The coming of the Son of Man: when? (Part 1)

A few weeks ago, I was preaching through Matthew’s Gospel and got to the apocalyptic material in chapter 24 and following. In the first week I preached on Matthew 24:1-35. The context is Jesus’ prediction of the temple’s destruction (vv. 1-2). In response, the disciples raise a question of timing concerning three matters (which were, presumably, linked in their minds): “Tell us, when will this [i.e. every temple stone being cast down] happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” (NIV). The section mentions a couple of other key events: verse 15’s abomination that causes desolation standing in the holy place and verse 30’s Son of Man coming on the clouds with great power. The big question is what does this chapter refers to? In particular, what event does the coming of the Son of Man refer to? There are three main options:

  1. The return of Christ at the end of the age (yet to occur today)
  2. The destruction of Jerusalem and its temple (which we know occurred in 70 AD)
  3. The complex of events at the end of Christ’s earthly ministry: his death, resurrection and ascension (which occurred within the framework of the Gospel itself).

At the end of this section there is a strong note of imminence, with Jesus stating in verse 34 that “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place”. For this reason, in my sermon on this section, I stated that I could not accept Option 1 because it required a linguistically dodgy redefinition of the word “generation”, since the return of Christ certainly didn’t occur within the lifetime of the first generation of believers.

Option 2 fits within the lifetime of that generation and the initial context of verses 1-2, and the “holy place” reference of verse 15. A problem is that it gives enormous theological weight to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, which appears to be marginal in the rest of the New Testament.

Theologically, with the coming of Jesus, physical Jerusalem and the physical temple are already irrelevancies because Jesus is the fulfilment of the temple and heaven is the fulfilment of Jerusalem. Also this view struggles to explain in exactly what sense the Son of Man actually came in the fall of Jerusalem.

Many people in our Moore College circles have been attracted to Option 3, especially through the persuasive work of New Testament Lecturer and Sola Panellist Peter Bolt. This view sees verse 15’s abomination of desolation and the dramatic language around it as referring in a symbolic way to the most terrible event of world history: the crucifixion of Christ. What could be more desolating and abominable that that? And the Gospel records that, like verse 29 suggests, the sun was darkened while Jesus was on the cross. Other views make verse 30 refer to his coming to earth from God. This view sees it as referring to the coming of Jesus to the Father in heaven to receive his position of power—that is, it’s his ascension (or ‘coming up’) to heaven after his resurrection. This view fits the Old Testament background neatly, where the Son of Man comes to God, like Daniel 7:13 says. And from here, as verse 31 mentions, Jesus ushers in the age of gospel preaching to gather the elect.

However, this view fits even more neatly into Mark’s parallel version of this chapter than to Matthew itself. And it struggles to account for the temple context, and the command to flee and the intense period of suffering—not just for Jesus but his followers.

I told the church that I swing between option 2 and option 3, and that it tends to depend on which book I read last. But even as I preached (the same sermon three times on the Sunday), I started to feel I had not done justice to the issues. In particular, I felt I was too quick to dismiss the chapter having any reference to the final return of Christ.

My fears were confirmed in preparing my sermon for the following week’s section: Matthew 24:36-25:13. More on that in my next post …

5 thoughts on “The coming of the Son of Man: when? (Part 1)

  1. Sandy,

    Thanks for this post – it’s something that’s been ringing around my head lately too! In our lectures with Peter Bolt, there is much to commend the passage towards a cross-event focus – especially in Mark.

    But, I’m not quite convinced this view does justice to the Olivet Discourse in Matthew – especially with reference to the Isaianic references (Is 13) and in light of the ‘return’ thrust of the following parables in Matthew. 

    Thanks for the good post though – i’m keen to hear what your next thoughts are!

    Your brother,
    Mark

  2. Sandy,
    Great post and some good questions raised, I know what it’s like to oscillate on this issue. I enjoyed Peter Bolt’s book on the Cross in Mark’s Gospel, but I just can’t follow him on Mark 13. More likely IMHO is option # 2 and the reference to Jerusalem’s destruction. I find it strange that the disciples would ask Jesus about the destruction of Jerusalem and Jesus responds by way of reference to his second coming! That said, Holtzmann argued that the judgment on Jerusalem marks the beginning of the final judgment itself so there is a link between 70 AD and the end of the age. I strongly recommend Andrew Perriman’s book “The Coming Son of Man” as an excellent theological defence of preterism and the illustration at the end is worth the price of the book! If interested, my own thoughts can be found here: http://euangelizomai.blogspot.com/2007/01/jesus-and-parousia-six-theses.html.

    Also, I love the blog. On my first road trip with my wife, I taught her the five solas of the reformation.

  3. Sandy—what do you think about the view that, like most prophecy, it is all about all three. Perhaps with a primary view, a secondary view and a tertiary view.

    I’ve never been convinced when people divide the chapter up and say—‘now he’s referring to temple, and next, he refers to the parousia.’. So I have an option: either it is *all* about one of your options, or all of it has its fulfillment on more than one level.

    Either way, I find Dr Bolt’s thesis compelling. That is, Jesus is talking about the temple being destroyed. And before the reader thinks about 70AD (or anything else), the reader has to cast his or her mind to 587BC. That’s what the disciples must have connected Jesus’ words with. They heard: when will the wrath of God come on Jerusalem *again*? Will there be another exile? When will wrath be poured out (that we hopefully will be spared from by fleeing)? And Jesus answer is: when you see the abomination that desecrates standing where it does not belong! His death is the exilic-like wrath! And after his resurrection, the gospel must go out.

    Compelling.

    Anyways, I think I’m repeating you.

  4. I’m sorry I missed this when it was happening a couple of months ago!

    Sandy said “Option 2 fits within the lifetime of that generation and the initial context of verses 1-2, and the “holy place” reference of verse 15. A problem is that it gives enormous theological weight to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, which appears to be marginal in the rest of the New Testament.”

    But it is not marginal if large parts of the book of Revelation are about the destruction of Jerusalem (and the Cross, for that matter) rather than the merely futurist interpretation that it is all about the period before Christ’s return. And Hebrews is also indirectly about that, in that it is about the fulfilment of the Old Covenant in Christ and the doing away with the shadows of Temple sacrifices and priesthood.

    I would argue that whatever is true of Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 is true of Revelation. And like Justin Moffat, I’m not convinced it has to be an either/or choice. In the Olivet discourse the disciples are actually asking two questions but they think they are asking one. Jesus answers both when the Temple will be destroyed and when the end of the Age will happen. Or possibly three – the destruction of Jerusalem, the Cross and Resurrection, and the Parousia, are all rolled up together.

    But (assuming Peter is right about the “Age” meaning the Old Covenant Age, when is the End of the Age? Is it with the inauguration of the New Covenant in His blood? Or is it with the destruction of the Temple? Is it not possible that there is an overlap of the ages, of one generation, during which the New Testament was written? That is, that the Old Covenant does not end at the Cross, even though the New Covenant has begun. I think a lot more thinking needs to be done in that area.

Comments are closed.