Luke 21:5-38

Last evening we looked at Jesus’ prophesy with regard to the destruction of Jerusalem and also, perhaps, the beginning of the end of the world.  This is the culmination of Israel’s rejection in the midst of Jesus’ compassionate plea to bring forth the fruit of repentance.  He called; he warned; he wept, and now with their resistance settled, our Lord renders a prophecy of judgment. 

How do we understand a God whose patience is limited and who will judge those who resist his reign?

            First, God is king.  He is free to enter into relationship with humanity and dictate its parameters and demand compliance, i.e., a covenant.  It is his divine right.  While he sets all the parameters, one should know that they are designed for our complete and total happiness, as the second century apologist, Irenaeus, put it:  “The image of God in man is man fully alive!”

Second, God is patient because in some sense, God himself would have it be otherwise.  He says in Ezekiel, “Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked?...Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?” (Ez 18:23).  Jesus did not feign his weeping over Jerusalem (Lu 13:34), nor is God the Father insincere when he says that he takes “no delight” in the death of the wicked; rather, God is patient and longsuffering and does not ‘desire’ that any perish, but that all come to repentance” (2 Pe 3:9).

Third, perhaps the notion that God’s patience should ‘run out’  is a surprise to some; it might even imply to others that he is less than perfect, since God should not ‘run out’ of anything – much less patience.  Scripture does say that God is “the God of patience” (Ro 15:5) – but it also declares it has limits.  Paul rhetorically asks, “…do you think you will escape God’s judgment,” should you to choose to “show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance, and patience?” (Ro 2:3-4).  Implied in this rhetorical device of Paul is ‘personhood’ and therefore ‘choice’.  To be sure, obedience to the covenant is not optional, but it is ‘relational’, and judgment is rendered only to those who display a settled and defiant stance against that covenant relationship.   

Are there two events, two judgments – one in Jerusalem in A.D. 70, and the other at the end of the world?
            Most see Jesus addressing two - Jerusalem’s destruction (vv. 5-24) and the world’s (vv.25-36).  While I agree with the first judgment, I’m less persuaded of the latter.  First, if Luke is talking about the end of the world, it is the only place in the entire gospel where the historical events are unfolded.  Second, there is no clear demarcation…no in-the-face indicator that Jesus has gone from discussing temple/city destruction to world-wide/destruction – no change in audience, location, or time.  I believe the majority of scholars point to the prophecy concerning the coming of the Son of Man as their chief reason why they believe the end of the world is what Jesus is addressing.

What does the phrase: “the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory” mean?

            First, let’s acknowledge that point/counterpoint is doable in just about everything that follows, and this is not the format for ‘delving’ into the subject with detail.  Second, I am going to ‘present’ an alternate view with regard to the phrase “the son of man coming,” but one that is gaining adherents among contemporary bible scholars.  I myself am unsure, and will continue to ponder.  The phrase “the son of man coming” is found in Daniel 7:13.  RT France, an eminent NT scholar, has noted there is nothing in the context of Daniel to support the use of the phrase, as though the son of man were coming to us on earth; rather, the son of man was coming to God in heaven, which leads him to question the assumption that the phrase in the NT refers to ‘the second coming’ of Jesus.  France believes in the second coming, but states there has been an unexamined assumption that the two are interchangeable.  He believes, in Daniel’s context, the son of man comes to God in heaven, and therefore the phrase refers to a heavenly enthronement, after a period of suffering.  In the case of the NT, then, such enthronement refers to, “the vindication and empowering of the Son of Man after his earthly rejection and suffering, when God will turn the tables on those who thought they had him in their power.”  In Greek, the technical term for Jesus’ return, (parousia, which means presence, coming, advent) is used only four times in the gospels – all in Matthew, and all in chapter 24 (vv. 3, 27, 37, and 39).  This is significant because at the time of Matthew’s writing (early 60s is still a minority view, but is gaining) the term ‘parousia’ was established as a formal referent for Christ’s second coming.  It is noteworthy, that in Daniel, and in the NT where the Daniel passage is referred to, a very common term for coming is used, reflecting further perhaps, that the son of man passages do not necessarily refer to the second coming. 

When was Jesus vindicated and empowered? 

When you examine the phrase and its use in Matthew (10:23; 16:27-28; 19:28; 24:30; 25:31; 26:64; 28:18) it is difficult, if not impossible, to always equate "the coming of the son of man" with Christ’s second coming.  For example, take the first instance (Matt 10:23), where Jesus is speaking to his twelve apostles, and he says, “When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another.  I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.”  Is Jesus referring to the second coming here?  Doubtful.  In its most natural sense it refers to the apostles mission, which their Lord had laid out for them previously (vv. 5-16), i.e., he limits their mission to “the house of Israel.”  Now we know that mission changed to include the whole world (Mat. 28:19), and in the verse immediately preceding the inclusion of all nations, we find this phrase, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.”  Here the Son of Man operates as king – already vindicated and empowered!  Also noteworthy, is Luke 22:69 where Jesus responds to the chief priests and teachers of the law, “But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God.”  Here he proclaims enthronement even before his death, which would lead us to take his comments in a proleptic sense, i.e., treating a future act as though it were already present.

Lastly, we need to say that since his vindication and empowerment have been referred to ‘before’ his crucifixion (Lu 22:69) and ‘after’ his crucifixion (Matt 10:23), then maybe a strict temporal placement is not what Jesus intended.  But these various time-frames merely mean that the phrase should be seen as an evocative pronouncement that can be applied within various historical time-frames, and that the ultimate fulfillment is realized and recognized at the consummation of the ages – in eschatogical judgment (Matt 25:31) and/or with an emphasis on the eschatological renewal of all things (Matt 19:28).    

Who is the referent in vs. 32 when Jesus says, "this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened"? 

Well that all depends.  If verse 27 and its over-all context point to an end-times situation, then "this generation" could be:  1) a timeless evil generation, 2) the Jewish people, 3) all humanity 4) the generation in which these signs appear, or 5) the contemporary generation, which if true, then Jesus got it wrong.  If, however, the assumed event of v. 27 is not the second coming, but a regal coronation or something similar, and if, as we have already seen that 'in principle' it has been applied to pre & post resurrection situations, e.g., expanded mission of the apostles, the exchange with Israel’s leadership, eschatological judgment, and eschatological renewal, then we are free to take "this generation" in its most natural sense, i.e., the generation which Jesus was speaking to when he spoke.  Are there any problems with this option?  Some claim the language after verse 25 is apocalyptic and strongly lends itself to an end-time scenario. 

The apocalyptic language of vv. 25-26, where the natural order seems to come undone, says: “There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars…the heavenly bodies will be shaken," and this also points many to seeing this as 'end-times'.  But are we 'hearing' the text presumptuously?  The eminent NT scholar, N.T. Wright, summarizes such language this way:

They do not speak of the collapse or end of the space-time universe.  They are…typical Jewish imagery for events within the present order that are felt or perceived as ‘cosmic’ or, as we should say, ‘earth-shattering’.  More particularly, they are regular Jewish imagery for events that bring the story of Israel to its appointed climax.  The days of Jerusalem’s destruction would be looked upon as days of cosmic catastrophe (Jesus and the Victory of God, p. 362).   

So certainly it is possible that Luke doesn’t address the end-times at all.  Understanding these words metaphorically isn't being liberal; rather, it is understanding the type of text before us, i.e., apocalyptic, and therefore we must interpret this as it is 'intended' to be taken.  An apriori literalism is not a biblically faithful approach; rather, a text must be approached on its own merits.  When Jesus talks about 'this generation', he seems to be speaking in a straight-forward historical manner.  On the other hand, when he speaks of "the son of man coming," and its context of where he pulled the text does not refer to a 'going to earth', but its opposite, - a going to heaven - then we need to be careful of ascribing something 'new' to the text.  In verse 32, it seems most natural to take it in a straight-forward historical sense.  Any futuristic end-times sense, e.g., a wicked generation, an unbelieving generation, the Jews living when Christ returns, et. al., all seem to go against the imperatives that immediately follow, which Jesus clearly addresses to those who are listening (vv. 34-36).  So historically, some of the ones listening would still be alive when the destruction of Jerusalem took place.  But we must look at yet another issue before we wrap this up.

How does the temple/city destruction vindicate the Son of Man?

            Remember the son of man in Daniel is one who –after his suffering – comes to God in heaven for vindication over his enemies.  So when Jesus said, “Destroy this temple (his body) and I will raise it again in three days” (Jn 2:19), the resurrection – after his suffering – became the onset of vindication for the Son of Man; indeed, our resurrection continues his vindication! (Jn 6:39-40), since our resurrection is the creation of the new temple! (Eph 2:21).

            Keep in mind the temple was the focal point of all Jewish worship; in itself a mere shadow, the temple was the presence of God among his people.  Jesus attacked the religious system that ran the temple, and claimed over and over again that it had abdicated its responsibility, and lost its right to lead the people (Lu 11:46-52; 12:35-48; 13:34-35; 14:15-24; 15:11-32; 19:11-27; 20:9-19), and for this critique of Israel's leadership, he was killed.  In not being able to discern the times (Lu 11:29-32; 12:54-56) they failed to see the fulfillment of the temple's primary meaning, i.e., presence, was always to be in the Christ, the Son of Man/Son of God.  They missed the moment/event where the shadow gave way to reality.  The destruction of the earthly temple in A.D. 70, which really was symbolized at the death of Jesus, when the curtain ripped in two (Mat 27:51) was vindication of the son of man, who was given all power and authority at the resurrection.  The temple was gutted of its place within redemptive history; and thus Jesus and all his teachings were vindicated!  Any post A.D. 70 re-creation of the temple is therefore without redemptive historical significance.  In the book of Revelation, there is no temple in the new Jerusalem, because God and the lamb are its temple (Re 21:22-23).  The church being joined with Christ is so unionized with him (Luther calls us 'one-cake'), that we are not even mentioned - obviously nothing can harm us, for nothing can harm "the Christ - the Son of God!"  He is the temple; he is the city's light (so no need for sun or moon); indeed, in Him is the light of men!