Mateus 24
John Wesley · Citado em PreceptAustin
Mateus 24
Wesley wrote Not only the temple and the mountain on which it stood, but the whole city of Jerusalem, and several furlongs of land round about it, were accounted holy; particularly the mount on which our Lord now sat, and on which the Romans afterward planted their ensigns. Beloved, do you see what happens when you ignore the plain sense of the text? It begins to be nonsense! Why not go ahead and call the entire nation of Israel the "holy place", for after all they were originally referred to as "holy to the LORD?" This example is not meant to denigrate Wesley, but simply to demonstrate the genre of loose interpretation that begins to flow when one does not read the text literally. The respected writer Philip Schaff (1819-1893) (reference) gives us another example of misinterpretation because of refusal to read Jesus' plain words literally. Schaff writes Jerusalem was 'the holy city' (Mt 4:5). The near approach of the Roman army is probably meant (Ed: He is referring to the phrase "standing in the holy place" and sees the approach of the Roman army as fulfilling that statement) The Roman eagles, rising on the heights over against the temple, were the sign of the fall of the city. In fact they stood on the Mount of Olives, 'the holy place,' in a higher Christian sense, where our Lord was now teaching and whence He ascended." Notice how Schaff speculates, equating the city of Jerusalem with the holy place. He then compounds his error by referring to the Mount of Olives as the "holy place!" There is absolutely no Scriptural support for such an interpretation! In short, Schaff gives us an example of failing to allow the Scripture to help interpret the Scripture and what happens when one fails to interpret literally and begins to speculate on the text rather than accurately observe the text! Peter Pett (ref) who interprets Mt 24:15 as fulfilled in 70AD provides another example of a non-literal interpretation of holy place. Pett is forced to do this because if he interprets the holy place as the Temple, it creates a significant problem in his interpretation of Mt 24:15 as fulfilled in 70 AD. And so Pett reasons In Scripture Jerusalem was regularly called 'the holy city' (Nehemiah 11:1; 11:18; Isa 48:2; 52:1) and it is especially to be noted that it is so-called in Da 9:24 which is in the context of Daniel's prophecy concerning the destruction of the city and the sanctuary (Daniel 9:26) (Ed Comment: Notice that Pett conveniently ignores the fact that Da 9:24 also mentions the holy place! Pett continues...). This would support the idea that 'the holy place', when quoted in the context of Daniel's prophecy ('spoken of by Daniel the prophet'), is to be seen as indicating Jerusalem and its environs, 'the holy city'. And this view is supported by Luke 21:20 where Luke's Gospel interprets 'standing -- in the holy place' as signifying 'when Jerusalem is surrounded by armies." Comment: Do you see the problems with Pett's comments? First notice that he says standing nit the holy place is the same sign as when Jerusalem is surrounded by armies! Beloved, in plain English they are clearly DIFFERENT signs! (See chart comparing Matthew and Luke) Second, notice how Pett attempts to show that Jesus' plain statement of "holy place" does not really mean "holy place" (the Temple) but really means "the holy city!" I would submit that Jesus said holy place and that is what He meant! To say that is not what He meant is to distort or twist His words! A more useful maneuver would be to search the Scriptures for every place the phrase holy place is found. Indeed, the phrase holy place is found 60 times in 60 verses in the entire Bible (NASB) and always refers to either the Tabernacle (OT) or Temple (on earth, twice in heaven = Heb 9:12, 24; God's presence = Heb 10:19) and never refers to the holy city of Jerusalem, the surrounding environs of Jerusalem, or the Mount of Olives. Johann Bengel also does not accept the simple, plain sense of Jesus words "holy place" because to do so would make his interpretation (of the abomination as the Roman army) absolutely impossible! And so he writes The holy place, therefore, does not here signify the temple, or the holy of holies, for it would have been too late to flee after that had been profaned, but a definite place without and near the Holy City; in short, that very place which our Lord (as He had often done) regarded as made holy by His presence, whilst He was uttering these words (Ed: i.e., on the Mount of Olives). (Ref) Dear reader, do you see what commentators are forced to do if they do not accept Jesus' prophecy literally? A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. I would posit that the interpretation of the abomination of desolation in Mt 24:15 as fulfilled in 70AD is at best a "weak" interpretation, because of a number of "weak links." (cf The Problems of the Roman Army as the Abomination) Well respected Lutheran commentator R C H Lenski (who favors a 70AD fulfillment) concludes that "Those are excluded which make "the holy place" the Jewish land, or which think that the abomination occurred during or after the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans. The latter views are shut out by the fact that it would then be impossible to flee the land." (The Interpretation of St Matthew's Gospel) J Vernon McGee makes the point "that the Holy Place was given only to the nation pf Israel. It was a special place in the Temple on earth. The church has no Holy Place." (Thru the Bible) The problem of course if one interprets Matthew 24:15 as referring to a yet future event is that there is currently no "holy place" (no Temple) in Jerusalem in which the abomination of desolation could stand. Clearly a futuristic interpretation requires that the Jewish Temple be rebuilt in Jerusalem. Other prophetic passages by Paul (2Th 2:3-4-note) and John (Rev 11:2-note) (if interpreted literally) would also call for a future rebuilt Temple. If God can cause the entire nation of Israel to be reborn "in a day" (May, 1948), He can easily enable the Temple to be rebuilt. In fact, the The Temple Mount Faithful - Working to Rebuild the Temple on the Temple Mount is a group of orthodox Jews in Jerusalem who have been preparing for many years to rebuild the Temple on a moment's notice! Ray
Mateus 24:15
Wesley wrote Not only the temple and the mountain on which it stood, but the whole city of Jerusalem, and several furlongs of land round about it, were accounted holy; particularly the mount on which our Lord now sat, and on which the Romans afterward planted their ensigns. Beloved, do you see what happens when you ignore the plain sense of the text? It begins to be nonsense! Why not go ahead and call the entire nation of Israel the "holy place", for after all they were originally referred to as "holy to the LORD?" This example is not meant to denigrate Wesley, but simply to demonstrate the genre of loose interpretation that begins to flow when one does not read the text literally. The respected writer Philip Schaff (1819-1893) (reference) gives us another example of misinterpretation because of refusal to read Jesus' plain words literally. Schaff writes Jerusalem was 'the holy city' (Mt 4:5). The near approach of the Roman army is probably meant (Ed: He is referring to the phrase "standing in the holy place" and sees the approach of the Roman army as fulfilling that statement) The Roman eagles, rising on the heights over against the temple, were the sign of the fall of the city. In fact they stood on the Mount of Olives, 'the holy place,' in a higher Christian sense, where our Lord was now teaching and whence He ascended." Notice how Schaff speculates, equating the city of Jerusalem with the holy place. He then compounds his error by referring to the Mount of Olives as the "holy place!" There is absolutely no Scriptural support for such an interpretation! In short, Schaff gives us an example of failing to allow the Scripture to help interpret the Scripture and what happens when one fails to interpret literally and begins to speculate on the text rather than accurately observe the text! Peter Pett (ref) who interprets Mt 24:15 as fulfilled in 70AD provides another example of a non-literal interpretation of holy place. Pett is forced to do this because if he interprets the holy place as the Temple, it creates a significant problem in his interpretation of Mt 24:15 as fulfilled in 70 AD. And so Pett reasons In Scripture Jerusalem was regularly called 'the holy city' (Nehemiah 11:1; 11:18; Isa 48:2; 52:1) and it is especially to be noted that it is so-called in Da 9:24 which is in the context of Daniel's prophecy concerning the destruction of the city and the sanctuary (Daniel 9:26) (Ed Comment: Notice that Pett conveniently ignores the fact that Da 9:24 also mentions the holy place! Pett continues...). This would support the idea that 'the holy place', when quoted in the context of Daniel's prophecy ('spoken of by Daniel the prophet'), is to be seen as indicating Jerusalem and its environs, 'the holy city'. And this view is supported by Luke 21:20 where Luke's Gospel interprets 'standing -- in the holy place' as signifying 'when Jerusalem is surrounded by armies." Comment: Do you see the problems with Pett's comments? First notice that he says standing nit the holy place is the same sign as when Jerusalem is surrounded by armies! Beloved, in plain English they are clearly DIFFERENT signs! (See chart comparing Matthew and Luke) Second, notice how Pett attempts to show that Jesus' plain statement of "holy place" does not really mean "holy place" (the Temple) but really means "the holy city!" I would submit that Jesus said holy place and that is what He meant! To say that is not what He meant is to distort or twist His words! A more useful maneuver would be to search the Scriptures for every place the phrase holy place is found. Indeed, the phrase holy place is found 60 times in 60 verses in the entire Bible (NASB) and always refers to either the Tabernacle (OT) or Temple (on earth, twice in heaven = Heb 9:12, 24; God's presence = Heb 10:19) and never refers to the holy city of Jerusalem, the surrounding environs of Jerusalem, or the Mount of Olives. Johann Bengel also does not accept the simple, plain sense of Jesus words "holy place" because to do so would make his interpretation (of the abomination as the Roman army) absolutely impossible! And so he writes The holy place, therefore, does not here signify the temple, or the holy of holies, for it would have been too late to flee after that had been profaned, but a definite place without and near the Holy City; in short, that very place which our Lord (as He had often done) regarded as made holy by His presence, whilst He was uttering these words (Ed: i.e., on the Mount of Olives). (Ref) Dear reader, do you see what commentators are forced to do if they do not accept Jesus' prophecy literally? A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. I would posit that the interpretation of the abomination of desolation in Mt 24:15 as fulfilled in 70AD is at best a "weak" interpretation, because of a number of "weak links." (cf The Problems of the Roman Army as the Abomination) Well respected Lutheran commentator R C H Lenski (who favors a 70AD fulfillment) concludes that "Those are excluded which make "the holy place" the Jewish land, or which think that the abomination occurred during or after the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans. The latter views are shut out by the fact that it would then be impossible to flee the land." (The Interpretation of St Matthew's Gospel) J Vernon McGee makes the point "that the Holy Place was given only to the nation pf Israel. It was a special place in the Temple on earth. The church has no Holy Place." (Thru the Bible) The problem of course if one interprets Matthew 24:15 as referring to a yet future event is that there is currently no "holy place" (no Temple) in Jerusalem in which the abomination of desolation could stand. Clearly a futuristic interpretation requires that the Jewish Temple be rebuilt in Jerusalem. Other prophetic passages by Paul (2Th 2:3-4-note) and John (Rev 11:2-note) (if interpreted literally) would also call for a future rebuilt Temple. If God can cause the entire nation of Israel to be reborn "in a day" (May, 1948), He can easily enable the Temple to be rebuilt. In fact, the The Temple Mount Faithful - Working to Rebuild the Temple on the Temple Mount is a group of orthodox Jews in Jerusalem who have been preparing for many years to rebuild the Temple on a moment's notice! Ray