The Unity and Continuity of Matthew 24 (Olivet Discourse), part 1

The Unity and Continuity of Matthew 24 (Olivet Discourse), part 1

Below is the sixth of multiple excerpts of commentary from Parts I and II of The Parousia, the late 19th-century masterpiece on the Second Coming by James Stuart Russell. The initial 31 posts on this blog deal with the Book of Revelation, which is cogently interpreted in Part III of Russell's magnum opus. (For all blog posts, see russellparousia.blogspot.com) "The Prophecy on the Mount of Olives [also known as the Olivet Discourse] "THE COMING OF THE SON OF MAN (THE PAROUSIA) BEFORE THE PASSING AWAY OF THAT GENERATION. "MATT. XXIV. [24]; MARK XIII. [13]; LUKE XXI. [21] "We now enter upon the consideration of by far the most full and explicit of our Lord's prophetic utterances respecting His coming, and the solemn events connected therewith. The discourse or conversation on the Mount of Olives [as recorded in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21]...may be not unfitly styled the Apocalypse of the Gospels [which is replicated and expanded in dramatic imagery in the Book of Revelation]. ... "The commonly received view of the structure of this discourse, which is almost taken for granted, alike by [Bible] expositors and by the generality of readers, is, that our Lord, in answering the question of His disciples respecting the destruction of the temple [which occurred in A.D. 70], mixes up with that event the destruction of the world, the universal judgment, and the final consummation of all things. Imperceptibly, it is supposed, the prophecy slides from the city and temple of Jerusalem, and their impending fate in the immediate future, to another and infinitely more tremendous catastrophe in the far distant and indefinite future. So intermingled, however, are the allusions---now to Jerusalem and now to the world at large; now to Israel and now to the human race; now to events close at hand and now to events indefinitely remote; that to distinguish and allocate the several references and topics, is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible. "Perhaps it will be the fairest way of exhibiting the views of those who contend for a double [or multiple] meaning in this predictive discourse, to set forth the scheme or plan of the prophecy proposed by Dr. [Johann Peter] Lange, and adopted by many expositors of the greatest note[:] ' In harmony with apocalyptic style, Jesus exhibited the judgments of His coming in a series of cycles, each of which depicts the whole futurity, but in such a manner, that with every new cycle the scene seems to approximate to and more closely resemble the final catastrophe. Thus, the first cycle delineates the whole course of the world down to the end, in its general characteristics ([Matt. 24] ver. 4-14). The second gives the signs of the approaching destruction of Jerusalem, and paints this destruction itself as a sign and a commencement of the judgment of the world, which from that day onward proceeds in silent and suppressed days of judgment down to the last (ver. 15-28). The third describes the sudden end of the world, and the judgment which ensues (ver. 29-44). ... "Not very dissimilar is the scheme proposed by [Rudolf Ewald] Stier, who finds three different comings of Christ ...[consisting of an imminent judgment on Israel, a coming on 'anti-Christian Christendom,' and a final judgment of the world]. "Such is the elaborate and complicated scheme adopted by some expositors; but there are obvious and grave objections to it, which, the more they are considered, will appear the more formidable, if not fatal. "1. An objection may be taken, in limine [at the threshold], to the principles involved in this method of interpreting Scripture. Are we to look for double, triple, and multiple meanings, for prophecies within prophecies, and mysteries wrapt in mysteries, where we might reasonably have expected a plain answer to a plain question? Call any one be sure of understanding the Scriptures if they are thus enigmatical and obscure? Is this the manner in which the Saviour taught His disciples, leaving them to grope their way through intricate labyrinths, irresistibly suggestive of the Ptolemaic astronomy - 'Cycle and epicycle, orb in orb'? Surely so ambiguous and obscure a revelation can hardly be called a revelation at all, and seems far more befitting a Delphic Oracle, or a Cumaean Sibyl than the teaching of Him whom. the common people heard gladly [Mark 12:37]. "2. It will scarcely be pretended that, if the exposition of Lange and Stier be correct, the disciples who listened to the sayings of Jesus on the Mount of Olives could have comprehended or followed the drift of His discourse. They were at all times slow to understand their Master's words; but it would be to give them credit for astonishing penetration to suppose that they were able to thread their way through such a maze of comings... "It is not easy for the ordinary reader to follow the ingenious critic through his convoluted scheme; but it is plain that the disciples must have been hopelessly bewildered amidst a rush of crises and catastrophes from the fall of Jerusalem to the end of the world. Perhaps we shall be told, however, that it does not signify whether the disciples understood our Lord's answer or not: it was not to them that He was speaking; it was to future ages, to generations yet unborn, who were destined, however, to find the interpretation of the prophecy as embarrassing to them as it was to the original bearers. There are no words too strong to repudiate such a suggestion. The disciples came to their Master with a plain, straightforward inquiry, and it is incredible that He would mock them with an unintelligible riddle for a reply. It is to be presumed that the Saviour meant His disciples to understand His words, and it is to be presumed that they did understand them. "3. The [common] interpretation [i.e., double or multiple comings of Christ] which we are considering appears to be founded upon a misapprehension of the question put to our Lord by the disciples, as well as of His answer to their question. It is generally assumed that the disciples came to our Lord with three different questions, relating to different events separated from each other by a long interval of time; that the first inquiry, 'When shall these things be?'---had reference to the approaching destruction of the temple; that the second and third question--- 'What shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world ? '---referred to events long posterior to the destruction of Jerusalem [which occurred in A.D. 70], and, in fact, [are supposedly still] not yet accomplished. It is supposed that our Lord's reply conforms itself to this threefold inquiry, and that this gives the shape to His whole discourse. Now, let it be considered how utterly improbable it is that the disciples should have had any such scheme of the future mapped out in their minds. We know that they bad just been shocked and stunned by their Master's prediction of the total destruction of the glorious house of God on which they had so recently been gazing with admiration. They had not yet had time to recover from their surprise, when they came to Jesus with the inquiry, 'When shall these things be?' etc. Is it not reasonable to suppose that one thought possessed them at that moment---the portentous calamity awaiting the magnificent structure, the glory and beauty of Israel? Was that a time when their minds would be occupied with a distant future? Must not their whole soul have been concentrated on the fate of the temple? .... It is not only presumable, therefore, but indubitable, that the questions of the disciples only refer to different aspects of the same great event. "4. The [common multiple-comings or meanings] interpretation which we are discussing rests also upon an erroneous and misleading conception of the [King James Version] phrase, 'end of the world' (age) ([Greek]: sunteleias tou aionos). It is not surprising that mere English readers of the [King James] New Testament should suppose that this phrase really means the destruction of the material earth; but such an error ought not to receive countenance from men of learning. We have already had occasion to remark that the true signification of aion is not world, but age; that, like its Latin equivalent aevum, it refers to a period of time: thus, 'the end of the age' means the close of the epoch or Jewish age or [Old Covenant] dispensation which was drawing nigh, as our Lord frequently intimated. All those passages which speak of 'the end' ([Greek:] to telos), 'the end of the age,' or 'the ends of the ages' ([Greek:] he sunteleia tou aionos, ta tele ton aionon) refer to the same consummation, and always as nigh at hand. In 1 Cor. x. 11 [1 Corin. 10:11], St. Paul says: 'The ends of the ages have stretched out to us;' implying, that he regarded himself and his readers as living near the conclusion of an aeon, or age. So, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, we find the remarkable expression : 'Now, once, close upon the end of the ages' [Hebrews 9:26] (erroneously rendered [in the King James Version as], 'The end of the world'), 'hath be appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself ' (Heb. ix. 26 [Hebrews 9:26]); clearly showing that the writer regarded the incarnation of Christ as taking place near the end of the aeon, or dispensational period. To suppose that he [the author of Hebrews] meant that it was close upon the end of the world, or the destruction of the material globe, would be to make him write false history as well as bad grammar. It would not be true in fact; for the world has already lasted longer since the incarnation [of Christ] than the whole duration of the Mosaic economy, from the exodus [circa 15th century B.C.] to the destruction of the temple [in A.D. 70]. It is futile, therefore, to say that the 'end of the age' may mean a lengthened period, extending from the incarnation to our own times, and even far beyond them. That would be an aeon, and not the close of an aeon. The aeon of which our Lord was speaking was about to close in a great catastrophe; and a catastrophe is not a protracted process, but a definitive and culminating act. We are compelled, therefore, to conclude that the 'end of the age,' or sunteleia tou aionos, refers solely to the approaching termination of the Jewish age or dispensation [in A.D. 70]." [to be continued in next post]