Home>Matthew 10:23 Study Archive

But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.


Matthew 10:23

“Thus, from early times scholars have acknowledged that the saying (Matthew 10:23) has to do with the parousia of Jesus. Today the majority of scholars unhesitatingly adopt this viewpoint.” (Jesus and the Kingdom of God, p. 286)

NIV Study Bible Notes (1985 Edition)
“The saying [Matthew 10:23] seems to teach that the gospel will continue to be preached to the Jews until Christ’s second coming.” (Matt 10:23)

NIV Study Bible Notes (1995 Edition)
Matthew 10:23: “Jesus’ saying here is probably best understood as referring to his coming in judgment on the Jews when Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed in A.D. 70.”  (Matt 10:23)

St. Athanasius (296-372)
“And when He Who spake unto Moses, the Word of the Father, appeared in the end of the world, He also gave this commandment, saying, “But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another” [Matt. 10:231; and shortly after He says, “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); then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains: let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes” [Matt. 24:15]. Knowing these things, the Saints regulated their conduct accordingly.” (Defence of His Flight [11])

Albert Barnes (1832)
Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, &c. That is, in fleeing from persecutors from one city to another, you shall not have gone to every city in Judea till the end of Jewish economy shall come.” (in loc.)

B.W. Johnson (1891)
“Till the Son of man be come. A reference primarily, no doubt, to the Lord coming into his kingdom. See #Mt 16:28. He was thus to come in the life time of some of the apostles. He did thus come in the establishment of his kingdom in power on the day of Pentecost. He also came in judgment on the Jews at the destruction of Jerusalem. This event ended Jewish persecution. There is also the final coming to judge the world, but the meaning here does not include that.” (in loc.)

Philip Schaff
The Second Advent of Christ “This being so, then the words relating to a personal return of Jesus are to be taken as pointing to the Destruction of Jerusalem (Mat. x.23; xvi.28).”

John Wesley (1754)
“Till the Son of man be come – To destroy their temple and nation.” (in loc.)

Geneva Bible Notes (1599)
10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have {i} gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

(i) Bring to an end, that is, you will not have gone through all the cities of Israel and preached in them. (in loc.)

John Gill (1809)
“ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, or “finished” them; that is, their tour through them, and their ministry, or the preaching of the Gospel in them,

“till the son of man be come; 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.” (in loc.)

Wayne Jackson (2003)
“The most compelling position, in this writer’s judgment, is that argued by numerous respectable scholars (e.g., J.W. McGarvey, Albert Barnes, F.F. Bruce, D.A. Carson, R.C.H. Lenski, Theodor Zahn, W.W. How, J. Barton Payne, etc.), namely that the “coming” event of Matthew 10:23 is the Roman invasion of Palestine, which occurred in A.D. 66-70.”  (What is the Meaning of Matthew 10:23)

Bishop Pearce
“I say unto you; ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be come, i. e. the gospel would not be particularly and fully preached to the cities of Israel, before the ruin of the Jewish state, and his taking vengeance on it” (Observations on the Whole Bible, in loc.)

James Stuart Russell (1878)
“In this passage we find the earliest distinct mention of that great event which we shall find so frequently alluded to henceforth by our Lord and His apostles, viz., His coming again, or the Parousia. It may indeed be a question, as we shall presently see, whether this passage properly belongs to this portion of the gospel history. But waiving for the moment this question, let us inquire what the coming here spoken of is. Can it mean, as Lange suggests, that Jesus was to follow so quickly on the heels of His messengers in their evangelistic circuit as to overtake them before it was completed? Or does it refer, as Stier and Alford think, to two different comings, separated from each other by thousands of years: the one comparatively near, the other indefinitely remote? Or shall we, with Michaelis and Meyer, accept the plain and obvious meaning which the words themselves suggest? The interpretation of Lange is surely inadmissible. Who can doubt that ‘the coming of the Son of man’ is here, what it is everywhere else, the formula by which the Parousia, the second coming of Christ, is expressed? This phrase has a definite and constant signification, as much as His crucifixion, or His resurrection, and admits of no other interpretation in this place. But may it not have a double reference: first, to the impending judgment of Jerusalem; and, secondly, to the final destruction of the world,- the former being regarded as symbolical of the latter? Alford contends for the double meaning, and is severe upon those who hesitate to accept it. He tells us what He thinks Christ meant; but on the other hand we have to consider what He said. Are the advocates of a double sense sure that He meant more than He said? Look at His words. Can anything be more specific and definite as to persons, place, time, and circumstance, than this prediction of our Lord? It is to the twelve that he speaks; it is the cities of Israel which they are to evangelize; the subject is His own speedy coming; and the time so near, that before their work is complete His coming will take place. But if we are to be told that this is not the meaning, nor the half of it, and that it includes another coming, to other evangelists, in other ages, and in other lands – a coming which, after eighteen centuries, is still future, and perhaps remote,- then the question arises: What may not Scripture mean? The grammatical sense of words no longer suffices for interpretation; Scripture is a conundrum to be guessed- an oracle that utters ambiguous responses; and no man can be sure, without a special revelation, that he understands what he reads. We are disposed, therefore, to agree with Meyer, that this twofold reference is ‘nothing but a forced and unnatural evasion,’ and the words simply mean what they’ say – that before the apostles completed their life-work of evangelizing the land of Israel, the coming of the Lord should take place.” (The Parousia)

C. Jonathan Seraiah
“It is true that the “eschatology” of the New Testament is predominantly preterist. For those unfamiliar with the preterist perspective, it is the ancient view that many of the eschatological passages of the New Testament were fulfilled (completely) in the destruction of Jerusalem in a.d. 70. This view may sound novel, but in reality there have been orthodox adherents to it throughout church history (e.g., Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, John Lightfoot, John Owen, Milton Terry, Jay Adams). This interpretation does not deny the Final Coming of Christ; it merely finds that not all “coming” passages refer to that event. The preterist interpretation is actually the most faithful to the biblical text because it recognizes that Old Testament prophetic terminology was used by the New Testament authors. This recognition is helpful in distinguishing the prophecies of Christ’s coming that were near, in the first century (Matt. 10:23; 16:28; 24:30; 26:64; 1 Thess. 5:2; 2 Thess. 1:7; James 5:7-9; 1 Pet. 4:7; Rev. 1:3, 7; etc.) and thus fulfilled in a.d. 70, from those that were far (John 5:28-29; Acts 1:11; 17:31; 1 Cor. 15:23-24; 1 Thess. 4:16; 1 Jn. 3:2; etc.) and thus not yet fulfilled even in our day. It also helps to distinguish between a spiritual “coming” (invisible for temporal judgment, as in a.d. 70) and a physical coming (visible for eternal judgment).” (End of All Things)

G.R. Beasley-Murray (1954)
“Thus, from early times scholars have acknowledged that the saying has to do with the parousia of Jesus. Today the majority of scholars unhesitatingly adopt this viewpoint.” (Jesus and the Kingdom of God, p. 286)

The Four Gospels Commentary
“When they persecute you in this city, flee into the next. The apostles were not to meet obduracy with obduracy. Moving as swiftly as they could along the line of least resistance, they would not be able to evangelize all the Jewish cities before the time set for their desolation–before the Son of man should come in the demonstration of his judicial power and destroy the Jewish nationality.” (in loc.)

Dr. Edward Robinson
‘The coming alluded to is the destruction of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the Jewish nation; and the meaning is, that the apostles would barely have time, before the catastrophe came, to go over the land warning the people to save themselves from the doom of an untoward generation; so that they could not well afford to tarry in any locality after its inhabitants had heard and rejected the message” (‘The training of the Twelve, p. 117).

Dr. Walter W. Wessell (1995)
Matthew 10:23: “Jesus’ saying here is probably best understood as referring to his coming in judgment on the Jews when Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed in A.D. 70.”  (Matt 10:23, NIV Study Bible Notes, p. 1453)

Date: 16 Jul 2013
Time: 16:16:19

Accusing that preterists use text of Matthew 10:23 to defend a parousia in 70 is going too far in the analysis of the positions that each of the eschatological school proponents and particularly this text refers , according to commentators from various schools, the historical moment in which the apostles were persecuted and Jerusalem was besieged and destroyed by the Romans under Emperor Vespasian and his son Titus General.

Date: 13 Jul 2013
Time: 09:39:19

Many people today have mistakenly taken the word parousia to mean that ie (Rapture) when the meaning has consequences, which refer to other points in time without brushing the actual end of our world in comparison to the end of the age written about so profusely in the newer testament about in my opinion 67-73 A.D. They incorrectly now believe that every time it says parousia it means Rapture, When The rapture only happens once and at the end of the complete planet, not in 70 A.D. Parousia is actualized by the Presence of Christ even when not Seen, as in the doctrine of a secret rapture tries to utilize. They think we are overly zealous when we state that Christ was indeed here in 70 A.D. It is then that they wish to use scripture again, and reflect on , every eye will see Him etc. Taken literally they miss the point, yes indeed every eye WILL SEE the LORD of GLORY in fact it will be at one time as well. But unwittingly will not allow themselves to be caught at that point with a secret coming, as they so much believe, ie if they only knew that Christ came in Presence (parousia) not the Rapture, then maybe they would afford us the same luxuries that they give to themselves. Instead of calling us the heretical. R.C.Scrolls (sic)