The Strange Mind of John

'
Background
It is time to break off from the Synoptic Gospel storyline and catch up with John. It is interesting to note that Matthew had Jesus enter Jerusalem at the start of Chapter 21 of his Gospel, which has 28 chapters total (~71% of the way through); Mark at Chapter 13 out of his 16 (~75%); Luke at Chapter 19 out of his 24 (~77%); while John mentioned it in Chapter 12 of his 21 total chapters (~54%).

This is a little fictitious, because the Gospel writers themselves did not arrange their texts into chapters; that was a much later invention. Still, the relative comparison is exhibits that John placed a significantly large percentage of his Gospel after Jesus' entry into Jerusalem; more than any other Gospel. We pick up this study in John's timeline right after that Triumphant entry.

The Strange Mind of John

If you are an emotional reader, if you probe out the deep meanings and ruminate on the essence of the text, the Gospel of John may seem like a bastion of the love and grace of God. But if you are detail oriented, if you take note of exactly what was said and you compare it against the rest of the text, the Gospel of John takes you on a strange journey, indeed. Verses which appear to be nothing less than divine in their messages are interwoven into a fabric of utter nonsense and palpable fiction, to say nothing of some morally challenging material as well. Join me as we journey into John's strange mind.

According to John 12:20-22, some Greeks (a.k.a. Gentiles) went to Jerusalem to worship during Passover, and they asked Philip (one of the Twelve Disciples) if they could meet with Jesus. Remember that premise, because it is not clear that John did.

In John 12:23-24 we find:

Jesus replied, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds." NIV

As we can see, this is a reply, and, given the context, this is specifically a reply to these Greeks asking for an audience with Jesus, but this reply has nothing to do with that request. Instead, it appears to be a reference to Jesus' upcoming death and resurrection, as well as being yet another reference to bad Biblical science right from the mouth of Jesus. A dead seed does not produce anything; the seed must survive in order to grow and produce more seeds.

Hold on tight, because the reply does not end there, and it will be a bumpy ride going forward.

In John 12:25, Jesus continued with:

"The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life." NIV

These are some pretty potent words here. Hate this life in order to gain an eternal one. John did not come up with this idea on his own. You may remember a previous study where Matthew and Luke also harped on this theme, to the extent of even hating your wife and children to gain eternal reward. This may be a vestigial sentiment representing the ascetic underpinnings of at least parts of the early Christian community. I say vestigial, because you will rarely run into Christians who practices that level of give-up-all-to-get-all devotion, but I think that is a good thing. Those who do have that level of devotion are a bit scary.

In John 12:26, Jesus said that you must follow and serve Him in order to be honored by God the Father, so nothing special there.

However, we do see something special in John 12:27, where Jesus said:

"Now My heart is troubled, and what shall I say? 'Father, save Me from this hour'? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour." NIV

Presumably speaking about His upcoming crucifixion, Jesus said that although He was not looking forward to the events ahead, He would not try to get out of them because they are the very reason that He was there on earth. This is the kind of divine insight the Gospel of John excels at, for how could it be any other way? Jesus knew His future and His purpose according to God's plan. Yet (as I discussed in some detail in a much earlier post) the other Gospel writers would have you believe that Jesus prayed to God to get out of the crucifixion if that was possible (Matthew 26:39, Mark 14:36, and Luke 22:42).

Just a quick reminder here: as far as the text indicates, it appears that it is still part of Jesus' reply to Philip regarding the Greeks.

In John 12:28-30 is a fun scene where Jesus told God to glorify Himself, and then God spoke about glorifying Himself, which the crowd thought was either the sound of thunder or an angel speaking. Jesus then informed the crowd that hearing God's voice was for their benefit. Presumably the "benefit" was to help those people believe that Jesus was who He was claiming to be. If only today we could hear from God that way, which He seemed so willing to do back then, we might have more believers and better Christians... On second thought, maybe we do hear from God that way today, every time there is a thunderstorm. ;-)

Of course, there is the question of whether or not there was supposed to be a "today" as we know it nearly 2000 years later. In John 12:31 Jesus said:

"Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out." NIV

Now "now" is a relative term, for sure. If we had only the first half of that verse, we could even stretch it out closer to being something akin to Thomas Paine's famous words "These are the times that try men's souls," referring to an ongoing process of judgement. However, with the addition of the "prince of this world" (a.k.a. Satan) being driven out "now" as well, this speaks more of the final time of judgement; Judgement Day. For John, the End was near as well. Yet in our times all too often I hear how "demonic forces are on the rise" from fundamentalists and other apocalyptic-minded believers, so apparently Satan has not been driven out at all, either now-back-then or now-now.

Continuing on from there, we see how quickly the theological excellence observed earlier gives way for awkward clumsiness. In John 12:32-34, Jesus continued:

"But I (Jesus), when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself." He said this to show the kind of death He was going to die.
The crowd spoke up, "We have heard from the Law that the Christ will remain forever, so how can you say, 'The Son of Man must be lifted up'? Who is this 'Son of Man'?" NIV

First, let us start with the editorial comment John made which I so enjoy: "He said this to show the kind of death He was going to die." It is amusing that John thinks that he knows the mind of Jesus/God so well as to fully understand Jesus' intents. Apparently, His ways are John's ways too. On the other hand, we should be grateful to John for clarifying this, because I would have thought that being "lifted up from the earth" might have instead referred to Jesus' ascension into Heaven.

But then again, I should not have thought along those lines. As you may remember from a previous study, in John 3:14 Jesus told us that He must be "lifted up" just like Moses lifted the bronze snake up in the desert. John 8:28 also mentions Jesus being "lifted up" as a reference to Jesus' death. (FYI, John is the only Gospel to mention Jesus being "lifted up.") However, it may have been confusing for the audience to whom Jesus was now speaking, given that they were probably not present for the previous "lifted up" references which happened long ago in the Gospel timeline. Indeed, that is what you find in the crowd's response... or at least John's telling of the crowd's response.

John's crowd appears to understand this as if Jesus is going away, which is contrary to what they know "from the Law." For those of you who may not know, "the Law" is a reference to the first five books of the Bible, and it is completely devoid of any mention of an anointed leader (a.k.a. a Messiah or Christ) lasting forever, so John messed up there.

You may have noticed another mistake John made: Jesus said "I am lifted up," but John wrote that the crowd quoted that Jesus had said that the "Son of Man must be lifted up" and then asked who the "Son of Man" is! This kind of bumbling mistake is likely either due to careless splicing of source material or John's chaotic mind working faster than what he was writing and getting lost in his place within the story.

We will close out this study with just a touch more of John's mental schism. In John 12:35, Jesus did not answer the crowd's questions, but instead He urged them to walk in the light while they still had it available. In John 12:36, He ends the discussion with:

"Put your trust in the light while you have it, so that you may become sons of light." When He had finished speaking, Jesus left and hid Himself from them. NIV

You will remember that we started this whole section with some Greeks who were looking to have an audience with Jesus. They were literally seeking a personal relationship with Jesus. But what we have here turns the platitude of "seek and you shall find" into a game of hide-and-seek, as Jesus hides away from both the crowd and the inquisitive Greeks. John has a severe continuity problem.

On a side note, I find it hilarious that Jesus told them to walk in and trust in the light, meaning that they should obey, follow, and believe Him, and then He (the light according to John 1:4, John 8:12, John 9:5) immediately hid Himself from them. I know if I wanted people to trust me, that is exactly how I would act. ;-)

The End on Hold

'
Background
Prompted by being asked, Jesus informed His followers of would be the signs indicating His return, Judgement Day, and the end of the world. There would be false Messiahs, wars, and disasters. His disciples would become witnesses to the world. The most horrendous in all of history, before or after, would occur; the Siege of Jerusalem. Then He would return with great power, and great judgement on all mankind, so they had better be on guard.

The End on Hold

We know that the Gospels were written decades after Jesus had been around. Precisely when each of the four Gospels was committed to ink in its present form is a matter of debate. Most scholars suggest Mark was written first, and that his Gospel provided much of the backbone for Matthew and Luke.

As we saw in the previous series, the implication of Jesus' prophesies about the end of the world was that it would be soon after the Siege of Jerusalem. Quite interestingly, that is about all Mark has to say about timing, but Matthew and Luke appear to emphasize there being some delay before Jesus would reappear. Luke scattered these delay-references throughout his Gospel, but Matthew consolidated his chosen delay-references for us within the section we are studying now.

It started back in the last chapter. You may remember from the previous study, in Matthew 24:45-51, and much earlier in the Luke 12:42-46 parallel, Jesus gave a parable comparing wise and foolish servants. Let us take a closer look at the timing mentioned in these parables.

In Matthew 24:48 we find:

"But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, 'My master is staying away a long time,'" NIV

The phrase "is staying away a long time" weakly implies that the servant knows roughly how long the master will be away. From this perspective, we can infer a way to make sense of this: Jesus had allegedly just given them a list of signs which would forecast His return, so His followers would know that nothing would happen until these signs came to pass. This would give deviant followers living in the span between the death of Jesus and the Siege of Jerusalem decades of time to slack off in their morality before straightening up for Jesus' return, as the parable itself suggests. While the cat is away, the mice will play.

However, in the Luke 12:45 version we see:

"But suppose the servant says to himself, 'My master is taking a long time in coming,' and he then begins to beat the menservants and maidservants and to eat and drink and get drunk." NIV

The phrase "is taking a long time in coming" instead weakly implies that the servant had expected the master back already, but it appears that the master is delayed for some reason. From this perspective, we can infer a different situation; that perhaps the signs have all happened (up to the Siege of Jerusalem and so Jesus' return was expected) but there is an unexplained delay in Jesus' return.

Because these are only weak implications, they could easily be wrong, or both them could be taken to mean either interpretation noted above. However, if the latter version is true, it could be somewhat revealing. It could subsequently imply something about the timing of when Matthew and Luke were written, in that it could mean that these two Gospels were written after the Siege, possibly by several years, at a time when life seemed to be returning to normal. The closer you get to normal after some catastrophic event, the less it seems like Jesus' return is just around the corner, and, in turn, that means the more doubt springing up from within the community of the faithful. A message like this could be used to motivate the community to stay in the faith despite the apparent lag in manifest divine glory.

Given that Mark, the earliest of these three Gospels, did not share this sentiment anywhere, it appears that this delay may be an addition to the original story. Somewhat contrary to this theory is the fact that Matthew and Luke share this particular content nearly identically, suggesting a relatively early tradition committed to writing at some point in time earlier than the Matthew and Luke themselves. But given that we still do not know exactly when these two Gospels came into being, that "relatively early" could easily be after the Siege.

Continuing to the next chapter, in Matthew 25:1-13 there is a parable about ten virgins who "went out to meet the bridegroom." Half of them were smart enough to bring oil for their lamps just in case they needed it, but the other half did not. When the bridegroom arrived, he ultimately rejected the five virgins who were not adequately oiled. It seems a little odd that the bridegroom would kick out five extra virgins over such a trivial mistake, but let us leave that alone. ;-) The key verse for us in regards to this study is Matthew 25:5:

"The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep." NIV

In case it was not obvious, the bridegroom represents Jesus. Given that we started with these virgins going out to meet the bridegroom, you have a sense that they expected him to be there, ready for them. Instead we see that it took a long time, longer than expected, for the bridegroom to arrive. This plays into the notion noted above; that perhaps Matthew was written in a time when people were already expecting for Jesus to have returned, and so these verses were written to keep the faithful flock in line. The End was put on hold, and yet held perpetually at the threshold of occurring.

In the next parable the point was briefly emphasized again. Matthew 25:14-28 contains the Parable of the Talents, which somewhat similar to the Parable of the Ten Minas which we studied before from Luke 19:11-27. As noted in the previous study, the many differences between these two parables combined with a similar backbone suggests that this was an oral tradition carried on verbally for a considerable amount of time before being written, much longer than the parable we started this study with, as well as perhaps some intentional "enhancement" of the parable by Luke. Anyway, there is one particular difference we should focus on relevant to the timing aspect. In Matthew 25:19 we find:

"After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them." NIV

"After a long time" also appears to be preparing believers for a longer than expected time frame for Jesus' return. If the comparison with Luke's version of the parable is valid, it appears that Matthew may have deliberately inserted the "long time" into the story, as Luke 19:15 does not mention anything about how long it took for the master to return. Luke also used this parable to speak about timing, but explicitly did so to explain that Jesus did not intend to establish the Kingdom of God the first time He was on earth in the flesh (Luke 19:11).

Matthew was generally pretty good at aggregating and consolidating information, and here we can see an example of his work. Back to back to back, we have seen three references where Matthew was trying to communicated that, contrary to what we may have guessed from the previous chapter, Jesus' return would not be immediately after the Siege of Jerusalem. In short, we have seen here how Matthew prepared his followers for a long wait; a wait which may have already been in progress at the time of writing the Gospel.

How about we end on a somewhat positive note? Closing out this chapter, in Matthew 25:31-46 Jesus relayed how, on Judgement Day, He would reward people according to what they had done. He explained that such good deeds as feeding the hungry, clothing the needy, and visiting people in prison were actually done to Him vicariously. On the other hand, if you did not help out these people in need, you vicariously rejected Jesus.

On the good side, this is a great way to motivate people to help other people. Followers should literally be thinking that what they are doing to help they are doing to Jesus Himself. Even if Christianity was a deliberate hoax (which I think is an inaccurate, or at least incomplete, assessment), with messages like these it is hard to say that it was a completely malignant hoax. You could argue that church leaders may have been becoming wealthy and powerful as the movement grew, but you would also have to acknowledge that the movement did, and still does, aid the marginalized people in society to some extent.

On the other hand, this message is the proverbial gun-to-the-head situation. Help the needy, or get punished. And it is not a proportional punishment, either. Matthew 25:41 sends those who provide no aid "into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels," and Matthew 25:46 confirms that this will be an "eternal punishment." This is one of the most explicit references to the eternally torturing fires of Hell that you find in Matthew. Some Christians who do not like the concept of eternal torture will instead argue that this just means either an eternal "separation from God" or an annihilation (as in, if you cease to exist, that is an eternal punishment). Eternal punishment, of any flavor, for not visiting people in prison seems a little bit extreme to me.

Finally, from another perspective, note that this is explicitly a works-based Salvation plan. Merely having faith in Jesus will not save you if you do not take action to feed the hungry, visit prisoners, clothe the poor, etc.

The End Back Then, Part 5: Be Ready

'
Background
A long time ago, Jesus was asked the questions which are on the minds of many believers even today: what would be the signs indicating His return, Judgement Day, and the end of the world. He warned of upcoming false Messiahs, wars, and disasters. He explained that His disciples would become witnesses to the world. He described the event which would be the most horrendous in all of history, before or after; the Siege of Jerusalem. That terrifying tribulation was promised to soon yield the His return and a powerful judgement on all mankind.

This is Part 5 of a five part series entitled "The End Back Then." The series entries are:

• Part 1: Rumors of Wars
• Part 2: Worldwide Witness
• Part 3: Temple Tragedy
• Part 4: Jesus' Return
• Part 5: Be Ready

The End Back Then, Part 5: Be Ready

Can you imagine the utter ecstasy faithful Christians will have the day that their Savior, Jesus Christ, returns? The God that they love more than any person in the world will come for them, and Jesus, who loved them enough to sacrifice His own life for them, will be overjoyed to finally destroy the metaphysical barriers keeping them from living together happily ever after. Should you be on guard for such a joyous occasion? We will find the answer to that question in our study.

Matthew 24:32-51, Mark 13:28-37, and Luke 21:29-36 (plus Luke 17:26-35) further suggest an imminent Judgement Day way back then, but emphasize being prepared for the Second Coming. So we find in Matthew 24:32-33, and similarly in Mark 13:28-29 and Luke 21:29-31, Jesus saying:

"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. Even so, when you see all these things, you know that [the Kingdom of God] is near, right at the door." NIV

You see the tender twigs, summer is near. You see "all these things" (contextually false messiahs, the wars, war rumors, natural disasters, the Gospel preached in the [known] world, and the siege of Jerusalem), then the Kingdom of God is "right at the door." We all know about how long it takes to enter the threshold of a door. It does not take about 2000 years.

The final nail in the prophesy-timing-failure coffin is recorded identically in Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30, and Luke 21:32 from Jesus' own mouth:

"I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." NIV

As we saw in the previous study, Jesus' Second Coming was part of "all these things" which were described. The generation living at that time has long since turned to dust, but we are still waiting for Jesus to deliver us. Well, some of us are, anyway. ;-)

You should be aware that there is some disagreement among scholars as to what is meant by "this generation." As we saw in the previous study, John Gill did not think that Matthew had been referring literally to the Second Coming of Jesus, so here he would essentially, and ironically, agree with me, saying posthumously:

"...it respects that present age, or generation of men then living in it; ... and must, since all these things had their accomplishment, in and about forty years after this..."

However, the word interpreted as "generation" here can also refer to "a people," so the scholars who instead agree with me that Matthew had previously described Jesus' return, such as John Darby, suggest alternately that the generation not passing away means something like things like:

"Unbelieving Jews should exist, as such, until all was accomplished."

So there you can see cognitive biases in two different polarities, and yet both are used to preserve their versions of the same truths. It is not the Bible that has contradictions; rather it is the Bible interpretations which are in contradiction. ;-) Each one drifts from the more obvious, more literal meaning, because to believe the words as they are written would mean either that God had failed to keep His word or that Jesus was not as advertised. Either option is unconscionable for the devoutly committed believer.

Moving on, Jesus said that His words would never pass away (Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33), which is essentially just a promise from Jesus/God that this prophesy would indeed come to pass exactly as described. But it has not gone according to plan...

Jesus then went on to explain how only God, the Father, knows when the exact day and hour will initiate Judgement Day and establish the Kingdom of God (Matthew 24:36, Mark 13:32). This is quite interesting, because it is an explicit differentiation between God the Father and Jesus. Jesus does not know something that God does know. That would seem impossible if Jesus was also God, so this verse (among others) has been used by those sects which claim that Jesus was not divine, or that Jesus was a creation of God instead of being part of God.

From there, the three accounts diverge a little in content, but focus on the same overall message: be vigilantly watchful for Jesus' return. Mark 13:33 puts it as:

"Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come." NIV

Now if you subscribe to any of the modern mainstream Christian teachings, this is a really dissonant verse. Modern Christianity harps on having a close, personal relationship with Jesus Christ, who is abounding with forgiveness and love. But if that is the case, why would you need to be "on guard" for when He shows up? What real close, personal friendship do you have with anyone in which you have to be on guard for when they show up, other than perhaps a sparring partner? The call for being on guard is because this is not a message of reconciliation and love, but rather a message of potential punishment and fear.

Mark 13:34-37 continues on with a parable about a master who left a servant in charge of his house, and how that master had better not find the servant sleeping, implicitly due to the punishment to be rendered. And with the parable portraying a master who goes away, how can you have a personal relationship with someone who is gone? (Mind you, this is before Facebook and cell phones, or even the post office.) Jesus never intended to have a close, personal relationship with anyone in this life, which is the reason for this warning about drifting from the faith. Matthew 24:42-51 has an "enhanced" version of this same parable, where the master will take such a deviant servant and "cut him to pieces."

Matthew 24:37-41 plays expands this theme of judgement, likening Jesus' return with the Flood of Noah. Just like the Flood, Judgement Day would come unexpectedly (despite all of the signs previously noted).

Luke 17:26-27 draws that same Flood comparison, but Luke 17:28-31 goes further in judgement references by citing the destruction of Sodom as a similar, unexpected, disastrous event. Luke 17:32-35 goes further still, reminding Jesus' followers that if they do not forsake this life, they will lose the eternal one. Punishment will come with Jesus, so be ready, or else...

And for anyone who still thinks that I err, and that this whole series has nothing to do with the Second Coming, the parallel of Luke 21:34-36 should dispel that notion:

"Be careful, or your hearts will be weighed down with dissipation, drunkenness and the anxieties of life, and that day will close on you unexpectedly like a trap. For it will come upon all those who live on the face of the whole earth. Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man." NIV

So what have we discovered in this series?

The timing is explicit: The fruition of these signs would occur in close proximity to the Siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE, though the precise day was unknown.

The scope is defined: These signs would ultimately herald in Jesus' Second Coming, Judgement Day, and the establishment of the Kingdom of God.

The failure is obvious: The Siege of Jerusalem did happen, but it did not usher in Judgement Day, Jesus' return, or the Kingdom of God. And that siege certainly was not the worst event in human history.

The way that Jesus ends this prophesy is significant. It is not with flowery words about how He will be looking forward to rejoining the love of His faithful followers, and bemoaning the losses of those who just would not yield to the light. It is a message of fear. It is a warning that they (Jesus' own followers) had better keep their act together, or else they would be severely punished. There is no hint of God's grace here at all.

It is funny that you do not commonly hear that message from the pulpit.

The End Back Then, Part 4: Jesus' Return

'
Background
We are tracing through the verses where Jesus described the events leading up to the end of the world. First He warned His disciples of upcoming false Messiahs, wars, and disasters. Then He explained that they would become witnesses to the world. He then went on to describe the ultimate in distress which would occur in the Siege of Jerusalem; horror which would never be equaled again. All of that terror would culminate in the return of Jesus...

This is Part 4 of a five part series entitled "The End Back Then." The series entries are:

• Part 1: Rumors of Wars
• Part 2: Worldwide Witness
• Part 3: Temple Tragedy
• Part 4: Jesus' Return
• Part 5: Be Ready

The End Back Then, Part 4: Jesus' Return

It would be impossible to mistake the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, right? I mean, that would be a major event worldwide... no, universe-wide! One way to mistake it would be to misinterpret metaphors; to change what the text means in order to suit your own beliefs. While some may accuse me of doing just that, I think we should turn to the text and let it define itself. And if that does not match reality, that does not necessarily mean that the interpretation is wrong. There is another possible outcome, as we will see while we examine the signs of Jesus' Second Coming.

In Matthew 24:23-31, Mark 13:21-27, Luke 17:22-24, and Luke 21:25-28 we find verses all describing when Jesus will return. Matthew 24:23, which is nearly a word-for-word copy of Mark 13:21, begins with a reference to timing:

"At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it." NIV

"At that time"? When was that? This is conjoined to the preceding text, where it was describing the Siege of Jerusalem, so we should logically conclude that this means at a point in time in relatively close proximity to then.

Matthew 24:24-25 and Mark 13:22-23 go on to warn not to follow miracle-working false Christs who will try to trick the Elect, which is impossible, but they will try anyway. Of course, if tricking the Elect is impossible, then why bother warning them not to follow these miracle workers?

Wait just a minute. Miracle-working false Christs? Who, exactly, is giving them the power to work miracles?

The knee-jerk Christian reflex would be to say that it is Satan who is behind this, but that is just because most Christians either do not know or selectively ignore parts of the Bible. The deceivers likely come from God Himself.

What?!?! Oh yes. First, from where does all power ultimately come? God. But if that is not enough proof, I should remind you that tests of deception, up to and including miracle-working prophets, are part of God's playbook (Deuteronomy 13:1-5). So when you read in 2 Thessalonians 2:9-11 that "God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie," you know what we are talking about here.

Now you may have noticed that I have been silent on Luke's account. There is a reason for that. While Luke does warn of being led to false Christs, he wisely edited out the thought that they would be able to work miracles (Luke 17:23). That is not all the editing he did. Luke apparently was not a fan of the concept of the Elect, because he edited out that reference from his Gospel; both here and everywhere else!

Moving on, we hit one of those really odd patches of verses where Matthew and Luke both have content that Mark does not have. In Matthew 24:27-28, Jesus told His disciples that His return would be visible all over the world like a flash of lightning, and that vultures gather around corpses. I am not really sure what that last part about the vultures is supposed to mean, and I am not particularly satisfied by any of the explanations given in the classic commentaries. However, Luke takes a crack at it for us.

In Luke 17:24, Jesus also explained about His lightning-like visibility on His return. Then, a little later in Luke 17:37, we find a similar vulture-related comment. Luke 17:35-36 does provide some contextual meaning for these vultures, because in those verses Jesus explained that when He returned, certain people would be "taken." So when we get to Luke 17:37, a disciple asked "Where?," as in where will these people be taken? It is then that Jesus replied about vultures gathering around corpses, which still leaves the verse a bit open for interpretation despite Luke's added context, because, for example, we do not know if it is the good people or the bad people who are "taken". The idea of the gathering of the Elect (which we will see a little later) would suggest it is the good ones who are taken, but then, metaphorically, they are the vultures gathering around the corpse, which seems exceedingly odd.

Next we come to the shared sentiment of Matthew 24:29 and Mark 13:24-25:

"Immediately after the distress of those days
  'the sun will be darkened,
    and the moon will not give its light;
  the stars will fall from the sky,
    and the Heavenly bodies will be shaken.'" NIV

Note the time frame again: immediately following those days, referring to the Siege of Jerusalem. Immediately is a relative term, for sure, and within the span of five or so years could be a reasonable interpretation, but two thousand years... not so much.

Besides the timing, what does the rest of that verse mean? Sun darkened? Moon not giving its light? (That, by the way, is another tell of bad Biblical science, given that the moon does not produce light of its own.) Stars falling? Heavens shaking? Sounds like some miraculous metaphysical manipulation! While this could be meant literally, like the Plague of Darkness on the Egyptians, this is most likely to be metaphorical, but what does the metaphor mean?

Classic Bible commenter John Gill suggests that the darkened sun refers to "...the Shekinah, or the divine presence in the temple...", i.e. God leaving the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, and the darkened moon refers to "...the [Jewish] ceremonial law, the moon, the church is said to have under her feet, Revelation 12:1 so called because the observance of new moons was one part of it..." The problem is that Jesus already took care of this. God left the Temple when the curtain was torn (Matthew 27:51, Mark 15:38, Luke 23:45), and Jesus allegedly ended ceremonial law too. So that is a nice try, but let us let Scripture guide the interpretation instead.

In Isaiah 5:30, Isaiah 13:10, Ezekiel 32:7, Joel 2:10, Joel 2:31, Joel 3:15, Amos 8:9, and Micah 3:6 you find similar references to these celestial signs. In fact, let us take a look at Ezekiel 32:7 for example:

"When I (God) snuff you (Egypt) out, I will cover the heavens and darken their stars; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon will not give its light." NIV

Given that this language is applied to Egypt, we can know with some certainty that this is no allusion to God leaving the Temple or the end of Jewish ceremonial law. ;-) However, what you probably picked up on in this verse is God's judgement of condemnation.

Darkening the sun, the moon, and the stars is a metaphor which is connected with God's judgement, and it means that essentially that the subjects of this judgement are without hope. There is no sun to light their path by day. There is no moon to track the months to tell the seasons. There are no stars to guide them. In short: at that point, there is no way that they can escape their judgement.

You may have noticed the multiple references above in Joel. Take a quick read through Joel 2 and you will see that this metaphor here in the Gospels was most likely meant as a reference to the Judgement Day.

Continuing on, Matthew 24:30 and Luke 21:27-28 both share the sentiment of what Mark 13:26 concisely expressed:

"At that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory." NIV

Again we see that this is to occur at "that time." By Biblical prophesy standards, all of these time references are pretty darn precise, and all point to the time around the Siege of Jerusalem and the time soon thereafter.

Now, what does that phrase "see the Son of Man coming in clouds" mean? Well, our friend John Gill thinks that it is a metaphor; that "...he (Jesus) shall appear, not in person, but in the power of his wrath and vengeance, on the Jewish nation which will be a full sign and proof of his being come." Indeed, there are other verses where God's vengeance came with clouds, such as Isaiah 19:1, Isaiah 30:27, Lamentations 2:1, and the above-quoted Ezekiel 32:7.

So Gill's suggestion on this verse is reasonable and closer to the mark, but he is still way off target. God's vengeance would be displayed, but in the much larger context Judgement day. The verse itself was likely inspired by and intended to allude to Daniel 7:13-14:

"In my (Daniel's) vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed." NIV

Does that sound like anyone we are supposed to know? ;-) Conveniently for us, this prophesy is explicitly explained in Daniel 7:23-27, with another reference to 3.5 years ("a time, times and half a time") like we saw in my earlier post on the Temple destruction which quoted a different prophesy from Daniel. Daniel's prophesy stated that at the end of this three and a half years there would be a swift act of judgement, and then God's eternal kingdom would be established!

Make no mistake. What Jesus allegedly prophesied here is the end of the world, and the timing was explicitly claimed to be shortly after the fall of the Temple. In fact, stepping up to the earlier verse with the celestial signs, there is the curious mention that the stars would fall from the heavens. There is only one Old Testament reference to stars actually falling: Isaiah 34:4. Isaiah 34 is a prophesy of judgement against all nations. This was an explicit reference to Jesus coming back, in person (Revelation 1:7), initiating the final Judgement Day.

Closing out this prophesy, that is why in Matthew 24:31 and Mark 13:27 you see that at that time Jesus would send forth angels to gather the Elect from the four winds (another bad Biblical science reference). The Elect would be saved from experiencing the intense tribulation of that dreadful day. This is but an echo of prior Old Testament prophesies, as we see in Ezekiel 34:12:

"As a shepherd looks after his scattered flock when he is with them, so will I (God) look after my sheep. I will rescue them from all the places where they were scattered on a day of clouds and darkness." NIV

The End Back Then, Part 3: Temple Tragedy

'
Background
Jesus told the disciples who had been impressed by the Temple in Jerusalem that it would be utterly destroyed. Shocked, the disciples soon asked Jesus when that would happen, when would He return, and when would be the end of the world. Jesus replied in somewhat vague, but lengthy detail. First He warned them of upcoming false Messiahs, wars, and disasters. Then He told them how they would become witnesses to the world. The worst was yet to come...

This is Part 3 of a five part series entitled "The End Back Then." The series entries are:

• Part 1: Rumors of Wars
• Part 2: Worldwide Witness
• Part 3: Temple Tragedy
• Part 4: Jesus' Return
• Part 5: Be Ready

The End Back Then, Part 3: Temple Tragedy

Never again. Powerful, defiant words. They are a steadfast resolution and a promise of a better future. If spoken by God, they should have even more significance, because we know that God would never go back on His word. Ironically, that is how we know Jesus' words to be false, as we will see in this study.

In the sections of Matthew 24:15-21, Mark 13:14-19, and Luke 21:20-24 we find Jesus' "prophetic" words regarding the Siege of Jerusalem which would occur 70 CE. However, this was allegedly not prophesied by Jesus originally, as Mark 13:14 infers and Matthew 24:15 directly alludes to like so:

"So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— " NIV

An abomination that causes desolation? Mentioned by Daniel? What is that about? I went into this particular prophesy of Daniel's in detail in an earlier post, so check that out if you want a bigger picture, but let me give you a quick breakdown here of the esoteric prophesy to "let the reader understand":

This is a reference to Daniel 9, and particularly the prophesy contained in Daniel 9:24-27, which is known as the Prophesy of Seventy Weeks. The "weeks" are normally interpreted as groups of seven years, so we are referring to a prophesy of 490 years here. At the end of this time, sins would be atoned for and there would be everlasting righteousness.

Most of the exciting stuff in the prophesy occurs in the final "week," and that is precisely the time period Jesus referred to here. In those final seven years:

• The anointed Jewish ruler will be cut off, replaced by a foreign ruler (or at least a non-anointed ruler)
• That foreign ruler will rule for seven years
• That foreign ruler will make promises to many
• That foreign ruler will put an end to sacrifices and offerings in 3.5 years
• That foreign ruler will set up an "abomination which causes desolation" in the Temple which will remain there until the ruler's preordained end.
• Jerusalem and the Temple will be destroyed at some point by this foreign ruler's people
• At the end of this seven-year rule, God will make atonement for the Jewish people, put an end to sin, and establish everlasting righteousness.

Cognitive bias being the issue it is, most Christians focus on the foreign ruler (the Romans), the stopping of sacrifices (Jesus rendering sacrifices unnecessary), the promise with many (Jesus new covenant), the atonement for sins (Jesus' sacrifice), and the Temple's destruction by a foreign army (Romans, 70 CE) and think that this is a miraculously accurate prophesy.

And it does seem that way... if you ignore some very important details, such as the fairly major points that Roman dominion lasted far longer than seven years, that the Jewish sins would have been atoned for way back when Jesus died, and that there has yet to be any end of sin, or the start of everlasting righteousness for that matter, in roughly 2000 years afterward. :-)

As for what the "abomination which causes desolation" means, and what this "prophesy" is actually referring to, it probably has much more to do with what occurred under the rule of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175 to 164 BCE) which lead to the Maccabean Revolt. In fact, in the Catholic canonical Bible book of 1 Maccabees, verse 54 explicitly refers to such an abomination:

Now the fifteenth day of the month Casleu, in the hundred forty and fifth year, they set up the abomination of desolation upon the altar, and builded idol altars throughout the cities of Judea on every side; KJV

Of course, that episode did not end with eternal righteousness either, but even a cursory glance over that history reveals a much better match with Daniel's prophesy overall than the siege in 70 CE.

Anyway, the rest of Matthew 24:15-21, Mark 13:14-19, and Luke 21:20-24 primarily describes just how boot-shakingly terrifying this time period will be, such that you are better off just fleeing the area without worrying about gathering up your prized possessions. Then, in Mark 13:19 we find an incredible statement, which is echoed more succinctly by Matthew 24:21:

"For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again." NIV

Did you catch that? This was going to be the absolutely most distressing event to ever occur! The Flood of Noah? The plagues on Egypt prior to the Exodus? Pssh. They were to be merely children's nightmares compared to the real distress of that time. Furthermore, and most importantly, Jesus said that the distress of that period would never be equaled again! So all of the horrific events prophesied in Revelation could not possibly take place unless it has already take place back during the siege of Jerusalem, because the terrors described therein from chapters 6-20 would undoubtedly cause not only equal, but outright greater distress than what happened during that siege.

From this, we can discern either that Scriptures, including Jesus' own alleged words, are wrong, or that God is a liar. Given that I am fairly certain that this God does not exist, I suspect the former option is the right one, but either one is not good for Christianity.

Just in case you think I am misunderstanding the scope of distress here, we should check out the next verse. Matthew 24:22 says essentially the same thing that we see in Mark 13:20:

"If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the Elect, whom He has chosen, He has shortened them." NIV

No one would survive! God would not even be able to keep His Elect alive! That is a time of some serious tribulation!

Curiously, Luke, "the editor" as I like to call him, wisely redacted this sentiment. Not only that, but if you really compare Luke 21:20-24 to Matthew 24:15-21 and Mark 13:14-19, you see that that is not the only important change Luke made. He also recast this event as "the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written." So this was to be a judgement day of sorts, where God unleashed His wrath on the Jews, but only on the Jews. This was not to be the Judgement Day. The fact that Luke could differentiate the Siege of Jerusalem from the real "end" suggests that Luke was writing his Gospel at some considerable amount of time after the siege and Temple destruction took place.

In contrast, the lack of discernment on this matter in Matthew and Mark suggests rather that they were written much closer to the time of the Siege. However, Matthew has not proven himself to be much of an editor in his Gospel, so he may have written it much later like Luke, but, like a high-school cheater, got caught copying the wrong answer off of Mark who was "sitting next to him," so to speak.

The End Back Then, Part 2: Worldwide Witness

'
Background
While in Jerusalem, Jesus' disciples marveled at the grandeur of the Temple, but Jesus then told them that it would be completely destroyed. This enticed them to ask Jesus when the Temple would be destroyed, when He would return, and when the end of the world would be. Jesus began His reply by warning them of upcoming false Messiahs, wars, and disasters.

This is Part 2 of a five part series entitled "The End Back Then." The series entries are:

• Part 1: Rumors of Wars
• Part 2: Worldwide Witness
• Part 3: Temple Tragedy
• Part 4: Jesus' Return
• Part 5: Be Ready

The End Back Then, Part 2: Worldwide Witness

Just how big is the world? That is a relatively easy question for us to answer today, but 2000 years ago that was not so easy to know accurately. Frankly speaking, there was far less reason to know or care about how big the world really was 2000 years ago, and that would be especially true if you believed that God had given your people a select plot of land. We will see some of that geographical bias while we work through this study, as we continue on in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21:5-37 (plus Luke 17:22-37) to review the several signs provided by Jesus which harken the end of the world.

Matthew 24:9, Mark 13:9, and Luke 21:12 are in a little bit of disagreement on the precise timing on the next given signs. Mark, the likely original source for Matthew and Luke, simply tells us that the disciples will be handed over to the authorities and will witness to them. Both Matthew and Luke felt the need to clarify exactly when the witnessing to the authorities would happen, but unfortunately they disagree. Did I say unfortunately? I meant hilariously. Matthew says that this handing over will happen "then," as in after of the wars, rumors of wars, and natural disasters. Luke, on the other hand, claims that the handing over will happen "before all this." We will see why Luke chose the early path in a moment.

The Gospel of Mark was likely the source material for this section for both Matthew and Luke, but Matthew significantly reconfiguring Mark's content. For example, if you compare this episode's text in Mark 13:9-13 with the sending out of the Twelve Apostles on their first mission in Matthew 10:17-21, you will see very similar verses in similar order. But when we get to the "contemporaneous" recording of Matthew 24:9-14, the order has changed, and the words regarding family members betraying each other and how the Holy Spirit will speak through the disciples are absent.

What about Luke? While there is some extensive rewording, Luke 21:12-19 has essentially the same content as Mark 13:9-13, with one exception. But before we get to the exception, there is one particularly interesting elaboration in the rewording we find in Luke 21:15

"For I [Jesus/God] will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict." NIV

Now that would be a really powerful sign of the presence of God! To have God provide wording which could neither be resisted nor contradicted by your adversaries would be amazing. And with that kind of power, the whole world would quickly be converted to believing in Jesus. Of course, that is not the case. There is a lot of resistance to Christian evangelism, and contradictions to known facts and Scriptures are some of the reasons for the resistance. Through God's power, we could not even get the Scriptures themselves free of contradictions, so what does that tell you?

Now, about that exception in Luke; for perspective, let us take a quick look at Matthew 24:14 and Mark 13:10, giving Mark's Gospel the proper primacy:

Mark 13:10 (NIV)	Matthew 24:14 (NIV)
And the gospel must first be preached to all nations.	And this gospel of the Kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

We see that Mark's words are a little ambiguous. What exactly does he mean that the Gospel "must first" be preached? Does that mean that it will be preached before the wars and tribulations previously prophesied, or does it mean before the end of the world? The answer to that question depends on which other Synoptic Gospel you consult. As we can see here, Matthew clarified what Mark had originally intended. Luke, on the other hand, dropped the explicit reference here to preaching to all nations, but preserved his perceived early timing of event. That is why we found the contradiction noted above, where Luke said that this witnessing would occur "before all of this," as in before the wars and tribulations.

Now what exactly does it mean to preach the Gospel to all nations, or to the whole world? If it means to preach the Gospel to each and every person in the entire world, that will never happen, so perhaps we should focus on the "all nations" aspect. Some amount of preaching must reach each nation. Has that already happened? Yes, but in the sense of how the Jews understood the world at that time, it happened much sooner than what we, today, would have thought possible, because their world was much smaller.

There are several references in the Old Testament portraying a very small world, and a much flatter world at that. Just search for the phrase "ends of the earth" for example. The phase itself is nonsense taken literally. It is like being in a round room and being told to sit in the corner. There is no "end" to this sphere we live on, unless you consider the earth's crust as its end, in which case all of the land masses count as the ends the earth. This is a vestigial relic in our vernacular which is based on a primitive understanding. We can only understand it today when taken to metaphorically mean "the most remote places" or geo-egocentrically to mean the places far away from us. But the "ends of the earth" of the Bible had a much more literal meaning, a meaning made clear in the following four representative quotes:

Deuteronomy 28:64
Then the LORD will scatter you among all nations, from one end of the earth to the other. There you will worship other gods—gods of wood and stone, which neither you nor your ancestors have known. NIV

Ezra 1:2
“This is what Cyrus king of Persia says: “‘The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and he has appointed me to build a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah. NIV

Psalm 74:17
It was you who set all the boundaries of the earth; you made both summer and winter. NIV

Isaiah 41:9
I took you from the ends of the earth, from its farthest corners I called you. I said, ‘You are my servant’; I have chosen you and have not rejected you. NIV

It is difficult to scatter people from one end to the other of a sphere. Cyrus the Great allegedly claimed to be given all the kingdoms of the earth by God, but his empire never stretched beyond the Greece in the west or India in the east. God set boundaries for the earth, which is not logical for a sphere. And in the final quote, it is referring to to return of the Jews from exile; the event alluded to in the alleged quote from Cyrus. Obviously, the Jews had not been sent to the farthest corners of the earth relative to Jerusalem.

Just in case you think this problem is limited to the Old Testament; think again. You find references to the "ends of the earth" in Matthew 12:42, Mark 13:27, Luke 11:31, Acts 1:8, Acts 13:47, Romans 10:18, Revelation 7:1, and Revelation 20:8. Revelation actually one-ups the simple "ends of the earth" by referring to the four corners of the earth, as if it was a square or rectangle. But most significant are the words from Jesus Himself, because He, of all people and deities, should know better. Check out these Jesus quotes:

Matthew 12:42
"The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon’s wisdom, and now something greater than Solomon is here." NIV

Acts 1:8
"But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." NIV

The first verse is a reference to the Queen of Sheba visiting the Israelite King Solomon. She came from the "ends of the earth," or which was likely Ethiopia or northwestern Yemen. That is not even the "end" of the African continent, let alone the end of the earth.

The second verse is a reference to Pentecost, when the Disciples received the Holy Spirit and so they spoke in tongues. Per Jesus' own words, it was precisely these Disciples who would be the witnesses to the ends of the earth, which is laughable given that they never made it to the Americas, or even Australia. Not only that, it seems that Saul/Paul was the main evangelist for the Gentiles, not these Disciples. Yet Jesus thought that these guys would be the witnesses to cover the world. Fail!

Considering this perspective, we can ultimately see how relatively little effort and time would be required to spread to all the nations of the world, at least as far as the Gospel writers understood it. They thought the goal of spreading the Gospel to the whole world was achievable, and achieved, within their lifetimes.

The End Back Then, Part 1: Rumors of Wars

'
Background
While in the Temple courtyard in Jerusalem, Jesus said that He was not the son of David. Observing a poor widow donated all the money she had to the Temple, Mark and Luke recorded how Jesus taught a lesson to His disciples. Before that lesson was given, Mark and Luke record how Jesus rebuked the Teachers of the Law. Matthew expanded that condemnation for most of a chapter.

This is Part 1 of a five part series entitled "The End Back Then." The series entries are:

• Part 1: Rumors of Wars
• Part 2: Worldwide Witness
• Part 3: Temple Tragedy
• Part 4: Jesus' Return
• Part 5: Be Ready

The End Back Then, Part 1: Rumors of Wars

"The time has come," [Jesus] said. "The Kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!" NIV

So were Jesus' first words of public ministry, according to Mark 1:15. They carry a certain sense of immanency. The time has come. The Kingdom of God is near. It is hard to imagine that these words are applicable to something which has not yet happened in the roughly 2000 years since when they were written. Should we still be waiting to see the Kingdom of God? That depends on how you see the signs.

Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21:5-37 (plus Luke 17:22-37) all record several signs, provided by Jesus, which would be the harbingers of the eternal Kingdom of God being established. With the Kingdom would come the end; the end of sin, and the cessation of all of the trials and tribulations of the world as we know it today. Or is "today" too far along in time from these prophesies? Careful consideration of these verses should reveal to us whether or not the end was thought to be back then, or something we should still be expecting.

The prophetic stage is set when some of Jesus' disciples expressed how glorious the Temple in Jerusalem was, and then Jesus replied that it would be completely destroyed (Matthew 24:1-2, Mark 13:1-2, Luke 21:5-6). That shocking statement was the impetus for the question asked in Mark 13:3-4 and Luke 21:7, but most clearly rendered in Matthew 24:3:

As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" NIV

The "this happen" refers to the destruction of the Temple. The "your coming" refers to Jesus' Second Coming, when His Kingdom will be established (Matthew 16:28). The "end of the age" is only slightly trickier to parse out due to the word "age" being used. What does that mean? It comes from the Greek word transliterated as "aiōnos," which is a more emphatic form of "aiōn." The base "aiōn" is an era or age representing a cycle of time, so the emphatic "aiōnos" would be a reference to the greater cycle of time, as in what has been collectively known human existence, and in contrast to the promised eternal era to come with God's Kingdom. You could easily swap out "end of the world" for that final phrase and still have essentially the same meaning. Indeed, several Bible translations do just that.

OK. So how does Jesus reply to these questions that everybody wants to know?

Jesus began by warning of many people who would show up and falsely claim to be the Messiah (Matthew 24:4-5, Mark 13:5-6, Luke 21:8). This is a somewhat vague claim. While we know there have been many false Messiah's, we do not know how many we should expect. It is possible that there were already several false Messiahs wandering around shortly after Jesus' death, which is suggested by 2 Corinthians 11:4, just like how there were allegedly already many antichrists back then (1 John 2:18). So this prophetic point is not much help.

Next, we have the promise of a tumultuous time with "wars and rumors of wars," where nations battle nations, and there are accompanying disasters like famine and earthquakes (Matthew 24:6-8, Mark 13:7-8, Luke 21:9-11). So we have even more vagueness; signs of the types of things which have happened throughout the history of civilization. How can we possibly differentiate between wars or famines which are "signs" and those which are just "normal?" (That question is only valid if you believe that wars, natural disasters, etc. occur without God's control, but that is a topic for a whole other study!)

There is one other oddity. That bit about "rumors of wars" is telling of the time period with which this prophesy applies. We are beyond "rumors" of war. In our inter-connected world, we can know with certainty, via satellite and social media, within such a short time to make the concept of a "rumor" of a war laughable. There either is one, or there is not one, but such was far from the case 2000 years ago. (Unless you include the "war on Christmas," which is truly a figment of the imagination!) Now in Luke's version, the rumors of wars are replaced by "revolutions," suggesting even more turbulence. Let us close out this study with a look at the chaos of that era, and the possible causes of some rumors.

There were, indeed, wars after Jesus. While people usually know about the Roman Empire, not many know about the competing empire of that time; the Parthians. The buffer zone in between these two mighty powers was largely made up of the Kingdom of Armenia, situated to the northeast of Jerusalem, and comprising land which is now part of northern Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Azerbaijan, as well as the present-day nation of Armenia. So here is a short timeline of some of the conflicts and instability following the life of Jesus:

36 CE	The decision of the Parthian King Artabanus II to place his son on the vacant Armenian throne triggered a brief war between Parthia and Rome.
43-96 CE	The Roman conquest of Britain
51 CE	Iberian prince Rhadamistus conquered Armenia. Paelignus, Roman governor of Cappadocia, invaded and ravished western Armenia.
~53-54 CE	Parthian King Vologases invaded Armenia, driving out Rhadamistus, but retreated due to a harsh winter epidemic, allowing Rhadamistus to reclaim the kingdom.
54 CE	The people of Armenia revolted and overthrew Rhadamistus. Parthian King Vologases I then installed his brother, Tiridates, on the Armenian throne.
58-61 CE	The Hyrcanians, in the region near the southern end of the Caspian Sea, rebelled against the Parthians.
58-59 CE	War erupted in 58 AD between Rome and Parthia in Armenia, where Roman forces forced the Parthian rulers out of Armenian. The Romans gave the Armenian throne to Tigranes VI.
60-61 CE	On the island of Britain, Queen Boudica led the Iceni tribe in rebellion against the Romans.
61 CE	Tigranes VI invaded Adiabene, a Parthian provence.
62-63 CE	Parthian King Vologases I and his brother Tiridates aggressively counter-attacked in Armenia, conquering the Roman general Paetus in an embarrassing fashion. But negotiations resulted in Tiridates accepting the Armenian crown from Nero in Rome.
65 CE	Gaius Calpurnius Piso and others led a conspiracy to claim the Roman crown and slay Nero, but the conspiracy was discovered before its plans were enacted.
66-70 CE	The first Jewish-Roman war, started over religious disputes and taxation, and ended with Jerusalem conquered and the Temple destroyed by the Roman general Titus.
68 CE	Gaius Julius Vindex of Spain rebelled against Nero's tax policy. Nero sent Vitellius to crush the rebellion.
68-69 CE	The Year of the Four Emperors of Rome. Galba was voted to be Caesar, prompting Nero to flee and commit suicide. Galba started killing all those who opposed him. Otho bribed the Praetorian Guard for a coup d'état' against Galba. Otho seemed to be a better ruler, but Vitellius marched from Germany to claim the throne. Otho was defeated in the Battle of Bedriacum, and then committed suicide in the hopes of stabilizing the empire. Vitellius was named Caesar, but he, too, ruthlessly killed opponents, and extended the same violence to any possible heirs. He nearly bankrupted the empire with parties every day. Meanwhile, many eastern parts of the empire claimed Vespasian as their emperor. Before the eastern legions could reach Rome, Vespasian gained even more support in the empire. Vespasian's forces, led by Marcus Antonius Primus, invaded Italy. In October, the forces led by Primus won a crushing victory over Vitellius' army at the Second Battle of Bedriacum. Vespasian took the throne.

What is the point of this history lesson? There were surely many wars, rumors of wars, and revolutions occurring in the time immediately following Jesus' life, relatively speaking. Furthermore, the conflicts and instability ramped up in intensity and frequency toward 70 CE. So this first part of the "prophesy" was already fulfilled a long, long time ago. These verses were not meant to serve as a warning to us, but rather to those who lived, and died, centuries upon centuries before our time. Or, perhaps more likely, they were written about these events after the fact, in order to bolster the claims of Jesus' imminent second arrival.

These signs of wars and natural disasters were to be "the beginning of birth pains." So the end was not to come exactly when these particular signs appeared, but it was, as the metaphor implies, the beginning of the birth turbulent of the Kingdom of God. While some mothers may argue that they were in pain "forever" while giving birth, we know that birth pains mean that the child will imminently be delivered. We should not expect that the Kingdom of God has yet to be delivered today, roughly 2000 years since the birth pains began.

Oral Banquet

'
Background
In the Temple courtyard in Jerusalem, Jesus was confronted by the Chief Priests, Pharisees, elders, and Teachers of the Law. They questioned Jesus about His authority to teach, but Jesus stopped their inquisition by asking them a question of His own about John the Baptist's baptism (Matthew 21:23-27, Mark 11:27-33, Luke 20:1-8). Then, with a parable, Jesus accused these leaders of not doing God's will, which was to follow John the Baptist's ways of repentance and righteousness (Matthew 21:28-32). Next, with the Parable of the Tenants, Jesus explained the Kingdom of God would be taken from them, and instead given to others.

Oral Banquet

Before the Gospels were written down, they were just a collection of remembered stories. Mark was the first of the Synoptic Gospels to collectively commit these stories to writing; at least some of them. Matthew and Luke both had additional stories to tell beyond the backbone rendered by Mark. Sometimes, Matthew and Luke had the same extra stories to tell. Well, almost the same. As we know from the telephone game, oral stories often lose some fidelity in their transmission. We will see some classic fidelity loss, and some theological issues, as we examine the Parable of the Grand Banquet/Wedding Feast.

Matthew 22:1-14 and Luke 14:16-24 both give us the same parable, in a manner of speaking. It is a parable of scorn directed against the Jews, or at least the Jewish elite of the Pharisees, Chief Priests, etc., and it goes like this:

A man (God) arranged a big banquet (Salvation/the Kingdom of God) and invited guests (Jews/Jewish elite) to it. When the banquet was ready, he sent for the guests, but those he had invited opted not to come to the banquet. The man got angry at these ungracious guests. So he invited anyone else that could be found (non-Jews/non-Jewish-elite/Gentiles) to eat at the banquet instead of the originally invited guests. (My paraphrase)

The core message of Matthew's and Luke's parable is the same. If you read either version right now, my paraphrase will match it. This suggests that the parable had the same original source. Unfortunately, that original source carried a huge theological blunder...

Through the parable, we see that God invited the Jews to His Kingdom, but they rejected it, so the Gentiles are coming in instead. This paints the Salvation of the Gentiles as an afterthought. Only because the original invitees rejected the invitation do these others get a shot at entering His Kingdom.

Quickly, we should also note that this parable contains an implied indicator that God's Kingdom was coming soon... way back then. Matthew 22:4 and Luke 14:17 both emphasize how the banquet was "now" ready. This is just a little more evidence that the end was near, or so they thought.

Despite both of these being the same core parable from the same original source, thanks to oral history fidelity loss, and perhaps each author's unique adjustments, Matthew's and Luke's version vary in significant ways:

	Matthew	Luke
Type of Banquet	Wedding feast for the king's son (Jesus) - Matthew 22:2	A great banquet hosted by a certain man - Luke 14:16
The Host's Messenger(s)	Multiple servants (prophets) - Matthew 22:3-4	Single servant (Jesus?) - Luke 14:17
Type of Rejection	Refused, ignored, mistreated and killed the servants - Matthew 22:3-5	Excuses - Luke 14:18-20
The Host's Anger	Sent an army to destroy the city (destruction of Jerusalem 70 C.E.) - Matthew 22:7	Refusal to let the original invitees taste the banquet - Luke 14:24
Alternate Guests	Anyone, good and bad - Matthew 22:9-10	First the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame, then anyone - Luke 14:21-23
Host's Own Rejection	The king rejected someone who had shown up without wedding clothes - Matthew 22:11-13	N/A
Additional Corollary	Many are invited, but few will be chosen - Matthew 22:14	N/A

Matthew's completely unique content of the host's rejection of a guest on the end of the parable may have already been included by the time he heard the story. However, as mentioned in several other studies, Matthew appears to have had a tendency for aggregating material into his Gospel and adapting it as necessary. So it seems also possible, if not probable, that he wove this concept into his story from another small anecdote.

This would not be at all surprising for Matthew to do, especially when we consider another apparent and significant alteration: multiple servants who were mistreated and killed. These servants metaphorically represent the prophets that had been sent to the Jews by God throughout time, and it mimics the how the type of metaphorical servants were treated in the Parable of the Tenants which appears immediately before this one in Matthew's Gospel. So it appears that Matthew may have enhanced this parable to be even more pertinent to the story he was trying to tell.

With the Parable of the Tenants followed by this Parable of the Wedding Feast, Matthew presents a powerful, flowing, double scorn of the Jews for their rejection of all the times God had tried to call them back with the prophets. However, Luke's version has Jesus giving the parable much earlier time, while dining at a Pharisee's house, and in response to someone saying that those who are able to eat at the feast in the Kingdom of God are blessed (Luke 14:1-15). This divergent parable placement suggests further that it was passed down as an isolated anecdote, which the Gospel writers then tried to fit in the best way that they could.

One more of Matthew's adjustments is worth a second look as well. Many scholars think that Matthew, in its present form, was written after 70 C.E. So the additional content about the king sending an army to destroy the city, which is almost certainly meant to seem to be a prophetic allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., may have been added after the fact. It is easy to write prophesy about what has already happened.

Finally, just in case you doubt my premise of oral evolution in the tales of Jesus, just in case you think I am wrong and that these parables were actually different and spoken at the noted different times, we have one more resource to consult. In Saying 64 of the Gospel of Thomas, you will find the same parable, with yet another variation, but without preceding context to indicate where it belongs in Jesus' timeline. Coincidentally, it better matches the text of Luke than Matthew's enhanced version:

Jesus said, "A man had received visitors. And when he had prepared the dinner, he sent his servant to invite guests. He went to the first one and said to him, "My master invites you.' He said, 'I have claims against some merchants. They are coming to me this evening. I must go and give them my orders. I ask to be excused from the dinner.' He went to another and said, 'My master has invited you.' He said to him, 'I have just bought a house and am required for the day. I shall not have any spare time.' He went to another and said to him, 'My master invites you.' He said to him, 'My friend is going to get married, and I am to prepare the banquet. I shall not be able to come. I ask to be excused from the dinner.' He went to another and said to him, 'My master invites you.' He said to him, 'I have just bought a farm, and I am on my way to collect the rent. I shall not be able to come. I ask to be excused.' The servant returned and said to his master, 'Those whom you invited to the dinner have asked to be excused.' The master said to his servant, 'Go outside to the streets and bring back those whom you happen to meet, so that they may dine.' Businessmen and merchants will not enter the Places of My Father." (The Gospel of Thomas, as translated by Thomas O. Lambdin, B.P Grenfell, A.S. Hunt, and Bentley Layton.)