Hermeneutics: Matthew Chap 24 Pt. 4

So, we're back into hermeneutics and still doing practice, and remember, we're using

Matthew 24, and the reason we chose Matthew 24 is it's such a widely misinterpreted portion of scripture, and also it covers a lot of different symbolism, and there's prophecy involved with it, so it kind of encompasses a lot of what we've studied.

What I decided to do was, because it has been so long since we first started, went through this,

I'm going to go very quickly through the basic principles of hermeneutics and then get right back into Matthew 24.

So first principle is literal interpretation. Remember the Bible is literature, which means literal interpretation means to interpret the passage as it was intended to be understood by the writers of the documents, under the inspiration of the

Holy Spirit, of course. What was the author's method of communication? These are questions that we need to ask.

Is it a parable? Is it poetry? Is it the figures of speech? There are some people who hold to what they call literal interpretation, but what they have is really a crass literalism.

In other words, we're taking things literally that are meant to be figures of speech. For example, the trees of the forest clapping their hands.

How do you, you know, you can take that to ridiculous lengths, etc.

Second principle is we hold to what's called grammatico -historical exegesis, which simply means we take the grammar as it is written and the historical context.

Again, I just want to point out again, this is not new just to scripture. Every time you read a document, whether it be a book, a letter, a newspaper, you are doing exegesis.

You are doing hermeneutics because you have to interpret what the writer means. So, by grammar, we mean the common use of grammar of the day.

This is one of the reasons why we have to take special care with the

Bible because they spoke in Koine Greek, or at least wrote in Koine Greek, and we're speaking in modern

English. Of course, the Brits would disagree with that. They don't think we speak English at all.

But there's a gap there, and that's why we have to make sure that we study and go back and understand the grammar of the day.

Usage of the particular author, remember authors have their own particular style, and we need to understand that.

Context versus etymology. Yes? Go ahead, Steve. I wanted to ask about the grammar of the day because it changes over time.

Yes. We use the word day differently than we used to. We certainly do. All right. So, is that why there's so many versions of the

English Bible? Because we change the way we use words and expressions, that they would change?

Yes and no. That's an excellent question, though. The reason there's so many different versions is there are so many ancient manuscripts, which is one of the things that's in our favor because there's so many manuscripts, we can compare the manuscripts to make sure that we have the right text.

But not every translation is the same, the thinking going into it.

For example, some people like the NIV, the nearly inspired version, which

I guess my bias came through there, right? Let me tell you upon what I bias my, what's that?

Using the grammar of the day. Yeah. Let me tell you what I bias my opinion. No, the

NIV is what they call a dynamic version. In other words, it's meant to interpret concepts, not be a literal.

The NAV, the ESV are more literal in which they are trying to hold the closest to the actual words that were used in the

Greek. No translation can do, can be what we call a transliterate.

Anybody, do you know the difference between a translation and a transliteration? Does everybody or not everybody knows?

Well, it's translating virtually letter by letter or word by word.

Okay. Yeah. Now, baptize, to baptize is a transliterated word taken right from the

Greek baptizo, all right? That's a transliteration. But because the grammars are different between ancient

Greek and modern English, it's almost impossible to do that. You have to translate the meaning of it and not necessarily word for word.

Okay. That's also the reason why our Bibles have like the italicized words, is to kind of fill in the gaps to make it make more sense.

Exactly. Everybody, that's another excellent point. I was talking to a woman and she came to me and she says, you know,

I'm reading my Bible and I came to this word, it's in italics. So I know that's extra important. And I hope everybody realizes the italicized words are words that aren't in the original language and they're put in to make the

English sound more readable, all right? And again, the difference is, well, you've heard me tell the story numerous times about, you know,

Philippians 1 .22, you know, it's far more better, you know, or much more better.

That would be a transliteration, but it makes it clumsy in English, all right?

Good point. So it's context versus etymology. Parts of speech are the same.

A verb is a verb. You can't start making verbs, nouns, and nouns, verbs, et cetera.

One of the biggest problems in the translation of the Great Commission is people, supposedly

Bible scholars, have translated it and found four verbs when there's no such thing.

It's one verb and three participles. And that makes a difference in the intent of it. So I won't get into that now.

Idiomatic expressions. When Mary came to Jesus at the wedding feast in Cana and she says, they're out of wine.

And Jesus says, what is that between you and me? All right. And I've heard people say, that was, he was disrespectful to his mother, you know?

No, it was a common idiomatic expression. In other words, and he says, why is this my concern?

You know, what are you telling me for? It was not disrespectful. It was a common idiom of the day, okay?

That's one reason. We know another reason why he wasn't disrespectful. Why is that? Because he never sinned.

Original languages differ from contemporary languages. All right, I'm going to go through. Then the history, it's important.

What's the historical setting at the time of the writing? What was the political climate? And all of these have bearings on how we interpret.

Why was the passage written? Who wrote the passage? Who was it written to? These are all questions that are helpful in our interpretation.

And when was it written? Okay. When it was written is extremely important because that helps us to date the events, okay?

So it's very important. In other words, especially the Old Testament prophets, if we don't know when they were written, it would make it hard to understand what the true intent is.

But that's why our teachers Sunday morning for Sunday school going through the

Old Testament prophets or spend some time giving you the historical background so we know what the intent of the prophet was.

Third, scripture interprets scripture. This is really should be the first one, but scripture interprets scripture, take into account the divinity of the

Bible. It never contradicts itself. One portion is always compliments and agrees with every other portion.

And since the Bible is progressive revelation, got to be careful how we use the word progressive these days.

Not in a political sense. Later scripture will clarify or amplify, but never correct or contradict earlier scripture, right?

The Bible is consistent in its use of symbols and figures of speech. When you see symbols used, we won't get to that tonight in Matthew 24, but we will either next week or the week after and see how important it is that we understand the consistency of figures of speech and symbols.

Fourth, theological interpretation. The Bible can be systematized. All portions dealing with a particular topic are taken together to define a theological truth.

So that means if we want to find out who is the person and the nature of Jesus Christ, we go to every portion of scripture that deals with him.

And we put it all together and that's how we come to it. Isolating, the isolation of a text is dangerous, all right?

And that's why even if you're preaching from one verse or something, you've got to take into consideration what goes before it, what comes after it, okay?

Example, the deity and humanity of Christ, okay? Contextual interpretation, consider the verse in light of the whole passage, look at the passage before and after it, consider the book as a whole, consider the verse in light of all of scripture, okay?

These, oh, by the way, these are some of the criteria that they use when they were actually trying to sort out what's canonical and what isn't, some of the early councils.

Sixth, interpret the implicit in light of the explicit. In other words, if something seems to be implied, go find someplace where it's clear, all right?

For example, this verse is often used by Armenians. They say that the lampstand is a symbol of your salvation and therefore you have to be careful because it can be removed.

In other words, you can use your, all right? But if they were practicing proper hermeneutics, you go back to the chapter just prior and it tells you what is the mystery of the lampstand?

The seven lampstands are the seven churches. So it's not, has nothing to do with losing your salvation.

Jesus was telling the church in Ephesus, if you don't repent, I'm gonna remove your lamp, you're gonna cease to be a church, okay?

So it has nothing to do with losing your salvation. Interpret the obscure in light of the clear, very similar to the previous one, all right?

I put this verse up here when we originally went through it, showing how it might appear if you read that that you have to earn your salvation.

But what do we know about our salvation? It's by grace, not of any works, the gift of God, okay?

You see what I'm talking about, how you interpret, you look at one verse of scripture compared to another.

What was the passage read before that? It was Matthew... Matthew 20, verses one and two.

I know I'm going fast, but I've covered this before and it's just been so long, that's why I felt that it was necessary because last week as I was teaching some of the things,

I mentioned a principle, I saw some people whose eyes got this big as though I never heard that before. Oh, that wasn't me.

Eighth, interpret the historical narrative in light of the didactic or the teaching portions. One of the biggest problems, especially in charismatic churches today is they take things that were done, that were reported by the apostle in the book of Acts and say, this is what happened, this is the way it should happen today.

No, you have to take the didactic or the teaching, commandments and those type of things, and that will tell you how things are to be done.

Just because it was done one way, one time, it doesn't mean that it's done that way all the time.

It's not normative, all right? Everybody know what I mean by historical narrative, right? Okay, in other words, the events of the crucifixion in the gospels are explained in the epistles, all right?

Think of it this way, suppose the Bible ended with the book of John, how much would we know about the extent of what the crucifixion and the ascension meant, the resurrection and the ascension?

We'd be left with a lot of questions. They're explained in the epistles, which is what exactly the way

Jesus intended it, that's what he commissioned his disciples to do and equip them with the

Holy Spirit in order to do it. Old Testament events are explained by the apostles, all right?

That was just a very quick overview of the basic principles.

We took a couple of weeks to go through that, so I know this was quick. Any particular questions that were raised just by going through that quick review?

Okay, for the next hour, we're going to go through, all right, we'll take a few minutes.

All right here, Matthew 24. I just put this again, this is what sets the stage.

If you're going to look at Matthew 24, you can't jump in the middle, you have to start here. And remember, when will these things happen?

What will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age? These are the questions that were occasioned by them, by Jesus telling them that the temple was going to be destroyed, okay?

And that's what occasions this. Those three questions have to do with one single event.

They're not three different events. This is not, Jesus wasn't giving them a theological discussion.

He was telling them what exactly was going to happen, and that's what prompts their questions. And we concluded that these are not three unrelated questions but they're all related to the events concerning the destruction of the temple.

And we also saw that based upon the grammar, these events would take place during the days of the apostles. Remember, we saw that the language was used because some of them would not taste death until these things came about.

So we saw that. So whatever we're doing, whatever we're looking at in Matthew 24, at least up to a certain point, must have taken place in the time of the apostles.

And then we concluded last week with verse 14, and this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a witness to all nations, and then the end shall come.

All right, that's an important verse. And remember, we looked and saw how this actually occurred according to the scriptures that the gospel was preached to the whole inhabited earth, which the extent of that was the

Roman empire. Okay, now we come to verse 15.

Therefore, when you see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet standing in the holy place, let the reader understand.

Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains. Whoever's on the housetop must not go down to get the things that are in his house.

Whoever is in the field must not turn back to get his cloak, but woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days.

All right, now notice, what's the purpose of all of these?

He brings it up to the abomination of desolation. When you see this, whatever this is, all right, we'll get to that, whatever this is, flee, right?

And then all of these verses, 16 to 19, are just building to the fact that this is serious.

Something is happening, and look at how serious. Don't, if you're sitting up on your roof, because I hope everybody realizes that they actually sat on the roofs and the housetops on most of that culture.

If you're up there, if you're in a field, whatever, whatever your circumstances, flee, just get out.

And again, the warning of Jesus is something that will take place during the lifetime of the apostles. He's speaking, remember, keep in context too.

Who is the audience to this sermon? The apostles, it's not going out to the whole nation of Israel.

This is something that was for the apostles. And the importance of this warning can't be overemphasized.

Why? Because the temple is a crucial part of the old covenant. He's saying that when you see the abomination of desolation in the holy place, all right?

If something, if the temple is desolate, if it's laid waste, what does that do to the old covenant?

It's over. Without the temple, there can be no Old Testament worship.

Remember the last phrase of verse 14, and then the end shall come. So he's talking about the abomination of desolation and coming, and then the end shall come.

The end of what? Well, whatever the end is, it's going to be in the lifetime of the apostles. So it can't possibly be the end of the world as we know it, because none of the apostles are still alive.

Okay? So what is this event that precedes the end?

The abomination of desolation in the holy place. This is, did this take place in our timeframe?

That's the question. Remember, when we're engaging in a portion of scripture, interpreting a portion of scripture that is hotly debated.

And in fact, most churches in the

United States today would not allow me to stand up and say these things. I mean, that's just a fact, you know.

Did it take place in our timeframe? The answer is yes. We even put a little exclamation point next to it.

Yeah. The problem is the temple was desecrated in so many ways during this time that it's hard to determine which particular one

Jesus is referring to. All right? I mean, it's not a question of was the temple, you know, laid desolate and whatnot, but exact, can we point to an exact time?

This is something I threw in. It could be all of them together. I don't think the grammar would negate the fact that it could just be the entirety of what

I'm going to show you next, all right? Because of this, in one sense, the glory of the

Lord departed when Jesus left the temple and gave this prophecy, all right?

Remember what happens? Jesus twice cleansed the temple, right?

He said, you've made my house of prayer into a den of thieves, and he cleaned them out.

What happened after he threw them out? Came right back. They didn't listen, okay?

So in that sense, when Jesus left and then places this curse on him, you could say that that could be at least the beginning of it.

But during this time leading up to 7 AD, there were numerous events that were abominations.

I'm going to go through a few. Because of the siege of the Roman army, people flocked into the city, causing massive overpopulation and lawlessness increased.

I don't want you to just take my word for it, because contrary to popular opinion, I was not alive during this time period.

So just so that we understand, all right? So I am not speaking as an eyewitness here.

So I'm going to use proofs. When that happened, the priests lost control of the city.

Murders were taking place inside the temple, not just inside the gates of the city, but inside the temple.

And I will be backing this up. One historian says, now, however, zealots and brigands were dwelt pell -mell within the sacred building.

All the rules of legal parity seemed forgotten. The courts were stained with blood that defiled the feet of those who walked therein.

In the eyes of the priest, there was no crime more horrible. To many devotees, this was the abomination predicted by Daniel as destined to take place on the eve of the supreme days.

When the Roman army entered the city, things got worse. The Romans set up idols to their own gods in the temple.

At one point, half the temple was held by the Jews, and the other half by the

Romans. Remember, the temple was a very large structure with courtyards and all.

A great battle ensued, which resulted in the complete destruction of the temple. Can't get much more desolate than that.

The temple of God, the holy place, was laid desolate by the abominations that occurred inside. That was the warning that Jesus was giving them in Matthew 24.

Therefore, when you see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken through Daniel, Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place, let the reader understand.

And it's my personal opinion, and I'm not alone in this, is that the totality of the circumstances is what the abomination of the desolation is.

But look at that, let the reader understand. Matthew, this is a parenthetical phrase.

This is not what Jesus said. This is what Matthew was saying. Matthew was saying, when

I write this gospel, I want you to understand what is going on.

And remember, who is Matthew writing to? To his people in his day. Yes.

You may not be able to answer this now, but it's interesting because this is the destruction of the temple in 70

AD, yet Daniel was also referring to the overtaking of Jerusalem in his time period.

Yeah, there were actually three or four times prior to this. Yeah, yeah. And at that time, the

Judeites actually had themselves set up idols in the temple.

And after that had occurred, and they were taken off to Babylon, they never did that again.

That wasn't one of their main sins. But here, you see this happening, but because of the

Romans. Yeah. It does get a little confusing. Not really, and I'll tell you why. Maybe I can de -clarify it for you.

Somebody caught that. De -clarify it for you. All right, never mind.

Don't clarify it yet. No, the reason that I... We have an event that is looked at as what

Daniel prophesied, and Jesus says it's going to happen after his time. So you can look at it, maybe those were types, but the fulfillment is here.

Oh, yeah, no, I totally get it. Because I think it was Antiochus Epiphanes who actually slaughtered a pig in the temple.

So, I mean, whenever the enemies would come in, they'd always defile the temple. But this one is like the penultimate of abominations.

So what should they do? Jesus says, when you see this, when these things start happening, flee, flee to the mountains.

In other words, get out of there. You wouldn't think that you would need that type of admonition, but what he's saying is the birth pangs are now almost finished.

Remember, going back a few verses. When you start to see these things, the end is right around the corner, so flee to the mountains.

God's judgment is coming quickly. And how serious is the warning? Look at the next four verses.

And the housetops, we looked at these before, the housetops, all right? But pray that your flight might not be in the right winter or on the

Sabbath. In other words, these are desperate times. While the

Jews were, now here's the interesting thing. While the Jews were flocking into the city as the

Romans were coming, for supposed safety, Jewish Christians were leaving the city because of this prophecy.

The Christian Jews saw this, they knew Matthew's gospel, and they're running.

This is John Gill, who is probably one of the foremost of our early Reformed Baptist theologians.

He says, it is remarked by several interpreters in which Josephus takes note of with surprise that Cestius Gallus having advanced with his army to Jerusalem and besieged it, on a sudden without any cause, raised the siege and withdrew his army when the city might have easily been taken, by which means a signal was made and an opportunity given to the

Christians to make their escape, which they accordingly did, and went over to Jordan, as Eusebius says, to a place called

Pella, so that when Titus came a few months after, there was not a Christian left in the city.

In other words, what he's saying is, when the Romans surrounded a city, that's it.

That was lights out. City was gone. There was no city in the world at that time that could withstand the

Roman siege. We know now it was politics that caused

Cestius to pull back from the siege, and that's exactly what the

Christians needed. When they saw that, they say, this is what Jesus predicted, and they fled. And so, as Gil says, there was not a

Christian left. Yes? I was watching

Bruce Gore, the Christian historian, and when the

Romans surrounded Jerusalem and the Christians left, he said that the

Jews that stayed in Jerusalem, their hearts were hardened, they were ready for a fight, and they believed that God was on their side, and the zealots burned all the food that they had stored up for a siege like this.

So that's why they started eating their own babies. Just red -hooded all this. Yeah, yep, yep.

And I'm gonna cover a little bit of that, not exactly that. What Josephus and other historians can't explain is made clear by this prophecy.

Jesus made a way for his elect. Remember, when we're gonna get to the verse, it says that, were it not for the sake of the elect, the days were cut short, there would have been no life left.

It was God's providence that caused political upheaval in Rome that caused

Cestius to pull back and allow the Christians to leave. And contrary to all

Roman procedures, they gave people an opportunity to escape. Matthew Henry said, when

Christ came to destroy the Jews, isn't that interesting? I love the way he puts it. When Christ came to destroy the

Jews, how did Christ come to destroy the Jews? The Roman army, all right?

But yet he just boldly claims there was Christ that did it. When Christ came to destroy the Jews, he came to redeem the

Christians that were persecuted and oppressed by them. So there we see it again. The same vehicle, just like the ark, same vehicle that lifted the ark to save the

Jews. And here the same army, some are saved, but it's

God's judgment. Next, Jesus explains the extent of the trouble.

Look at the next two verses. For then there will be a great tribulation, such as not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall.

And unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved, but for the sake of the elect, those days shall be cut short.

Look at that, days cut short. No life would have been saved. Once again, we must ask the question, did this take place during the 40 -year period between the crucifixion and the destruction in 70

AD? Historical references are in perfect harmony with this prophecy.

The slaughter began when Titus began his march. Yes? I just want to throw something else out there that made this necessary for the temple to be torn down stone by stone.

Jesus went in, right, twice. Found the, let's say metaphorically, found the temple to be leprous.

Yep, yes. What happens after, it's gotta be torn down. It's gotta be torn down, yes. Yep, good insight.

All right. When he gave, started his siege, look at 15 ,000 people killed in Gadara, 15 ,000 people killed in Jadapata, 11 ,000 people killed in Gerizim, thousands more in each city as the

Roman army approached Jerusalem. So in other words, they're laying waste to everything on his way to Jerusalem as they're gonna siege the city.

Women and children were not spared. And by the way, the things that I'm gonna be writing up here I did not put up the goriest of the details, all right?

Meanwhile, zealots took control of Jerusalem. Getting back to what somebody over there had said.

They persuaded, oh, the zealots persuaded the Edomians to come in and help them fight the

Romans. The Edomians were kind of like mercenaries, okay? 20 ,000 came in, but instead of fighting the

Romans, they began their own murderous spree. They turned on the zealots. Oh, and I didn't put it up here, but one of the reasons was they had heard that the

Jews were very wealthy and they were hiding all of their money. And they were, the claim was that they were actually ingesting it so you can figure out how they were trying to get the money.

8 ,500 people killed, including the high priest, Adenus. Josephus said,

I shall not mistake if I said that the death of Adenus was the beginning of the destruction of the city.

And from this very day may be dated the overthrow of her walls and the ruin of her affairs.

Now, again, remember who Josephus is. He's commissioned by the

Romans to write history, not by the Jews. And certainly not by the Christians. He also said,

I cannot but think that it was because God had doomed this city to destruction. Isn't that interesting?

As a polluted city and was resolved to purge his sanctuary by fire, that he cut off these, their great defenders and well -wishers.

So the city became a war zone for competing factions. And Josephus reports vast numbers of dead bodies lay in heaps.

And the zealots would not allow them to be buried. Anyone opposed to the rebellion against Rome was killed by zealots.

The innocents were killed and nothing was done for the wounded. They were just left lying there. Then the siege began.

Oh, this is all before the siege was reenacted. The siege began on April 14th,

AD 70. And historian

Joseph Ernst Rennan said, from this time forth, hunger, rage, despair and madness dwelt in Jerusalem.

It was a cage of furious maniacs, a city resounding with howling and inhabited by cannibals, a very hell.

Titus, for his part, was atrociously vindictive. Every day, 500 unfortunates were crucified in the side of the city with hateful refinements of cruelty or sufficient ground were on to erect them.

Philip Schaff, in his classic work, The History of the Christian Church, probably one of the best historical works on the church, said the daily sacrifice ceased

July 17th because the hands were all needed for defense.

The last and the bloodiest sacrifice at the altar of the burnt offerings was the slaughter of thousands of Jews who had crowded around it.

When the Romans finally entered the city, the slaughter was beyond description. Josephus said, accordingly, the multitude of those that therein perished exceeded all the destructions that either men or God ever brought upon the world.

The end of the old covenant age was exactly how Jesus Christ said it would be as he stood on the

Mount of Olives. And that's what we have in Matthew 24. It was, in fact, a period of great tribulation and Jesus continues with further warnings.

Then if anyone says to you, behold, here is the Christ or there he is, do not believe him. For false

Christ, false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect.

Behold, I have told you in advance. And that's where we'll pick it up next week with those verses.

So you get the idea. Now, again, I'm using these verses not to convince you of any particular eschatological system, but just to show you, if you use the hermeneutical principles, you have to look at this and say exactly what

Christ prophesied took place in the period from his crucifixion to the time of the destruction of Jerusalem.

Any thoughts, questions, ideas? Yes, Steve.

I have a question about the rapture. When the Christians escaped

Jerusalem during the siege because of the political thing, and miraculously, for the first time ever, people could leave during the

Roman siege. And that miracle, you know, God is in control of all things. He allowed that miracle or he created that miracle.

Is that the rapture or is the rapture something else? The rapture is at the second coming of Christ when those who are alive will be taken up in the air to meet him and all the departed saints.

Synonymous with his second coming. You can look at this and say this was a type, which

I think is certainly within the scope of this type of teaching to say that.

Was there another hand? Thought I saw another hand. No? Okay.