Questions on the exegesis of Luke 21

In November and December 2007, I preached a series of 3 sermons on Luke chapter 21. You can read the transcripts on this site, should you wish to.

There’s something frustrating about preaching. My task is to study the passage on which I am to preach and decide what I think it has to say to us, as a church, today. Invariably, preaching nearly every week, there are severe time-constraints involved. And yet at the beginning of the following week, I need to decide what to say. I can’t take the option the police have when questioning a terror suspect, and ask a judge for more time.

As I studied Luke 21, it became clearer to me that the entire chapter concerned the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. I had previously assumed that parts of the chapter concerned the final return of Christ to judge the world. I therefore assumed that my task would involve deciding which parts of the chapter concerned that, and which parts concerned the fall of Jerusalem. But as I studied, I found major problems with that assumption – problems arising from the text itself. True, I could also see problems with the view that the entire chapter concerned A.D. 70. The difference was that I could also see why each of those latter problems were only apparent, and not real, problems. In other words, the only way to read the chapter that accounted for all the data within it was the A.D. 70 throughout reading.

As I realised this, I would love to have asked for more time. But that was not an option. I needed to preach 3 sermons on the chapter. I knew that lots of people would start with the same assumptions that I had, which would make what I was saying unsettling. But I still had to preach. I couldn’t say nothing. And I couldn’t say what I thought the passage was not saying, just for the sake of avoiding being unsettling!

As I suspected, lots of the folk at St James take after the character of the Bereans. In Acts 17:11 they are described as searching the Scriptures eagerly to see if what Paul said was true. So I was asked a lot of very good questions about the interpretation I had taken. Praise God that this is the way the folk in our church react to strange-sounding teaching – it is a great reaction!

I set to answering all the different questions. And I think I’ve caught most of them. Just in case anybody else wants to be in on the conversation, attached to this post is a .PDF document with my answers in.

Here are the questions I was asked (as I grouped, rephrased and categorised them):

• Why did you read Isaiah 13 spiritually rather than literally?
• Doesn’t the way that the book of Revelation handles the fall of Babylon indicate that the events spoken of in Isaiah 13 are still to occur?
• Why did you identify the fourth empire in Daniel 7 as the Greek, rather than the Roman, empire?
• So why did you refer to Media and Persia as two empires, rather than as one (Medio-Persian) empire?
• If the 4th kingdom in Daniel 7 is the Greek empire, what are the events related in verses 23-25?
• Jesus lived, died and ascended during the Roman Empire. How does that fit with saying from Daniel 7 that Jesus’ ascension (the coming of the Son of Man) occurred at the end of the Greek empire?
• In both Daniel 7 and Luke 21, the Son of Man “comes”; he doesn’t “go”. The perspective of Daniel 7 is from heaven, whereas in Luke 21 the perspective is from the city of Jerusalem. Does this not indicate an explicit change of direction from Daniel 7 and Luke 21?
• Luke may record Jesus only being asked about the end of the temple, but Matthew’s parallel account also includes a question about the end of the age. Does this not mean that more than the fall of the temple is in Jesus’ mind when he replies?
• In the first sermon you conceded that a small portion of one wall is left standing, and yet Jesus says that every stone will be been torn down. Isn’t Jesus usually more careful with his choice of words? Doesn’t this indicate that this is not yet fulfilled?
• The early Christians took Jesus’ words in Luke 21:8-24 literally, and fled Jerusalem as a result. Shouldn’t we therefore also take Luke 21:25ff literally? Why put a break in the text after 21:24 by spiritualising from 21:25 onwards?
• If Mark 13:3-31 and the whole of Luke 21 refers to events prior to A.D. 70, when did the following events referred to in Mark 13 occur?
  • 13:8 (wars, earthquakes, famines)
  • 13:10 (gospel preached to all nations)
  • 13:14 (abomination of desolation)
  • 13:19: (unequalled distress)
  • 13:22 (false Christs and false prophets)
• 13:31 (gathering of the elect from the 4 winds)
• Why did you say that Luke 21:27 refers to the ascension, when the verse does not mention this?
• Could “this generation” not refer to the Jewish race; they will survive this ordeal?
• Could “this generation” mean “this age”. All these things will happen before “this age” comes to a close?
• In Luke 21:32, could Jesus only be referring to the bits of the preceding verses which refer to the fall of Jerusalem?
• Luke 21:35 says the “whole earth”? Why did you interpret this to mean the “land of Israel” when the language has changed since 21:23?
• If the year A.D. 70 saw the completion of Jesus installation by God as Son of Man, why is this important event not written about in the epistles or the writings of the church Fathers?
• If Jesus is ruling the nations, why is Satan described as “the prince of this world” and “the god of this world”? Texts include: John 14:30, 1 Corinthians 2:6-8, 2 Corinthians 4:4; Ephesians 6:12; 1 John 5:19.
• You said that the war for control of this world was won 2000 years ago. Where was it won – in Jerusalem or in the heavenly realms? Did this bind Satan? Please elaborate.
• In one of your sermons, you suggested that Jesus’ rule over the world can be seen by the presence of the church on earth. The Son of Man can be “seen” both in the fall of Jerusalem and in the existence of the church. Where in the New Testament do you learn this?