Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: gad@eclipse.its.rpi.edu (Garance A. Drosehn) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: teaching Matthew 24-25 Message-ID: Date: 23 Jun 91 04:29:36 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 141 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article jgj@travis.ssd.csd.harris.com (Jeff Jackson) writes: > > For the next two Sundays I'll be teaching (as a substitute) Matthew 24-25 > > in an adult Sunday School class. > > > > Any advice? > > Yes. The main thing I would like to point out is that there are *two* > questions asked by the disciples: "when will this happen" and "what > will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?". [24.3 > NIV]. The problem is separating out the answers. The "this" referred > to in "when will this happen" is referring to the event Jesus had just > predicted: "not one stone here will be left on another; every one will > be thrown down. There may be two issues in the passage, but if there are I'm not sure you're splitting them up correctly. > [skipping along - gad] > 4 Jesus answered: "... 6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see > to it that you are not alarmed. 8 All these are the beginning of birth pains. > -- Eusibius recounts earthquakes in the region occurring. There > -- were certainly many rumours of wars before the Romans invaded. > -- As the text says, this was just the beginning. Note that the section talks about a lot more than merely rumours of wars, it mentions nation rising up against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. How many nations were rising against nations back then, and how many kingdoms were rising against kingdoms? An perhaps more tellingly, how many of those events would have been known about in Israel? The Inca's may have been rising against the Aztecs at the time, but there would be no point in Jesus including that as a sign to the people of Israel because they would not have heard about it. > 9 "Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and > you will be hated by all nations because of me. ... 14 And this > gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a > testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. > -- Many great persecutions against Christians were inflicted by > -- the Romans and others. Much of Eusibius deals with martyrs. > -- Heresies were also common. Witness especial the gnostics and the > -- arians. The preaching to the whole world is a goal yet to be > -- reached. verse 9 says "hated of all nations". Presumably this would indicate a greater list than the few nations that were upset with Christianity at the time of the fall of Jerusalem. You also note that verse 14 has not happened yet, and yet it's in the middle of this passage. Why would Jesus interject a sign that would not be seen until (say) 2000AD in the middle of a list of signs for the fall of Jerusalem? > 15 "So when you see standing in the holy place `the abomination that > causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel --let the > reader understand-- If this verse is indeed referring to the abomination of desolation talked about in Daniel 9:27, then you also need to fit the prophecies of that passage to the events going at during the fall of Jerusalem. I'm not sure that the events match up with the passage. (but maybe they do) > 21 For then there will be great > distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now --and > never to be equaled again. 22 If those days had not been cut short, > no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be > shortened. While the destruction of Jerusalem was grim, it's probably safe to say that we've surpassed that level of distress a few times in this century alone. It also talks about "the days being cut short", what would that match up with WRT the fall of Jerusalem? It also mentions that if it wasn't for this shortening of days, *no one* would survive. Again, it's not until this century that we have the armaments that make that prediction quite plausible. The romans of the day couldn't have killed everyone even if they wanted to, because they didn't have the means for really massive, unrestrained destruction. > 23 At that time if anyone says to you, `Look, here is the > Christ!' or, `There he is!' do not believe it. 24 For false Christs > and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to > deceive even the elect --if that were possible. 25 See, I have told > you ahead of time. > > -- This is talking about the besieging of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70AD. > -- The abomination was the alter to Jupiter that was built in the > -- temple grounds. The horrors described by Eusibius (quoting Josephus) > -- are terrifying enough to keep you awake at night. Presumably you haven't read what went on in Germany under Hitler. That can keep you awake nights too, if one reads all the details. And if you consider the temple of Jupiter the abomination, then who is the person who "confirms the covenant with many" for one week? (getting back to Daniel here...). The abomination is described (in Daniel) as happening in the midst of that covenant. Is there a plausible covenant (with "many") in effect at the time of the fall of Jerusalem? > 26 "So if anyone tells you, `There he is, out in the desert,' do not > go out; or, `Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it... > -- There have been false christs for over 1900 years > > 29 "Immediately after the distress of those days "`the sun will be > darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall > from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.' This part has certainly not happened. Your thesis is then that verses 4-25 are details up to and including the fall of Jerusalem, and verses 26-30 summarize the following 1900 or so years. This does not seem plausible (particularly since verse 26 is pretty much a tie-in to verses 4-5, and the remaining verses fit in pretty well with verse 26 (in the sense that it's not obvious why verse 26 would be talking about something in <100 AD, and verse 29 is talking about something in >2000 AD). > 30 "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky,... > And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call ... > -- This passage is behind the traditional interpretation of the > -- whole thing as the tribulation 7 years before the end. However > -- persecutions have been going on for 1900 years, and thus the > -- "distress of those days" are still these days. Eusibius believed > -- that "the sign of the Son of Man [that] will appear in the sky" > -- was the sign of the cross saw by Emperor Constantine when he converted > -- to Christianity and made it the official religion of the > -- Roman Empire. Constantine was most certainly not the second coming of Jesus. If Constantine's dream (dream mind you, not a sign in the sky) was the sign of the Son of Man, then where in our history books do we find all the nations of the earth mourning? Also note that the above passage is not the only reason behind the traditional interpretation. The tradition interpretation comes about from trying to mesh together the prophecies of Ezekiel, Daniel, Matthew 24, and Revelation (and maybe some other spots, I'm a bit rusty on this). When you fit all those prophecies together, you pretty much end up with the "He" of Daniel 9:27 (the guy making the covenant) being the same as the Antichrist. The same Antichrist that Jesus will vanquish at his return. If you want that "he" to be someone who signed a covenant before the fall of Jerusalem, then "he" is going to be a very old man by the time the final chapter is played out here. I don't mean to be as flippant about your thesis as this may sound, but I do believe that there are a number of problems with it once all the pieces are considered. - - - - - - - - Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@eclipse.its.rpi.edu