view, the destruction of the temple is considered separate from the sign of his coming, and of the end of the age.

Ron,
I think you're exactly right. The setting is clearly the temple and the disciples' questions to Jesus are a direct response to His dramatic, incredible statement that the center of their entire sacred world would soon be utterly destroyed.

With that in mind, in order to properly interpret their questions, we have to carefully determine what their understanding was at the time for "Your coming" - and maybe more importantly - what their understanding could not have been.

The futurist's interpretation (at least the prevailing premill dispensational view in America) of "Your coming" is the bodily physical return of Jesus to earth at the end of the church age (7 yrs after the "rapture") to rule from Jerusalem. For this position to be true, the disciples would have to have known that He was going to be crucified/risen/ascend to heaven/ and then return to earth - AT THE TIME OF THE OD.

Is there such Scripture that informs us that the disciples understood He was leaving and then returning after his resurrection? If not, then what the disciples meant by "Your coming" cannot equate to the common futurist interp taught today.

My 2 cents.

Peace to you,
Dave

[CWH]

Ron, you are right on track. Scary to know you can read my mind.

Let's stick to the rules and do not divert into other topics. Next Joe.

Many Blessings.

[Rose]

Hi All,

Matthew 24:2-3 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?'

I think we need to clearly define what "things" the disciples were speaking of. From my understanding of the text, the only "things" that Jesus was speaking of was the "stones of the Temple". Is that correct?

God Bless

Rose