When the Son of Man comes

23 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 (Mt 10:23).

Liberal critics and outright unbelievers cite this as a classic case of failed prophecy. Attempts to defend the prophecy may look like special pleading. 

However, even if this appears to be a failed prophecy to the modern reader, surely Matthew didn't think this was a failed prophecy. So our interpretation should be consistent with his understanding of the prophecy. That's not special pleading. 

The liberal interpretation actually poses a dilemma for liberal critics. Liberal critics don't think Matthew was written by the apostle. They think it was written by an anonymous redactor. They date it late. Raymond Brown thinks Matthew might have been written anytime between 70-100 AD, although he favors 80-90. Finally, they don't think there's any presumption that Jesus actually spoke the words attributed to him in the Gospels. The authors exercised the literary license to invent sayings which they put on the lips of Jesus. But all these assumptions generate tensions for the liberal interpretation.

To begin with, the wording of 10:23 harkens back to the introductory verses:

5 These twelve Jesus sent out, instructing them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans, 6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And proclaim as you go, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons. You received without paying; give without pay. 9 Acquire no gold or silver or copper for your belts, 10 no bag for your journey, or two tunics or sandals or a staff, for the laborer deserves his food. 11 And whatever town or village you enter, find out who is worthy in it and stay there until you depart. 12 As you enter the house, greet it. 13 And if the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it, but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. 14 And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town. 15 Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town.

This seems to envisage a short-term mission. Something that not only took place within the lifetime of the Twelve, but within the lifetime of Jesus. Something that happened during the public ministry of Christ. 

Because Jesus can't be everywhere at once, he dispatches the Twelve as an extension of his own ministry. They are tasked to evangelize Galilee. So the context seems to be sending them out for a few weeks or months. They will rejoin him after they've completed their circuit. And, indeed, as we continue to read the narrative, the Twelve are back with Christ. 

Yet liberal critics think 10:23 envisions the Parousia. But on that view, all this happened, or failed to happen, decades before Matthew was written. The mission in 10:5ff. took place  around 30 AD. If, according to liberal dating, Matthew was written 50-60 years later (give or take), how could Matthew believe the Parousia occurred in the early 30s? How long would it take the Twelve to canvass Galilee? Not decades. Or even years. 

Conversely, if this is a failed expectation, why would Matthew record or invent a failed prophecy? 

If, however, Mt 10:23 refers to a long-range event, then when did it fail to come to pass? On the face of it, vv16-22 describes a different, more expansive mission–which includes outreach to the Gentile world. One explanation is that Matthew combined two different speeches: one about Jewish mission, the other about Gentile mission. 

That complicates the question of when v23 refers to. But it's not as if vv16-22 has a specific time-frame. It's open-ended. Assuming (ex hypothesi) that v23 denotes the Parousia, it's the return of Christ which abruptly terminates that mission. 

So this poses a dilemma for the liberal interpretation. If v23 reverts back to vv5-15, then it's too early, too self-enclosed, to fail. But if v23 takes in the more sweeping view of vv16-22, then there's nothing to limit that to a 1C Parousia.  

It isn't necessary to settle on the right interpretation to show that the liberal interpretation is wrong. That's a separate issue.

Because the "coming of the Son of Man" alludes to Dan 7:13-14, R. T. France, thinks this refers to the Ascension. Conversely, Chamblin thinks the fall of Jerusalem is a type of the final judgment. In typology, certain kinds of events are both prophet and repeatable. 

I'd also like to make a general observation on apparent cases of failed prophecy. I think many Bible readers forget that most Bible prophecies originate in visionary revelation. 

The predictive prophecy is usually based on images of the future. Sometimes figurative imagery, sometimes more literal.

Images don't contain dates. Foreseeing the future doesn't tell the seer when that will happen. There's no time-index.

It's something you may recognize after the fact, but not before.

When critics say Bible prophecies failed, they overlook the mode of revelation. Taken by itself, an image of the future can't fail, in the sense that it doesn't come with date stamp. 

Rather, it's a question of how and when the pictures of the future will align future events. That may be obvious once it happens. That's rarely obvious before it happens. 

Therefore, while it's often easy to identify a fulfilled prophecy, it's often hard to distinguish between a failed prophecy and outstanding prophecy. Considered ahead of time, an unfulfilled prophecy which has yet to transpire may look just like a failed prophecy. That's a classic case of "time will tell." 

Take this passage:

17 The seventy-two returned with joy, saying, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name!” 18 And he said to them, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven (Lk 11:17-18).

Commentators (e.g. J. Nolland, C. F. Evans) demonstrate that this is probably a visionary revelation. Exorcism represents the incipient defeat of Satan's kingdom. And the image of his fall from heaven symbolized that fact. 

But the image all by itself doesn't tell you when that happened. You need more context to determine what past, present, or future event that matches. 

In this case, Luke mentions the visionary source of the revelation–perhaps because it's such an arresting image. But in many cases, the visionary source may be an unstated presupposition.