Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 13:03:33 EDT
From:         JEK@NIHCU.BITNET
Subject: Matthew 24 -- when? Part 2/2

     NOTES ON MATTHEW 24: PART 1 OF 2

This paper explores possible replies to the assertion that
the prediction of Matthew 24 has clearly not yet been fulfilled.

     *****     *****     *****     *****     *****

We read in Matthew 24:30f

 + 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.

The reference to "the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven" is
a quotation from Daniel 7:13. Here we have a vision, in which the
appearances may not correspond literally to what they represent. In
Daniel's vision, four great beasts represent four great empires,
which flourish for a season and then end; and the appearance of the
"Son of Man" symbolizes the Kingdom of God, which will never fail or
end. It thus makes sense to suppose that seeing the Son of Man, in a
quote they all knew, would be understood by Our Lord's immediate
hearers as referring to seeing that God is able to set up and to
cast down all earthly cities and empires as it pleases Him.

In case anyone insists on a more literal understanding of the
language here, I call the attention of the reader to the ancient
writer Flavius Josephus, eyewitness of the siege and sack of
Jerusalem, writing in his book, THE JEWISH WAR, Book 6, Chapter 5,
Section 3. Here he speaks of signs in the heavens before Jerusalem
fell to its attackers. He speaks of a star shaped like a sword, and
a comet (not clear whether these are the same). (Halley's comet
would have appeared in 65 AD, five years before the city fell.)
Again, he reports that one evening, just before sunset, many
observers saw in the clouds a great army with horses threatening the
city. Whatever the people saw, or thought they saw, may have been
the portent predicted in Matthew 24:30.
     The comet is of some interest. For reasons I have explained
elsewhere, I think it probable that Jesus was born in 7 BC. (For
details, send the message GET INFANCY PART1 to LISTSERV@ASUACAD.)
Halley's comet would have appeared 5 years before. Let us take the
comet as "the sign of the Son of Man," meaning a heavenly
announcement of His coming, given five years in advance.  The comet
appeared again, in 65 AD, five years before the fall of Jerusalem.
Here, it announces the Son of Man, coming in judgement, as
represented by the fall of Jerusalem. (For a discussion of the sense
in which we may, and the sense in which we may not, call the fall of
Jerusalem a punishment for the Crucifixion, send the message
CHOOSING BARABBAS to LISTSERV@ASUACAD.)

 + And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and
 + they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end
 + of heaven to another.

Again, this sounds at first reading like the Last Wrapup.  However,
we note that the Greek word ANGELOS ordinarily means simply
"messenger." A heavenly being like Gabriel is sometimes called
ANGELOS THEOU ("messenger of God"), and sometimes simply ANGELOS
("messenger"). Whether Greek ANGELOS is to be translated "angel" or
"messenger" must be inferred from the context.
     If we here translate the word as "messenger," then we have a
statement that, since the  people of Jerusalem have, for the most
part, rejected the Messiah, He is sending his apostles, messengers,
missionaries out to preach the Gospel to the rest of the world. This
process of course began before 70 AD and is still continuing, but
thematically the offering of the Gospel to the Gentiles is connected
with Jerusalem's rejection of the Messiah.

SUMMARY

A quite common way of interpreting the Little Apocalypse (Synoptic
Apocalypse, Olivet Discourse) is to apply all of it to a future
cataclysm, associated with, or constituting, the total destruction
of the natural order as we know it, and fairly immediately preceding
the Final Judgement of all human beings, living and dead. I reply
that Jesus's disciples had asked him about the Destruction of the
Temple, and the End of the Era, and the Signs of His Coming. It is
plausible to suppose that either (1) His answer dealt entirely with
the events of 70 AD, or (2) it dealt both with 70 AD and with ???
AD, the Last Wrapup. Thus, I take it that 24:4-14 warns the
disciples, "When you see Jerusalem levelled, do not mistake this for
the end of human history. There is a lot more to come, much of it
unpleasant.  But endure and have faith." I take verses 15-35 to
refer to the sack of Jerusalem. I assume a sudden shift of subject
at verse 36. "The fall of Jerusalem is less than a generation away.
You are warned. BUT -- about THAT day and hour (meaning the Final
Wrapup) no one knows when." And I then read the rest of chapter 24
and all of chapter 25 as referring to the Last Judgement.

What set me thinking along these lines? Mostly, my Roman Catholic
Bible, with translation and notes by Ronald A. Knox, the official
Roman Catholic translation for the British Isles from its completion
around 1945 until fairly recently. Knox's notes take a
straightforward Preterist interpretation of the Littlw Apocalypse.

A few weeks ago, Jesse Carnes posted a message that could be
summarized as follows:

     1) Jimmy Swaggart denies being in cahoots with the Pope.
     2) But Jimmy Swaggart believes in Free Will.
     3) So does the Pope.
     4) Aha!

Along these lines, I am tempted to post an article that could be
summarized as follows:

     1) Jesse Carnes denies being in cahoots with the Pope.
     2) But Jesse Carnes takes a Preterist view of Matthew 24.
     3) So does the Pope.
     4) Aha!

Should I post such an article? Naww! that'd be mean.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU