The following was originally written as part of a response to criticisms against the belief that the synoptic gospel contains Jesus' answer for a sign of his parousia that is realized today. Some of the language is then necessarily a bit unusual because of the originally intended audience. Lately this subject has come up in other circles so I chose to also post the comments to this forum.
***
Jesus' Answer for a Sign
Constantly there are discussions about the biblical accounts found at Matthew 24 & 25, Mark 13 and Luke 21, which texts attribute to Jesus a reply to two questions asked him. Because of convictions that Jesus' reply is finding a fulfillment in our day several questions arise.
1. Did the reply attributed to Jesus indicate any significance beyond Jerusalem? If so, was that significance to the extent some believe it to be, that is, global?
2. Is there evidence internal to the reply that indicates legitimacy, that is, that the reply as passed down to us is genuine prophecy rather than something written after the fact?
3. Assuming that the reply attributed to Jesus is genuine and that it did implicate an event or events beyond Jerusalem's demise, do we have rationale to look for any unique fulfillment or potential for fulfillment in our day?
Global Implications
Does Jesus' answer provide any basis for a fulfillment of his words beyond the destruction of Jerusalem? The following discussion will answer, "Yes" to that question.
Part of Jesus' answer includes the text of Matthew 24:14, which reads:
"And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world [Greek: oikoumene], as a testimony to all nations; and then the end will come."
Those words have Jesus describing the extent of preaching work prior to "the end." If those words are possibly describing a global preaching work then Jesus' answer may have an application beyond the destruction of Jerusalem until a time that global preaching would be real.
So, at this point in the discussion the question becomes, Can globality be attributed to Jesus' answer for a sign, specifically in his expression about how extensive the gospel would be preached? That discussion focuses on Jesus' use of the expression oikoumene as found at Matthew 24:14.
In New Testament Greek the basic application of oikoumene was to the Greek-speaking world, as opposed to parts of the world beyond Greek influence. In other words the basic application was to the known Greek speaking world. A quick reading of practically any reputable Greek lexicon should easily make that point. So then the question becomes twofold. 1) Was oikoumene ever applied pre-New Testament period toward the world beyond the Greek influence encompassing the idea of globality and 2) Is there any reason to understand such an extended application of oikoumene in words attributed to Jesus at Matthew 24:14?
Consider the following entry from Liddell-Scott-Jones Lexicon of Classical Greek (also known as the Great Scott)
oikoumen-ê (sc. gê), hê, inhabited region, v. oikeô A. au=Hdt. 7.1=lr ; then the Greek world, opp. barbarian lands, Dem. 7.35 ; pasa hê oi. IDEM=Dem. 18.48 ; in Arist.Mete.362b26, hê oi., = the inhabited world (including non-Greek lands, as Ethiopia, India, Scythia), as opp. possibly uninhabited regions, cf. Cleom.2.1 ; in Arist.Mu.392b26, hêde hê oi., = our world (= Asia, Libya, Europe); oikoumenai worlds, IBID=au=Arist. Mu. 392b31=lr ; hê philia perichoreuei tên oi. Epicur.Sent.Vat.52 ; sou (i.e. Ptolemy au=Epicur. Sent.Vat. 11 or au=Epicur. Sent.Vat. 111) tês oi. pasês basileuontos PSI5.541.7, cf. LXX 1 Es.2.3 ; loosely, the whole world, Hyp. 4.33 (prob.), Antiph.179, PMag.Lond.121.704, Luc. Halc.3, Ath.8.350a : so perh. in some passages cited under au=Ath. 8.350a11=lr.II. the Roman world, ho agathos daimôn (etc.) tês oi., i.e. the Emperor, OGI666.4,au=OGI 668.5, POxy.1021.5 (i A.D.), CIG2581-au=CIG 2,au=CIG 4416,Ev.Luc.2.1, Act.Ap.17.6, au=Act.Ap. 24.5, Sammelb.176.2 (ii A.D.), Gal.10.7, Luc.Macr. 7.
III. hê oi. hê mellousa the world to come, i.e. the kingdom of Christ, Ep.Hebr.2.5.
In the above expanded definition it's clear that, aside from any meaning Christian exegetists may apply, oikoumene had been used prior to Jerusalem's destruction as referencing "the inhabited world" and "the whole world". It should be noted that those two usages are aside from the idea of "the Greek world".
Continuing the discussion into oikoumene, it is also of interest to read what Great Scott has to say under the term kosmos. The entry includes this statement:
[kosmos] IV, 3. in later Gr., = oikoumenê , the known or inhabited world, OGI458.40 (au=OGI 458.9=lr B.C.), Ep.Rom.1.8, etc.; ho tou pantos k. kurios, of Nero, SIG814.31, cf. IGRom.4.982 (Samos); ean ton k. holon kerdêsêi Ev.Matt.16.26.
What makes the above entry interesting is that it gives the specific reason for the basic meaning of oikoumene; it's describing the known world. Quite naturally people would normally use terms based upon what they know of. That being a legitimate assumption, for first century Greek speakers we can naturally conclude that usually the term oikoumene referred to the Greek speaking world. However, since the term had been used with reference to globality, assuming a user has knowledge of existing inhabitants of the earth beyond Greek speaking people (meaning knowledge of global inhabitation), then we cannot exclude usage of oikoumene as meaning global. As represented in the Bible Jesus is just such a person. The Bible attributes Jesus with knowledge of all creation. In that case, then Jesus would have knowledge of existing inhabitants of the earth unknown to his followers or any other Greek speaker.
As presented in Great Scott, prior to Jesus there had already been expanded usage of oikoumene aside from the Greek speaking world and carrying the meaning of the inhabited world and the whole world. Those users were thinkers like Aristotle and Hyperides who intelligently and intentionally pushed their ideas and concepts beyond the known. Jesus is likewise represented as such a person except that, being the Son of the only true God, the Bible attributes to him the ability of speaking expansively about the known rather than the unknown. That Jesus is attributed knowledge beyond the common is substantiated at John 16:12 where Jesus said: "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now."
Jesus was forced to use expressions of the day in order to communicate, however, according to the Bible record he also admitted speaking of things that were not then understood by his audience. This acknowledgment can be found at John 14:25,26. According to Young's Literal Translation it reads:
"These things I have spoken to you, remaining with you, and the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and remind you of all things that I said to you."
So, again, considering pre-Christian usage and the universal knowledge of Jesus, it cannot be excluded that Jesus used oikoumene literally in reference to the whole world.
That information is fine for demonstrating existing possible legitimate usage of oikoumene meaning literally the whole world. However, the possibility of such usage is not evidence that it was actually used that way. For that we must examine internal evidence, we must turn to the synoptic gospel.
As pointed out earlier, Matthew 24:14 has Jesus using oikoumene in reference to the extent of the gospel's dispensation. Besides expressing the extent of dispensation the same text also embodies the mandate to preach the gospel. Is there any occasion when Jesus spoke of this gospel being disseminated where it is contextually suggestive that he had in mind universal dissemination, that is, global preaching?
Yes, Matthew 28:18-20 is one such place. In that text Jesus first describes himself as newly bestowed with universal power/authority. Immediately after this he mandates how far and wide the gospel is to be preached when he says:
"Go [therefore] and make disciples of all the nations…"-Darby
Contextually it seems reasonable that Jesus informed disciples of his new universal authority justifying the broad mandate he then gave. In short, the mandate was intended to be universal (worldwide) which explains why the assertion of universal authority. It would seem odd to assert that Jesus intentional expression interjecting his universal authority was disconnected from the mandate to spread the good news by making disciples. It would also seem unreasonable to assert Jesus mentioned this to authorize a lesser than universal work. Jesus' followers had not resisted his assignment for them to preach. Why now would Jesus need to assert so much authority for a strictly localized preaching? A reasonable explanation is that Jesus offered his universal authority as his responsibility to all humankind that the gospel reaches them all. If his responsibility was for earth-wide dissemination of the gospel then that would be his mandate given.
So, contextually, Jesus use of his new authority at Matthew 28:18 evidences-whether it was initially understood or not-that Jesus had in fact mandated a universal (meaning: global) dissemination of the good news. This writer would contend that the text of Matthew 28:18 does more than just suggest possible world-wide preaching when a suggestion is all that is needed to consider Jesus expression at Matthew 24:14 as being global in extent. That critical connection is evidenced in that the context of both texts-Matthew 24:14 and 28:18-20-connect the preaching of Jesus' followers to the same event of "the end."
Rationale then exists for understanding Jesus' words at Matthew 24:14 as referring to global in terms of extent. This can be said in that there was previous similar usage of the applied term and because the mandated extent of preaching is suggestively universal. If Jesus' expression at Matthew 24:14 suggests globality then there is a basis to conclude that Jesus' reply to the two questions put to him indicates a fulfillment beyond the destruction of Jerusalem.
Is The Account Genuine?
Indisputably the biblical texts in question can be dated to within 100 years of when events noted supposedly occurred. Critics claim that the subject texts apply entirely to Jerusalem's destruction and that they were written after the fact. These claims are an attempt to discredit that any genuine prophecy was uttered. Since Jesus' predicted fall of Jerusalem was similar to the actual event then naturally critics offer an easy enough explanation, that is, that the "prediction" was written after the fact. However, that criticism is practically useless when we consider that such an action presumes intent to deceive. Such a deception would necessitate getting the story straight. After all, if you what to deceptively convince others of a prediction then you must get the details straight. Otherwise what's the point? Did the would be deceivers get the story straight?
According to Matthew's account Jesus said, "But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun shall be darkened, the moon not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken. And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then shall all the tribes of the land lament, and they shall see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." (Darby)
Assuming, as critics have, that those words above somehow refer to Jerusalem's destruction and that they were written after the fact as a hoax, then naturally the question becomes, is there any indication whatsoever that events described above ever happened? Unless those events can be evidenced then the notion of an after the fact hoax is, at best, questionable. On the other hand, if a post-destruction hoax is asserted that includes the notion of a post-destruction prediction then the logical problem arises that such an assertion must be evidenced. To this writer's knowledge that assertion has not been evidenced to the point of absolutely excluding the genuineness of the text.
If the texts we have today are genuine and there is an application beyond Jerusalem's destruction, an application that is global, then naturally we would expect the account to include depiction of events beyond anything having to do with Jerusalem's demise. If such an intention/application can be evidenced then the fact that the account of Jerusalem's destruction is similar to the actual event is understandable and we can rationally look at the rest of the reply for some sort of later fulfillment.
So, are the subject accounts legitimate, are they genuine? The most that can be said is that their legitimacy has not been entirely refuted. In that case we have only the texts themselves to examine and decide if they have merit. Therefore the question becomes, besides any presumed fulfillment toward Jerusalem does the account contain any verifiable and unique fulfillment beyond Jerusalem?
Only Jerusalem?
It is at this point that the subject discussion becomes very involved, mostly because Jesus was asked two questions for which he gave one inclusive reply.
The Bible attributes to Jesus an answer to multiple questions having to do with his predicted decimation of the city of Jerusalem, his coming (Greek: parousia) and the end of the age (Greek: aionos). Specifically, Jesus was asked 1) when Jerusalem's predicted destruction would occur and 2) for the sign of his coming and of the end of the age. (See Matthew 24:3; Mark 13:4; Luke 21:7)
It is significant that Jesus was asked more than just when his predicted destruction of Jerusalem would take place. Naturally we should look for Jesus' answer regarding that event because he was asked about it; however, that was not the only event Jesus was asked about. Therefore it is also natural that we look for Jesus' answer to the other question put to him, namely for the sign of his parousia and the end of the age. Realizing that Jesus was asked multiple questions and that he provided a single, lengthy and inclusive reply, then we must ascertain from that reply which of his statements apply to which question asked. Since the destruction of Jerusalem was only one of two subjects of inquiry we must be careful not to read into the text that his answer to each inquiry relates to Jerusalem's destruction. We must thoughtfully let language in Jesus' reply direct conclusions about which inquiry he is providing answer to with certain of his expressions.
One problem facing those who would look for a modern fulfillment is that practically every Christian community has looked for a fulfillment of Jesus' words and quite often thought it was realized based upon what they were experiencing at the time. Most often those conclusions were drawn from experiencing war, pestilence, earthquakes, or some other event mentioned by Jesus in his reply. However, history indicates that most of the observable events described in his response have occurred with relatively the same frequency and intensity as we see today. For example, there is no firm basis to conclude that earthquakes are numerically or physically greater today than in the past. Another example is that of war. There has hardly been a generation that did not have some exposure to war, and some generations have experienced horrible war (e.g., the 100 years war). Therefore, based upon Jesus' reply, what can we look for today that would be any sort of unique fulfillment of Jesus' answer for a sign? That is the critical question.
At this point it is essential that we realize and carefully consider a fundamental aspect of our subject, that Jesus was asked two questions for which he offered one inclusive reply. In that case we must be careful not to arbitrarily apply each circumstance Jesus described toward each event questioned. Jesus was asked about different events so his response must be accordingly correlated. Also, each feature of Jesus' reply had to manifest itself as Jesus described for its fulfillment.
The two questions Jesus was asked are often construed as no more than a question about the destruction of Jerusalem. That explanation stems from the context of the subject text. Closely prior to asking their questions the Bible record has Jesus proclaiming a shocking event, namely the destruction of Jerusalem. Since the first question asked essentially is 'when will that happen' then many commentators and critics have explained that Jesus' entire reply was to a question of the same subject, the destruction of Jerusalem. However, there are perhaps insurmountable problems with that view. For example, Jesus was also asked for a sign of his coming (parousia). What does Jesus' parousia have to do with Jerusalem's destruction? When asking for a sign of Jesus' parousia what did those disciples have in mind? Had they thought that Jesus or his parousia would be responsible for or associated with Jerusalem's destruction? Had they ever heard of any parousia of Jesus'? If so, what was it?
Often Jesus spoke of God's Kingdom, and his disciples followed him as the Messiah, the savior, the one born king of the Jews, the holy one of God. For that reason Jesus' disciples-especially the 12 apostles-were constantly discussing and thinking about sharing in rulership with Jesus. Assuming his disciples knew anything about Jewish history, then certainly they understood that destruction of their capital city would not necessarily bring Jesus or any other Jew into power as king of God's Kingdom, nor would this event in itself provide means of knowing that Jesus rulership was near. (Normally destruction of a capital city does not denote nearness of or continuity of rulership held by the same nationality, in this case Jewish rulership.) Therefore, when Jesus disciples asked for a sign of Jesus parousia, they certainly were asking about when they could realize his return, with his kingship, or at least when this would be imminent, and there is no obvious correlation between Jesus' parousia and Jerusalem's destruction. In fact, any notions of grandeur associated with sharing in Jesus' rulership would naturally have been of concern after hearing that their capital city was to be destroyed. So, if anything, hearing of Jerusalem's destruction increased the curiosity of Jesus' closest followers to basically want to know, "Well, when will this destruction happen, and since our capital will be destroyed, how can we know when you are starting your rule?" This idea of ruling with Jesus had been primary on each of their minds, and they now wanted to know when this would be evidentially imminent. As far as questioning Jesus goes, this wanting to know when they could expect Jesus to begin ruling as a king was on their minds right up until Jesus ascension. (Acts 1:6,7) Did Jesus disciples have reason to connect "the end of the age" with Jesus rulership?
Quite recently before the incident of questioning and answering that we are discussing here Jesus had informed/reminded his disciples of his imminent death, his resurrection, and future kingdom rule. (Matthew 20:17-28) Also, prior to Jesus prediction that Jerusalem was to be destroyed he had alluded to his future kingship. (Matthew 22:41-45; Luke 20:44) On an earlier occasion Jesus had been asked by his followers to explain one of his illustrations in particular, that of the wheat and the weeds. In his reply, Jesus connected the 'end of the age' with kingdom rule. These facts are enough to reasonably conclude that Jesus' disciples had connected Jesus' return as king with the end of the age. It seems that much of the time Jesus disciples were preoccupied with the notion of having power as co-rulers with Jesus, so details referencing that subject would naturally be remembered and pondered. There is nothing to suggest Jesus' disciples had other things on their mind when they asked Jesus for a sign of his parousia. And, again, historically, Jesus coming or returning with kingly power-or any Jew for that matter-would have nothing to do with the destruction of the Jewish capital. Additionally, Jesus responded to his disciples' question as if he was being asked about when he would return with kingly power. Noticeably, Jesus, in his response, referred to himself at least twice, not just as returning, but as returning with power. It seems he understood the real meaning of his disciples' second question. (See Matthew 24:30; 25:1; 25:31)
Therefore, unless the question about Jesus parousia can be linked with Jerusalem's destruction then reading Jesus entire answer as if it applied to that single event is without merit.
Unique Fulfillment?
Responding to two questions asked Jesus' spoke of events that would occur and could or would be observed. Naturally examiners have considered those events and asked themselves questions like, "Is there anything unique about events Jesus offered supposedly as a sign?" and, "Are those events in evidence today?" and, "Have those events occurred in the past?"
Because many events described by Jesus have, for the most part, always been a part of life many critics naturally conclude that those events were never intended to be any sort of a sign or else the supposed answer for a sign is a false one. However, Jesus' response did more than describe observable events; it also described features of how those events could be observed (i.e., the extent of observation) and effects or potential effects of those observations (i.e., fear). So, a true examination of the answer attributed to Jesus must necessarily include more than a consideration of events, it must also consider how Jesus said events would be observed.
Primarily Jesus indicated that it would be his disciples that would or could recognize fulfillment of his answer. However, as part of his reply he also said those disciples would be scattered about preaching the gospel. That means that observable events would have to be observable to the same extent as Jesus' disciples were preaching because they were the ones indicated as able to realize fulfillment of Jesus' words. If it is true that Jesus had indicated global preaching then observable events described by Jesus must likewise be observable on a global scale with the potential effects he described, namely fear. For events to be observable on a global scale and have effects Jesus described then one of two things must occur. Either 1) each of those events must occur globally and concurrently-which has never happened-or else 2) each must be occurring concurrently and be observable via global communication, which communications must provide for the effects Jesus indicated (i.e., potential fear).
If parts of Jesus' answer were intended to have global application then events associated with those applications could only be rightly examined based upon whether they have ever happened concurrently on the right scale (global) or else communication allowed the observability of the same events on the right scale (global). Criticisms that deal with less are invalid. Considerations of the reply attributed to Jesus must consider all aspects of his answer, both the events and how their observation is depicted.
Historians know of no time period during which each event in Jesus' answer for a sign was manifest concurrently on a global scale. Therefore, since only within approximately the last 100 years has humankind had anything resembling true global communication-versus knowledge of global events-then it is possible that during this period Jesus' answer for a sign could uniquely find fulfillment. New questions arising are:
1. Have Jesus' words found fulfillment or potential for fulfillment in our day?
2. If so, according to Jesus' depiction, who would or could recognize that fulfillment?
3. Finally, according to Jesus answer, is recognition of any sign of Jesus' parousia or "the end" necessary for salvation?
Friend
Edited by - Friend on 11 August 2000 11:5:11