How would the Disciples have Understood the
Words of Jesus on Olivet recorded in Matthew 24?
Chris Mack
12886 63A Ave
Surrey, BC
Canada V3X1S5
Ph: 604-590-1349
© 2004
(Updated 2004)
Abstract.
Matthew chapter 24, which records the words of Jesus on the Mount of Olives, is a difficult passage to interpret and explain. Some scholars would apply Jesus’ Olivet Discourse to the fall of Jerusalem only. Others would apply it to the end of the age only. A third interpretation would have Matthew, as well as Mark and Luke; applying the Olivet Discourse to both events and state that either Christ or the gospel writers blended what would transpire in 70A.D. with the end of the world. I would propose a fourth possibility which I believe makes it possible to understand the passage in question just as it reads. It nevertheless will incorporate some factors that have not been generally recognized. I would contend that the Olivet Discourse links the fate of Jerusalem with the end of the world and conditionally promised both to the generation that that heard these words spoken by Christ. We would, nevertheless, have to understand what the Jews expectation of ‘the end’ looked like. Their view of ‘the end’ was very different than the expectation that most of the Christian church holds to today.
Christ and Daniel
The Olivet Discourse contains many clear connections with the book of Daniel and is regarded by scholars as Christ’s midrash/pesher, (inspired explanation) and commentary on Daniel’s apocalyptic prophecies. I would contend that it is all of that and more. Some would contend that Daniel’s prophecies encompass the nation of Israel’s history and then moves through the church age until the last and final coming of Christ and the setting up of His glorious Kingdom. I, on the other hand, would contend that Daniel saw only one mountain; that is, only one event looming on the horizon. Daniel saw the coming of the Messianic King, the deposition of all of Israel’s enemies, and the setting up of the Kingdom of God on earth as one single event in the future. My position is that the Prophet Jesus presented exactly this same position in the Olivet Discourse and His disciples understood it this way.
Israel’s Expectation
It is my opinion that it is essential to understand the expectation of the Jews at the time of Christ, and especially the understanding and expectation of the disciples in order to get to the bottom of this passage. Significantly, the prophecy of Matt. 24 is addressed to the disciples. (Matt.24:1&3) The words "you" and "your" were used 21 times in Matthew chapter 24 because Jesus was speaking to them. Who were these disciples? Who was the Christ? They were all Jews. They were all Israelites. Matthew’s gospel, which is universally recognized by scholars as the gospel of Christ to the Jews, begins with the genealogy of Israel, from Abraham down to Jesus Christ. Matt.1. In Matt.2, Jesus is depicted as the King of the Jews, who was born in Bethlehem, the city of David. It is He who would come forth as a ruler "who will shepherd My people Israel". Matt.2:2,5,6. When John the Baptist preached; "repent, for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand" and then went on to quote Isa.40:3; he was bringing together the "Kingdom of God" prophecy of Daniel (who prayed the covenantal prayer in Dan.9 that God would act to deliver Jerusalem, Thy City and Thy people. Dan. 9:16&19) and melded it with the promise of deliverance for Jerusalem and "My people" (as in Israel, the covenant people) from Deutero Isaiah. Jesus then went on to repeat and preach the same words that John the Baptist had spoken. "Repent, for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matt.4:17. Certainly we see that Matthew has woven in Christ’s outreach to the Gentiles. Matt.4:13-16. Matthew’s point of focus, however, is on Israel.
What we need to remember is that Israel was promised the rulership of the entire world, which included the Gentiles. Satan, in addressing Christ when he tempted Him in the wilderness, revealed that he also understood that the intention of God was that Israel’s King would rule the earth. The devil "showed Him all the kingdoms of the world … and he said to Him, all these things will I give You, if You will fall down and worship me." Matt.4:8&9. Satan was offering Jesus the opportunity to be seated as vice-regent under Him, and to receive it easily. Jesus refused. He would go the way of the cross and establish a "covenant" with God for the rulership of the world.
Matthew 24 is Linked to Matthew 10
It should be noted that Matthew chapter 24 does not stand alone. It is part of a package running from Matthew chapter 19 through Matthew chapter 26. With the exception of some minor commentary by Matthew in Matt.23:1 and Matt.24:1-4; the words of Matthew chapters 23, 24 &25 are all the words of Jesus. Matthew 24 also needs to be understood in light of Matthew chapter 10 with which it shares many similarities. Some real perplexities are found in Matt.10. Jesus said to His disciples in Matt.10:5&6; "Do not go the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; but rather goto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." In Matt.10:23, Jesus said; "you shall not finish going through the cities of Israel, until the Son of Mancomes." Clearly, the allusion to the "Son of Man" and His "coming" is from Dan.7:13. In Matt.10, Jesus spoke of how His disciples would be delivered up ‘hated’, ‘persecuted’, and ‘put to death/killed’ "The one who has endured to the end will be saved". Christ "did not come to bring peace but a sword", as in "wars and rumors of wars". These are the same warnings that Jesus gave in the Olivet Discourse, thereby revealing the connection between the two passages. Matt.10:21,22,23,28,34; 24:6,9,10,13,23. In light of the connections between these two passages, and that Jesus was exclusively speaking of Israel in Matthew chapter 10, we now have a key that will prove helpful in terms of interpreting the Olivet Discourse.
The Olivet Discourse and Revelation
It is interesting to note that Matthew chapters 24 and 10 are both heavily alluded to in Revelation, especially Revelation chapter 6 and the exposition of the 7 seals. But more than that, the Olivet Discourse contains all the major components of Revelation in seed form. Jerusalem, the place where all the righteous blood of the saints has been shed, now becomes Babylon. Rev.11:18; 18:2,8,18,24; Matt.23:37&35. The desolated Temple of Matt.24 becomes a symbol of the people of God who are trampled in Rev.11. Matthew’s ‘abomination of desolation’ becomes the anti-Christ of Rev.13. The warning to flee from Jerusalem now becomes the warning in Rev.18:4 to flee from Babylon. The great tribulation of Jerusalem now becomes religious persecution on a worldwide scale. Rev.13:8&15. The phenomenal signs of Matt.24 take on spiritual implications in the book of Revelation. Rev.6:12-14; 16:10,18,19. The wars, famines, and the pestilences of Matt.24 now take on symbolic and spiritual meanings and relate to the struggle between the believers in Jesus Christ with the unbelievers. Rev.6:8. In Revelation, the trumpet of Matt.24 becomes a series of warnings by way of preliminary judgments against the enemies of God’s people. Rev.8&9. The final trumpet is anticipated when God’s enemies will be judged, God’s people will be delivered, and Christ will begin His glorious reign. Rev.11:15. The marriage feast of Matt.25 reappears in Rev.19:7-9 as the marriage supper of the Lamb. This marriage is the consummation to which the book of Revelation is driving towards. Rev.21:2,3,9,10. In the midst of cataclysmic and celestial upheavals, the Danielic "Son of Man" appears in the sky and all the tribes of the earth will mourn when they see Him coming with His angels to harvest the earth. Matt. 24:29-31; Rev.1:7; 6:12-17; 14:14-19.
The connections between the Olivet Discourse and Revelation are undeniable. In fact, some scholars believe that all the major themes of Revelation are rooted in the Olivet Discourse, (and it’s wider context). Certainly we need to ask why and how John utilized the words of the Olivet Discourse. Nevertheless, any secondary meaning and interpretation applied by John must be held in abeyance until we have come to grips with and have dealt with Matthew’s meaning and purpose for his original hearers. We come to the Olivet Discourse with 2000 years between the disciples and us. In hindsight we have seen the rejection of Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ by the nation of Israel, we have seen the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans in 70 A.D., and we have pondered the Apocalypse written by John in approximately 96A.D. on the isle of Patmos. We must, however, not be too hasty to interpret the passage in question through our twenty first century lens.
Another matter that demands our consideration is the ongoing discussion regarding the dating of the gospels and the book of Revelation. I would contend that internal evidence in the gospels demands that the warnings of Christ to His disciples and to the Jews must predate 70 A.D. or they would be no warning at all. On the other hand, the symbolic language found especially in Revelation 14 & 18 looks back to a Jerusalem that has already been destroyed and uses it as a picture of the end of the world. If the leadership of Israel had responded to the Prophet Jesus’ call to repentance, and had received Him as the Son of David, as Christ and King; 70 A.D. would have been realized as the anti-typical fulfillment of the Danielic prophecies and the end of the age in which the Messianic King began His earthly rule. Therefore, the interpretation and understanding of the Olivet Discourse that was held to by the disciples before 70 A.D. was significantly different than the way that John utilized the words of Jesus on Olivet in Revelation after 70 A.D.
Israel Centered Eschatology
We need to remember that the disciples who heard the words of Jesus on Olivet had a thoroughly ‘Israel centered’ view of the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies. Could we deny the information that leads us to believe that Jesus encouraged their point of view? In Matt.15:21-24; we read of a Canaanite woman who cried out; "have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David" in regards to her demon-possessed daughter. Jesus then said to her and to His disciples; "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." In Matt.16:28 Jesus said; "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." In Matt.19:28 Jesus said; "Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." When Jesus spoke of "the regeneration", was there any reason to believe that the disciples understood that Jesus was referring to anything else but the "regeneration" of Israel? In the next chapter of Matt.20:20-24, James and John sent their mother in to Jesus to ask Him for the two highest seats next to Him in the Kingdom. Hearing about the attempted back room deal, the ten other disciples became indignant because they themselves wanted these seats. In light of the words of Jesus and the actions of the disciples, how could readers of Matthew’s gospel not understand that the disciples believed that the Kingdom was anything but imminent, and that Israel would be at the center of it? For forty days after His resurrection, Jesus spoke to His disciples "of things concerning the Kingdom of God." Acts 1:3. The question asked of Jesus just before His ascension illustrates again the mindset of the disciples. "Lord, is it at this time that you are restoring the kingdom to Israel?" Acts 1:6. What is clear is that the dominion and everlasting kingdom of Daniel’s "Son of Man" was imminent in the minds of the disciples and Jesus continued to encourage this view. Was Jesus a deluded prophet? Was He mistaken? Or is there a new way of looking at the facts?
A New Paradigm for Prophetic Interpretation
It has been generally recognized that John’s "Revelation of Jesus Christ" contains 100’s of allusions and echoes from the Old Testament, yet has no direct quotations or citations. This connection to the Old Testament has been generally recognized. What has not been generally recognized is that not only the Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24, Mark 13 & Luke 21 are alluded to in Revelation, but the bulk of the gospels themselves contain connections by way of the words of Jesus, with the book of Revelation. (See my paper: "The Synoptic Traditions in the Apocalypse"). It is if after seeing the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., John felt compelled to recast the vision of the future for the people of God. It is as if a door was closed in 70 A.D. The Old Testament was no longer to be used as a direct predictive tool in the hands of the prophet. The connections made in the book of Revelation with the Old Testament are not concrete. We do not read; "it is written" or "that the prophecy might be fulfilled". On the other hand we see a partial mention of a stream of recognizable Old Testament passages. Sometimes we will even see a blending of two or more of these Old Testament allusions in the same verse. As previously stated, it is important to note that the words of Jesus recorded in the gospels are intermingled with these Old Testament echoes and allusions.
We know that John utilized the Old Testament. The question is this: How did he utilize it? After seeing the destruction of Jerusalem in 70A.D., John realized that the ‘Israel centered’ paradigm for prophetic interpretation was finished. John understood that the Old Testament, of which Matt.24 is the fulfillment, could no longer to be used as a direct literal predictive tool in the hands of the prophet. This of course, if it is correct, begs the question. Is there a basis and a principled method of interpretation that has replaced a literal utilization of the Old Testament? We would also need to ask those who have moved beyond the literal to a spiritual and worldwide approach if they have taken their theology to its ultimate conclusion. Are they still continuing to interpret the Olivet Discourse with a modified ‘Israel centered" approach? The fact that John realized that the ‘Israel centered’ paradigm for prophetic interpretation was finished is revealed in the way that he has shifted to a ‘Christ centered’ paradigm of understanding how the eternal purpose of God will find ultimate fulfillment. Have we overlooked the fact that the book of Revelation is not the "Revelation of Israel" but is the "Revelation of Jesus Christ"?
What can we learn from this? This question touches the central core of this paper. The Old Testament is primarily (at least on the surface) interested with the relationship between God and the theocracy of Israel. The nation of Israel was given 490 (years) to bring in everlasting righteousness. (Dan.9:24) The Messiah to come was to be cut off in the middle of the last week, the seventieth week. This left 3 ½ (years) for the leadership of Israel to still accept Jesus as the Christ. In His mercy, God extended probation to the nation of Israel for a generation, that is 40 years. Matt.24:34 (The term "generation" has a much deeper meaning. Nevertheless, this does not need to deter us from also understanding it as representing 40 years.) My point, however, is this: the nation of Israel could have accepted Jesus as their King and Savior right up to the destruction of the city of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D. This brings me to the next point.
The Sign of Jonah
How were the Jews to learn that Jesus was the Messiah? They were to learn it from the witness and teaching of the disciples. They were to accept it in light of the sign of Jonah and the circumstances of Christ’s resurrection from the dead. In the book of Acts, we see occasion after occasion in which the disciples witnessed to the hierarchy of the Jews about the resurrection of Jesus, the Messiah. It naturally follows that if the Jews had believed in His resurrection, they could have repented over their part in His crucifixion and have accepted Him as their King.
The book of Matthew was written to and for the Jews. It was written during probationary time. (Most scholars make Mark the first gospel, and conclude that Matthew borrowed from Mark, and that Mark was essentially Peter’s spokesman. I would swim against the current and contend that Matthew was the earliest gospel, used as a catechism for the Jewish Christians, was possibly written around 41 A.D., and that it was definitely written before the destruction of Jerusalem.) There are important implications of a pre-70 A.D. dating of Matthew. Israel was given a window of time to accept their Messiah. If the nation of Israel had accepted Jesus as the Messiah, even after His resurrection; they would have continued to be God’s vehicle of expression. The Old Testament is replete with passages that describe the glory of Israel as the center of God’s evangelistic outreach to the nations of the world. (Zech. 8:3-23; Isa. 56:4-8; Isa. 60:1-11)
The theme of the book of Matthew is the Kingdom of God. And what is a kingdom without a king? Matthew has gone to great lengths to prove that Jesus is the Messianic King to the Jews. Would he have gone to such trouble if it were not possible for the Jews to receive Jesus as King and thus usher in the long awaited Kingdom of God?
It is of course possible to cite the multitude of threats and warnings from the lips of Jesus to the leaders of the Jews. But were these threats and woes unconditional? By no means. John the Baptist and Jesus Himself preached "repent for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand". Why preach repentance if it is not a distinct possibility? Why preach the fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy regarding the "Kingdom of God" in which the Jewish Messiah will rule with Israel over "all the peoples, nations, and men of every language", if this prophecy was not on the verge of being fulfilled. Dan. 2:35,44; 7:14. Have we been so busy reading Daniel with our Gentile Christian glasses on that we have failed to see that God’s original intention was that He would rule the world not only through His Messiah but with the nation of Israel? Matthew and Jesus appear to be giving a mixed message. On one hand, we hear the threats and warnings of Jesus that "your house is being left to you desolate". Matt.23:38. On the other hand, the nation of Israel seemed to be standing on the threshold of the Kingdom. The disciples in Matthew 10 were commissioned by Jesus to go out and preach that the "kingdom is at hand". Matt.10:7. They were not to "go the way of the Gentiles or to enter any city of the Samaritans, but were rather to go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel". Matt10:5&6. They "will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes." Matt.10:23. (The interpretation of this text in Matt.10:23 has been deeply problematic for many theologians. This paper will offer a solution to the problem.) The clear implication of the words of Jesus recorded in Matthew 10 is that the dominion and everlasting kingdom of the seventh chapter of Daniel’s "Son of Man" was imminent, and would be experienced by those who had been present to hear these words of Jesus. See also Matt.16:27-28.
Jesus saw John the Baptist as the last and the greatest of the Old Testament prophets. "For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John." (Matt. 11:11-14) He was to prepare the way for the LORD. (Matt. 3:3, Isa. 40:3) John the Baptist preached; "repent, for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matt. 3:2. Are we to suppose that the Baptist’s mission was predetermined for failure? When Jesus reproached the cities of Israel where most of His miracles were done because they did not repent, did He have a valid reason for doing so? Of course He did, because they could have repented. (Matt. 11:9-13, 20-22)
In Matthew 12:41, Jesus said "something greater than Jonah is here." In the context, we hear Jesus telling the scribes and Pharisees that the only sign that they will receive will be the sign of Jonah. "As Jonah was 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the sea monster, so shall the Son of Man be 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth." The sign that Jesus gave these representatives of the theocracy of Israel was His own resurrection from the dead. This sign was adequate and powerful. They had ample evidence of His resurrection. It was God’s intention that they believe and they could have.
As Jonah witnessed to Nineveh without any apparent mention of a willingness on God’s part to turn away from His wrath, we also see Jesus communicating a message of apparent certain doom on Jerusalem and on the Temple. Jesus used spoken and acted parables and declared, not only to His disciples, but to the chief priests and elders, that the glory was about to depart from the Sanctuary. His acted parable of overturning of the tables of the moneychangers in the immediate context of the healing of the blind and the lame was significant. (Matt.21:12-14) So also was the spoken parable and prophetic prediction: "The king was enraged and sent his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and set their city on fire." Herein we see Jesus’ prophecy in regards to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70A.D. by the Romans who acted as agents of God; in the same way as the LORD had sent His servant Nebuchadnezzar to take Jerusalem and burn it with fire. Jer.21:4-10; 32:28&29. Significant it is to note how the language of Covenant, and the principle of covenantal conditionality flows through the passages in Jeremiah that speak of Jerusalem’s destruction in the past. (Matt22:7, Jer.17:19-27, 18:1-12) We also hear Jesus speaking in a straightforward manner in His plain statement to the disciples regarding the Temple: "not one stone shall be left upon another, which will not be torn down". (Matt.24:2,1) "Behold, your house is being left to you desolate." (Matt.23:38) These powerful unambiguous statements of Jesus, linked with the fact that this is exactly what actually transpired, has led many to believe that this was the only way in which the prophecy of Jesus could have been fulfilled.
Nevertheless, would it not also be reasonable in every way to understand that in the same way as repentance on the part of the king and people of Nineveh averted the certain judgment of God, repentance on the part of the leadership of Israel would also have averted the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 A.D. It is only in hindsight that we see that the "great city" (Jerusalem) did not repent at the preaching and sign of "Something greater than Jonah". (Matt.12:41) Why indeed would Jesus have likened Himself to Jonah and why would the prophet Matthew have recorded it if it were not the case? We need to ask ourselves the question; how would history have enfolded if the leadership and the nation of Israel has corporately repented and accepted the disciple’s witness of the risen Lord?
Israel’s Two Options
What we need to recognize is that there were two possible scenarios. There were two options for Israel. It has been generally noted that the book of Matthew and the book of Daniel share the same theme, which is the "Kingdom of God". When we do a comparison between Matthew 24 and the book of Daniel, we see clear connections. As previously noted, many scholars see Matt.24 as a midrash/pesher (inspired explanation) of Daniel by the Prophet Jesus. Matthew recorded how Jesus spoke of the destruction of the temple, the abomination of desolation, the tribulation, the end, the Coming of the Son of Man on the clouds, and even His specific mention of the book of Daniel. This is all in keeping with the prediction in the book of Daniel (Dan. 9:26) that after the Messiah is cut off, "the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the City and the Sanctuary". But did this scenario have to take place? Did this prophecy have to be fulfilled in exactly the same way as it was fulfilled?
The leaders of Israel didn’t like the Danielic scenario. Who could blame them? It is important to note that the most important evidence that the witnesses against Jesus brought was His own statement that He was able to destroy the Temple and rebuild it in three days. Matt. 26:61. Their most sacred edifice was the Temple. It was a symbol of their identity and the last remaining vestige wherein their power and authority resided. When the high priest who was bent on killing Jesus asked Him, "tell us whether you are the Christ, the Son of God", Jesus knew that they weren’t interested in the truth, but were only interested in murdering Him. In light of this, Jesus gave them the Daniel scenario when He answered him; "You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven". (Dan.7:13; Matt.26:60-66) In other words, Jesus was declaring Himself to be the "Son of Man", the Messianic King. But more than that, Jesus was declaring to the High Priest that He was going to fulfill Daniel’s prophecy by destroying the City and the Sanctuary. Dan.9:26. At this statement of Jesus, the High Priest erupted like a volcano. He tore his High Priestly robe. He accused Jesus of blasphemy. He condemned Jesus to death on the spot.
It is important to get into the minds of the Jewish leaders. They had returned from Babylonian captivity five hundred years earlier. They now abhorred idolatry that was the cause of their earlier captivity. They had developed a stringent standard of righteousness that they sincerely believed would recommend them to God. After the restoration of the Sanctuary and the Jewish form of worship by Judas Maccabaeus two hundred years earlier from the desecration at the hands of the Greek King Antiochos Epiphanes, the Jewish religious leaders had become extremely zealous for their religious traditions. How could God be anything but pleased with them? They were also very much aware of the tenuous situation that existed under Roman domination. Any threats of insurrection could potentially damage their relatively comfortable situation and could place them in a situation wherein they could lose their last remaining vestiges of power.
Another statement of the High Priest is significant. "If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation."…. "it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish." (John 11:48, 50) The "place" the High Priest was referring to here is the Temple, the Sanctuary. They were willing to defend the Temple at all costs, from threats imagined or real. With the ground swell of public opinion gaining strength in terms of recognizing Jesus of Nazareth as the Messianic King, they were in potential danger from the Romans who considered the recognition of any King other than Caesar as sedition. The only Messiah that they were ready to receive was a King who would deliver them from Roman domination.
In light of their relatively recent past history, and their current political situation, combined with their religious mindset, their need to remove Jesus from the scene seems like a forgone conclusion. With the enormous emphasis by Matthew on the book of Daniel, it seems as if the actual historical outcome was inevitable. But was it? What we do know is that not only the Jewish leaders but the disciples themselves were not at all clear in regards to the mission of Jesus until after His resurrection.
Was it necessary for Jesus to die? In a word, yes. The enormous amount of information in the Old and New Testaments testify to this truth. Jesus, ‘the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world", was "delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God". The representatives of the Romans, the Gentiles and the people of Israel gathered together against Jesus "to do whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur". Jesus Himself said after His resurrection, "was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things?" At the Passover meal, Jesus said: "it is written, I will strike down the Shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered." (Luke 24:25, 26, 46. Rev.13:8; Acts 2:23; 3:17, 18; 4:27, 28. Matt.26:31)
It was necessary for Jesus to die so that the entire nation might not perish. But was it possible for the nation to have accepted Jesus as Messianic King after His resurrection? Once again we have arrived at the very question that I am seeking to deal with. I believe that it was possible for the nation of Israel to have accepted Jesus as the Messiah after His resurrection. The book of Matthew contains not only a Danielic scenario that the Jewish leaders despised so much but a Zechariah scenario that was more to their liking.
The Zechariah Scenario versus the Danielic Scenario
Let us consider the Zechariah scenario. The Zechariah scenario doesn’t see God allowing the destruction of Jerusalem or the Temple, but conversely speaks of God coming as a warrior to defend the City and the Temple. Peace, safety, and prosperity are the predictions of Zechariah. I can just imagine the false prophets running to and fro inside Jerusalem in 70 A.D. predicting deliverance in accordance with the prophecy of Zechariah while the Roman armies laid siege to Jerusalem. (See Josephus: Complete Works, Wars of the Jews 6.5.2.) Rescue is always a much more palatable prediction than destruction. What the false prophets and the Jewish leaders failed to recognize was that deliverance and their continuance in the position as God’s servant and representative was contingent on repentance and their corporate reception of Christ as Messianic King.
We need to recognize that Matthew incorporated not only the Danielic scenario, but the Zechariah scenario into his gospel. At the end of Christ’s 3 ½ year ministry, Jesus entered Jerusalem riding on a donkey, reminiscent of the entry of the kings of Israel at their anointing and coronation. Matthew 21:2-6 says that "this took place that what was spoken through the prophet might be fulfilled." He went on to quote Zechariah 9:9. Jesus has just announced Himself as the son of David in this act. He declared Himself to be the Messianic King.
Jesus’ next act will be to overturn the tables of the moneychangers and cast the traders out of the temple. The chief priests and elders asked Him by what authority that He was doing these things. Then, after asking them about the source of John the Baptist’s authority, Jesus went on to speak to them about the corner stone of the Temple. This stone mentioned in Matt.21:42-44 not only finds its basis in the "stone" of Dan. 2:34, 44, 45 but also in the "stone" of Zech. 12:3. When they understood that Jesus was speaking of their destruction, along with the implication that the present Temple that they were fully in control of would be destroyed to make a place for the new one, they sought to seize Him.
The book of Zechariah not only speaks of the coming King but the building of the Temple. (Zech. 6:12,13) For the Jews, the only reason that the Temple would be destroyed and a new one would be needed to replace it was the arrival of the eschaton and the final destruction of the enemies of God’s people. Any other sort of destruction of the Temple would be premature. Any so called Messiah that would threaten to destroy their present Temple without bringing about the demise of their enemies and thereby bringing in an age of peace and security must be regarded as a false Messiah. The Jews were unwilling to believe the words of Jesus that He spoke in regards to Himself "that Something greater than the Temple is here". Matt.12:6. They were unwilling to believe that the purpose and function of the Sanctuary had found its fulfillment in the Christ. They did not understand that the King, that is the Temple Builder, had laid the foundation of the new Temple at His resurrection from the dead. A suffering Servant who would die for the sins of the people was the farthest thing from their minds.
At the Passover meal Jesus reinterpreted the Passover in terms of covenant. In Matt.26:28, Jesus stated: "this is the blood of the covenant", which sounds very much like Zech.9:11. He then went on to state in v31; "for it is written, I will strike the Shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered" which is a verbatim statement from Zech13:7. The Great Shepherd of the sheep will receive wounds in His hands in the house of His friends. (Zech.13:6,7) It is significant to note that the Zechariah scenario contains the account of a slain Messiah.
It is in Matthew chapter 23 that Jesus pronounced 8 woes on the scribes and Pharisees. Instead of feeding, nurturing, and protecting the flock, they ravaged the flock as murderers and hypocrites. We also hear the LORD cursing the worthless shepherds in Zech. 11:15-17. We know the rest of the story. One of His own disciples betrayed Him for 30 pieces of silver, the price of a slave. (Matt. 27:9,10; Zech. 11:12,13) The King would die in battle, but He would nevertheless rise from the dead and the new and more glorious Temple would be built. Jesus, after cleansing the Temple in John 2:14,15 spoke of His own resurrection in terms of raising up the new Temple which is His own Body. In the first case, He was speaking of Himself. In the secondary case, He was speaking of the church.
Jesus specifically mentioned the prophet Daniel in Matthew 24. It should be noted that Jesus had already mentioned the prophet Zechariah by name in Matt. 23:35. In Matthew 21:1, 24:3 & 26:30, the prophet Matthew significantly recorded that Jesus was at the Mount of Olives. The Mount of Olives is mentioned three times in the Old Testament. Once it is mentioned typologically in 2Sam.15:30 of David and twice in Zech. 14:4 in the context of the Lord fighting for Jerusalem. We also see Zechariah’s words mentioned in Matt. 24:31. Matthew blended Zechariah’s prophecy of the four winds of heaven, (Zech. 2:6.) and the arrival of the LORD God blowing the trumpet. (Zech. 9:14.) These words of Jesus recorded by Matthew depict the rescue of God’s people ‘Zechariah style’. Jesus went on to say, in the same passage; "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things (that He had just mentioned) take place. Matt. 24:34. The significant number of quotations from the book of Zechariah and their pivotal and prominent place in the mind of Jesus cannot be ignored. Clearly, it as if Matthew has incorporated two distinct possibilities into his gospel.
The crux of the matter for the Jewish nation was whether or not they would repent and receive their King. It is significant that the book of Zechariah begins with a call to repentance. So also does the gospel of Matthew. (Zech.1:1-6; Matt.3:2; 4:17.) The LORD brought it to their attention that He had dealt with them in the past in accordance with their deeds. Their only hope for protection by God in the future was to return to the LORD. This is in line with the entire Old Testament, and especially with the covenant curses and blessings. (See Deut.27&28; Lev.26.) God has always set a choice before His people. He continually admonished them to walk with Him in Covenant loyalty and solidarity and thus to receive the blessing. On the other hand, He continually warned them that He Himself would judge them if they rebelliously moved away from Him into idolatry.
The Covenantal Key
The covenantal structure with which Matthew wrote his gospel corroborates this. The gospel of Matthew begins with a historical prologue that identifies the covenant partners, (God and Abraham, Jacob, and David) and includes the mention of a past deliverance, (from Egypt). Past beneficences are the foundation of future covenantal solidarity on the part of the vassal and look ahead to the promise of future deliverances of a God who will "save His people from their sins". Matt.1:21. The Davidic "beloved Son" has declared His covenantal solidarity with the LORD in the wilderness as He Himself "lived by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God". Matt.4:4. Significant it is that Matthew stated the blessings in Matthew chapter 5 and the woes or curses in Matthew chapter 23. The "blood of the covenant" that would provide a premier blessing manifested in the "forgiveness of sins" was ratified between the King of Israel and the God of heaven when He died in battle on Calvary’s cross in the ultimate statement of covenant faithfulness. Matt.26:28. The disciples were given the privilege of eating the covenant meal in solidarity with their King and Covenant Mediator, Christ Jesus. The King and Covenant Enforcer, even the "Son of Man" will enforce the curse of the covenant when He comes to judge His enemies and gather the elect. Matt.13:41; 24:30&31.
What Could Have Been
Zechariah 12 speaks of how the Lord would make Jerusalem a cup of reeling to all the peoples around her. Jerusalem will be a heavy stone for all the peoples. A siege will be laid against her. This is also picked up by Luke 19:43,44; 21:20. The outcome in Zechariah’s prophecy, however, is different than in Daniel’s prophecy. In Zechariah’s prophecy, we see the characteristics of holy war where it was prophesied that the Covenant God of Israel would arise to fight for, defend, and save His people. Quoting Zechariah 12:9, "And it will come about in that day that I will set about to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem." Why was God willing to allow the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in the Danielic scenario, yet conversely, willing to defend the City and the Temple in the Zechariah scenario? The next verse in Zechariah’s prophecy answers this question. "And I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and supplication, so they will look on Me Whom they have pierced (John 19:37) and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him, like the bitter weeping over a first-born. Zech.12:10. "In that day there will be a great mourning in Jerusalem". Zech.12:11. The difference between the Danielic scenario and the Zechariah scenario is that in the Zechariah scenario, the nation of Israel was depicted as repenting and mourning over their great sin of piercing their Shepherd King. The subsequent result of their repentance was for Israel to corporately receive a circumcision of the heart by the Spirit of God. They were to come to the fountain of the blood of their Messiah for the cleansing of their sin and impurity. (Zech.13:1) They were to receive the blessing that those who mourn over their sins receive. (Matt.5:4) The Zechariah scenario could have been theirs if only they had repented and received their King.
It cannot be argued that the writings of Zechariah met their fulfillment in the gospels. Certainly some aspects have been picked up by the New Testament prophets, but Zechariah’s central point in regards to the deliverance of Israel from the surrounding armies never happened. This truth is echoed by many of the other Old Testament prophets that have also cast a scenario which is much in keeping with Zechariah’s. Honest exegesis demands that we must come to grips with the meaning of Old Testament prophet’s statements as the people to whom it was spoken would have naturally understood them. The dispensationalists would compartmentalize them, honestly admit that the promises to Israel never did meet their complete fulfillment, and push them off to the future where they will ultimately find their fulfillment.
The Conditional Nature of Prophecy
My study, however, has led me to the conclusion that due to the conditional nature of prophecy, these promises will never be literally fulfilled to the nation of Israel. I see the New Testament prophets offering a heightened explanation of the nature and characteristics of a new believing Israel (the church) who surround in worship the Son of God. The church nevertheless, is the Israel of God in the secondary sense. The Divine directive for Israel in Dan.9:24 was to "finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy". God’s purpose was to accomplish all of these things for His people in the Person of Christ. All that they had to do was recognize the time of their visitation and receive their King. The prophet Matthew went to great lengths to show that Jesus saw Himself reliving Israel’s experiences and replacing her failures with His holy history. In other words, Christ Himself was the embodiment of the Israel of God. Matthew went beyond the nation of Israel and saw Jesus as the fulfillment of the Old Testament types and therefore gave them a Christological interpretation. By doing this, Matthew has not made the nation of Israel, but the Christ, the superlative point of focus in regards to prophetic interpretation. In other words, Matthew has included another level of interpretation in his gospel. Matthew has gone beyond Israel to deal with the deeper issues of the battle of God’s Christ against Satan, sin, and death.
Conclusions
If my hypothesis regarding the two options for the nation of Israel is correct, this point has several important ramifications.
The first point is that the Old Testament must be interpreted in its historical context. Care must be used in superimposing an Old Testament interpretation and explanation; that coincides with apparent historical events transpiring since the Christ event or since 70A.D., onto the New Testament. An example would be to use the book of Daniel to give us a concrete explanation of the future. We well may observe that the mystery of God and the mystery of iniquity and the principles contained therein may have reoccurring and multiple fulfillments throughout time until the return of Christ and the consummation of all things, but we do not have a basis for seeing an exact literal fulfillment of any of the Old Testament prophecies.
The second point is that the gospels must be re-evaluated in light of this information. The phrase, "the gospel of the Kingdom" now becomes decipherable in light of the Jews expectation that the literal kingdom of God as spoken by the Old Testament prophets could have literally been set up by 70 A.D. This insight helps to make sense of the problematic passages (especially Matt. 24 & 10) that appear to be speaking to the Jewish people in the context of the situation that the nation was in then. It is my opinion, therefore, that it is a mistake to arbitrarily apply the prophetic message of Matthew 24 to our own day, even to the twentieth century. We know that John the revelator utilizes the Olivet Discourse in the book of Revelation. The real question is: how does he use it?
The problem of an apparent contradiction between Matthew’s "gospel of the Kingdom" and Paul’s "gospel of the cross" can be solved when we consider that that the nation of Israel could have received Jesus as their Messiah and been very much in keeping with Matthew’s "gospel of the Kingdom". It is in Acts 2, after Christ’s resurrection, that we see the melding and progression in terms of the interpretation and explanation of the gospel. Jesus is not only Christ but Lord. As the Son of David, He now has been crucified, raised from the dead, and seated at the right hand of God. This information is at the very core of "Paul’s gospel" to the Romans as he explained how "Christ Jesus was born of the seed of David according to the flesh and was declared with power to be the Son of God by the resurrection from the dead" and that the "righteousness of God was being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets". Rom.1:1-4; 3:21. One way or another, God’s plan for the inauguration of His Kingdom was going to be fulfilled. All is in keeping with the foreknowledge and predetermined plan of God according to God’s sworn covenant promise to David.
The third point is that we can gain more insight into Paul’s anguish of heart as he considered the plight of his fellow Israelites. Paul, in the midst of revealing who the true Israel of God is in terms of the church, the remnant according to grace, the people whose faith is in the Messiah; had nevertheless opened the door for the acceptance of Jesus as the Christ by the Jews. One cannot help but wonder if Paul, writing before 70 A.D; held out the hope that somehow the nation still might repent and corporately recognize their Savior. In Romans 11:26, we see Paul quoting Isa. 59:17-21, which is a passage very much in keeping with the Zechariah scenario. This passage speaks of a repentant Israel receiving miraculous help when their Redeemer returns in power to defend them from their enemies.
The fourth point is that after 70 A.D., and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy, the Old Testament era had drawn to a complete close. After their failure to repent and receive Jesusas Messianic King, what might have been was no longer a possibility for the nation of Israel. The conditional Old Testament prophecies had met their outworking. A new vision of hope for the future was needed.
It is at this juncture that our eyes are drawn to John, the last living apostle, on the isle of Patmos where he had been imprisoned. The year was approximately 96 A.D. John saw it as his role to recast the vision of the future for the people of God. We hear John using the language of the past to give us perspective into "the things which must shortly come to pass". He used the language of the Old Testament but he did not cite it. He used it in an imaginative new way. The Old Testament had met its fulfillment. The new age, the new era had arrived. Eternal principles are still viable. The events, nevertheless, are new. Much more than that, though seldom recognized, John the revelator utilized the words and concepts that Jesus spoke and taught, as recorded in the gospels.
The fifth point is that the Christ, the New Embodiment of the Israel of God is now the control and measuring stick by which the interpretation of all prophecy must now be judged. Everything is now Christianized. The prototype and pattern for the church which is composed of believing Jews and Gentiles is not the Old Testament but Christ. Christ; His person, His mission, His teachings, His atonement, His passion, His death, His resurrection, His ascension as anointed and coronated King and High Priest who is seated at the right hand of God, has now become the KEY to all prophecy. His holy history has overtaken the Old Testament as the consistent norm by which all future prophecy must be judged.
The church is the new Israel of God in the secondary sense. Her future is cast and finds its fullest explanation, not in light of the Old Testament, nor the Old Testament Israel of God, but in the light of the Pattern Man, the New Israel of God. Certainly John utilized the language of the Old Testament, but it only has validity in the sense that the spiritual principles contained therein are a tool in John’s hand to illustrate the new age of our Savior and Lord, Jesus Christ. Truly, the future is found in the Revelation of Jesus Christ.