³And 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 of the end of the age?” ⁴And Jesus answered and said to them, “See to it that no one misleads you. ⁵For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will mislead many people.    (Matthew 24:3-5; NASB)

“A large number of imposters came forward before the destruction of Jerusalem, giving out that they were the anointed of God, almost every page of history is blotted with the names of such deceivers and in our own day, we have seen some come in Christ’s name, saying that they are Christs. Such men seduce many, but they who heed their Lord’s warning will not be deluded by them.”       [from COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW: THE GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM, by Charles Spurgeon, 1893]

As we saw in the last post, there are still many who claim to be Christ, and the number is growing year by year. I appreciate Spurgeon’s warning here, but I think it could go further. There are not just people claiming to be Christ, there are more and more people claiming to be prophets or to have a special word from God for the world. As Christians, most of us, I think, hear from God or Jesus on occasion, in one way or another, but it’s usually a private word and not for “the world”.  I think it would help to add the following to Spurgeon’s message: any word supposedly coming from God, whether public or private, must never contradict what is written in His Word. We can clearly see that the Bible says we are to not be misled by anyone saying he is the Christ; so we should turn away from that. The Bible also describes how Christ will return, so when that occurs, we will know that it is really Christ. This is why Christians make such a big deal over the Bible. It’s not (usually) a worship of the Bible, it’s just that it’s the Word of God and our only way of maintaining a straight path.

“A great deal must happen first, and therefore the disciples must not be led astray by rumors that He has already returned. There will be false Christs, wars and tumults, famines and earthquakes, persecutions by the heathen, treachery among Christians, false prophets ;and yet the Gospel shall be preached in all the world. Not till then will the end come, and the disciples must not allow their eager desire for the consummation to betray them into a premature belief that the Coming has taken place, or is very near. ‘In My Name,’ or ‘on the basis of My Name’, means that a claim to the title of Messiah was the ground of their pretensions: it is not meant that they would call themselves ‘Jesus.’ But ‘the Christ’ is an addition made by Mt. In Mk. it is simply ‘I am (He),’ using ego eimiin the Messianic sense…But the main point is not so much their method of deception as their great success: ‘they will lead many astray’…”    [from EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW, by Alfred Plummer, 1909)

Many on the list from the last post were actually claiming to be Jesus re-incarnated. And many have been led astray, but certainly not the majority.

“The conditions depicted here have marked all the centuries since the Lord returned to heaven. They do not in themselves tell us of the nearness of His return, but they show us how badly this poor world needs a competent Ruler and how all creation groans as it waits for His advent.

“‘Take heed that no man deceive you.’ Satan works by imitation. He seeks to ensnare by counterfeiting everything that is of God. Hence the necessity to be on guard constantly against his deceptions. We need to test everything by the Holy Scriptures.”

This author has picked up on that extra warning I mentioned above. Test everything by the Scriptures.

“‘Many shall come in My name, saying, I am Christ.’ The number of impostors or antichrists have been legion. Often such men, and occasionally women, have given every evidence of paranoia; but many have been willful deceivers. No one would ever have been led astray by such pretenders to Messiahship if they had remembered that Christ is not coming again to earth as He came before, through the gate of birth. He will come as the Lord from heaven accompanied by the whole celestial train.”          [from EXPOSITORY NOTES ON THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, by H. A. Ironside, 1948]

Ironside is a well-known expositor, and he certainly hits this one on the head.

“It is difficult to determine whether these questions refer to one event, the time and herald-signs of the destruction of Jerusalem, or two, the time of the destruction of Jerusalem and the signs of the end of the world. Luke’s words and to a slightly less extent Mk’s seem to suggest one; Mt’s suggest two. It is usual to reconcile the two forms of the question, Mt as against Mk, Lk, by pointing out that for a Jew the destruction of the temple would spell the end of the world itself. In this hypothesis the disciples thought that the two events were to be simultaneous, and Jesus in his reply treats of them side by side because the first is a figure of the second…; nevertheless, it is claimed, he removes the disciples’ chronological confusion. It is said that two separate events are certainly discussed in the discourse because one is described as local, imminent, foreseeable through historical happenings, while the other is universal, of unknown date, without warning signs.”

I still doubt that everybody thought that the end of the Temple was equivalent to the end of the world. It would certainly be the end of the world as they knew it, but that’s different. 

I think that in Matthew, and Mark as well, we are seeing only one event being discussed by Jesus: the signs of the Tribulation leading up to His Second Coming (the Parousia). While Luke makes it clear that there is, indeed, a “local, imminent, foreseeable through historical happenings” event being discussed at one point (Luke 21:12-24), and a “universal, of unknown date, without warning signs” event being discussed later on (Luke 21:10-11, 25-36), Mark and Matthew do not make that clear. They use a lot of the same words as in Luke, but they both sound like the “universal, of unknown date, without warning signs” event.

“Another important theory has been recently presented, a revival of Augustine’s tentative opinion but revised and supported with powerful new arguments. The theory defends the unity of the discourse and holds that the reference though is to the destruction of Jerusalem with its double aspect: the end of the old order (‘times of the Jews’) and the opening of the new (‘times of the Gentiles’). The hypothesis does not deny the possibility of a further sense (fuller? typical?) in the discourse. Indeed it follows from the nature of the case that the divine judgment which closes the first act of world-history (the Age of Israel) is the destined model of type of the Last Judgment which is to mark the end of the next (the Age of the Gentiles). This fusion of perspective is in the style of the prophets. For them the ‘Day of Yahweh’ (i.e. of Yahweh’s judgment) has a shifting perspective, the reason being that this ‘day’ is considered more from the theological, transcendental, plane than from the historical and contingent point of view. But the hypothesis denies that the two themes (end of Jerusalem, end of the world) are juxtaposed so that one part of the discourse refers to the end of Jerusalem, and the other to the end of the world; it does not deny that the themes are superimposed. St Paul, therefore, could resume certain phrases of the discourse and refer to the end of the world. Strictly literal interpretation, the theory claims, is satisfied by the historical reference (destruction of Jerusalem) and, in fact, sometimes demands such a reference…”

I just spent some considerable time looking up Augustine’s point of view on this. I have seen multiple references in the past to Augustine being an early proponent of Replacement Theology (aka Supersessionism). Doing searches on this topic today did bring up some modern sources that say this, but no one can give me an exact quote, or even say where he asserted this idea. I searched through his book ON CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE and found nothing specific. The closest I found was this quote, from THE CITY OF GOD:

“Thus the blessing of Jacob is the proclamation of Christ among all nations. This is happening; this is actively going on. Isaac is the Law and the Prophets, and Christ is blessed by the Law and the Prophets, even by the lips of the Jews, as by someone who does not know what he is doing…The world is filled like a field with the fragrance of the name of Christ… It is Christ whom the nations serve, and to whom princes do reverence. He is lord over his brother, since his people (the gentiles) have dominion over the Jews… Our Christ, I repeat, is blessed, that is, he is truly spoken of, even by the lips of the Jews who, although in error, still chant the Law and the Prophets. They suppose that another is being blessed, the Messiah whom they in their error still await.”

You can see that there are hints of that point of view, but I’m not finding anywhere that he comes out with it specifically (of course, I didn’t sit down and read all of his very fat books.). I saw that a book has come out recently called AUGUSTINE AND THE JEWS which works to rehabilitate Augustine’s reputation of being against the Jews. I can see the point to that as Augustine did specifically state that the Old Testament and the Jews are needed to back up the New Testament: that the New Testament does not stand alone. I definitely agree with this idea, but I also unequivocally see the Jews as continuing to be God’s Chosen People.

Let’s continue with the original quote:

“The disciples’ question in Mk, Lk is explicitly concerned with the destruction of Jerusalem and Mt’s form is capable of the same interpretation. The phrase your coming (parousia, a term not used in the Gospel except Mt 24) has in the Greek papyri the meaning of a royal visit.  Paul certainly uses the word of Christ’s final coming at the end of the world (1 Cor 15:23 etc.) but it may be that in this case as in others he has taken over Mt’s terminology and adapted it to the final coming. 

²³But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, ²⁴then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to our God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power.   
(1 Corinthians 15:23-24; NASB)

“The close of the age (a more exact translation than ‘the consummation of the world’) sounds more decisive for the end of the world reference than does the term parousia. Nevertheless the word ‘age’ (aion) signifies not the physical world or universe, but ‘era, epoch’ of human history. The ‘era’ here might therefore be that to the old dispensation. In 28:20, where the perspective changes, it is the new, messianic era…”        [from THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW; A TEXT AND COMMENTARY FOR STUDENTS, by Alexander Jones, 1965]

teaching them to follow all that I commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”   
(Matthew 28:20; NASB)

“The close of the age” is probably a more exact translation, but in reading Revelation, it certainly sounds like the end of the world as we know it. Previous changes in “eras”, “ages” or “dispensations” have not involved such major destruction and loss of life.    

“‘Parousia’ does not here refer to Jesus’ ascension to sovereignty in the Church which has replaced Judaism (Benoit, p. 145), but to his final and glorious coming at the end of history.

“Although in its present form, this passage is almost certainly a rather late literary composition, it must be taken as a unit in the Matthew structure. It deals with three main topics: the signs of the final suffering (verses 4-14); the tribulation which leads to the day of the Son of Man (verses 15-28); the Parousia, the parable of the Fig Tree as herald of summer, and the question of the time of these events (verses 29-36).”       [from THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, by David Hill, 1972]

“Benoit” is “P. Benoit” who wrote L’EVANGILE SELON SAINT MATTHEW, 1961. It’s only available in French and my French is really, really bad. But I definitely do not agree that “the Church…has replaced Judaism”as stated.

I’m also having trouble with the passage being “a rather late literary composition”; how late are we talking about? It’s definitely in Hebrew Matthew, both the Shem-Tov and the Vatican versions. And, while the Christian scribes tended to be somewhat sloppy, and sometimes added their own thoughts to the manuscript, the Jewish scribes were fanatical in their accuracy.

“Jesus begins speaking about the third part of the disciples’ questions, regarding the end of time. Note that for both the disciples of Jesus’ own day as well as the members of Matthew’s community, the subject matter of these verses concerns the future. Although the earliest followers of Jesus expected the end of the world and the glorious coming of Jesus to come shortly after his death and resurrection, by the time Matthew writes it is clear that an indefinite period of history stretches out before the Church and the world.”     [from A COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, by Albert Kirk and Robert E. Obach, 1978]

From what I’ve been reading, they are now thinking that Matthew (in Hebrew) was the first Gospel written (and may even be “Q”), and that it was written quite early…like within 30 years of Christ’s death (some say 20 years). Obviously, even in that short a time the people in Matthew’s “community” would have figured out that the Parousia hadn’t happened “shortly after his death and resurrection.” It’s hard to say, though, if they saw “an indefinite period of history” stretching out in front of them.

“Parousia (‘coming’) is used only in this chapter in the Gospels (vv. 3, 27,37, 39), though in the Epistles it is used several times of Jesus’ return in glory. Its literal meaning is ‘presence’ (as in 2 Cor. 10:10), but it was used for official visits by high-ranking persons, state visits, and also for divine visitations, hence its technical use for Jesus’ ultimate ‘visitation’. 

²⁷For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes as far as the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be…³⁷For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah…³⁹and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.  
(Matthew 24:27,37,39; NASB)
For they say, “His letters are weighty and strong, but his personal presence is unimpressive and his speech contemptible.”  
(2 Corinthians 10:10; NASB)

Of course, the 2 Corinthians quote is Paul talking about himself.

“The expression the close of the age (synteleia tou aionos) will recur in 28:20; strictly it could refer to the conclusion of any era (not necessarily the final one), and it has sometimes been taken here to refer to the end of the ‘Jewish age’, i.e. the time of transference from a national to an international people of God.

teaching them to follow all that I commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”  
(Matthew 28:20; NASB)

“But generally in apocalyptic such expressions point to a more ‘final’ conclusion (for reference see [Robert H.] Gundry, p. 477), and the phrase has already occurred in that sense in 13:39, 40, 49.

³⁹and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels. ⁴⁹So just as the weeds are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age…⁴⁹So it will be at the end of the age: the angels will come forth and remove the wicked from among the righteous   
(Matthew 13:39,40,49; NASB)

“4-5. Jesus’ reply begins immediately with what is to be one of its main themes, the danger of being led astray, of jumping too hastily to eschatological conclusions. In my name does not mean they come with, or even claim, his authority, but rather that they aim to usurp his place. He is the only Christ, and anyone else claiming that role is an imposter.”         [from THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW: AN INTRODUCTION AND COMMENTARY,  by R. T. France, 1985]

I think I have to disagree with one thing: if they are coming to usurp His place, then they are, of course, also claiming His authority. Of course, they can accomplish neither, but they try.

“Perhaps we should notice Jesus’ care for the future conduct of his followers. We should not think of this passage as simply a demonstration of Jesus’ power to forecast the future; it was a series of prophecies designed to help believers.

“5. Jesus’ next words make it clear that the main problem his first followers would confront would be people who would claim to be the Messiah. Even since the incident related in 16:13-20 [this is when Jesus asked the Apostles “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”] the disciples had known that Jesus was the promised Messiah, but their faith was going to be severely tested in the days that lay ahead. It would be difficult for them to cope with the loss of their leader when Jesus was crucified, and even after the resurrection confident eschatological speculations would be put forward. Jesus says that there will be many with whom the disciples will have to cope, and that they will come in my name. This expression is used a number of times with reference to genuine followers of Jesus, for they came in his name to set forward his purposes. But in this place the meaning is rather that they will claim for themselves the name Messiah, Jesus’ own title. Mark and Luke both mention that the false teachers will say, ‘I AM.’ This probably means ‘I am he’ and will be another way of claiming to be the Messiah, but we should not overlook the fact that there is a hint of the divine name about this form of speech and that Jesus may well be warning that some of these people will come close to claiming deity.”

I don’t think “I AM” means “I am he” at all. “I AM” is the name God gave Himself. By saying that the imposters will call themselves “I AM”, Jesus is doing far more than “hinting” at something…He is stating outright that these men will be claiming divinity.

“This will surely be a reference to the last days, for there is little evidence that any of the turbulent men so active preceding the fall of Jerusalem even claimed to be the Messiah. Some claimed to be prophets, but that is not the same thing.”     [from THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW, by Leon Morris, 1992]

I’m not sure that this last bit is true; I think that some of them, if not most, did claim to be the Messiah. As most of these early imposters were Jewish, most of them were not claiming to be Jesus, they were claiming to be the expected Messiah. I haven’t done a really deep dive on this topic, and would prefer not to, but I did read some things about this for the last post.

That will do for today. We should be able to finish this phrase next time.