To whom is Mathew 24:9-14 referring?

MinimusMaximus

Active Member
Was Jesus referring to the early church, last days church (us), the Jews at that time, or the Jews during the Trib?

Also, can somone recommend a good study or analysis of Mathew 24 in whole? There's so much that Jesus is describing that I'd like to really understand it all as best I can.

9 “Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me.

10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other,

11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people.

12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold,

13 but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.

14 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.
 

sawas

Well-Known Member
Andy Woods Rapture Series (on YouTube) spends a good chunk of time - over 12 sessions - on Matthew 24 and 25, beginning here. Well worth watching in my humble opinion. While I could always use another review, the short answer is that it is his (Woods) opinion that Matthew 24 has nothing to do with the church, a position that he defends in exhaustive detail. He contends (and I agree) that these passages address the nation of Israel during the tribulation. As is typical for Woods, he addresses (fairly & thoroughly) all of the opposing arguments to make his case.
 

Reason & Hope

Well-Known Member
I think a really good place to start would be watching one of Dr. Andy Woods' teachings on this. You can find it by searching on YouTube for "Dr. Andy Woods Matthew 24." It's part of his Rapture series.

However, for the short answer, I would say this is referring to believers in the Tribulation. The difficulty is that Christians have been persecuted many times in history, including in the beginning, and now in various parts of the world, so verse 9 isn't a good time indicator.
 

Reason & Hope

Well-Known Member
Andy Woods Rapture Series (on YouTube) spends a good chunk of time - over 12 sessions - on Matthew 24 and 25, beginning here. Well worth watching in my humble opinion. While I could always use another review, the short answer is that it is his (Woods) opinion that Matthew 24 has nothing to do with the church, a position that he defends in exhaustive detail. He contends (and I agree) that these passages address the nation of Israel during the tribulation. As is typical for Woods, he addresses (fairly & thoroughly) all of the opposing arguments to make his case.
I just saw your post. We were writing about Dr Andy at the same time! :cheer
 

Jewel79

Active Member
Andy Woods Rapture Series (on YouTube) spends a good chunk of time - over 12 sessions - on Matthew 24 and 25, beginning here. Well worth watching in my humble opinion. While I could always use another review, the short answer is that it is his (Woods) opinion that Matthew 24 has nothing to do with the church, a position that he defends in exhaustive detail. He contends (and I agree) that these passages address the nation of Israel during the tribulation. As is typical for Woods, he addresses (fairly & thoroughly) all of the opposing arguments to make his case.
I agree, Andy Woods is giving an excellent and thorough and easy to understand teaching in his Rapture Series!
 

BrotherKev

Servant
Was Jesus referring to the early church, last days church (us), the Jews at that time, or the Jews during the Trib?

Also, can somone recommend a good study or analysis of Mathew 24 in whole? There's so much that Jesus is describing that I'd like to really understand it all as best I can.

9 “Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me.

10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other,

11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people.

12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold,

13 but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.

14 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.
Here's a good place to look into: https://www.***********/watch?v=HlFnZMq4U9A&list=PLESaU36LHAs1WX8BxMB5PU-1GPo4YacLf
 

sawas

Well-Known Member
In my opinion, it all depends on who you think the disciples represent. If you believe they represent the church, then that's who Jesus was talking about; if you believe they represent unsaved Israel, then that's who Jesus was talking about. It doesn't make logical (or good exegetical sense) for Jesus to answer with words like "you", referring to the disciples, while secretly meaning "another distinct group of people." People just don't talk like that. ;)
So, to give credit where it's due, your post did get me to do a bit of study/review of Jesus' words and his use of (ahh, non-gender-specific, LOL) pronouns. And, sure, I can see why that might strike you the way it appears to.

But, here's the rub: Jesus is answering the disciple's question about "what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?" (in verse 3). We (in the here and now) can clearly see that this was a prophetic answer that would stretch into a future far beyond the disciples lifetimes. In this context, even the idea that he could have used "they" in order to differentiate (somehow) from whatever class to which the disciples belonged doesn't really help solve the riddle that you propose. Which class? Jews? Believers? Disciples? Men? Men without indoor plumbing?

Rather, the question itself and the whole of Jesus' response (that extends far beyond the OP's cited verses) provides the context. He uses the exact same word (translated as ye in the KJV) in the very next verse (15) when talking about the "abomination of desolation". 15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand). And, as Andy Woods (I seem to recall) points out: who (exactly) would be expected to understand? The church is gone. Other tribulation believers might be expected to understand (maybe), but only a Jew would be absolutely guaranteed to get the point being made by the AC. And, are they really to be differentiated (to any non-geographically significant degree) from the "them" addressed in the very next verse: 16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains. I don't think so.

Anyway, my two cents.
 
Last edited:

sawas

Well-Known Member
Glad to hear that my post caused some study! Keep it up!

In my opinion, the genderless state of the pronouns has no bearing on what Jesus was saying. Rather, Jesus was talking directly to his disciples when he said things like "when you see...", while answering their stated question in v. 3; therefore, in my mind, there are only a few possibilities:

1) The disciples themselves would see
2) If #1 is false, then the disciples had to represent the group that would see
3) If #2 is true, then you have to determine which group of people they represent
4) If #3 is true, you must be able to do so with solid exegesis and not theological eisegesis (i.e. assumptions / reading in)
I'm starting to wonder if LOL has morphed into an ironic way of saying, "I'm being totally serious here". Well, as it happens, I know that pronoun genders mostly matters to the Biden White House crew. I was joking, don't 'ya know?

Anyway, I've already provided you with exegesis, which cited several additional verses from the same chapter. You might note that they not only answered your post (rather directly) but also anticipated your response. To wit: #1 is obviously false and #2 (aka "your puzzle") is neither: (a) logically necessary nor is it (b) necessarily relevant. That's not to say it isn't necessarily true, but that the remainder of the discourse provides ample additional clues that provide relevant and meaningful context, so we don't have to work so hard guessing.

You might go back and re-read my earlier response, or not, your preference. You could then directly respond to the points that were actually made, or not, your preference. So far It seems far easier for you to dismiss biblical arguments as eisegesis than to present your own cogent analysis of the text and draw logical conclusions (and continue to spell eisegesis correctly). You have yet to do that. You've merely presented a puzzle with no clear answer provided or even proposed. Do that too and I'd be happy to read it.
 
Top