A good friend of mine recently called to ask me about a perplexing passage in Matthew.  We discussed the issue at some length, and I gave what I thought was a fair interpretation.  After some healthy give and take, he was like, “Yeah, I guess that makes sense.”  And that was it. 

But that wasn’t it.  I had that uncomfortable gnawing feeling, as if I had just made the incorrect call as a referee in a ball game.  And it stayed with me.  So I soon found myself pondering the issue while walking the mail, chewing and thinking, mulling over the text over and over again.  “What does it mean?”  I kept asking myself.  Round and round went the thoughts. 

It happened over my lunch break, while eating some oatmeal cookies at McDonalds (3 for a dollar!  Hard to beat!), when the answer hit me.  And it felt right… and it continues to feel right. 

So now I’m here, talking to you, wondering if you’ve ever wrestled with Matthew 10:23.  Perhaps the following explanation will prove helpful.  Or maybe, perhaps, you’ll tell me to keep thinking; to try again.  It would provide a good excuse to keep eating those cookies, at least.

So here’s my thought.

First, the passage.

“When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.” (Matthew 10:23)

Now here’s the email I recently sent my friend (with the beginning chopped down, as those details aren’t relevant here).


Jonathan, I’ve had a change of mind!

(Stuff is chopped out here).

Here’s what I now think.

The thing that kept bothering me was the connection between verse 23a and 23b, namely, the idea of fleeing to another city and the impending arrival of the Son of Man.  Why say that?  What is the logical connection between them?  The “For” is intriguing, to say the least. 

For example, it would make sense if Jesus said, “And when they persecute you, flee elsewhere, for you should be concerned about saving your neck.”  That would provide an apparent connection between part (a) and (b).  But it doesn’t say that, obviously.  Instead, the idea of the Son of Man coming is linked with fleeing to another city.  But again, why?  What is the connection? 

Two things stand out in my mind.  First, why does Jesus say “Son of Man” here?  And secondly, what message were the disciples supposed to preach (in Matthew 10)?  Regarding the content of their message, they were to preach “that the Kingdom of God is at hand” (vs. 7).  Interestingly, the title “Son of Man” is firmly rooted in Daniel, and it’s inextricably linked with the coming of the kingdom.  Consider Daniel 7:13-14:

“I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.”

So how does this relate to Matthew 10?  Imagine you’re a first century Jew following Christ, and you’ve just been commissioned to go out to the sheep of Israel, preaching that the kingdom of God is at hand.  “It’s coming soon!” was the message.  Jesus then warns that you’re going to face opposition.  And when you do, shake the dust off your feet and move on.  Others need to hear.  In fact, the kingdom is so near, stresses Jesus, that the Son of Man will come before you have time to make it through all the cities of Israel!

But wait a minute!  Am I saying that Christ’s Second Coming was in view?  Not exactly.  I think He was stressing the arrival of the kingdom, which is bound up with the concept “Son of Man,” which the disciples would have certainly have understood.  In fact, just think of Jesus’ triumphal entry.  They were waving palm branches and expecting the Messiah to crush Roman oppression.  What they didn’t expect, however, but should have, was that the kingdom was going to be inaugurated through the Messiah’s death!  That truly ushered in the kingdom!  Think Psalm 2 and Psalm 110.  Christ’s resurrection and ascension marked His kingly ascent.  He is King of kings and Lord of lords. 

Think also of the disciple’s ignorance of the Second Coming, as we now understand it.  Before the cross, which of course is true of Matthew 10, they wouldn’t have had the foggiest idea of a Second Coming.  They thought His being there was the final coming.  He was the Messiah, after all.  So for Jesus to be referring to the Second Coming, when He says “before the Son of Man comes,” would be strange indeed.  It makes much better sense to suppose that He would speak in terms they would understand… even if their dullness prevented their understanding it (which certainly happened).  And besides, the Second Coming didn’t happen in the first century. 

So what does “Son of Man” mean in that text?  I think it should be connected with the Kingdom of God.  Given the context, it makes very good sense.  And given the fact that Jesus died, rose again and ascended before all the cities of Israel had been reached, which inaugurated, in a definitive way, the Kingdom of God, it allows us to fully preserve the first century reference, which the context seems to demand.  At the same time, the already/not yet nature of NT eschatology, which is a clear NT doctrine, is likewise upheld.  The Kingdom did come, but it is also awaiting consummation.  

So while I think the destruction of Jerusalem makes very good sense elsewhere, it suffers the same problems as the Second Coming supposition.  I don’t think 70 AD is what Jesus had in mind in Matthew 10:23.    

A few other things could be said, but I think I’ve rambled on long enough  

In a nutshell, I think this is what Matthew 10:23 is saying:

My paraphrase:  “When they persecute you, don’t waste your time there.  Move on!  Go to the next city.  Time is of the essence.  In fact, the Son of Man is so at hand, which you know means the coming of the Kingdom of God, it’s going to arrive before all the cities are covered.”     

And when Jesus rose victorious, it happened. 

See also Daniel 2:44-45.

My two cents,



2 thoughts on “

  1. Austin,
    If I’m correct, your interpretation basically boils down to this:

    1) “Before the Son of Man comes” refers to Dan 7 where “one like a son of man” receives all power and glory.
    2) Matt 28 demonstrates Jesus claiming all power and authority.
    3) Matt 28 is the fulfillment of both Dan 7 and Matt 10

    Is that a fair assessment?

    If so, the only sticking point in your interpretation would seem to be in point 1. Is every reference Christ makes to the “Son of Man” a direct reference to Dan 7? (I think that may not be the case.) If not, is this a special case? (You could probably answer that in the positive – he’s talking about the Son of Man “coming” as a future, yet imminent event.)

    All in all, I like it!

    1. Hi Dave!

      Yeah, I’m not prepared to say that every single reference to the “Son of Man” points back to Daniel 7. But I do think it plays an important role in the discussion.

      The thing that really strikes me about Matthew 10 is the focus on the preaching of the kingdom. So given:

      (A) the context of Matthew 10,
      (B) and the intimate relationship between “The Son of Man” and the Kingdom of God, which seems evident in Daniel 7,
      (C) and the fact that Jesus often spoke of the presence of the kingdom, as well as its coming (already/not yet),
      (D) and the fact that the text appears to demand a first century fulfillment,
      (E) and the curious “For” in verse 23,

      Given these, it would seem that Jesus is highlighting the kingdom element of the “Son of Man” concept. So yeah, I think Matthew 28 is a great passage to reference. Here I am also reminded of Matthew 16 and Jesus’ promise that they would not taste death “until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” I don’t think the transfiguration recorded in Matthew 17 is accidental in this respect. It’s placed there to show its fulfillment, or at least partial fulfillment.

      Here one might wonder if saying “partial fulfillment” is correct. As I write this, I’m thinking of D.A. Carson’s excellent work on the use of Psalm 2 in the NT. The fulfillment shares a common theme, but can be applied in a variety of ways.

      Thanks for the interaction, David!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s