One of the more challenging passages in the New Testament is Matthew 10:23, where Jesus tells His disciples:
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. (ESV)
This verse is rooted in the context of Jesus sending out the twelve. So the question arises—to what time was Jesus referring? There have been a variety of exegetical conclusions made about this passage, and the purpose of this article will be to look at the different understandings and provide our own analysis of the text.
Contextual Background
Matthew 10:23 places us in the middle of Jesus’ Galilean ministry. In the beginning of chapter 10, Jesus commissions the twelve disciples and sends them out by twos to minister without Him. They are given instructions not to go outside of Galilee or the Jewish people (Matthew 10:5-6).[1] The purpose for the restriction to only the Jewish people, the “house of Israel” (οἶκου Ἰσραήλ), seems to be redemptive-historical.[2] Jesus limited the disciples’ mission for a time, but He Himself went deliberately to the Gentile areas in order to prepare His disciples for their later universal mission.[3]
The content of the disciples’ message was the proclamation of the kingdom of heaven by which they would call men to repentance and confirm their message by various signs and wonders (Matthew 10:8). They were to be supported by those to whom they ministered, and they were not required to bring additional provisions for their journey. Jesus instructed them to bless the houses that welcomed them but to shake the dust off their feet when they were rejected. Those who would reject them were unworthy of the gospel of the kingdom, and the disciples did not have to cast their pearls before such swine.[4]
In Matthew 10:16-23, Jesus expands His discussion not only to the immediate mission, but to the universal mission of the church. In this text, He prophetically warns His followers of the severe opposition and rejection they will face. They will be delivered over to the courts, flogged in the synagogues, and dragged before governors and kings to bear “witness before them and the Gentiles” (10:18). These prophetic warnings were amply fulfilled in sacred church history (Acts 4:1-22; 5:17-41; 6:12-8:3; 12:1-19; 16:19-40; 21:27-28:31), as well as later church history. Jesus encouraged the disciples to not worry in those times because He would give them the Holy Spirit who would speak through them. They would not be left without a comforter and guide. The Spirit of God would empower them to proclaim the gospel boldly. Jesus’ discussion on division within families (Matthew 10:21-22) describes a scene where things get progressively worse, where followers of Christ will be pressured from all sides to deny the Christ. And it is here in this immediate context that we come upon this peculiar text where Jesus tells his disciples that they will not finish going through the towns of Israel until He comes (10:23).
Different Interpretations of Matthew 10:23
In his commentary on Matthew, D. A. Carson lists at least seven different interpretations of this passage. It is not our purpose here to interact with all of them but to briefly survey some of the most popular views.
First, there are some who have advocated that Jesus is simply telling the disciples that they would not go through all of the cities until He came back to them. In other words, Jesus was referring to the moment that He would rejoin them after the immediate mission.[5] However, this view is problematic at least for two reasons. First, although Jesus discusses the immediate mission of the disciples in 10:6-15, verses 16-22 discuss a broader scope of mission. These verses include persecution and other themes that suggest a time beyond the immediate mission of the twelve. To place verse 23 back into the discussion of the immediate mission is to misplace it contextually. Second, to follow this line of reasoning (that verse 23 is a reference to Jesus’ rejoining the disciples after the immediate mission), then it is hard to see how verses 16-22 of chapter 10 are fulfilled. There is little, if any, evidence to suggest that the disciples faced extreme persecution during that mission.[6] The flow of the context, and the fact that no indication of persecution took place during this time, renders this view unlikely.
Second, others have interpreted this “coming of the Son of Man” as a reference to Jesus’ public identification as the Messiah at the resurrection. John Calvin connected Jesus’ coming to His aiding the disciples in their mission to Judea by the power of the Holy Spirit.[7] It is true that Jesus does discuss His “coming” through the work and power of the Holy Spirit—particularly in the Gospel of John (see John 14:18; 16:16, 22). However, this view does not seem to be the best interpretation. It does consider the persecution to some degree, but it fails to address the urgency in the text—“truly I say to you” (ἀμήν γάρ λέγω). In addition, the Holy Spirit came upon the disciples at Pentecost, which occurred before much of the persecution of the disciples took place—effectively arguing for the opposite of what Matthew 10:23 says, that persecution would come first and then the Son of Man would come. Finally, it is important to note that the person of the Holy Spirit is not a major theme in the Gospel of Matthew, thus making this interpretation less likely to be correct.[8]
A third and prominent view of this passage is to look at it from a future eschatological perspective, so that in some way Jesus was referring to His second coming. Some advocates would actually see a double fulfillment, in that Jesus was speaking in a form of prophetic shorthand. There is certainly some warrant for this interpretation because we have numerous examples in the Old Testament prophets of this kind of prophecy.[9] However, just because there are examples of double fulfillment does not mean that every passage in question must be viewed in this way. It is difficult to infer that this is the case here. For one thing, Jesus is speaking to the disciples and their experience when they are enduring persecution. Additionally, the sense of urgency that we find in verse 23b is connected to the first half of the verse. It is unwise to disconnect verse 23a and 23b without sufficient reason to do so.[10] Furthermore, if this passage is a double fulfillment, with the immediate fulfillment already having taken place, it is reasonable to ask when the future fulfillment will occur. Unless one adopts some kind of dispensational eschatology, at which time in the future will God’s people “not have gone through all the towns of Israel” before He returns?
Accordingly, dispensationalists take a very different approach to this text, providing a fourth view. Classical dispensationalist commentator John Walvoord does not even see the church in this text. He writes:
Jesus declared they would not be able to fulfill their tasks of reaching all the cities of Israel until the Son of man had come. This seems to anticipate the second coming of Christ and views the entire present church age as a parenthesis not taken into consideration in this prophecy.[11]
In other words, according to Walvoord, this is a reference to after the church has been raptured by Christ and is referring to believers who are living during the Tribulation. The church is a mere parenthesis between when Jesus gave the prophecy and its actual fulfillment. This view suffers from the fact that the parenthesis cannot be substantiated. Furthermore, this understanding would have been unintelligible to those that heard it, as well as to the original readers of Matthew’s Gospel. Most importantly, this position completely detaches the passage from the immediate context, which—as Walvoord correctly notes—is referring to events that will come upon the disciples post-Pentecost.[12]
So far, the four positions we have surveyed all come from a believing point of view. There are other interpretations that essentially conclude that Jesus was mistaken. A prominent advocate of this school was Albert Schweitzer, who argued this prophecy of Jesus was left “unfulfilled.”[13] When the church realized that there were numerous unfulfilled predictions of Christ, they needed to adjust their theology. Only a few traces of Jesus’ “original teaching” have been preserved, including this text. To say it another way, Matthew 10:23 is a remnant of Jesus’ original, incorrect teaching.[14] If all that Jesus had in view was the second coming, and Jesus is telling them that this would happen before they went through the towns of Israel, then it would be difficult to understand it in any other way. However, this view wrongly assumes that we must only take what Jesus is saying as a reference to the second coming. Yet there is another view that is more plausible.
Exegesis of Matthew 10:23
While this passage proposes difficulties, there is no question that Jesus said it and Matthew wrote it down. The textual evidence is strong regarding its authenticity, and while there are variants in this passage, they do not affect the interpretive difficulties.[15]
A detailed study of this passage should lead one to reject the generalities of some of the proposed views. For example, the “towns of Israel” (πόλεις τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ) in verse 23 should not be considered a reference to anything but the towns in Palestine. Because of the immediate persecution and evangelization, the disciples will not exhaust the towns of Israel.[16] The immediate context (10:6, “the house of Israel”) indicates that the reference is restricted to Palestine, and there is not an indication that it has changed to refer to towns outside the “Holy Land.” Thus, at the outset, the restrictive nature of the “towns of Israel” (πόλεις τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ) with its limitation to the immediate mission of the disciples makes it difficult to extrapolate this out as some general mission of Israel leading up to the second coming.
Another phrase of importance is “Son of Man” (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου). Often this phrase is used in an eschatological context such as Matthew 24:30 and 25:31, and it is more than likely an eschatological reference in Matthew 10:23. D. A. Carson says that the coming of the Son of Man is the same event as the coming of the kingdom.[17] To say it another way, the coming of the Son of Man brings in the kingdom.[18] That is not to say that those who see this passage as the second coming of Christ are correct that this is a reference to when Christ returns to consummate His kingdom. Instead, this passage should be understood as belonging to the category of realized eschatology.[19] This is where the already/not yet paradigm of the kingdom of God is helpful. As Carson rightly notes:
In one sense Jesus was born a king (2:2), in another He has all authority as a result of His passion and resurrection (28:19), and in yet another, His kingdom awaits an end. Mingled with this theme of the coming of the kingdom are Jesus’ repeated warning to the Jews concerning the disaster they are courting by failing to recognize and receive Him. In this, He stands on the shoulders of the Old Testament prophets, but His warnings are unique because He Himself is the eschatological judge and because the Messianic reign is now dawning in both blessing and wrath.[20]
In other words, this passage belongs to the coming of the kingdom, but it is emphasizing a certain aspect of this kingdom that comes in various stages. And part of this kingdom is judgment, particularly judgment upon Jerusalem and the nation of Israel.
The Case for a Reference to 70 AD
In light of this, the most plausible understanding of this passage is that it is a reference to Jesus coming in a form of judgment upon Israel—specifically in AD 70. Jesus repeatedly foretold the judgment that would befall Israel in the Gospel of Matthew (21:1-22; 21:28–22:14; 23:29-36; 23:37–24:1),[21] and it seems that this fits that theme. Jesus is referring to the fact that He would come and bring destruction upon the nation that rejected Him. This interpretation is supported by the following arguments.
First, this interpretation fits nicely with the context. It is restricted to those to whom the passage is referring (the twelve disciples), and it allows for the post-Pentecost persecution that came upon the apostles before AD 70. Prior to AD 70, the apostles were still in and out of the synagogues and evangelizing the Jewish people. Jesus tells them that they will have not completed their mission in those towns until the Son of Man comes in judgement upon Israel.
Second, this interpretation fits with the strong urgency in the passage. Jesus’ urgency does not fit with an understanding that sees this as the final consummation off in the distant future. His urgency seems to be due to something drastic that will occur, and it must occur before the disciples are finished going through Israel. In other words, the urgency in verse 23b (“for truly I say to you”) is connected to what the disciples will be doing—not something that will occur long in the distant future after the lifetime of the disciples. The destruction of AD 70 satisfies this urgency.
Third, this interpretation aligns well with the judgment motif that is found in Matthew. As mentioned before, Matthew records many of Jesus’ remarks about the coming judgment upon Israel. This includes His cursing of the fig tree as a representation of Israel (Matthew 21:18-19), the parable of the tenants in which Jesus states that the kingdom will be taken from the nation of Israel (21:40-43), the woes Jesus proclaims that will fall upon the Jewish leaders (23:29-36), and His prediction that the temple—which was the epitome of the Jewish religion—would be destroyed (24:2). An understanding of Matthew 10:23 as the coming of the Son of Man in judgment upon Israel fits well with this motif. Donald Hagner summarizes it well when he says:
This exclusive mission of the twelve to Israel, which reflects their salvation-historical priority over the Gentiles, will not reach its completion before it is interrupted by the coming of the son of man in judgment upon Jerusalem, thereby symbolizing the shift wherein the Gentiles, rather than the Jews, assume priority in the purpose of God. This mission to the Jews, reflecting their place in salvation-history, thus has a time limitation, the end of which (but not the end of Jewish evangelism) will be marked by the coming of the Son of Man in judgment upon Israel.[22]
Conclusion
As noted from the outset of this article, this passage is difficult. I am not suggesting that all interpretive difficulties end with this article. However, the view espoused here would defend the Scripture against assertions that Jesus was wrong. What Jesus prophesied did come to pass, contra Schweitzer. Jesus did come back prior to the apostles going through all of the towns in Israel, in the form of judgment which befell Jerusalem in AD 70.[23] This judgment ushered in a new era of salvation history where the shadows of the temple, sacrificial system, priesthood, and so forth were done away with, having fulfilled their purpose. The judgment that was exercised on Jerusalem in AD 70, however, was simply a foreshadow of the ultimate judgment to come. In other words, when the Lord does return to usher in the final consummation of all things, we know that the judgment poured out on Jerusalem will not compare to the judgment that will befall the entire world for those who refuse to bow the knee to Jesus Christ.
[1]“The use of the word ὁδόν with a genitive in a geographical context means ‘to take a road or a path to’ a place. The sent disciples are not to follow the road north or east to the gentile areas, nor are they to go south to the land of the Samaritans.” Grant R. Osborne, Matthew, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 377.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid. See also R.T. France, The Gospel According to Matthew, TNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 178. France writes: “This saying reflects the historic fact that with very few exceptions... the mission of both Jesus and His disciples before the resurrection was in fact limited to Israel; the time for the Gentile mission was later. The emphasis of the saying lies not primarily on the prohibition of a wider mission, but on the priority of the mission to Israel.” See also the discussion in Gene R. Smillie, “‘Even the Dogs’: Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew,” Journal of Evangelical Theological Society 45/1 (March 2002), 90–91.
[4] Osborne, Matthew, 381.
[5] For proponents of this interpretation, see D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8, ed. Frank Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 250.
[6] Ibid., 250–251.
[7] John Calvin, Commentary on Matthew, Mark, and Luke, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Christian Ethereal Library), 404.
[8] Carson, “Matthew,” 251.
[9] William Hendricksen, An Exposition of the Gospel of Matthew, New Testament Commentary (Baker Academic: 1983), 467.
[10] Carson, “Matthew,” 251.
[11] John Walvoord, Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come (Chicago: Moody Press, 1998), 76.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede (London, 1910), 357.
[14] Carson, “Matthew,” 252.
[15] See Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Hendricksen Publishers, 2005), 23.
[16] Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1–13, Word Biblical Commentary (Thomas Nelson, 1993), 279.
[17] Carson, “Matthew,” 252.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ibid., 253.
[20] Ibid., 252.
[21] George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans’s Publishing Company, 1993), 225.
[22] Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 280.
[23] By arguing for this view, I am not necessarily advocating for a partial-preterist interpretation of all similar passages.
Sean McGowan serves as pastor of Westminster Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Tallahassee, Florida. He is author of Psalms that Curse: A Brief Primer and Infant Baptism: An Introductory Sprinkling for Parishioners. He holds degrees from Liberty University (B.S., religion and biblical studies) and Reformed Theological Seminary (M.A., theological studies).