"But of that day and hour..."
[EDITOR'S NOTE: The following article written by Max R. King was first published in the Vol. 3, No. 3 issue of TCM in appearing in March 1994. This was taken from a series called, Essays in Eschatology, published by the Parkman Road Church of Christ].
In an effort to find two different end times in Christ's Olivet discourse, some claim Christ knew when Jerusalem would fall, hence the day and hour not know in Matthew 24:36 (and the things mentioned in the following verses) refer to another coming of Christ. This raises some pertinent questions. First, if Christ knew at that time the day and hour of Jerusalem's fall, why did he give "signs" whereby his disciples could know that "the end is not yet" (v6), and know when it would be "near, even at the doors" (v33)? Why couldn't they just mark A.D. 70 on their calendars, if already the day and hour were known?
Second, if verse 36 refers to another coming because the day and hour were unknown, then how could Christ know it could not occur during the time (40 years) prior to Jerusalem's fall? Third, even more puzzling, why should his disciples "watch" and "wait" with intense expectation (Luke 21:34-36; I Cor. 1:7, 8; I Thess. 1:10; Heb. 10:25; Jas. 5:8, 9; I Pet. 1:13; 4:7, 13-19; II Pet. 1:19; Rev. 1:1-3) for another coming that could not possibly take place until after A.D. 70? If it is argued that they did not know Jerusalem would stand that long, then it follows that nothing forbids verse 36 from referring to the fall of Jerusalem (Luke 21:22-33).
The truth is, there is not the slightest hint of two age-ending comings of Christ in New Testament Scripture, with the day and hour of one coming known but unknown with respect to the later coming. The destruction of the temple, the consummation of the age, the coming of Christ (Matt. 24:1-3), the coming of the end (v14), the fulfillment of all things written (Luke 21:20-22), and the coming of the Kingdom of God in power (v31) stand united within the clearly stated timeframe, "this generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled" (v 32). It was "the day and the hour" (not the "generation") that was unknown at the time Christ talked with his disciples about the passing of the Old Testament economy. Some of them would live to see that day (Matt. 16:27, 28; Mark 9:1), particularly the apostle John (John 21:21-24; Rev. 1:1; 22:6-10). That was the "great and glorious day" (Acts 2:20) for which the disciples watched and waited. It's inconceivable that Peter exhorted Christians of his day to "gird up" and "hope to the end" of the Christian age rather than the Jewish age. In receiving the salvation promised and prophesied in the Old Testament (I Pet. 1:9-13). That would not be a very high appraisal of the completeness of Christ's "more excellent ministry" under the new and "better covenant" (Heb. 8:6). As soon as this long awaited "more glorious" age began (even before the old passed away), the disciples were taught to watch, wait, hope and even pray (I Cor. 16:22) for Christ to come and bring to an end that which he died to establish. Does that make sense?
In an effort to find two different end times in Christ's Olivet discourse, some claim Christ knew when Jerusalem would fall, hence the day and hour not know in Matthew 24:36 (and the things mentioned in the following verses) refer to another coming of Christ. This raises some pertinent questions. First, if Christ knew at that time the day and hour of Jerusalem's fall, why did he give "signs" whereby his disciples could know that "the end is not yet" (v6), and know when it would be "near, even at the doors" (v33)? Why couldn't they just mark A.D. 70 on their calendars, if already the day and hour were known?
Second, if verse 36 refers to another coming because the day and hour were unknown, then how could Christ know it could not occur during the time (40 years) prior to Jerusalem's fall? Third, even more puzzling, why should his disciples "watch" and "wait" with intense expectation (Luke 21:34-36; I Cor. 1:7, 8; I Thess. 1:10; Heb. 10:25; Jas. 5:8, 9; I Pet. 1:13; 4:7, 13-19; II Pet. 1:19; Rev. 1:1-3) for another coming that could not possibly take place until after A.D. 70? If it is argued that they did not know Jerusalem would stand that long, then it follows that nothing forbids verse 36 from referring to the fall of Jerusalem (Luke 21:22-33).
The truth is, there is not the slightest hint of two age-ending comings of Christ in New Testament Scripture, with the day and hour of one coming known but unknown with respect to the later coming. The destruction of the temple, the consummation of the age, the coming of Christ (Matt. 24:1-3), the coming of the end (v14), the fulfillment of all things written (Luke 21:20-22), and the coming of the Kingdom of God in power (v31) stand united within the clearly stated timeframe, "this generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled" (v 32). It was "the day and the hour" (not the "generation") that was unknown at the time Christ talked with his disciples about the passing of the Old Testament economy. Some of them would live to see that day (Matt. 16:27, 28; Mark 9:1), particularly the apostle John (John 21:21-24; Rev. 1:1; 22:6-10). That was the "great and glorious day" (Acts 2:20) for which the disciples watched and waited. It's inconceivable that Peter exhorted Christians of his day to "gird up" and "hope to the end" of the Christian age rather than the Jewish age. In receiving the salvation promised and prophesied in the Old Testament (I Pet. 1:9-13). That would not be a very high appraisal of the completeness of Christ's "more excellent ministry" under the new and "better covenant" (Heb. 8:6). As soon as this long awaited "more glorious" age began (even before the old passed away), the disciples were taught to watch, wait, hope and even pray (I Cor. 16:22) for Christ to come and bring to an end that which he died to establish. Does that make sense?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment