We left off in the early 20th century:

“The destruction of the temple, the second return of Jesus as Messiah, the end of the age blend all through this eschatological discourse; now one, now the other, is in the foreground. The death of Jesus lies back of all that is here said. According to Matt. 23:37-39 Jesus had just foretold, in symbolic language, the destruction of the temple. 

^37”Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who have been sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. ³⁸Behold, your house is being left to you desolate! ³⁹For I say to you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, ‘Blessed is the One who comes in the name of the Lord!’”   (Matthew 23:37-39; NASB)

This is not ‘symbolic’ at all. The part about the hens and her chicks is metaphorical, which some people see as ‘symbolic’, but they are different parts of speech. ell.stackwellexchange.com provides the following comparison:

“a metaphor is used to draw a comparison between two distinct objects [in this case, Jesus and Jerusalem vs a hen and chicks, as well as comparing Jerusalem to a house left desolate], whereas a symbol is used as a stand-in for a much more complex, and generally more abstract, idea. In literature, a metaphor would typically be used in a specific instance to compare two objects, but a symbol would be used throughout the work as a major part of the theme.”

We will continue to draw on this definition as we return to Revelation.

There is nothing symbolic or metaphorical about verse 39. It’s a pretty stark prediction, and one that is born out in Revelation. 

“It was natural that, as they passed out for the last time, the disciples should comment on the beauty of these buildings. But now they are astonished to hear Christ pointedly foretell the doom of the city.”      [from COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW, by A. T. Robertson, 1911]

The difference between a metaphor and a symbol is the kind of thing that a writer should know and shouldn’t be glossing over.

“When Jesus so spoke it must have seemed a prophecy which was unlikely to be fulfilled. In the eyes of His followers those buildings looked substantial enough to stand for many centuries. Yet His words were to be proven true after a probationary period of forty years.”    [from EXPOSITORY NOTES ON THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, by H. A. Ironside, 1948]

Generally, I find Ironside a solid commentator. Here, though, I’m a bit perplexed: I wouldn’t call God’s delay a “probationary period”. This term suggests that God is waiting to see what the people will do…will they repent or not. God knows what’s going to happen, He is not surprised or left wondering. When He provides a period of grace, He is not doing it to see what will happen or to give people a chance to do something different. I think sometimes He does it to demonstrate His great patience; but mostly I think He does it to provide a more natural set-up than the fire and brimstone that hit Sodom and Gomorrah. I think it’s also clear that God will use the time to save many of those who love Him, but it is Him doing the saving, not Him providing additional time for people to choose salvation (though it may appear that way to us). And not all who love Him will survive God’s wrath in this life, unless there is a specific promise made regarding that.

“1 – Jesus leaves the temple by the eastern gate and, crossing the Kedron, climbs the slope of Olivet. Turning to look backward down upon the temple buildings the disciples, admiring provincials, exclaim at their massive beauty.

“2 – Our Lord’s replay is disconcerting. This Herodian temple, begun more than forty years before (19/20 B.C.) and not completely finished until thirty years later (64 A. D.) was even now threatened with total ruin – it was burned and overthrown in 70 A.D.”     [from THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW; A TEXT AND COMMENTARY FOR STUDENTS, by Alexander Jones, 1965]

I don’t really like the “admiring provincials” comment; it implies that these men had never seen the Temple before. This can’t be true, however, as they would have been coming to Jerusalem regularly their entire lives for at least the Passover, and probably several other holidays. 

As for the idea that the Temple was still being built until 64 AD, here are a couple of references explaining this idea:

“Josephus reports…that many Jews who heard of Herod’s plans were shocked; they feared he would destroy the old building and not build a new one. Herod was sincere, however. He prepared all the building material in advance before beginning the work in 19 or 20 B.C.E. (see John 2:20). Some 10,000 (to 18,000) workmen were employed, plus 1000 priests, since only priests were allowed to work on the sanctuary proper. The major work occurred in the first three years although the workers continued improvements there for many years, well beyond Herod’s death in 4 B.C.E. to 64 C.E., just four years before it was to be destroyed by Titus.”    [from templemount.org/secondtmp.html ]

The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and yet You will raise it up in three days?”     (John 2:20; NASB)

“The Jews were loth to have their Temple pulled down, fearing lest it might not be rebuilt. To demonstrate his good faith, Herod accumulated the materials for the new building before the old one was taken down. The new Temple was rebuilt as rapidly as possible, being finished in a year and a half, although work was in progress on the out-buildings and courts for eighty years. As it was unlawful for any but priests to enter the Temple, Herod employed 1,000 of them as masons and carpenters.”     [from jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14304-temple-of-herod ]

So, yes, there was still work going on in the Temple complex, but not on the Temple building itself.

“In all three Gospels these verses form the introduction to the eschatological discourse, but Matthew links this opening section more closely with the lament over Jerusalem than does Mark or Luke, by omitting the story of the Widow’s Mite (Mk 12.41-4; Lk. 21.1-4) which continues to inveigh against the ostentatious piety of the Jewish leaders. In prophesying the destruction of the Temple Jesus stands in line with the OT prophets (Mic. 3.12; Jer. 26.6,18), and it seems certain that the logion[a logion is a saying attributed to Jesus in the Gospels] is authentic. 

Therefore on account of you, Zion will be plowed like a field, Jerusalem will become a heap of ruins, And the mountain of the temple will become high places of a forest.    (Micah 3:12; NASB)

“then I will make this house like Shiloh, and I will make this city a curse to all the nations of the earth…Micah of Moresheth used to prophesy in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah; and he spoke to all the people of Judah, saying, ‘This is what the LORD of armies has said:  “Zion will be plowed like a field, And Jerusalem will become a heap of ruins, And the mountain of the house like the high places of a forest.”’”    (Jeremiah 26:4,18; NASB)

“It is found, in one form or another, in all four Gospels. It was the subject of the charge brought against Jesus before Caiaphas (Mk 14.58), and was used as a taunt at the Crucifixion (Mk 15.29). 

“We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that was made by hands, and in three days I will build another, made without hands.’”  (Mark 14:58; NASB)

Those passing by were hurling abuse at Him, shaking their heads and saying, “Ha! You who are going to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days,   (Mark 15:29; NASB)

“The prophecy provokes the question as to the time and signs of this event, and this leads into the eschatological teaching. In the circles from which Matthew’s Gospel emerged, it may have been believed that the destruction of Jerusalem would occur among those cosmic catastrophes expected to herald the final and complete renewal of the world, but Matthew himself seems intent upon differentiating between the events of A.D. 70 and the ‘consummation’. 

“1. Jesus leaves the Temple (which he entered at 21:23) for the last time, and the disciples comment on the complex of buildings.

When He entered the temple area, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to Him while He was teaching…   (Matthew 21:23; NASB)

“2. The date of the destruction is not indicated — only that it lies in the future. The word kataluthesetai (thrown down) could refer to the results of a military action (like the sack of the Temple by the Romans in A.D. 70,) or to some cosmic catastrophe (apocalyptic rather than natural). If the apocalyptic interpretation is correct, then the argument for dating the composition of the Gospel (or the formation of this saying) after A.D. 70 cannot be based on this verse.”   [from THE NEW CENTURY BIBLE COMMENTARY: THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, by David Hill, 1972]

I agree that Matthew “seems intent upon differentiating between the events of A.D. 70 and the ‘consummation’”.  But I find Hill’s last paragraph a bit odd. He’s saying, in a very convoluted way, that “if the apocalyptic interpretation is correct”, then the verse must have been written before 70 AD. The previous statement seems to say that there are two possible interpretations: a military action or a “cosmic catastrophe”, but, on closer inspection, he is actually saying that it’s either a “natural” catastrophe, or a “cosmic catastrophe” (apocalypse). 

Hill seems to be assuming that the events of 70 AD were the worst and final events of Jewish history. More than that, if we look at the inverse of his argument: that if the “natural” catastrophe is the interpretation, then the prophecy is more likely to have been written after 70 AD, and the implication seems to be that it wouldn’t be something from God. 

This is what drives me mad about preterism. The wording is done so carefully so as to confuse and gloss over what’s actually be said. The next quote is an overview of chapter 24, with more preterist convolution:

“Chapter 24 poses great problems for the interpreter. It begins by talking about the coming destruction of the temple (which was to take place in AD 70 as a result of the Roman repression of the rebellion of AD 66), but by the end of the chapter it seems clear that the scene has moved to the parousia, the final ‘coming’ of the Son of man. Both events are combined in v. 3 in the question of the disciples which sparks off the discourse, and which further specifies that the parousia will mark ‘the close of the age’. What, then, is the connection between these two events, and how may we decide which parts of the chapter deal with the one and which with the other? How far is this a prediction of events within ‘this generation’ (v.34), and how far is it concerned  with the end of all things? Or are the two so closely connected that we must conclude that Jesus mistakenly expected his parousia and the ‘close of the age’ to take place within ‘this generation’? These questions will necessarily underlie the detailed commentary that follows, but a few general remarks at this point may help to indicate the overall perspective of this commentary.”

I have to break in here…Jesus makes a mistake in his prophecy? I don’t think so!! What kind of Christian commentator makes that statement without quickly ruling it out? Yes, this is a hard chapter to interpret, but that doesn’t justify jumping off of a cliff.

“(a) The fact that the destruction of the temple and the ‘close of the age’ can be dealt with together in this chapter indicates that there is a close theological connection between them. Both are aspects of the consummation of Jesus’ ministry. Both involve a judgment which will vindicate him as God’s true and last word to his people. We have noted previously the way language about the ‘coming of the Son of man’, derived from Daniel 7.13, can be applied to different phases in the completion of Jesus’ mission (see on 10:32; 16:28; and on 26:64…); this means that we must be prepared to find similar language applied to different historical situations which in their different ways embody the progressive fulfillment of Jesus’ mission as the Son of man.”

Well, good. The author vindicates himself and backs away from the cliff.

“I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like the son of man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him.   (Daniel 7:13; NASB)

Therefore, everyone who confesses Me before people, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven.   (Matthew 10:32; NASB)

“Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”     (Matthew 16:28; NASB)

Jesus said to him, “You have said it yourself. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”    (Matthew 26:64; NASB)

“(b) One clear aim of this chapter is to prevent premature excitement about the parousia. This theme will recur most clearly in vv. 4-5, 6b, 8, 14, 23-28, 36, and the whole chapter seems to aim to damp down rather than to promote an expectation of an immediate ‘close of the age’. Such an emphasis would consort very strongly with a declaration that the parousia must occur within the generation.”

Wait a minute. Premature excitement?  The verses referred to are the warnings that Jesus gives: don’t be misled; don’t be alarmed; it’s the beginning of birth pains; the gospel must be taught to the world first; there will be false Christs so don’t follow them; and, no one knows the day or hour. I can understand (though not agree) the author saying that these warnings are to damp down the enthusiasm, but why would that “consort” with (be associated with) the parousia happening within the generation? I think it would be the exact opposite. “Stay calm, it’s not going to happen for a very long time yet” rather than “Stay calm, it could happen at any time before you die”! 

“(c ) A theological connection between the events of AD 70 and the close of the age does not in itself imply that they must be take place at the same time. This implication is found rather in such language as ‘immediately after the tribulation of those days’ (v. 29) and ‘this generation will not pass away until…’ (v.34). The tension between such words (if they are interpreted as referring to the parousia) and the overall emphasis mentioned in the previous paragraph is striking. Nor is this tension much lessened by speaking, as commentators regularly do, of a ‘prophetic perspective’ which telescopes nearer and more distant events; if Jesus gave such a specific first-century AD date for the parousia, no amount of ‘prophetic perspective’ can make a delay of nineteen hundred years acceptable. When we find, however, that v. 36 openly disclaims any knowledge by Jesus of ‘that day and that hour’, it seems questionable whether Jesus could have intended such a specific date.”

Exactly. He did not give, or even hint at, a specific date. He didn’t make a mistake or date-set.

“(d) All this (and much more) points towards the view that the time reference of vv. 29 and 34 (and therefore also the content of the intervening verses) refer not, as is generally assumed, to the parousia, but to the coming judgment on Jerusalem. I have argued this case (with reference to the parallel passage in Mark) in…the commentary that follows I shall attempt to explain it in more detail. In a nutshell, however, this view is that v. 36 marks a deliberate change of subject, where Jesus turns from answering the first part of the disciples’ question (‘and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?’). Verses 4-35 therefore say that the temple will be destroyed within ‘this generation’, but that that event is not to be identified with the parousia; vv. 36ff. show that the date of the parousia is, by contrast, unknown even to Jesus himself, and therefore calls for constant readiness. However close the theological connection between the two events, they are thus not only implicitly but quite deliberately presented as historically distinct.”

I’m getting dizzy here.  At the beginning of the paragraph the author is making a case for this part of Matthew 24 (up to verse 35) being about the judgment of Jerusalem, but he concludes the paragraph by saying that the destruction of the Temple and the Parousia are historically different. What the author leaves out is the Great Tribulation. The Parousia refers to Jesus’ Second Coming; it does not refer to the Tribulation. Basically he is saying that when Jerusalem and the Temple fell, the sun and moon were darkened, the stars fell from the sky, and the powers of the heavens were shaken (probably symbolically, because no one wrote about these events). The next line is “And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky…”, i.e., the Parousia happens. So how can the fall of the Temple and the Parousia be “historically distinct” if Jesus places them together? 

It’s not Jesus making the mistake, but the author. He is standing on his head (metaphorically) to try to make sense of this chapter while maintaining his preterist views. 

“…Jesus’ leaving the temple symbolizes the end of its relevance in the purpose of God. The fact that he goes from there to the Mount of Olives (v. 3) may be a further echo of Ezekiel 11:23, where ‘the glory of the Lord’, on leaving the temple, stops at the same point. The disciples’ preoccupation with the buildings, therefore, may be due not only to a tourist’s fascination (which they well merited…) but also to incredulity that Jesus could be repudiating such a noble structure dedicated to the glory of God and still in the process of completion. But Jesus in response goes beyond the repudiation of the temple to foretell its total destruction. Micah (3:12) and Jeremiah (7:12-14; cf. 26:1-19) had dared to make a similar prediction about Solomon’s temple, and it had been fulfilled in 587 BC, but Jewish apocalyptic belief in Jesus’ time was that the temple was indestructible. Jesus’ prediction became known and was quoted in a garbled form at his trial (26:61) and at his execution (27:40). It was the starkest expression of his rejection of Jewish traditionalism and of those leaders whose power was focused on the temple and its rituals.”   [from TYNDALE NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTARIES: MATTHEW, by R. T. France, 1985]

As France mentions, the Temple had been destroyed in the past, so I suspect that the “Jewish apocalyptic belief” about the indestructibleness  of the Temple was more of a hope or a prayer than an actual belief. 

We’ll end here for today. Hopefully the next post will be about more straight-forward quotations.