THE GREAT ESCHATOLOGICAL DISCOURSE :  Matthrew 24-25
                                                                                                                                BY
                                                                                                                DALLAS M. ROARK
                                                                                                      Wayland College, Plainview, Texas,USA.

    The great eschatological discourse of Matthew xxiv is a thorn in the flesh of the interpreter. The divergence of opinion can be seen in examining G. R. Beasley-Murray's work Jesus and the Future.(1)   After reviewing the many courageous attempts to deal with the passage as Beasley-Murray treats them, one can sympathize with the words of A. B. Bruce who said, "What is said there on is so perplexing as to attempt a modern expositor to wish it had not been there, or to have recourse to critical expedients to eliminate it from the text" (2).
    One of the problems in Mt. 24 centers around the words of verses 32-34 with special reference to v. 34 : "Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass away until all these things be accomplished". The verse seems to imply that all of the preceding 31 verses must come to pass in that generation or the lifetime of the auditors.
    Beasley-Murray sums up the problem in this way: "The chief cause of perplexity in the eschatological discourse lies in the fact that statements concerning the end of the age are apparently intertwined with an event that for us has long been removed to the distant past." (3)
    The order of the verses does suggest a chronological statement of events. Obviously Jesus did not return in the lifetime of the apostles in the described fashion. A number of questions arise out of this. Was Jesus mistaken? Were the disciples mistaken? Was the writer mistaken? Is there another meaning of the word generation? Other questions could be asked but these are adequate for our consideration.
         A brief summary of alternate answers will give perspective to the view we propose.
         First, many have ignored the passage.  This is true of many  one-volume commentaries.  One should not expect much of a one-volume work, but inasmuch as any commentary is designed to give help on difficult passages, one should expect something. W. K. Lowther Clarke ignores the problem of the passage at the point of giving a meaning for the word "generation." (4)     G. E. P. Cox in the Twentieth Century Bible Commentary gives little detail. Cox declares that "Matthew expands the apocalyptic discourse of Mark xiii to show that men are being judged in every age by the reaction of those same historic events and by the Christian church which proclaims them."(5)   No precise exposition of the meaning of "generation" and its relationship to the passage is given.
            The Oxford Annotated Bible declares "generation" to be "men of our time" or a period of twenty to thirty years. "What Jesus meant, however is uncertain." (6_
 
        Second, others regard the passage as a mistake. Theodore H. Robinson described the words as prophetic intuitive insight on the part of the disciples and the disciples were able to see for themselves what would happen. He goes on to say that the whole passage was taken over from Mark in the parallel account and "it is interesting to know that this evangelist has allowed the words 'the present generation shall not pass away till this happens' to stand. This may be a simple oversight but there may still have been living persons who remembered the actual life of Jesus or again the evangelist may have interpreted the words as applying to his own generation. The first seems, on the whole, the most probable explanation." (7)  In essence, the view point of Robinson is that the passage should have been left out of Matthew.

        Third, some interpret the passage in terms of the ignorance of Jesus. One of the most irenic views is that of A. G. Hagg who wrote, "Our Lord knew that with the Father all things were possible- that nothing could be too glorious for God.  Would he not, then, have been falseto his Father if he had counted an early consummation unlikely? Would he not have been contradicting the spirit of all Old Testament prophecy"?
          Fourth, still others regard much of the material in Mt. xxiv (Mk. xiii, Luke xxi) as a little apocalypse drawn from some source other than Jesus. Interpreters differ as to the extent of the sayings that are considered genuine and spurious. In many cases the predictive element is regarded as vaticinia ex eventu.
           Fifth, the more conservative of interpreters seek to defend the veracity of Jesus and harmonize the passage. Calvin understood the word generation to mean the lifetime of the disciples. However, he did not deal with the crucial problems of the text. He said, "Now though the same evils were perpetuated in uninterrupted succession for many ages afterward, yet what Christ said was true, that before the close of a single generation believers would feel in reality, and by undoubted experience, the truth of his prediction; for the apostles endured the same things which we see in the present day."
    JOHN A. BROADUS accepted the natural meaning of the word "generation" but declared, "all these things predicted in 4-31 would occur before or in immediate connection with the destruction of Jerusalem. But like events might occur in connection with another and greater coming of the Lord and such seems evidently to be his meaning" . This seems to be no help at all.
    ALFRED Plummer came closer to meeting the problem. He divided the chapter as follows: verses 4-14 spoke of events which precede the end, 15-28 of the destruction of Jerusalem, 29-31 of the close of the age, and 32-36 with the certainty of the event. Concerning the matter of chronology Plummer said, "We need not make all these things refer to anything beyond the judgement of Jerusalem and the tribulation which proceeded the execution of it."  He did reject any other meaning of the word "generation" than the natural sense but his solution did not meet the details of the crucial verses. 

    A. T. ROBERTSON admitted the natural meaning of the word "generation" but raised this question, "The problem is whether Jesus is still referring to the destruction of Jerusalem or to the second coming and the end of the world. If to the destruction of Jerusalem, there was a literal fulfillment     He did not carry through his argument but the obvious conclusion is that there was not a literal fulfillment if the words refer to the coming of Christ. He gave no adequate alternatives.
    R. C. H. LENSKI opposed the natural sense for the word "generation". The word "generation" "consists of the type of Jew whom Jesus contended with during this Tuesday. This type of Jew will continue to the very parousia. It has continued to this day. The voice of Jewish rejection is as loud and vicious as ever that he is not the Messiah and not the Son of God" 
In summary we can say that many schemes have been erected but their extent of success is short.
There is a possibility, which to my knowledge has never been tried, that seems to be more successful. We shall propose the following breakdown.
Verses 1-14 I) refer to destruction of Jerusalem 2) or to the discussion as a whole.
Verses 15-35 refer to the destruction of Jerusalem.
There seems to be little doubt about the interpretation of verses 15-22. These obviously refer to the destruction of Jerusalem. Fleeing to the mountains (v. 16) or on the Sabbath (v. 20) would have no significance in relation to the parousia. The crucial section is from verses 23-31. The crucial verse for our breakdown is verse 23 "Then if any man says to you, 'Lo, here is the Christ', or 'There he is', do not believe it".
    The section that immediately follows this verse is a parenthetical correction or appendage to this false hope. The design of the difficult verses is to correct false ideas about the appearance of pseudo-messiahs at the destruction of Jerusalem. The passage contains material relating secondarily to the second coming when the parousia  does take place but not in connection with the destruction of the city    The idea could be put in these words. "There will arise false messiahs when Jerusalem is judged. Do not be mislead by them. When the messiah does come his coming shall be like this ... All these things, i.e., the appearance of the false messiahs shall take place within this generation". The passage on the second coming gives us the how but not the when!
    Instruction is therefore given to safeguard the followers of Christ from being lead astray. If the passage is understood as a correction to false ideas, which seems quite natural to the context, then we can accept the word "generation" in its natural meaning. By the same scheme the matter of chronology is eliminated.
    There is one word needing some explanation for this point of view. In verse 29 the word "immediately" suggests a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem. Many interpreters have so construed it. But inasmuch as the subject matter of the verses preceding and succeeding this word is related to the second coming, we need not tear this out of that context to refer it to the Jerusalem judgment. "Immediately following the tribulation of those days" fits into the eschatological picture of Christ's coming. When he comes it shall be immediately following a tribulation of the "last days". He shall not come as the false ones.
    Following this procedure, therefore, the breakdown between material on the destruction of Jerusalem and the discourse on the second coming takes place at verse 36. With verse 36 the subject of the second coming proper is taken up. The sign and time of his return are dealt with. The material in verses 23-3I is pertinent to the subject of his return but in its peculiarly corrective context.
    This may or may not be the intended idea in the author's mind but it does make sense with the material being understood in a natural sense. It does make sense out of the order of the subject matter without implying a mistake or ignoring the problem.

1.G. R. BEASLEY-MURRAY, Jesus and the Future, London: Macmillan and Co., 1954.
2.A. B. BRUCE, The Expositor's Greek Testament, New York: Dodd, Mead and Co., 1902, p. 294.
3.BEASLEY-MURRAY, op. cit., p. II3.
4.Concise Bible Commentary, New York: The Macmillan Co., 1935, p. 742.
5.Twentieth Century Bible Commentary, edited by G. HENTON DAVIES, ALAN RICHARDSON, and   CHARLES L. WALLIS, New York: Harper and Brothers, 1955, p. 400
6.Oxford A nnotated Bible, Edited by HERBERT G. MAY and BRUCE M. METZGER, New York: Oxford University Press, 1962, p. 1204.
7.THEODORE ROBINS ON, "The Gospel of Matthew",. Moffatt's New Testament Commentary, New York:Harper and Brothers, 1927, p. 200.
8.BEASLEY-MURRAY, op. cit., p. 187.
9.JOHN CALVIN, Commentary on the Harmony of the Evangelists, trans. WILLIAM PRINGLE, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957, p. I5I.
10. Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Philadelphia: American Baptist Publications Society, 1886, p. 492.
11. ALFRED PLUMMER, An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1956, p. 338.
12 A. T. ROBERTSON, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Nashville: Broadman, 1930, p. 193-194.
13. R. C. H. LENSKI, The Interpretation of St. Matthew's Gospel, Columbus: The Wartburg Press, 1943, pp. 952-953.