Understanding Matthew 24: Setting the Context

Matthew 24 carries with it a multitude of interpretations. Some Dispensationalists claim that not one verse in the chapter has been fulfilled. Others, probably a majority, claim that only verses 1 and 2 found fulfillment in the first century, the rest of which pertain to the supposed future, bodily return of Christ. The more consistent Premillennialists acknowledge the first century relevance of roughly half of the chapter, claiming that verse 27 begins discussion of a yet future return of Christ. There are, of course, the Historicists with their own interpretation, but I will not be acknowledging this position at this time.

Then there are the Partial Preterists, who are likely divided on the issue as many others are, though I am coming to understand that many believe verses 1-34 pertain to the first century, with the rest yet to be fulfilled. In fact, Sam Frost made this claim in his debate with Michael Miano. It wasn't too long after that he wrote the article (http://thereignofchrist.com/revelation-21-22/) I addressed in my previous blog (http://fulfilledfocus.blogspot.com/2013/01/in-bed-with-premillennialists.html), in which he agreed with Gentry (and DeMar, though it wasn't noted) as to the covenantal nature of the heaven and earth of Revelation 21:1. However, the passing of heaven and earth in Matthew 24:35 is literal, he claims. Thus, according to Frost, we have a physical-spiritual-physical format, rather than a physical-spiritual one (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:44-46).

As for the Full Preterists, we simply recognize the complete fulfillment of this chapter. Naturally, I will be arguing from the Full Preterist perspective as we walk through this chapter.

It is necessary to understand the context of Matthew 24 before analyzing it. For this, I'd like to present some of Jesus' words from chapters 21-23

33Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: 34And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. 35And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. 36Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise. 37But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. 38But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. 39And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him. 40When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? 41They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons. 42Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? 43Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bring forth the fruits thereof. 44And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. 45And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them. 46But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet. (Matthew 21:33-46)

If the parable was at all confusing, verse 45 at the very least determines the relevant audience of this parable. To put it briefly, Jesus was warning those of his generation of the judgment that would come upon them for the shedding of the blood of the “servants” and the son of the “householder.” Of course, this angered the Pharisees. Therefore, we can deduce the following: 1) The parable's relevance was to those whom Jesus spoke; 2) These same people would be judged for slaying the servants (prophets and apostles) and the son of the householder (Jesus).

Jesus continued with a similar depiction in another parable:

2The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son, 3And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come. 4Again, he sent forth servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage. 5But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise: 6And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them. 7But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. 8Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy. 9Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage. 10So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests. 11And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment: 12And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. 13Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 14For many are called, but few are chosen. (Matthew 22:2-14)

The setting of this parable differs from the previous, but the details are the same. The king (the “householder”) was calling people to the wedding of his son (Jesus; cf. Revelation 19:7). However, they would not pay heed to the invitation. More servants were sent, but those who were called still did not come. Instead, the servants were slain. As a result of the bloodshed, the invitation would be sent to anyone wishing to attend, and the city of those who were first called (Jerusalem) would be destroyed by armies.

We can see that the shedding of righteous blood was definitely on the hands of the Jews. Jesus was certainly not keeping this fact in the dark. The slaying of the son and the servants is also key in identifying Mystery Babylon (Revelation 11:8; 17:6). With that said, it should be noted that Revelation 17-19 is the fulfillment of this parable (note, also, the wedding motif contained in Matthew 22; Revelation 19; 21). The details found in the two parables observed thus far were appointed for that generation, for the guilt of this righteous blood fell on them. They would be judged for this.

In Matthew 23, Jesus is a bit more blunt. After many woes, Jesus ends with a woe that dismantles any doubt as to whom Matthew 24 and the book of Revelation pertain to:

29Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous. 30And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. 31Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. 32Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. 33Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? 34Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; 35That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 36Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. 37O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 38Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. (Matthew 23:29-38)

Matthew 21-23 all regard that generation as guilty of shedding righteous blood. Jesus said that generation would not pass away until judgment came upon them (again, compare this to what we read in Revelation 17-19).

This brings us to Matthew 24. As Jesus finished these words, he departed from the temple, and the disciples approached him to show him the buildings of the temple (24:1). However, Jesus' acknowledgment was in regards to the temple's destruction (24:2). This triggered questions in the minds of the disciples (24:3).

These questions are what cause the reason for much of the confusion when interpreting this chapter. You see, the “coming of Lord” carries with it presuppositions. As such, since most Christians maintain some form of Futurist position, the Lord's “coming” is typically read to mean “future, bodily return at the end of time.” This is incorrect. Notice that the destruction of the temple what triggered the disciples' questions. Let's compare these questions as they are stated in each gospel account:

3And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things ? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the [age]?” (Matthew 24:3)

7And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things come to pass? (Luke 21:7)

4Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled? (Mark 13:4)

The difference between these accounts should be immediately noticeable: the accounts by Luke and Mark leave out any mention of a “coming” or an “end of the age.” We could sit and ponder on speculation, or we can accept the obvious: Jesus' “coming” in Matthew 24 is the “sign when all these things shall be fulfilled” in Mark 13 and Luke 21. Note, also, the similar wording in Matthew 24:3 when the disciples ask for the sign of Jesus' “coming.” We know the accounts of Mark and Luke don't just simply fail to leave something this important out of the text, because the details of Jesus' “coming” are explained in both of these accounts! Therefore, the honest way to understand these differences is to realize that no such difference exists! All three accounts have the disciples asking their questions in regards to the destruction of the temple, which Jesus said would occur during that generation (Matthew 22:7; 23:29-38; 24:34).

It is on this point that I will conclude today's blog. By understanding the proper audience relevance, we can interpret Jesus' words accordingly. Unlike all other forms of eschatology, Full Preterism keeps Jesus' words in context. The details of Matthew 24 will be analyzed in the coming blogs. Until then, I hope this has aided you in your understanding of the text.

Blessings,

Jason Watt