Matthew 24 Pt. 4: the timing

The Timing of Matthew 24 and the Danger of Speculation

All right, as you guys know, we're still in the Isle of the Discourse. We're gonna be here for a little while. We talked about how we do the study. We're gonna read the whole passage, which we've done already.

We've already summarized it. Sorry about that. Now we've gone through each verse individually and explained it. And again, we use the analogy of faith, which means scripture interprets scripture. Now we're gonna start addressing the larger key points in a little bit more depth.

Tonight, we're gonna go over the timing of Matthew 24, because if we get the timing wrong, everything else is not gonna make sense. So we're gonna key in on that. And then we're gonna address the opposing viewpoints to the view that I'm espousing tonight.

All right, those are some of the topics we're gonna include. So let's get right into it. And tonight, hopefully I'm gonna be a little shorter than I was last week. I know it just seems to be running a little bit longer and I don't wanna keep this too long and put too much information out there.

So let's see how it goes. So we're gonna talk about the timing of Matthew 24, the word near, the word you, and the term this generation. It's gonna be important that we understand what those things mean.

So the timing of the events of Matthew 24 is crucial to its context and its understanding. If you dive into any period of history, you will always find prophets of all types from any number of theological traditions who claim they knew when the next time, end time event would occur.

This has been going on since the first century. Some have pointed to the rise in apostasy, lawlessness, natural disasters, signs in the heavens, an increase in rival religions in their day as unmistakable evidence that the end of all things was near for them.

They find hidden messages in biblical numbers. That's another favorite pastime that assured the faithful that the end had to be at hand. The speculative timing predictions of Matthew 24 has led many people to wrong views of end times and ultimately wrong behavior.

Rather than being optimistic in our hope of the kingdom, many have become pessimistic, apathetic, and in some cases, despairing. This is important because right doctrine leads to right living. If we think that the end is coming, it's kind of like trying to polish brass on the Titanic.

If the Titanic's going down, why work to make it better? We know that it's not going to happen. But that's not true. Scripturally, we know that the increase of the government that's on Jesus' shoulders is not gonna end and righteousness is gonna cover the earth the way the waters cover the sea.

So we should be optimistic. Any doctrine or theory about a scripture that brings you to a pessimistic view is not really what God is putting forth. So let's continue going. The small, the great, the sane, and the insane, the sacred and the profane have been quick to predict when the end might come.

For example, there's two funny people, right? Billy Graham and Barbra Streisand. Two different people on two different ends of the spiritual spectrum have at least one thing in common. They both believe that we cannot hold out much longer.

Barbra Streisand believes that the world is coming to an end. She just feels that science, technology, and the mind has surpassed the soul. There's no balance in terms of feeling and love for fellow man.

So she seems to think that the end of all things is close. And so does Billy Graham. He says, he's equally pessimistic, and he writes, if you look in any direction, whether it's technological or physiological, the world as we know it is coming to an end.

Scientists predict it, sociologists talk about it. Whether you go to the Soviet Union or anywhere in the world, they're talking about it. The world is living in a state of shock. Now, you hear that from a guy like Billy Graham, and you say, well, is God really in control?

Should we really be optimistic about the coming of the kingdom? And if you listen to him, he, no, you shouldn't. And listening to Barbra Streisand, you come to the same conclusion. Billy Graham does not want to linger here on who, what, why, how, or when of Armageddon.

He simply states that it's near. But the question is, what does Billy Graham mean by near? The book of Revelation states that the time was near for those who read the prophecy in Revelation 1 .1. Since Revelation was written during Nero's reign, prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, the prophetic events of Revelation were fulfilled during the lifetime of those who read the prophecy.

So the book of Revelation uses the word near, and Billy Graham uses the word near. When Billy Graham uses the word near, he says it's gonna soon take place. He thinks that based on what he sees, well, saw, he's passed on now, what he saw would lead people to believe that the end is right there.

But the book of Revelation uses the word near. Now, either they're both using the word in the same way, or one of them is wrong. Obviously, I think Billy Graham is wrong. I think the book of Revelation got it right.

Indeed, it is becoming increasingly persuasive argument that all New Testament books were written before 70 AD with a single generation of the death of, within a single generation of the death of Christ.

And what that means is, if John wrote the book of Revelation prior to 70 AD, he would have been alive when the temple was destroyed, which is what the apostle John wrote to us in the gospel in chapter 21.

Now, this particular quote was penned by John Ankerberg, who is actually a dispensationalist and a good apologist. And he's saying, it's a persuasive argument that the books were all written before 70 AD.

If you wanna dive deeper into it, there's a defense written by Kenneth Gentry called Before Jerusalem Fell. And he does a fantastic job of citing all the statistics and all the background knowledge in the book of Revelation to prove internal evidence and external evidence to prove that Revelation was written before AD 70.

So that's a different topic. I just wanted to put that out there for you. So why do people think it's the end? Well, who says it's the end? In the second century, there was a man named Montanus, and he predicted that Jesus would be coming back soon, and he was wrong.

In the third century, a man by the name of Novatian predicted the same thing and got the same result, no second coming of Jesus. And in the fourth into the fifth century, the Inquisition began, which led many of the saints to predict once more that the end was near because of the Inquisition and the brutality that was happening during that.

And that continued on and on and on through to the time of Martin Luther, who said, the last day is at hand. You see, there's a pattern developing here. People are looking at things that are going on in the world and say, because it's so bad, the end must be near.

More predictions were made as plagues, earthquakes, and wars continued on, but to no avail and to no second coming of Jesus. These predictions have been going on throughout history and continue on to today when people like Barbra Streisand and Billy Graham claimed that the end is near.

It even leads men like David Koresh to take the drastic actions that he did. He believed that he was in the end times and he had to do, shoot the people in that Waco, Texas compound because the end was near.

The lessons of history are recorded for all to heed. For many, however, the past is a distant memory. All that counts is the present. Sure, they were wrong, the prophecy experts warn us, but it will be different with us, okay?

And what's happening is everybody in every generation is making a prediction that the end is near. And yet every one of them has been wrong. Someone at some point in time is gonna be right because the end is going to happen.

But when we look at Matthew 24 and we look at the wording that Matthew put in there and the words that Jesus said, when he said the end was near, he meant it. And all the signs that pointed to the end happening, which was the abomination of desolation, the destruction of the temple, wars, rumors of wars, famines, false messiahs, all happened.

So if Jesus uses the word near and it doesn't happen, why would these people use the word near and think it would happen? Every generation thinks, oh, it's different with us. It's really gonna happen in our time.

But again, they've all been wrong since the first century on. Historian Mark Knoll serves us a warning. At the very least, it would be well for those in our age who predict details and dates for the end to remember how many before them have misread the signs of the times.

As children, we learn Aesop's fable of the shepherd boy and the wolf. In the end, we learn that the sheep are the ones that are harmed by the shouts of wolf by the shepherd boy. In the same way, the people of God, the sheep, are harmed by continual shouts of the end is near.

God is looking for shepherds after his own heart who will feed the flock on knowledge and understanding and not on the latest newspaper headlines. Again, we walk by faith, but not by sight. That's number one.

We should be optimistic about the kingdom coming. Jesus says the gates of hell will not prevail against it and he will build his church. And the events that Jesus was talking about in Matthew 24 had taken place or have taken place already.

The New Testament does use the near and soon coming of Jesus in judgment as a way of spurring the church onto greater works. The near judgment spoken of in scripture refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, not a distant future coming of Christ.

The Nearness of Judgment in Revelation and the New Testament

Peter wrote, the end of all things is at hand, therefore be of sound judgment and sober spirit for the purpose of prayer. So the question is, at hand for who? Obviously, for the people he was writing to.

If words mean anything, then Peter must have had his contemporary readers in mind when he wrote that. That would not be, when you read what Peter said, what Peter wrote, you wouldn't think, oh, that must be happening hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years later.

If he said the end is at hand, you would take him at his word and think that to the people he wrote that to, the end was at hand and it was. Ignoring the clear time texts leads to misguided speculation like this.

The year 1988 saw an abundance of books predicting the rapture of the church since it was thought to be the final year of the terminal generation because of the resettlement of the nation of Israel in 1948.

The most notorious was Edgar C. Wiesenthal's 88 reasons why the rapture is in 1988. Upon the release of his calculations, Wiesenthal remarked, only if the Bible is in error, am I wrong? And I say that unequivocally.

There is no way biblically that I can be wrong. I say that to every preacher in town. So he's saying that the rapture was going to happen in 1988 and he can't be wrong. If he's wrong, that means the Bible is wrong.

So what happened? 1988 came and went with no rapture. When the author's intricate system of predicting the end failed, he went on undaunted like nothing happened with a new book called The Final Shout, Rapture Report, 1989.

It seems that he made a critical error because he was following the wrong calendar, according to him. He says, my mistake was that my mathematical calculations were off by one year. Since all centuries should begin with a zero year, for instance, the year 1900 started the century.

The first century AD was a year short, consisting of only 99 years. This was the one year error in my calculation. The Gregorian calendar is always one year in advance of the true year. Numbered correctly from the beginning, 1989 would only be 1 ,988 years of the 365 day calendar.

So 1989 came and went, no rapture. This is a problem that modern day people have when they're reading Matthew 24 as a future event to happen. Jesus says, no man knows the day or the hour and that he's talking about his final coming.

Right now, people are trying to predict when the events of Matthew 24 are gonna happen. And if they happened already, then these will all become false prophecies. And this actually weakens the church.

Again, like it's crying wolf and you don't want to mislead the church, you wanna edify the church. The church right now should be looking at this COVID virus, this plague as an opportunity to share the gospel.

People are very in tune to hearing some good news. And if we really believe that the gospel was good news, we'd be talking about it a lot. Why is there so much speculation and error about when the end might be or whether the end has reference to the rapture or the return of Christ to set up his millennial kingdom or the return of Christ to inaugurate the new heavens and the new earth?

While there are a number of reasons why prophetic speculations continue unabated, one reason stands above them all. Fulfilled prophecy is being interpreted as if it were unfulfilled prophecy. And that's not a good thing.

We have to see the prophecy for what it is, discern it, exegete it from the scriptures and not make future predictions about something that's happened already. This era was also made by the first century Jews.

Think about it. When Jesus came to his own, which were the Jews, those who were his own did not receive him. These unbelieving Jews did not believe Jesus was the fulfillment of centuries of prophetic pronouncements that are found in the law of Moses and the prophets and the Psalms.

Now, Christians now are doing the same thing that Jews did in the first century. The Jews rejected Jesus as Messiah and didn't believe that he was the fulfillment of the prophecies. They were saying, no, no, that's coming in the future.

Well, now people are looking at Matthew 24 and saying, oh, no, no, that didn't happen. That's coming in the future. They're making the very same error. Many Jews today are still waiting for the Messiah.

Like their first century counterparts, they do not believe that the messianic prophecies were fulfilled in the person and work of Jesus. The messianic prophecies have been taken from their first century fulfillment context and have been projected into a distant future as unfulfilled prophecies.

In effect, present day Jews are still awaiting the first coming of the Messiah. In a similar way, many Christians take prophecies that have been fulfilled either in Old Testament events or in events following the ascension of Jesus and view them as still unfulfilled.

They then manipulate these fulfilled prophecies and apply them to contemporary events. Their speculations are wrong because they're applying fulfilled prophecies to current events. And as we'll see, they ignore the time texts that speak of a near coming of Jesus in judgment upon an apostate Judaism that rejected Jesus as Messiah in the first century.

Are they fulfilled? One of the first things a Christian must learn in interpreting the Bible is to pay attention to the time texts. Failing to recognize the proximity of a prophetic event will distort its intended meaning.

The New Testament clearly states that the end of all things was at hand for those who first read 1 Peter 4 .7. That is, the old covenant with its types and shadows was about to pass away. The book of Hebrews opens with two verses that put the timing of certain eschatological events into perspective.

And it reads, God, after he spoke long ago to the fathers and the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in his son, whom he appointed heir of all things. Notice the book of Hebrews talks about these last days spoken to us in his son.

Prior to the coming of Jesus, God spoke through dreams, prophets, written revelations and types. Through the new covenant, God has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

Literally, it's near. So with the advent of the new covenant, which Jesus ratified in his blood, the old covenant and the old system of things was being made obsolete. So when Peter talks about the last days and Hebrews talks about the last days, they're talking about the last days of the old covenant, not the last days of all time.

Is there any question that we're living in a new covenant era and that the old covenant has passed away, been made obsolete and disappeared? If so, wouldn't the new Testament have explained to us in a way we wouldn't make a mistake?

Yes. And one of the ways Jesus did that was in the Olivet Discourse. Think about it. If the old covenant was passed away and made obsolete and disappeared, and one of the apostles, one of the disciples questions was to Jesus, when are these things gonna happen?

Well, obviously, if it still hasn't happened, they were wrong. And every century after that was wrong. Jesus didn't really give a clear answer. He gave them a cryptic answer. But if the events in Matthew 24 have been fulfilled and the disciples understood that, then Jesus gave a very clear answer and we're just misreading or misapplying the text to some future event that is not going to take place.

Hebrews goes on to tell us, God spoke in this way in these last days. The last days were in operation in the first century when God was manifested in the flesh in the person of Jesus. Those Hebrew Christians who read the letter addressed to them were being told that an important covenantal era was about to end, the era of the father and the prophets.

The proof that the last days had come was that God had spoken in his son. The last days are not way off in the distant future. The end came to an obsolete covenant in the first century. In 70 AD, the last days ended with the dissolution of the temple and the sacrificial system.

A similar pronouncement is made in 1 Peter 1 .20. For he was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you. Gordon Clark comments on what Peter means by these last times.

These last days, which so many people think refers to what is still in the future at the end of this age, clearly means the time of Peter himself. 1 John 2 .18 says it like this, in his day, the last hour.

Acts 2 .17 quotes Joel as predicting the last days as in the lifetime of Peter. In these last days, I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh. In fact, Peter quotes that in his first sermon at Pentecost.

He quotes the prophet Joel. In the last days, God will pour out his spirit. And Peter goes on to say, this is that which the prophet Joel spoke of. Peter was in the last days. John was in the last days.

The author of Hebrew was in the last days as he wrote these things, as they wrote these things. Much of the confusion comes from the idea that a physical temple has to be rebuilt before Jesus comes back.

This is an idea, this idea is something that the New Testament knows nothing about. Many people are waiting for a third temple to be rebuilt, but the New Testament never mentions that once. In fact, the New Testament says much about a spiritual temple as a new covenant expression of the Christian's new life in Christ.

Jesus's completed redemptive work makes the need for a physical temple unnecessary and contrary to the redemptive principles of the new covenant. Why? For the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.

We have the temple living in our midst or they had the temple, Jesus, living in their midst. In fact, Jesus's ministry begins with the declaration that he became flesh and tabernacled among his people.

Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. Lamb of God was what was sacrificed where? In the temple. He is the temple, John says, and the chief cornerstone, which means there is no longer a need for a physical temple made of stones.

And by extension, believers are as living stones being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Those in Christ are the true temple of God.

Paul tells us that in First Corinthians and Second Corinthians and Ephesians. We are the temple of the Holy Spirit. So the new covenant brings with it not a physical temple, it brings a spiritual temple, yet we are physical bodies.

So it's not a physical building. The church is the body of Christ. We are the temple of the living God. Now, if you remember several weeks ago, we talked about the tabernacle in the wilderness. In fact, pastor talked about this on Sunday.

The tabernacle was where? Located in the center of all the people. And again, God was illustrating something to his people that he wanted to dwell in their midst. Jesus comes, he dwells within our midst.

Now he leaves and he says, I'm gonna send the Holy Spirit, a comforter to dwell within you. So we still have Christ in us, the hope of glory. God dwells among his people. There's no longer any need for a physical temple, nor any mention of a physical temple being rebuilt in the New Testament.

This Generation, the Sign of Jonah, and the First-Century Audience

Okay, let's talk about when Jesus uses the term this generation. The new covenant brings with it the new temple of Christ and his believers, which would replace the physical temple of the old covenant system because it had become an abomination.

It would be left to them desolate and replaced by a covenant built on better promises and a sacrifice that would be made once for all. There's no longer a need to make sacrifice after sacrifice after sacrifice.

Jesus was sufficient. This might be difficult to determine except that Jesus told his disciples that their generation would see the events leading up to and including the judgment on Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple.

Each time Jesus uses the phrase this generation, he always uses it as a reference to the generation to whom he is speaking. There are no exceptions when you go through Matthew, Mark, and Luke when Jesus uses the term this generation.

Only in Matthew 24 do people take this and apply it to a future generation. Every other time he uses that term, it's clear that he's talking to the people whom he was addressing. This interpretive restriction on the meaning of this generation also applies to an evil and adulterous generation.

Jesus calls them an unbelieving and perverted generation, an unbelieving generation. Even when Jesus uses the phrase evil and adulterous generation, he's referring to that first century generation, not some undesignated future generation as the Jews post-Pentecost and beyond made clear.

They specifically say this in Acts 2 and Philippians 2 .15. It'll be a little bit clearer when we see this. Remember, the Pharisees say to Jesus, we wanna see a sign. Jesus answered, an evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign.

By Jesus saying that, that statement identified their generation as an evil and adulterous generation since they're the ones asking for a sign. They knew that he was addressing them. That's why they wanted to kill him.

Furthermore, Jesus then gives them the sign, the sign of Jonah the prophet. And when was the sign of Jonah the prophet fulfilled? It was fulfilled in their day. For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

This is Jesus prophesying about his death, burial, and resurrection. He gave them the sign of Jonah to that evil and adulterous generation. They were that generation. Furthermore, the meaning of this generation throughout Matthew 12, verses 41 and 42, is used by Jesus to point out how their generation will be judged by the people of Nineveh and the queen of the south because someone greater than Jonah and Solomon is here.

When Jesus says is here, he was speaking about himself in that day since only those people living in Jesus' day could actually see the sign of Jonah, which was the resurrection of Jesus. He's identifying the generation who asked for that sign as the evil and adulterous generation upon who Nineveh and the queen of the south were gonna judge.

I think it's clear. Here's a list of every occurrence of generation and this generation in the gospels, and we can go through Matthew, Mark, and Luke. In each case, these verses describe events that apply to that first century generation.

And notice how many times Jesus uses the word you in the parallel passes in Luke 21. They will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you to the synagogues and prisons, bringing you before kings and governors for my namesake.

Now, did that happen? Absolutely. We have scripture that tells us that it happened. It happened to Paul. It happened to Peter. They were handed over. They were stoned, beaten, thrown in prison. Now, that's where we get the story with the Philippian jailer.

I mean, all these things happen. It happened to them, which Jesus says was you, meaning them. Luke 21, Matthew 24, Mark 13 are all parallel passages in that they describe the same set of events in the same period of time.

They all use the same language that indicates a fulfillment within the first century AD. Dispensationalists like Thomas Ice and Tim LaHaye, they write lots of books about this. They claim that Matthew 24, 34 should be read this way.

The generation that sees these things will not pass away till all is fulfilled. Now, notice that they substitute the for the near demonstrative this, which changes the focus of the passage from a specific generation, this generation, to any generation except the generation to whom Jesus was speaking.

That's ironic, huh? This always refers to something that is near, either in time or distance. The word this is what's called a near demonstrative. The use of you throughout Matthew 24 refers to the audience to whom Jesus was speaking, not some nonspecific future audience.

If Jesus wanted to designate a future audience in Matthew 24, 34, he would say this, that generation will not pass away until those things take place. Instead, Jesus says this generation. It's the difference between this generation and that generation.

When Jesus is addressing the people in front of him and says this generation won't pass away, he's talking about that generation. If he was talking and wanted to tell him about a future generation, he would have said that generation to come won't pass away until all these things take place.

Furthermore, Jesus would have used the term they instead of you. Instead of you will be put in jails, you would be flogged, he would have said they will be, they will be, pointing to a different set of people rather than the ones that were right in front of him.

Even with all the previous evidence, there are still those who try their best to circumvent what is obvious to the first readers of Matthew 24 and well-studied commentators and scholars. Consider the following comments on Matthew 24 by Henry Morris, a dispensationalist and a founding father of the modern six-day creationist movement found in his creationist-themed Defenders Study Bible which was published in 1995.

He says this, the word this is the demonstrative adjective and could be better translated that generation. That is the generation which sees all these signs, probably starting with World War I, shall not have completely passed away until all these things take place.

So what he's saying is that the events that Jesus spoke about haven't taken place. But Jesus was not talking about this generation, he was talking about that generation, a future generation, which sees all these signs.

And then he identifies what signs he's talking about, probably starting with World War I. Now we know World War I came and went, no second coming of Jesus. Then things started heating up for World War II.

Again, people predicted these are the end times, Jesus must be coming back, World War II comes and goes, still no sign of Jesus. This happens every single century when wars, famines, earthquakes take place, which are gonna take place until the end.

Mars describes the use of this as a demonstrative adjective. However, it's better designated as a near demonstrative adjective, identifying what generation will see the signs in the lead up to the destruction of the temple that took place when, 70 AD.

This refers to what is near in time or space, for example, this day, as opposed to that day. If I told you this day, this is gonna happen, as opposed to that day, when I say that day, that implies a future day.

This day means something soon. In Greek and English, the near demonstrative this is contrasted with the distant demonstrative that. So what is this? Matthew 24, 33 tells us what the audience, what audience Jesus had in view.

So you too, when you see these things, recognize that he is near right at the door. Now it's obvious and without any need for debate that the first you refers to those who ask the questions that led to Jesus's extended remarks.

Jesus identifies those who will see these things by using the term you. Who does Jesus say will see all these things? Certainly not a future audience. He says, so you too, when you see all these things.

The first you is obviously Jesus's present audience as is the second you. No one reading Matthew 24, 33 could conceive that either use of you by Jesus refers to an audience different from the audience to whom he was addressing.

It seems like common sense, right? If Jesus had a future generation in mind, he could have eliminated all confusion by saying, even so, they too, when they see these things, they will recognize that he is near right at the door.

Truly I say to you, that generation will not pass away until all these things take place. And that's not what the scripture reads, but that's what it should read if Jesus was pointing to a time in the distant future, not something that was right at hand.

The use of this confirms that the only generation in view is the one in Jesus's day. As Greek grammar books point out, the near demonstrative of this is always used in the New Testament to describe what is near in terms of time, place, or distance.

This is in the Learning New Testament Greek textbook. It says the demonstrative are of two kinds, near, this and these, and distant, that and those. The near demonstratives, as the name denotes, points to something or something near in close proximity.

They appear as the singular word this, and it's plural these. The distant demonstratives, as their name suggests, appear as that or those. So again, Jesus is using the words this and these, so it's a near demonstrative.

It's something that's going to happen soon. If he wanted to talk about something in the future, he would have used that or those. We can follow the way Matthew uses the near demonstrative this throughout his gospel to see that he has his present audience in view and not one in the distant future.

So in verse 690, he says, this way, 611, this day, this fellow, this news, this city, this place, this man, this people, this rock, this desolate place, this little child, this mountain, this stone, this image, this gospel, this generation, this woman, this night.

In every single one of those, Jesus is speaking, or Matthew is writing about something right in front of them. The only time people misuse the word this, because if I said this fellow, you would know I was talking about somebody standing right in front of me, except when people see this generation.

They think that this is some far off generation that was not present in the first century. And all it does, it's a contradiction to the term this. It's normal general use is as a near demonstrative. If we see it as a near demonstrative, we're gonna understand Matthew 24 much clearly and I think much more truthful.

In each of these cases, this refers to what's near. So let me ask you. If Jesus tells the disciples that these things will happen to this generation, and that the time is near, and that they would be hated and put to death, and that there would be wars, famines, false messiahs, that the temple would be destroyed, that Israel would fall, and that they would see the prophecy of Daniel fulfilled, and that this generation would not pass away until all these things take place, and then it all happens, why would anyone seek to push this off to a future date or generation of people and not see it as fulfilled?

It doesn't make any sense, honestly. Once you see that all of the things that Jesus predicted happened, then you understand that this was a fulfillment of something that was predicted, prophesied in the Old Testament, and is the end of the old covenant.

These things tie in perfectly and it's gonna change the way we live because right doctrine leads to right living. We're not gonna be pessimistic. We're not gonna look at the signs of the times and say, oh my goodness, the end is here.

We're not gonna cower. We're gonna be bold, okay? Is this a new interpretation of Matthew 24? No, this is not new or innovative at all. In fact, Clement, who was a disciple of John in the year 150 to 215, he says, Jesus confidently set forth plainly, as I said before, sufferings, places, appointed times, matters, limits, accordingly, therefore, prophesying concerning the temple.

He, meaning Jesus, said, see ye these buildings, verily I say to you, there shall not be left here one stone upon another, which shall not be taken away. And this generation shall not pass until the destruction begin.

And in like manner, he spoke in plain words the things that were straightway to happen, which we can now see with our eyes in order that the accomplishment might be among those to whom the word was spoken.

So this is Clement of Alexandria saying Matthew 24 is a fulfilled event. That's in the second century he's saying that. John Chrysostom in the fourth century, but of wars in Jerusalem is he speaking, for it is not surely of those without and everywhere in the world, for what did they care for these?

And besides, he would thus say nothing new if he were speaking of the calamities of the world at large, which are happening always. For before this were wars and tumults and fightings, but he, meaning Jesus, speaks of the Jewish wars coming upon them at no great distance.

For henceforth, the Roman arms were a matter of anxiety. Since then, these things also were sufficient to confound them, for he foretells them all. He's talking about when Rome surrounded the temple, okay, surrounded Jerusalem, and as a fulfillment of Matthew 24.

This is John Chrysostom, fourth century. Then we have Eusebius. He was actually before John Chrysostom. And rather than read this whole thing in red, it says, these things took place in this manner in the second year of the reign of Vespasian in accordance with the prophecies of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Okay, so here's another early church father saying that Matthew 24 was fulfilled in the time of that generation. John Lightfoot, who is a Hebrew scholar and an excellent exegete, in fact, Pastor uses his commentary on the book of John as he's preaching through it.

And Lightfoot says, hence it appears plain enough that the foregoing verses, Matthew 24, one through 34, are not to be understood of the last judgment, but as we said, of the destruction of Jerusalem.

There were some among the disciples, particularly John, who lived to see these things come to pass with Matthew 24 and John 22. And there were some rabbis alive at the time when Christ spoke these things that lived until the city was destroyed.