Sending Out the Twelve

[drfuss]

Matthew 10:5,6 - "These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel."

Matthew 11:1 - "After Jesus had finished instructing the twelve disciples,...".

Based on the two above verses, the scriptures between those verses are instructions to the disciples before sending them out two by two.

Matthew 10:23 -".....I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

It would appear that the Son of Man should come before the desciples return. In Matthew 12, the desciples had returned. Had the son of Man come? Since the Son of Man was already there, doesn't this mean the second coming of Christ?

Can anyone shed some light on this?

 

[Scarlett O.]

Matthew 10:5,6 - "These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel."

Matthew 11:1 - "After Jesus had finished instructing the twelve disciples,...".

Based on the two above verses, the scriptures between those verses are instructions to the disciples before sending them out two by two.

Yes.

Matthew 10:23 -".....I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

It would appear that the Son of Man should come before the desciples return.

No, it didn't say before they "returned" from their missionary journey that the Son of man be come.

It said they wouldn't "finish" reaching all of Israel before the Son of man be come.

In Matthew 12, the desciples had returned.

Chapter 12 does begin with Jesus and the disciples looking for something to eat, but it doesn't necessarily imply that their missionary work was over.

Had the son of Man come? Since the Son of Man was already there, doesn't this mean the second coming of Christ?

Can anyone shed some light on this?

I cannot shed any light at all.

I have read the on-line commentaries of Matthew Henry, Marsh, Clarke, and Coffman and I still do not fully understand. All of their commentaries say different things.

If I had to pick one that I felt made the most sense, it would be Clarke's. He said that (and he, himself, was quoting someone else!) this meant that all of Israel would not have heard before Jesus was resurrected.

I would have to personally add that his admonishing them in verse 22 to not stick around in places where their fellow Jews would not listen was an urgent warning that time was of the essence and that He would be crucified before long.

Sorry to not help you much. :BangHead:

 

[Grasshopper]

Matthew 10:5,6 - "These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel."

Matthew 11:1 - "After Jesus had finished instructing the twelve disciples,...".

Based on the two above verses, the scriptures between those verses are instructions to the disciples before sending them out two by two.

Matthew 10:23 -".....I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

It would appear that the Son of Man should come before the desciples return. In Matthew 12, the desciples had returned. Had the son of Man come? Since the Son of Man was already there, doesn't this mean the second coming of Christ?

Can anyone shed some light on this?

I think it is a clear reference to the "coming of the Son of Man" in the destruction of Jerusalem.

John Wesley:

Mat 10:23 - Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel - Make what haste ye will; till the Son of man be come - To destroy their temple and nation.


Clarke:
To finish the survey, to preach in every one: - till the Son of man be come, may refer either to the outpouring of the Spirit on the day of pentecost, or to the subversion of the Jewish state. See Rosenmuller.

Gill:

till the son of man be come; which is not to be understood of his second coming to judgment, but either of his resurrection from the dead, when he was declared to be the Son of God, and when his glorification began; or of the pouring forth of the Spirit at the day of Pentecost, when his kingdom began more visibly to take place, and he was made, or manifested to be the Lord and Christ; or of his coming to take vengeance on his enemies, that would not have him to rule over them, and the persecutors of his ministers, at the destruction of Jerusalem.

Albert Barnes:


Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel ... - That is, in fleeing from persecutors from one city to another, you shall not have gone to every city in Judea until the end of the Jewish economy shall occur. See the notes at Mat_24:28-30. By “the coming of the Son of Man,” that is, of “Christ,” is probably meant the destruction of Jerusalem, which happened about thirty years after this was spoken. The words are often used in this sense. See Mat_24:30; Mar_13:26; Luk_21:27, Luk_21:32.


Notice what Jesus tell His Disciples:

Mat 10:17 But beware of men, for they will deliver you up to the sanhedrins, and they will scourge you in their synagogues.
Mat 10:18 And you shall be brought before governors and kings for My sake, for a testimony against them and the nations.

Clearly a 1st century context unless one wants to believe the Jews will go back to scourging in synagogues in the future. Although i'm sure there are some on this board who believe as such.

Also notice what Jesus told the Pharisees:

Mat 23:33 Serpents! Offspring of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?
Mat 23:34 Therefore, behold, I send prophets and wise men and scribes to you. And you will kill and crucify some of them. And some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city;
Mat 23:35 so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Berachiah, whom you killed between the temple and the altar.
Mat 23:36 Truly I say to you, All these things shall come on this generation.

Even more proof of a 1st century context and fulfillment. He tells the Disciples and the Pharisees the same thing.

The destruction of Jerusalem was "a coming" or "the coming" of the Son of Man in the clouds, depending on whether one is a partial or full preterist.

Notice John Gill's comments on Matt 26:64:

and coming in, the clouds of heaven. So Christ's coming to take vengeance on the Jewish nation, as it is often called the coming of the son of man, is described in this manner, Mat_24:27.

 

[Bro Tony]

I think it is a clear reference to the "coming of the Son of Man" in the destruction of Jerusalem.

I understand your view on this, but clearly it is supposition on your part. There was no clear coming of Jesus in AD 70. Titus and the Roman armies destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple. There is no clear coming of Christ at all in the 1st Century, certainly not where every eye saw Him. There is not one early church Father or writer who writes about the greatest event since the Resurrection, ie. the 2nd Coming of Christ.

I know you don't agree Grasshopper,as we have dealt with this before, but as you got your response in, I thought I would also.

 

[Grasshopper]

I understand your view on this, but clearly it is supposition on your part.

Since you now know my understanding on this verse perhaps you will return the favor, and does it have any relation to Matt 23?

There was no clear coming of Jesus in AD 70.

Gill, Clarke, Wesley, and Grasshopper respectfully disagree. Shall I also quote a famous Baptist brother: John A Broadus

Mat 24:30 And then the sign of the Son of Man shall appear in the heavens. And then all the tribes of the earth shall mourn, and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of the heaven with power and great glory.

"Then we cannot believe (with Meyer and others) that the Saviour mistakenly expected his parousia to be within that generation, it follows that v. 29-31 must refer to the destruction of Jerusalem." (vol. 1, p. 491)"

Thomas Newton

The plain meaning of it is, that the destruction of Jerusalem will be such a remarkable instance of divine vengeance, such a signal manifestation of Christ's power and glory, that all the Jewish tribes shall mourn, and many will be led from thence to acknowledge Christ and the Christian religion. In the ancient prophets, God is frequently described as coming in the 'clouds' upon any remarkable interposition and manifestation of his power; and the same description is here applied to Christ. The destruction of Jerusalem will be as ample a manifestation of Christ's power and glory as if he was himself to come visibly in the clouds of heaven." (ibid., p. 408-409)

Brother Tony allow yourself, just temporarily, to consider that the events of AD70 were a coming of the Son of Man. Where would such a belief lead you? Remember, just temporarily:thumbs: .

 

[Bro Tony]

Since you now know my understanding on this verse perhaps you will return the favor, and does it have any relation to Matt 23?



Gill, Clarke, Wesley, and Grasshopper respectfully disagree. Shall I also quote a famous Baptist brother: John A Broadus

Mat 24:30 And then the sign of the Son of Man shall appear in the heavens. And then all the tribes of the earth shall mourn, and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of the heaven with power and great glory.

"Then we cannot believe (with Meyer and others) that the Saviour mistakenly expected his parousia to be within that generation, it follows that v. 29-31 must refer to the destruction of Jerusalem." (vol. 1, p. 491)"

Thomas Newton

The plain meaning of it is, that the destruction of Jerusalem will be such a remarkable instance of divine vengeance, such a signal manifestation of Christ's power and glory, that all the Jewish tribes shall mourn, and many will be led from thence to acknowledge Christ and the Christian religion. In the ancient prophets, God is frequently described as coming in the 'clouds' upon any remarkable interposition and manifestation of his power; and the same description is here applied to Christ. The destruction of Jerusalem will be as ample a manifestation of Christ's power and glory as if he was himself to come visibly in the clouds of heaven." (ibid., p. 408-409)

Brother Tony allow yourself, just temporarily, to consider that the events of AD70 were a coming of the Son of Man. Where would such a belief lead you? Remember, just temporarily:thumbs: .

Can't do it brother...it requires me to believe something that I don't believe the Scriptures teach. Again, those you named were not church father's with any kind of writing concerning a belief in the early church that Jesus had returned. Consider your belief just for a moment...Jesus has already returned and there is no "real" 2nd coming.

I will stick with John and just say....Maranatha!!!!

Again, I know we don't agree, its alright I will gladly say hey on the way up:thumbs:

 

[Grasshopper]

So I guess I'm not going to get your interpretation of Matt 10:23?

 

[skypair]

It would appear that the Son of Man should come before the desciples return. In Matthew 12, the desciples had returned. Had the son of Man come? Since the Son of Man was already there, doesn't this mean the second coming of Christ?

My "light" is similar to scarlet's -- the disciples had not "returned" from going to all the cities of Israel in Mt 12.

Further, the "Son of man" ("son of David") is one OT designation for Messiah, the coming King of Israel. Therefore, they had not gone to all the cities in Israel before Jesus presented Himself riding the royal beast/donkey into Jerusalem and presenting Himself as "King of the Jews."

This comports with Dan 9:26 -- "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:..." where Messiah is clearly presented and rejected by Israel.

skypair

 

[drfuss]

Thank you all for your responses. As I suspected, there are some different interpretations on this passage. I am still forming my own opinion.

 

[fear of the lord]

Study Romans 11 specifically 26"And so all Israel will be saved as it is written" ask yourself when this will happen.Now go back to Matt 10 look at the verse before the one in question verse 22 "endures to the end will be saved".What end ?Do Christians now have to endure to be saved?Matt243 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.
9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
Does that help any?