Today we’ll wrap up the first 2 verses of Matthew 24:   

“Matthew makes a break between this narrative and the preceding by telling his readers that Jesus had gone out of the temple (where his previous teaching had been located). There appears to be symbolism in this: Jesus now leaves the temple for the last time; he abandons it.  Matthew omits the story of the widow’s mite (Mark 12:41-44), an omission that has the effect of showing that what he now says is the sequel to the lament over Jerusalem at the end of chapter 23. It is not clear why his disciples drew attention to the great stones in the building (Mark says that one of them did this, and Luke has the indefinite ‘some’), for Jesus had been in the temple before and indeed had evidently been teaching there during the last few days. Perhaps it was not so much an attempt to show him something that they thought he had not seen before, as a companionable remark about the wonder of the temple’s construction, more especially, as Morgan holds up (p281), in the light of Jesus’ lament over the city (how would such a solidly built city be destroyed?). There were some very large stones in the temple Herod built; Josephus says in one place that they measured twenty-five cubits in length, eight in height, and twelve in width (Ant. [ANTIQUITIES OF THE JEWS] 15.392) and in another he gives the dimensions as forty-five by five by six (War [THE JEWISH WAR] 5.224). This historian is somewhat prone to exaggeration, but even allowing for that, the stones were evidently remarkable enough to merit a comment.”        [from THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW, by Leon Morris, 1992]

This quote is a pretty good break down of the first 2 verses of Matthew 24. Morris isn’t using the tricky and complicated language we’ve seen earlier and is just straightforwardly providing a commentary. 

There is one notable thing however: we’re starting to see more references to non-biblical sources within the text. First, he mentions “Morgan”; nothing else about him or the book he is taking the reference from. There is no footnote with more information, and when you look at the bibliography in the back of the book, he only adds “G. C.” to the name. With an online search I was able to pin it down to G. Campbell Morgan who was a fairly well known theologian of the first half of the 20th century, but he wrote a lot of books. This reference is probably from his Analyzing the Bible series, but it’s hard to be sure, so giving us a page number but nothing further as a reference is ludicrous. 

His second and third non-biblical references are for Josephus, and if a reader is unfamiliar with Josephus’ titles, then “Ant.” and “War” might not tell them much. 

There’s another writer we will look at from the end of the 1990’s who takes this extra-biblical referencing to an extreme, yet also avoids giving full references, which makes this practice look like a possible trend. It feels insidious because it implies that those of us who aren’t seminary-trained either wouldn’t or, perhaps, shouldn’t be interested in knowing who’s being quoted. It makes the commentary much more of an “insider only” proposition, thus taking the Bible one step closer to being back in the cloistered halls, locked away from the common man. At any rate, I found it very annoying.

“Whereas the disciples point out the temple buildings to Jesus, he turns attention to their seeing those buildings.  ‘All these things’ prepares for his prediction of total destruction. ‘Here’ pinpoints the location as close at hand, so that fulfillment of the prediction will be easily confirmable; and underlining the certainty of fulfillment are ‘Amen I tell you’ and ‘by no means.’ The singular in the two occurrences of ‘a stone’ indicates how detailed the fulfillment will be. In A.D. 70 the Romans burned the temple as well as tearing it down. If someone had put these words in Jesus’ mouth after the temple’s destruction to make them look like a prediction, we’d expect a reference to burning as well as tearing down.”     [from COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW, by Robert H. Gundry, 1994]

Nice little point there by Gundry. It alludes to something that has been spoken of before in reference to other prophecies. The real prophecies are just specific enough that when they happen, it is unmistakable; but not so detailed that they would suggest that the prophet cheated and wrote the prophecy after the event. 

“In the previous section of Matthew, Jesus has been embroiled in a series of controversial encounters in the temple. His parting words were a stern rebuke of the whole Jerusalem establishment, a ‘you will never see me again’ speech (see Matt. 23:39), after which Jesus leaves the temple never to return. 

For 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 23:39; NASB)
Truly I say to you, you will not see me henceforth until you will say: Blessed is our savior.   (Matthew 23:39; Shem-Tov Hebrew Matthew, translated by George Howard)

“Jesus’ exit was dramatic, but his disciples cannot resist lingering for one last look at the temple. The disciples — probably with a sweeping, panoramic gesture — point out the magnificent array of buildings on the temple grounds. The irony is unmistakable. Jesus has just denounced the temple; he has overturned the tables of the merchants and, on his way out, issued a string of withering curses on the whole temple enterprise, but his disciples pause for a final, longing glance back, as if to say, ‘You’ll have to admit, Jesus, it is, after all, a pretty impressive place.’

“Captured symbolically in this gesture of the disciples is the ambivalence that consistently plagues God’s people caught between God’s formidable future and the seductions of the comfortable past. When God is doing something new in the world and God’s people are beckoned to follow, there is the temptation, nonetheless, to gaze longingly back toward the seeming security of the way things used to be. Lot’s wife, even as she fled toward deliverance, was unable to resist turning back toward doomed Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:24-26). 

²⁴Then the LORD rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah from the LORD out of heaven, ²⁵and He overthrew those cities, and all the surrounding area, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground. ²⁶But Lot’s wife, from behind him, looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.   (Genesis 19:24-26; NASB)

“The children of Israel in the wilderness, being led toward freedom in the promised land, still cast a wistful eye back toward the seeming stability of slavery in Egypt (Exod. 16:3).

The sons of Israel said to them, “If only we had died by the LORD’S hand in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the pots of meat, when we ate bread until we were full; for you have brought us out into this wilderness to kill this entire assembly with hunger!”   (Exodus 16:3; NASB)

“Here, then, are the disciples in a familiar situation for God’s people, between the seeming safety of the old and the frightening uncertainty of the new. The temple may have symbolized all that opposed Jesus as the Messiah, but it also represented all that was secure about the traditional patterns of worship and belief. So, the rock-solid temple with all its trusted and established structures was behind them; the cross with all its fearful uncertainties and demanding sacrifices was ahead of them. Given that location, no wonder the disciples turned back to admire the grandeur of the temple.

“But Jesus would not allow them their nostalgic illusion. He no doubt astonished the disciples by announcing that the temple, which looked so appealing, so invulnerable, so secure, was destined for God’s wrecking ball. The buildings of the temple, though appearing so magnificent and imposing, would soon be so much debris and rubble (Matt. 24:2).

“Indeed, in A.D. 70, a decade or more before Matthew wrote his Gospel, Jesus’ prophecy was literally fulfilled when the temple was burned by the Roman legions. But Jesus’ doomsday saying over the temple was more far-reaching than merely a description of the military destruction of a few buildings. It was not just the temple that was doomed; the entire old world of which the temple was a part will ultimately pass away. Jesus condemned every institution that clings doggedly to the old patterns and resists the new thing that God is doing to bring mercy and redemption to human life. It will do no good to gaze longingly at the shimmering splendor of a dying world, even at its most cherished and sacred institutions. The only future is God’s future; the authentic choice is to follow.”    [from MATTHEW, by Thomas G. Long, 1997]

Long’s message is even more valid today. The clamor from the populace to “return to normal” emphasizes the truth of this message. The only future is truly the one that God lays out before us, as difficult as it appears; living in the past is not a viable option.

“The introduction to the discourse suggests some points that probably would have stood out to the original audience. First, Jesus is not impressed with splendid buildings and other monuments that impress others. In ancient literature (at least after the temple’s demise), this attitude could evoke praise as a mark of his different values (cf. Philost. [Philostratus, from VITA APOLLONII] V.S.1, cf. 30)…

So here we are: the author who provides a ridiculous number of extra-biblical references. We start with a totally non-Christian reference.  Again, no footnotes. For most of the ancient references he has devised an abbreviation system, and that is laid out at the beginning of the book, so at least we have the name of most of the ancient works, though many are not translated into English for us plebians, and some he doesn’t list at all. 

The more modern works are listed in a bibliography with the author’s name and at least the date of publication…but no book titles. Where possible, I have added the lacking information in [brackets]. 

“Second, God himself would bring swift judgment against the religious establishment (24:2). The temple, as the ultimate symbol of that establishment, which the people took to be the symbol of God’s glory (cf. Jer 7:4), would be utterly destroyed. 

³This is what the LORD of armies, the God of Israel says: “Amend your ways and your deeds, and I will let you live in this place. ⁴Do not trust in deceptive words, saying, ‘This is the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD.’ ⁵For if you truly amend your ways and your deeds, if you truly practice justice between a person and his neighbor, ⁶if you do not oppress the stranger, the orphan, or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place, nor follow other gods to your own ruin, ⁷then I will let you live in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers forever and ever.   (Jeremiah 7:3-7; NASB)

“This promise, probably already fulfilled by Matthew’s day, would provide a sense of vindication to Matthew’s audience; but it probably also accurately recalls Jesus’ teaching.

“Mack [Burton L. Mack, from A MYTH OF INNOCENCE: MARK AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS, 1988] asserts, ‘apart from Mark’s passion narrative, there is no indication that Jesus or his early followers looked for the destruction of the temple’ (1988: 10n. 4); but few scholars today would find his position consistent with our data. 

I found Mack’s book on Internet Archive, but I could not find the actual quote the author uses. The closest I found was: “There is no evidence even of hostility against the temple either as an institution or as an ideal.” I can definitely agree with this one line, but, in reading a bit of this book I am shocked that this author would quote from it. This book is claiming that the Gospel of Mark was fiction written by “Mark”, with the implication that the other Gospels were also fiction based on “Mark”. He also claims that Jesus was offering “social critiques” to his disciples! (Can you imagine thousands of people gathering to hear “social critiques”? But wait a minute, those thousands of people were “fiction”, right?) These are certainly not Christian view points! The author’s statement: “but few scholars today would find his position consistent with our data” also casts doubt on the author’s belief system as his only doubts about Mack’s book seem to be based on “data” not faith.

“That Jesus actually uttered such a judgment against the temple a generation before it happened is difficult to doubt historically. Whereas the later church may have forgotten the significance of some of Jesus’ words and deeds against the temple, they nevertheless preserved them…”

I’m amazed that the author actually believes that Jesus “uttered” the prophecy on the Temple. It must have been a fluke.

“Jewish Christians who continued to worship in the temple (Acts 2:46; 21:26-27) nevertheless remained faithful to a saying of Jesus that they would surely not have created (cf. Hare [Douglas R. A. Hare] 1967:6).

Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart    (Acts 2:46; NASB)
²⁶The Paul took along the men, and the next day, after purifying himself together with them, he went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them. ²⁷When the seven days were almost over, the Jews from Asia, upon seeing him in the temple, began to stir up all the crowd and laid hands on him  (Acts 21:26-27; NASB)

This author is very fast and loose with his references. Douglas Hare’s 1967 book is THE THEME OF JEWISH PERSECUTION OF CHRISTIANS IN THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW. The author of our current quote notes that the idea that the Christians “remained faithful to a saying of Jesus that they would surely not have created” is to be found on page 6. The only “quote” of Jesus on page 6 is in the following sentence: “Even if the ‘something greater than the Temple’ of Matthew 12:6 refers not to Jesus but to the kingdom he proclaimed, there can be no doubt that for Christians Jesus was himself the central symbol of the kingdom of God.” I declare this reference to be a total fraud.

“Further, those who question the authenticity of Jesus’ more specific threat to destroy and rebuild the temple based on lack of contemporary expectations for the temple’s destruction and renewal have not examined contemporary expectations carefully enough (Sanders [E. P. Sanders, JESUS AND JUDAISM] 1985: 365n.5). Some of Jesus’ sectarian contemporaries also predicted judgment on the temple; for instance, if Testament of Levi is pre-Christian at this point, it promises the desolation of the sanctuary on account of the priests’ uncleanness (Test. Levi 15:1; cf. 14:6). The Testament of Moses, which accuses priests of polluting the altar (5:4), prophesies judgment against the temple (6:8-9), and because the Roman ruler destroys only part of the temple in the oracle, the prophecy undoubtedly predates A.D. 70. In some texts, enemy rulers may want to destroy the temple (Sib. Or. [Sibylline Oracles] 3.665), but God will establish it eschatologically (3.657-60). Sanders [E. P. Sanders, THE HISTORICAL FIGURE OF JESUS] 1993: 262 cites the repeated expectation in some strands of early Jewish literature that God would bring a new temple down (1 Enoch 90:28-29; 11QTemple 29:8-10; cf. the hope of restoration in the seventeenth benediction of the Amida). Indeed, some interpreters already took 2 Samuel 7:13-14 as messianic (see 4QFlor), which may have supplied ample reason for picturing the messianic Son of David as building the new temple (Witherington [Ben Witherington III, JESUS, PAUL AND THE END OF THE WORLD] 1992: 92, following Juel [Donald Juel, MESSIAH AND TEMPLE: THE TRIAL OF JESUS IN THE GOSPEL OF MARK] 1977: 204).

The author misquotes Witherington. It’s not “some interpreters” who took 2 Samuel 7:13-14 as messianic; from page 92:

“as D. Juel has pointed out, at least two texts (2 Sam 7:13/1 Chron 17:12; Zech 6:12) were considered messianic texts before the time of Jesus, and both of them refer to a Messiah-king building the temple when he comes” [emphasis mine].

JESUS, PAUL AND THE END OF THE WORLD, by Ben Witherington III, 1992, p92

¹³He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. ¹⁴I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he does wrong, I will discipline him with a rod of men and with strokes of sons of mankind     (2 Samuel 7:13-14; NASB)
He shall build for Me a house, and I will establish his throne forever.   (1 Chronicles 17:12; NASB)
Then say to him, ‘The LORD of armies says this: “Behold, there is a Man whose name is Branch, for He will branch out from where He is; and He will build the temple of the LORD.    (Zechariah 6:12; NASB)

“Likewise, that a Qumron document can accurately warn that the Kittim (by whom they mean the Romans [I can find no verification of this meaning, it’s listed as meaning “breaking; bruising small; gold; coloring”, or referring to “son of Javan”, or to a settlement on Cyprus called Kittim]) would carry off the Jerusalem priesthood’s wealth (1QpHab 9.6-7) hardly makes the prediction, in a document undoubtedly predating A.D. 70, post-70! As Hill [D.] observes (1979; 62-63), ‘that Jesus himself could have made the prediction [of the temple’s destruction] is no more improbable than that Jesus ben-Chananiah should have done so in A.D. 62 (Jos. Bell. [this one isn’t listed, but maybe it’s DE BELLO JUDAICO, which appears to be a book of excerpts from Josephus’ ON JEWISH ANTIQUITY and ON THE JEWISH WAR from the 15th century] V1.300ff.): indeed, the destruction of the Temple was one of the most important elements in post-Herodian messianism, and not every reference to it requires a date after A.D. 70.’

“That the disciples therefore connect the temple’s demise with the age’s end (24:3) — thus allowing for its imminent rebuilding — fits the sort of expectations known to have existed among some of their contemporaries. Jesus hardly expected his own disciples to tear down the old temple; like some of his contemporaries, he expected God to act (Sanders [E. P. Sanders, THE HISTORICAL FIGURE OF JESUS] 1993: 259)…That the first temple’s previous violations indicated judgment would have made sense to Jesus’ contemporaries steeped in biblical tradition…and many, though not all, Jewish teachers in succeeding centuries recognized the destruction of Herod’s temple as judgment….”      [from A COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, by Craig S. Keener, 1999]

I do agree that Jesus did not expect his followers to tear down the Temple (and it was hardly “old”); I also agree that many, if not most, of the Jews were knowledgeable enough to recognize the destruction of the Temple as a judgment. But these, and the other points made here, could have been done with much less verbiage and far fewer extra-biblical referencing. A better title for the book might have been: AN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW rather then mislabeling it a “commentary”. 

We’re running long, but there is only one source left:

“1 Jesus’ departure from the hieron (‘temple complex,’ GK 2639  [Strong’s #2413]) may be symbolic. It also gives the disciples a chance to call Jesus’ attention to its various structures. In Mark and Luke, the disciples call Jesus’ attention to the beauty of the temple buildings and the great stones on which it rests…Whether or not the disciples thought they were speaking piously, they show they have underestimated or misunderstood the force of Jesus’ denunciations in Matthew 23 and Luke 11. They still focus on the temple, on which Jesus has pronounced doom, since the true center of the relation between God and man has shifted to himself. In Matthew 23 Jesus has already insisted that what Israel does with him, not the temple, determines the fate of the temple and of Israel nationally.

The last line makes an interesting point. His reference to Matthew 23 would have been better if he had broken it down a bit. I’m thinking that he is referring to 23:34-36.

³⁴“Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will flog in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, ³⁵so that upon you will fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. ³⁶Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.  (Matthew 23:34-36; NASB)

“2 Because tauta panta (‘all these things) is neuter and ‘buildings’ (v.1) feminine, some have suggested that Jesus’ question refers, not to the buildings, but to the discourse in Matthew 23, especially v.36, and should be rendered ‘You do understand (metaphorically ‘see’) these things, don’t you?’ the positive answer being suggested by the presence of the particle ou (‘not,’ untranslated in NIV). This may be oversubtle. The Greek demonstrative pronoun may have an irregular antecedent for various reasons (Grammar, 704). Moreover, the particle ou, anticipating a positive response, detracts from this novel interpretation, for if Jesus thinks his disciples have understood, why then does he go on immediately to answer their question unequivocally? But if the sentence is taken in the usual way (NIV), then the expectation of a positive response is most natural — of course the disciples see the buildings!…

“Jesus’ forecast of the destruction of the temple complex is unambiguous, cast in OT language (cf. Jer 26:6,18; Mic 3:12) and repeated variously elsewhere (23:38; 26:61; Lk 23:28-31).”     [from MATTHEW (THE EXPOSITOR’S BIBLE COMMENTARY), by D. A. Carson, 2017]

 ⁶then I will make this house like Shiloh, and I will make this city a curse to all the nations of the earth…¹⁸”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 heaps of ruins, And the mountain of the house like the high places of a forest.”’   (Jeremiah 26:6,18; NASB)
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)
Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!  (Matthew 23:38; NASB)
and said, “This man stated, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to rebuild it in three days.’”  (Matthew 26:61; NASB)
²⁸But Jesus turned to them and said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, stop weeping for Me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. ²⁹For behold, days are coming when they will say, ‘Blessed are those who cannot bear, and the wombs that not given birth, and the breasts that have not nursed.’ ³⁰Then they will begin TO SAY TO THE MOUNTAINS, ‘FALL ON US,’ AND TO THE HILLS, ‘COVER US.’ ³¹For if they do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?”   (Luke 23:28-31; NASB)

A pretty good quote; certainly the only one who has mentioned the Greek language issue. And Carson is right about the unambiguous prophecy about the Temple. 

We’ve looked at the first 2 verses of Matthew 24 pretty thoroughly, and we’ve also done some exposition of a few verses in Matthew 23. We will mostly skip verse 3 which says: “And as He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and the end of the age?” We will focus on verses 4 and 5 next time.