Interpreting Matthew 24 becomes very controversial because:
(1) Christians attempt to make sense of this chapter using preconceived ideas about its subjects.
(2) Matthew 24 is the majority of the Olivet Discourse - one of the five discourses identified in Matthew.
The Apostle Matthew segregates the ministry of the Lord Jesus into five subject groups. Thus, these subject groups should not be read as a single message but a combination of two or more messages. Because of this compilation by the Apostle Matthew in Matthew 24 there appears to be end of the age teachings about both the destruction of Temple in A.D. 70 and the Second Coming. To sort this out finding the parallels in Mark and Luke is essential.
(3) Christians fail to recognize apocalyptic language by interpreting it literally.
A. T. Robertson preceded the harmony of the Gospels for Matthew 24 with this note:
This great discourse has as its background the death of Christ. Further on as part punishment for this crime lies the destruction of Jerusalem. This catastrophe is itself a symbol of the end of the world and in one sense a coming of Christ in power and judgment. But Christ boldly predicts his own personal return to earth, though the time is not revealed. But he does exhort an expectant attitude toward the promises of his coming and readiness for his return which will be at an unexpected hour. Jesus employs the common Jewish apocalyptic imagery to portray this most difficult subject.
(1) Christians attempt to make sense of this chapter using preconceived ideas about its subjects.
(2) Matthew 24 is the majority of the Olivet Discourse - one of the five discourses identified in Matthew.
The Apostle Matthew segregates the ministry of the Lord Jesus into five subject groups. Thus, these subject groups should not be read as a single message but a combination of two or more messages. Because of this compilation by the Apostle Matthew in Matthew 24 there appears to be end of the age teachings about both the destruction of Temple in A.D. 70 and the Second Coming. To sort this out finding the parallels in Mark and Luke is essential.
(3) Christians fail to recognize apocalyptic language by interpreting it literally.
A. T. Robertson preceded the harmony of the Gospels for Matthew 24 with this note:
This great discourse has as its background the death of Christ. Further on as part punishment for this crime lies the destruction of Jerusalem. This catastrophe is itself a symbol of the end of the world and in one sense a coming of Christ in power and judgment. But Christ boldly predicts his own personal return to earth, though the time is not revealed. But he does exhort an expectant attitude toward the promises of his coming and readiness for his return which will be at an unexpected hour. Jesus employs the common Jewish apocalyptic imagery to portray this most difficult subject.
Comment