Lucas 21

Thomas Constable · Citado em PreceptAustin

Lucas 21

Constable - This incident contrasts the spiritual poverty and physical prosperity of the scribes with the physical poverty and spiritual prosperity of the widow. Comment: There is no question there are striking contrasts between the religious hypocrites who devour widow's houses and this poor widow, but to say she has gained "spiritual prosperity" based on her giving is not a "kosher" conclusion! In fact, if we look just at the facts of the text, the main facts are - she is poor, she is a widow, she gives all she has to live on, she gives more than all the rich. To then conclude that this warrants us assigning her "spiritual prosperity" (or even status as a genuine believer or a disciple or one who has gained entrance into the Kingdom of God) sounds more like works based righteousness than it does grace based righteousness. To reiterate, we simply cannot discern the motive of her heart for giving all she had. Jesus simply did not comment on the state of heart but just on the degree or proportion of her giving. And He did not tell the disciples "Go and do likewise." Moody Bible Commentary has an interesting note - Jesus noticed and commented the others gave out of their surplus (Lk 21:4a)—that is, they gave what they could easily spare. However, she gave out of her poverty (Lk 21:4b)—that is, she gave what she could not really spare. (ED: THIS IS A VALID OBSERVATION) She gave all that she had to live on. She gave sacrificially. The actions of this poor widow are not to be seen as a “requirement” to get right with God. (ED: AMEN TO THAT STATEMENT! GIVING DOES NOT GET ONE INTO HEAVEN!) One does not earn a right standing with God by giving—sacrificially or otherwise. But these are the actions of one who is right with God. They prove one’s standing with God. Comment: BUT CAN SAY ONE SAY WITHOUT ANY RESERVATION OR DOUBT THAT BASED ONLY ON THE TEXT, THIS WIDOW WAS IN "RIGHT STANDING" WITH GOD? WAS SHE REALLY? DOES GIVING WHETHER A LITTLE OR ALL DEMONSTRATE THAT ONE IS IN RIGHT STANDING WITH GOD? THAT IS A "STRETCH" OF THE TEXT AS JESUS SAYS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT HER STANDING BEFORE GOD. HE SIMPLY STATES SHE IS POOR AND HAS GIVEN ALL SHE HAD TO LIVE ON. BUT HER GIVING DOES NOT MAKE HER A BELIEVER IN JESUS NOR DOES IT PROVE SHE WAS A FOLLOWER OF JESUS. WE HAVE TO CAREFUL TO NOT MAKE AN INTERPRETATION THAT IS NOT JUSTIFIED BY A SIMPLE READING OF THE TEXT. THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE WHEN WE HAVE HEARD A STORY INTERPRETED ONLY ONE WAY ALL OUR LIFE! One of the cardinal rules for good observation is reading a text as if we are reading it for the first time, shutting out of our mind sermons, commentaries, etc as much as possible. Below are some of the "traditional" interpretations from a variety of commentaries (old and new), and clearly almost everyone sees this poor widow's giving of all she has to live on in a positive and challenging light. Note that however one chooses to interpret Luke 21:1-4, these assessments below regarding giving are generally true. Alfred Plummer's conclusion - "The means of the giver and the motive are the measure of true generosity." William Kelly's conclusion - "The test of liberality is not what is given, but what is left. I Howard Marshall - what matters is not the amount that one gives but the amount that one keeps for oneself’ Darrell Bock - Sometimes little gifts cost a great deal more than big gifts do, and their merit is in the sacrifice they represent. In fact, real giving happens when one gives sacrificially. Interestingly, research has shown that when people’s income increases their proportion of charitable contributions tends to drop. We tend to give less the more we are blessed. How would Jesus assess this trend? In contrast to the scribes’ pride and hypocrisy stands this woman who has sacrificed out of her life to honor God. (The Widow Who Gave All 21:1-4) Leon

Lucas 21

Constable - Here is another instructive example of a person with a servant's attitude who gave her all, as little as that was, to God (cf. Mark 10:45). Jesus and Mark taught disciples how God values wholehearted commitment to Himself with this incident. Warren

Lucas 21

Constable observes that "Luke did not record the other questions (Ed: #2 and #3 above) they asked Him about the sign of His coming and of the end of the age (Mt 24:3). Matthew and Mark concentrated on Jesus’ answer to the question about Jesus’ return, but Luke dealt mainly with His answer to the question about the temple’s destruction." So while Luke does not record questions #2 and #3, and his main focus is on answering question #1, it is notable that His initial answer in Luke 21:8-9 actually addresses questions #2 and #3. Be aware that as Jesus begins to answer the disciples in Luke, the third question "What is the sign for the end of the age?" is answered first. Then note that the disciples' first question "What will be the sign when these things are about to take place" is answered next. What is the sign for the fall of Jerusalem? Luke is the only Gospel writer who gives Jesus’ detailed answer regarding the first question in Luke 21:20-24. Matthew and Mark do not really address Jesus’ answer to the disciples' question about the Temple but as alluded to earlier focus primarily on His answer to questions #2 and #3. Finally, note that the second question (#2) by the disciples in is answered last. What is the sign for the Second Coming? Matthew and Mark give much more detail than Luke does on the sign of His coming. For example, both Matthew and Mark describe the abomination of desolation (Mt 24:15-note, Mk 13:14) and the Great Tribulation (Mt 24:21-note, Mk 13:19 albeit Mark does not use word "great"), neither of which are described by Luke (in contrast to what some writers try to say!) Sign (4592)(semeion from sema = sign) is something that serves as a pointer to aid perception or insight. A sign is an object, quality, or event whose presence or occurrence indicates the probable presence or occurrence of something else. A sign is a perceptible indication of something which is not immediately apparent and so it serves as a visible clue that something will happen. Wayne Detzler on semeion - Early in its use this word meant a visible sign which someone saw. For instance, when Constantine was embroiled in battle he saw the sign of a cross and the words, "In this sign conquer." This turned him to Christianity, and he granted toleration to the Christians in 313. So first of all semeion meant a real or imagined visible sign. Later it came to mean the intervention of the deities in our world. This is the meaning which the Bible attaches to miracles, when God breaks into the natural world to accomplish some special feat. (New Testament words in today's language). SYNOPSIS OF OLIVET DISCOURSE PERIOD Mt 24,25 Mk 13 Lk 21 DESCRIPTION Beginning of sorrows (Mt 24:8) The NT period, before the fall of Jerusalem. (May correspond to the first four seals of Rev 6) Days of Vengeance (Lk 21:22, Isa 61:2) - - Lk 21:20-24a Desolation of Jerusalem under Titus, AD 70 Times of the Gentiles (Lk 21:24) Lk 21:24b Jerusalem is subdued by the Gentiles and Gospel goes to all the world (cf Rev 11:1-2+) Great Tribulation (Mt 24:21) - The abomination of desolation in middle of Daniel's 70th Week (Da 9:27+) Appearing of Son of Man (Mt 24:30) Cosmic signs, return of Christ in glory Interlude Mt 24:32-25:30 Parables and exhortations to watchfulness Separation - - Judgment of the Sheep and Goats Brief Excursus on Jewish Eschatology The Jews of the first century had a fairly well developed eschatology as it related to their expectations regarding the Messiah. However as alluded to above, their timing of when the events would take place was very mistaken. They did not see the intervening Church Age which makes perfect sense because their was no Church in existence before Acts 2. They also did not see the two comings of the Messiah, but expected pne arrival in which he would be triumphant over their enemies (this of course was why the Jews were so jubilant at Jesus' "Triumphal Entry" cf Lk 19:36-38-note). And recall also that while they did attribute incredible powers to the Messiah, the Jews were not expecting the Messiah to be God. Son of David yes, but not God. So the following list of events is what the Jews expected when Messiah arrived. What is fascinating is that these events while not a Biblicaly perfect chronology, they are not that far removed from what will transpire at the Second Coming of Messiah. John

Lucas 21

Constable writes that "The similar passages in Matthew and Mark are sufficiently different to alert the reader to the fact that they deal with a different incident from what Luke described (Matthew 24:15-22; Mark 13:14-20). Even some commentators who believe that Luke depended heavily on Mark for his material admit this difference. [Note: E.g, Marshall, The Gospel . . ., p770-71.] (Ed: See Marshall's comments below) (Luke 21 Commentary - Expository Notes of Dr. Thomas Constable) I Howard Marshall admits to significant differences between Luke 21:20-24 and Mark 13:14-20 writing "The passage is parallel to Mk 13:14-20, but the amount of verbal parallelism is slight (four words in Mk 13:20, 21a and Mk 13:23a). Mark refers cryptically to the 'desolating sacrilege' and to the need for the people of Judaea to flee; he emphasizes the awful plight of the people under tribulation. By contrast Luke specifically names Jerusalem and refers clearly to a siege. Mark's warning about delay (cf. Lk. 17:31) is replaced by a warning to keep away from Jerusalem." (he Gospel of Luke - The New International Greek Testament Commentary- I. Howard Marshall-). A C Gaebelein adds that "Luke's account however differs in many ways from the account given of the prophetic Olivet discourse in Matthew and also that in Mark." (Luke 21 Commentary - Arno Gaebelein's Annotated Bible) HCSB Study Notes also draws attention to the differences between Luke 21 and Matthew 24 - Matthew 24:15-note refers to "the abomination of desolation" spoken of by Daniel (Dan 9:27; 11:31; 12:11) that will be set up in the holy place in the temple. Luke spoke only of the desolation of Jerusalem. (Study Notes) AN ASSESSMENT OF DR JOHN MACARTHUR'S I do not often disagree with Dr John MacArthur, but this time I strongly disagree with his interpretation of Luke 21:20-24 as a prophecy of a future event. He feels that Luke 21:20-24 describes an end-times event and not an event in 70 A.D. In his sermon he asks about Jerusalem being surrounded by armies --- "Is that what our Lord was talking about? Was He talking about 70 A.D. here? I don’t think so. Keep reading. Verse 21, “Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains,” that happened then. “Let those who are in the midst of the city depart,” that happened. “Let those who are in the country not enter the city,” and they didn’t. Then verse 22, “Because these are the days of vengeance in order that all things which are written may be fulfilled. Wait a minute here. That language does not lend itself to a 70 A.D. interpretation. These are not the days of vengeance. These are not the events which cause things which have been written to all be fulfilled." (Read his entire argument supporting Lk 21:20-24 as a future event). Notice his wording "that happened then," "that happened" and "they didn't," which certainly sounds like MacArthur sees all three of these prophecies as fulfilled in 70 A.D. and yet he seems somewhat inconsistent when he says "Is that what our Lord was talking about? Was He talking about 70 A.D. here? I don’t think so." So on one hand he says the prophecy was fulfilled and on the other hand he says he does not think Jesus was referring to an event in 70 A.D. I would respectfully suggest that Dr MacArthur seems to discount the preceding context of Luke 21 where the disciples had specifically asked for "the sign when these things are about to take place?" (Lk 21:7). What things are they asking about? Jesus has just described those things saying that "the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down." The phrase "the sign" has the definite article (to semeion) and therefore the disciples are asking for a very specific sign, something they can see and which is distinctive. Jesus does not answer their question immediately, but first warns about deceivers and then describes general signs of the end times (Lk 21:8-11). And then He says even before those "general signs" begin to unfold like "birth pangs" (Mk 13:8), the disciples themselves would be persecuted, hated, brought before kings and some even put to death, but by their endurance they would gain their lives. (Lk 21:12-19) Notice He does not say at that time the Gospel would be preached to all the nations and then the end would come, which He did say in Mt 24:14! Matthew 24 is clearly describing future events (in that passage Jesus referred to "the end" 3 times (Mt 24:3, 6, 13 and notice especially Mt 24:14 -- while He used "the end" once in Lk 21:9 which clearly in the context of a description of the general signs before the end of this age, because Lk 21:12 then moves from the future to the events that would directly impact His disciples). Now back to Luke 21:20 which begins with "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies..." What had the disciples ask for? The (specific) sign! Here it was --- Jerusalem surrounded by armies! And in context the "you" is a reference to His disciples. This event would occur in 70 A.D. at a time the disciples would have been around 60-70 years old. We know the apostle John lived to about 90 A.D. so it is not unreasonable to deduce that some of the disciples would be alive when Jerusalem was surrounded by armies. The point is that Jesus was giving them a specific sign of when there would be no stone left upon another stone. And we know from history that after the Roman army surrounded Jerusalem, the Romans general Titus drew back from the siege for a time which provided opportunity for those Jews who heeded Jesus' words to get out of the city. In sum, I think MacArthur is incorrect in his interpretation that Luke 21:20-24 refers to a future event. On the other hand it clearly could foreshadow the future event in Zechariah 14:2 (see note below). In Dr MacArthur's sermon he goes on to say this on Lk 20:21, “Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains,” that happened then. (ED: WHEN? HE SEEMS TO HERE BE SAYING 70 A.D.) “Let those who are in the midst of the city depart,” that happened. “Let those who are in the country not enter the city,” and they didn’t." Did you hear what he is saying? He is saying that 3 specific prophecies by Jesus were fulfilled in 70 A.D. and yet he goes on to say "Wait a minute here. That language does not lend itself to a 70 A.D. interpretation." (Read his entire argument supporting Lk 21:20-24 as a future event). (Bold added for emphasis) Here is a note from the MacArthur Study Bible - A comparison with Mt 24:15, 16 and Mk 13:14 suggests that this sign (ED: The sign in Lk 21:20) is closely associated with "the abomination of desolation" (see Mt 24:15; Da 9:27; 11:31). This sign of Jerusalem under siege was previewed in a.d. 70, but awaits its fulfillment in the future." Observe carefully his words "suggests that this sign (Lk 20:21) is closely associated with the abomination of desolation." Beloved, by the time the sign of the Abomination of Desolation occurred, there would be no way for Jews could flee Jerusalem because the walls were already breached! The sign in Lk 21:20 is OUTSIDE the city and the sign in Mt 24:15, Mk 13:14 is WITHIN the city, in fact WITHIN the Temple. So I would strongly disagree that these signs are "closely associated," and that they are distinct and different, Luke's sign applying to Jesus' first century disciples and Matthew's sign applying to disciples of all ages, but especially those alive at the end of this age. The upshot is that Luke 21:21-24 describes an event the disciples would experience in the future in 70 A.D. and both Matthew 24 and Mark 13 describe an event which has not yet occurred but which will occur and signal the beginning of the Great Tribulation, a term that Luke does not use. Days of vengeance is not the same as Great Tribulation. In fairness to MacArthur his study Bible says "This sign of Jerusalem under siege was previewed in a.d. 70, but awaits its fulfillment in the future." I agree that the event in 70 A.D. was a foreshadowing of what will be fulfilled in the end times in the prophecy in Zechariah 14 Behold, a day is coming for the LORD when the spoil taken from you will be divided among you. 2 For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city will be captured, the houses plundered, the women ravished and half of the city exiled, but the rest of the people will not be cut off from the city. 3 Then the LORD will go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fights on a day of battle. While Zechariah does not specifically state Jerusalem will be encircled, almost certainly that is what will occur, even as it was encircled in 70 A.D. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LUKE 21 AND MATTHEW 24 In the following chart, the points of difference between Luke 21 and Matthew 24 are highlighted in bold green font in the Luke 21:19-24 column. From a quick overview, it should be obvious that these two passages have some significant differences. It is therefore surprising that so many commentators (especially those explaining on Matthew 24:15-22) see these two sections as parallel passages. If one reasons from simple observation, they do not at all appear to be parallel passages! Note the two major irreconcilable differences, "The Sign" and "The Great Distress" are highlighted in Green Background. COMPARISON OF TWO SIMILAR BUT NOT IDENTICAL PASSAGES Luke 21:19-24 Matthew 24:14-22 Immediate Context = Lk 21:19 "By your endurance you will gain your lives" (No statement here about either preaching the Gospel or "the end") Comment: The focus is on the one's life Immediate Context = Mt 24:14 "And this Gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a witness to all the nations, and then the end shall come." Comment: Context focuses on "the end" But when Mt 24:15+ Therefore when What they are to see: Relates to the city of Jerusalem Mt 24:15+ What they are to see: Relates to the Temple and the Holy Place Addresses "you" Jesus is addressing the question of the disciples "What specific sign" in Lk 21:7 Addresses "you" and "the reader" Jesus is speaking not only to the disciples but to all who would read this prophecy in the future "THE SIGN" Jerusalem Surrounded by armies = Her desolation "THE SIGN" Abomination of Desolation standing in the Holy Place Surrounded Standing No specific mention of the abomination of desolation Abomination of Desolation: Armies mentioned No mention of Armies Her desolation = refers to the desolation of the Holy City Desolation = refers to the desolation of the Holy Place No mention of a related prophecy in Daniel Related prophecy in Daniel - especially Daniel 9:27+, Da 12:11+ Lk 21:21 Those in midst of city depart Lk 21:21 Those in country not to enter the city Note emphasis is on the city No mention of city Lk 21:22 Days of vengeance in order that all things written may be fulfilled No Parallel Lk 21:23 Woe to those with child and nursing Mt 24:19 - Woe to those with child and nursing No Parallel Mt 24:20 - Pray your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath Lk 21:23 Great distress Mt 24:21+ - Great Tribulation Distress = Greek word anagke Tribulation = Greek word thlipsis In the Septuagint anagke is used to describe the great Day of the LORD (Zeph 1:15), but never used to specifically describe the future time of distress on Israel. One might argue that distress on Israel is inherent in the "Day of the LORD." In Septuagint thlipsis is used in Da 12:1+ which describes "a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation (of Israel) until that time" (cp Mt 24:21+- time phrases) Lk 21:23 Upon the land Implies distress local Mt 24:21+ Implies tribulation global ("since the beginning" [cf "flood"]; "no life...saved" both imply global) "THE GREAT DISTRESS" Distress NOT described as unique or unprecedented "THE GREAT TRIBULATION" Tribulation described as unique, unprecedented Lk 21:24 Fall by sword, led captive into all nations ("Jewish dispersion") No parallel Lk 21:24 Jerusalem trampled under foot until times of Gentiles fulfilled No parallel No Parallel those days shall be cut short DIFFERENT SIGNS POINT TO A DIFFERENT "DESOLATION" Notice that both Luke 21:20 and Mt 24:15+ begin with the same phrase "when you see." Then Jesus goes on to describe distinctly different "signs" in Luke and Matthew. Luke says the "sign" the disciples are to look for is when Jerusalem is be surrounded by armies. When they see that "sign" "then recognize that her desolation is at hand." In Matthew 24:15 (and Mk 13:14) the sign for which the Jews were to watch was "the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION...standing in the holy place." While both passages use the word "desolation," Luke associates it with the desolation of the city of Jerusalem and Matthew associates it with the desolation of the "holy place," the Temple. If one observes these texts with an unbiased view not trying to read anything into the words of Jesus, it is clear that Jesus is giving two distinctly different signs pointing to two different events occurring at different times. The other major difference between Luke and Matthew (Mark) that cannot be easily resolved is that the tribulation in Matthew (Mt 24:21) and Mark (Mk 13:19, cf Da 12:1) is a unique historical event that will never be repeated. While 70 AD was a time of horrible distress to the Jews, even the distress of World War II proved to be even more horrible. Thus Mt 24:21, Mk 13:19 and Da 12:1 describe a time that will surpass the horror of 70 AD! And while there is disagreement regarding the interpretation of Luke 21:20-24 (discussed below), my view is that historically this was fulfilled in 70 AD and also that it foreshadowed the armies attacking Jerusalem in Zech 14:2. AS HISTORICALLY FULFILLED Almost all evangelical commentaries interpret Luke 21:20-24 as descriptive of a historical event that was fulfilled in 70 AD. Here is just a sample: Arnold Fruchtenbaum, David Guzik, Arno Gaebelein, Harry Ironside, Thomas Ice, Warren Wiersbe, Henry Morris, Steven Cole (he suggests it has a near and far fulfillment), NET Bible Notes, J. Vernon McGee, ESV Study Bible (suggests it possibly foreshadows the fate of Jerusalem in the end time), NIV Study Bible, NLT Study Bible, Faith Life Study Bible, KJV Study Bible, Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Believer's Study Bible, New Unger's Bible Handbook, Kent Hughes in Preaching the Word: Luke, John Walvoord. Note that all of these writers see a future fulfillment in Luke 21:25-28. Below are some representative comments of those who interpret Luke 21:21-24 as fulfilled in the past... Henry

Lucas 21

Constable - Jesus now returned to the subject of when the temple would suffer destruction (v. 7). The similar passages in Matthew and Mark are sufficiently different to alert the reader to the fact that they deal with a different incident from what Luke described (Matt. 24:15–22; Mark 13:14–20). Even some commentators who believe that Luke depended heavily on Mark for his material admit this difference. Lk 21:20 The sign that Jerusalem’s destruction was imminent would be the presence of besieging armies (cf. v. 7). This happened when Titus encircled the city with troops and put it under siege beginning in 68 A.D. (Lk 21:21–22) Then the Jews should get away from the city. Those in it should leave, those outside it should not enter it while it would be under siege, and those living in the surrounding area should move farther from it. God’s vengeance on the city would descend shortly in fulfillment of prophecy (Dan. 9:26). Earlier Luke recorded Jesus’ teaching about the destruction that would come on Palestine just before His return (Lk 17:22–37). Matthew and Mark wrote that Jesus also gave that teaching in the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24:15–22; Mark 13:14–20). However though that teaching is similar, it is different from what Jesus announced here. Here He predicted the destruction of Jerusalem that happened in 70 A.D Dwight

Lucas 21

Constable comments on the issue of the Rapture in relation to Jesus' words of warning in this section - Luke's original readers evidently lived after Pentecost and before the destruction of Jerusalem. Most of them lived to witness the fulfillment of Jesus' prediction of Jerusalem's destruction. This event would have encouraged them to believe His teaching about His return and to prepare for it. They could have met the Lord anytime if the Rapture occurred during their lifetime. As history has unfolded, we know that the Second Coming is still future. Before that the Tribulation must occur and before that the Rapture (CLEARLY CONSTABLE BELIEVES IN A PRETRIB RAPTURE). The New Testament apostles voiced many of the same warnings urging watchfulness in view of the Rapture that Jesus gave in view of His second coming (e.g., Ro 13:13; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:18; 1 Th 5:4-11, 17; et al.). After the Rapture, people who become Christians will need to remain vigilant because they will go through intense persecution in the Tribulation. For them the Second Coming will be only a few years away. Jesus' exhortation to be watchful is therefore applicable to all disciples regardless of when they may live before His second coming. Vigilance is essential because the Lord's return is imminent (i.e., impending, overhanging) regardless of when we live. (Luke 21 Commentary) David

Lucas 21

Lucas 21

Lucas 21

Lucas 21

Lucas 21

Lucas 21

Lucas 21

Lucas 21:20-24