Matthew 23-25: The Olivet Discourse (part 2 of 5)

(See the previous post for the literary structure of the entire discourse.) 

Continuing where I left of in part one of this brief series on Matthew 23-25, we arrive at the central pivot point of the Olivet Discourse, sections C and C'. 

C) Jesus asks his disciples a question about the temple, and then promises its desolation (24:1—2) 

Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered them, “You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.”  

C’) The disciples ask Jesus three questions about the temple and its desolation (24:3) 

As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming, and of the end of the age?”

Notice that section "C" is extremely obvious about what is meant. Herod's temple in Jerusalem, which Jesus and his disciples had just walked out of, is pointed out by Jesus' disciples. Jesus then points back at the temple stones and declares that it will all be "thrown down", i.e. left desolate.

However, immediately thereafter--literally the very next verse composed within this discourse--we are told that as Jesus sat down on the Mount of Olives, across from and in plain sight of the temple they had just left, his disciples came to him privately, asking three questions. These three questions are asked within the close context of leaving Herod's temple, pointing to Herod's temple, discussing Herod's temple along with every one of its stones "thrown down", and sitting on a hill while viewing that same temple. The literary layout of those three questions in that scene is actually quite simple:

The disciples then ask,

 “Tell us… 

1) …when will these things be

2) and what will be the sign of your coming 

3) and [what will be the sign] of the end of the age?”

Here is where things get interesting. Throughout Church history, almost all of the Catholic and Orthodox "Fathers" who said anything about these three questions and Jesus' response to them interpreted these questions as being answered sequentially and linearly (in the following verses thereafter). 

Accordingly, they interpreted Jesus' first answer as a response to the first question, teaching clearly that it pertained to the Jewish wars of 66-70 A.D. and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Next, they interpreted the second question as pertaining to the miraculous sign of Christ returning to earth visibly prior to the end of the physical, fallen world. (There actually was a small handful of Fathers who connected Christ’s “coming” here, in the second question, with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., but for the purposes of this post, it isn't necessary to get sidetracked by that minority opinion.) Lastly, the Fathers interpreted Jesus' third series of answers as a response to the third question, arguing vividly that such pertained to the end of the fallen, but yet material world we live in.  As a result, all of the Fathers connected the second and third questions, and Jesus' responses to those questions, with their (and our) future. (This pattern is very important to memorize for now. You will understand its importance by the end of this post.)

Do you understand the significance of this pattern? I will say it one more time so it sticks...

Three questions are asked within the close context of leaving Herod's temple, pointing to Herod's temple, discussing Herod's temple along with every one of its stones being "thrown down", and sitting on a hill while viewing that same temple. Yet the overwhelming majority of Church Fathers interpreted question number one as being answered first by Jesus, followed by question number two being answered second in the sequence offered by Jesus (as laid out by Matthew), and question number three being answered last. 

And not only that, the majority of Church Fathers recognized that the first question that Jesus answered was addressing the Jewish wars of 66-70 A.D. and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.!

Let that sink in....

Not only did the Church Fathers believe Jesus answered all three questions sequentially and linearly (e.g. Question 1 is followed by Question 2, then Question 3, followed by an Answer to #1, then an Answer to #2, and finally the answer to #3), but the majority of them over many centuries also interpreted the second and third questions (and Jesus' answers), as referring to something entirely different than the first question and Jesus' answer to it. They transition from a discussion about Jerusalem and its temple in the first question to the end of the physical, fallen cosmos in the second and third questions.

This isn't much different from what we hear (or believe) in churches around the world today, right?

Here is what I have to say to that: There are at least three significant problems with that interpretation, and the final (third) reason I will list below strikes a death blow to it. 

The first significant problem is that every other reference within Matthew’s Gospel corresponding to the “sign” of Christ’s “coming” in judgment or the “end of the age” are explicitly stated in terms of events occurring within the first century.

But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? (Matthew 3:7, the prophet John speaking to the Scribes and Pharisees) 

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, Jesus speaking to his disciples)

Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was thrown into the sea and gathered fish of every kind. When it was full, men drew it ashore and sat down and sorted the good into containers but threw away the bad. So it will be at the end of this age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matthew 13:47, Jesus speaking to his disciples; c.f. Galatians 1:4, which shares the same construction of "this age" in Greek)

For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. (Matt 16:27, Jesus speaking to his disciples)

Everything within the broad context of Matthew's Gospel suggests one cataclysmic event culminating within the first century, upon that generation, at the end of that old covenant age in which Israel's temple was central. In the close context of the Olivet discourse, Jesus clearly has one cataclysmic event in mind as well (i.e. “there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down”). Therefore it is presumptuous to insist that this would prompt the apostles to ask three questions, but with only one of the three questions being related to the events that Jesus and his disciples have both clearly illustrated. Moreover, if Jesus (or Matthew) is suddenly introducing the same terminology as utilized elsewhere in this Gospel, but with entirely different time references and meanings as everywhere else in the same letter, I think it's safe to say that this would make both the second and third questions and Jesus’ answers to them inexplicable, inconsistent, and confusing within the context of Matthew’s letter. 

Think about this: If Jesus (or Matthew, the composer of this Discourse) has not yet—even once—mentioned the promised end of this sinful world thousands (or tens of thousands) of years later, or even the final “coming” of Jesus to end this sinful world thousands (or tens of thousands) of years later, then there is no apparent reason to start introducing that topic within a series of three questions that seem--at least within the close context--to be concerned with the desolation of Israel's temple. The disciples ask "when will these things be", and there are no internal indicators that the two questions following immediately thereafter are about something other than those very same things.

The second significant problem is that the disciples ask about the end of the "age," not the end of the "globe" or the "earth" or the "world" or "physical cosmos." There are distinctive greek words for those concepts, and Matthew does not record Jesus using them. The greek word that Matthew records is aion. The essence of aion indicates time, not space or matter. That is why the cognate Latin terms are aeuum or aevum, which both mean “age”, and are present in such words as “longevity” (meaning “long-age”) and “mediaeval” (meaning “middle-age”). From Greek to English, the phrase “unto aions of aions” is translated as “for eternity” because the essence of aion denotes time. There are no internal indicators within the discourse that conjure up an idea about the end of the globe, the earth, the world, or the physical cosmos. That is because the Greek word used denotes age. Matthew records Jesus teaching about the end of the old covenant age in which they lived, in that generation of the temple's desolation.

The third significant problem (and death blow to it all) is that Jesus does not answer question number one first. Jesus answers question number three first, and question number one last.

Take a few extra moments to let that sink in....

I just dragged you (the reader) through an extensive display of what the overwhelming majority of Church Fathers taught. They taught that Jesus was answering the first question first. They taught that Jesus was answering the second question second, and the third question third as well. They taught that Jesus answered all three questions sequentially and linearly. (Hopefully you now recall my suggestion above to memorize that!) It turns out, in fact, that such presumptions on their part were patently false. Jesus answers the third question first, and the first question third. Let's see how this is so. Remember, the sequence of questions was this:

The disciples then ask,

 “Tell us… 

1) …when will these things be

2) and what will be the sign of your coming 

3) and [what will be the sign] of the end of the age?”

Now, if we glance back at the last post in this series we can see that in section B' Jesus answers all three questions in eight distinctive subsections (thus mirroring section B, which also is composed of eight distinctive subsections). The exact sequence in which Jesus answers those three questions is the inverse of what the Church Fathers presumed, and is illustrated below, beginning with Jesus answering the third question and working back to answering the first question last:

Answer to Question #3, part one:  the signs preceding "the end" of the age (24:4—14) 

Answer to Question #3, part two:  the sign of "the end" of the age (24:15—22)

Answer to Question #2, part one:  the signs preceding Christ’s coming (24:23—29)

Answer to Question #2, part two:  the sign of Christ’s coming (24:30—35) 

Answer to Question #1, part one:  when these things will be--> "Watch therefore" / "No one knows the Day or Hour" (24:36—44) 

   Answer to Question #1, part two:  when these things will be--> "Master" & "Servant" / "Wailing & Gnashing of Teeth" (24:45–51)

Answer to Question #1, part one (prime):  when these things will be--> "Watch therefore" / "No one knows the Day or Hour" (25:1—13)

   Answer to Question #1, part two (prime):  when these things will be--> "Master" & "Servant" / "Wailing & Gnashing of Teeth" (25:14—30)

Go ahead and study those verses yourself. Study the language recorded by Matthew. Notice the parallels. If you can study the Greek text, even better. It is glaringly obvious that such is exactly the sequence in which Jesus responded to the three questions of his disciples. Jesus answered the third question first, and the first question third. But why does this matter, you (the reader) might ask? It matters because it is overwhelmingly demonstrable that the majority of Church Fathers who referred to the Olivet Discourse were crystal clear about interpreting Jesus' initial response in 24:4--22 as referring to the Jewish wars and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

But they assumed that Jesus was answering the first question first. Jesus was actually answering the third question first---the question, "what will be the sign of the end of the age?"---which they all mistakenly assumed was a question about the end of the physical world as we experience it today!

Let that sink in....

In the next post I will show verse by verse, section by section, how crystal clear the language and structure of Jesus' answers really are.  

Matthew 23-25: The Olivet Discourse (Part 1 of 5)

In many posts written over the past five years I have consistently shown how the broad, "macro" literary structure of Matthew's Gospel (here, here, and here) illumines and weaves together the seemingly disjointed narrative composition of individual pericopes within the book. And as can be seen elsewhere in numerous places of this blog, I have walked readers through over half of the Gospel's "micro" structures as well. In the following series of posts I am going to work through one of the two most controversial micro structures of the whole Gospel: the so-called "Olivet Discourse."

There are a few hundred differing theories among Christians and non-Christians alike about how to interpret the Olivet Discourse. So then, right from the outset I'm going to simply say that my conclusions will not be unique among them all, but my literary approach to the discourse will be a minority position among them all. I also promise that understanding the Olivet Discourse is very, very simple; so simple in fact that apart from tribalistic preconceptions which leave us feeling uncomfortable as "outsiders" when veering into unfamiliar territory labeled as "off limits" by other members in our tribe, what I'm going to present should convince you. I don't pretend that the evidence for understanding the Olivet discourse is ambiguous at all. I think it's message is consistent and crystal clear. Only the "off limits" warnings posted by surrounding tribalists can (and do) scare interested students of the Scriptures into cognitive dissonance. If you care about Matthew's Gospel as literature with any literary or historical integrity (as myself and most Christians do), you should find this series interesting and challenging. If you have dabbled in studies about "eschatology," or even the absurdities surrounding so-called "end times prophecy" for today (which I consider to be complete lunacy, by the way), you should find this series interesting and challenging. But if you're an armchair theologian or confessional calvinist who spends his (or her) free time trolling social media to find the next heretic to post signs around, please don't bother reading further.

For those still interested, let's begin. 

The Olivet Discourse is entirely about the Jewish wars leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem, and the actual destruction of Jerusalem, followed by the "great" or so-called "last judgment" thereafter. The literary structure of this discourse is as follows:

A)  Those seated in Moses’ seat: not doing what they do 

       (23:1–12)                                                                                               

     B)  Jesus denounces those seated in Moses’ seat / 8 sections 

           (23:13, *14, 15–39)                                                                                         

     

            C) Jesus asks his disciples a question about the temple, and then promises its 

               desolation (24:1—2)

             C’) The disciples ask Jesus three questions about the temple and its desolation 

               (24:3)                                                  

     

      B’) Jesus answers all three questions about the temple and its desolation / 8 sections   

            (24:4—25:30)                                                                                                   

A’)  The Son of Man seated on his own throne: doing what they did not do 

       (25:31—46)

There are a few things worth noting and discussing at this point before we dive into the really controversial (and incontrovertible) passages. First of all, notice that sections "A" and "A' " are relatively short, covering less than 16 verses for each section. Compositionally, then, each matching structure is of comparable size. As I will be arguing in a later post (in this series), there is also an explicit theme between them, the theme of "sitting" on a throne in God's temple. The enthroned Jesus sitting within the heavenly temple of section A-prime is closely connected with Jesus' opening warnings about the Scribes and Pharisees who "sit on Moses' seat" within Herod's temple. 

Secondarily, notice that sections "B" and "B' " each contain eight subsections, and that I have inserted an asterisk ("*") next to verse 14. That asterisk is there to catch your attention. I insert it there because many modern translations of the Bible remove verse 14 on the alleged grounds that (1) it is an interpolation derived from Mark 12:40 or Luke 20:47, (2) a handful of very old (and poorly preserved!) manuscripts omit the verse altogether, and (3) a pathetic minority of manuscripts include verse 14 but insert it before and after verse 13, thereby leaving its authenticity in doubt because of its so-called spurious placement within the narrative. 

I don't buy that. I think the verse is genuine. I can easily defend the textual credibility of the verse in question, as I have done with other, much more controversial and complicated verses. But now is not the time for sorting through textual criticism. It is sufficient to notice that I include the verse as legitimate on textual and literarily critical grounds. As such, I believe section "B" (23:13-39) completes a rhythm of eight "woes" total, which can be divided into two halves, with the first three "woes" of each half followed immediately by a much longer and detailed fourth "woe" that explicitly links the Scribes and Pharisees with those who mock the God who sits enthroned in His temple and those who persecute and murder God's servants. The breakdown of these eight subsections are as follows:

1)  But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.

2) *[Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour the houses of widows and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you shall receive the greater damnation.]*

3)  Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.

4)  Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.’ You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred? And you say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath.’ You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? So whoever swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. And whoever swears by the temple swears by it and by him who dwells in it. And whoever swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by him who sits upon it. 

5)  Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel! 

6)  Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean.

7)  Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

8)  Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, saying, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the land, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. O Jerusalem! Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! See, your house is left to you desolate! For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'

Most importantly, however, is the way the eighth woe ends (in verses 36-38): "Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. O Jerusalem! Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! See, your house is left to you desolate!"

Virtually every scholar in history has readily acknowledged that the phrase "this generation" of verse 36 meant that particular generation in which Jesus and his disciples were living, which was the generation that lived to see or hear about the Jewish wars and the destruction of Jerusalem with Israel's Temple in it (i.e. their "house" left desolate). In fact, I'm not aware of any commentator of the Olivet Discourse (and I have personally read over two hundred commentaries and/or scholarly essays on the Olivet Discourse) who said the phrase "this generation" in verse 36 meant anything other than that generation in which the Jewish wars and the destruction of Jerusalem ensued. This is very important to note down and remember because the next time that same phrase appears within this discourse it appears in it's corresponding section, section B'. In chapter 24, verse 34 (of section B') we see Jesus repeating himself: 

"Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until these things take place."

The placement of that particular phrase in 23:36 and 24:34 was not an accident or coincidence. It was intentional on Matthew's part for the compositional strategy of this discourse. The repeated phrase connects the eight "woes" against the Scribes and Pharisees with the eight subsections that comprise Jesus' answers to his disciples questions in section B' (24:4-25:30). When Jesus is recorded saying "this generation" in 23:36, that clearly meant that generation living to see or hear about the Jewish wars and the destruction of Jerusalem with Israel's Temple in it (i.e. their "house" left desolate). Likewise, when Jesus is recorded saying "this generation" in 24:34, that also clearly meant that generation living to see or hear about the Jewish wars and the destruction of Jerusalem with Israel's Temple in it (i.e. their "house" left desolate). 

I realize there are myriads of clever ways to interpret 24:34 as meaning something other than an explicit first century Jewish context. But they're all pathetic and silly. Yes, I said pathetic and silly. All such attempts to dodge or deflect attention away from this crystal clear meaning is miserably inadequate in it's ability to uphold the literary and historical integrity of Matthew's Gospel.

Enough invectives. Time to move on.

Next we approach sections C and C', which will be covered in the following series of posts. In future posts I will also walk us through all eight controversial subsections of B' (24:4-25:30), along with what many Church fathers have said about those sections (a sample of which can be found here), which will act as a guide to understanding the simplicity of the Olivet Discourse, but in a way that I suspect will be alarming and challenging to many Christian tribes. 

And finally, at the very end of this series I will walk us through sections A and A' in more detail, because at that point it should be very clear how they form an inclusio around the discourse, which unifies the entire discourse, not veering off topic in the slightest. 

Venting momentarily

Within a lengthy comment-thread of David Smalley's Facebook page, a supporter of his podcast typed up a transcript from a recent episode.1 In that podcast episode, David allegedly said that:

"[I]f you think that that part of the Bible's not true and that people made that up, well then that calls into question every aspect of the Bible. Okay, some of the stuff in the Bible is made up and is incorrect, then maybe that's also the case about Jesus coming back to life, about what it takes to be baptized, about what it takes to be saved. Maybe they also made up the parts about what happens when you die and [go to] heaven."

If comments like these were really said exactly as they are portrayed, then I must admit that such arguments fascinate me. Allow me to briefly explain one aspect of why that is, even though, admittedly, the following remarks are more anecdotal and autobiographical than, say, strictly apologetic. I just feel like venting momentarily. 

In my opinion, no stream-conciousness-style criticism of Christianity, the "Bible," or truth could be more evangelical and fundamentalist in its assumptions and purported understanding than such overly simplistic arguments presented by David Smalley above. However, such remarks are why I actually enjoy David's podcast. David is an ex-evangelical who claims he never believed in god. He has spent the majority of his life as a comedic atheist who claims he could never believe in a god, and especially not the "Christian God" without rational proof, allegedly obtained only through empiricism, all the while reasoning like a fundamentalist evangelical who hangs one's entire faith on pre-commitments to every aspect of the "Bible" being true in every fundamentalist sense, correct in every fundamentalist sense, and not "made up" in any sense.

Thank you David for reasoning exactly like a fundamentalist Christian. Such remarks are embarrassingly naive when compared with the majority of Christian academia. For those who are genuinely interested in learning an accessible anthology of Christian academic tradition, I have a few recommendations to start with:

For understanding the Jesus tradition, study Craig Keener, The Historical Jesus of the Gospels. 

For understanding first century Christianity, study N.T. Wright's voluminous series: 

The New Testament and the People of God

Jesus and the Victory of God

The Resurrection of the Son of God

Paul and the Faithfulness of God

For understanding the historical accounts of miracles both inside and outside the "Bible," study Craig Keener's two volumes, Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts 

For understanding why David Smalley's claims about the truth or correctness of the "Bible" are excruciatingly facile, study John Goldingay, Models For Scripture; and also Telford Work, Living and Active: Scripture in the Economy of Salvation.

1. The comment was by Brandon Watts Tejedor, on Dec 30th, 2017

Sermon on the Mount: sections C & C' (part 2)

Continuing in this series about Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount in Matthew’s Gospel, we now come across one of the most controversial passages of the New Testament:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.   Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Countless interpretations of these passages have been offered, and I’m not going to pretend as though I have the definitive interpretation to it either. However, I do believe I have something worthwhile to offer, namely a view which endorses the Law of God and the teaching of His prophets, as well as a necessary change of Law (a “transfiguration” of the Law and the Prophets, so to speak) which must take place when “heaven and earth” are to pass away. But first, we must ask and attempt to answer an obvious question which likely would have crossed the minds of Jesus’ first century Jewish audience.

Why would anyone in Israel think that Jesus came to abolish the Law or the Prophets? Did Jesus come to teach in opposition to “the Law” and the Prophets of God?

I think St. Augustine’s comments about this passage provide a healthy dose of wisdom for all Christians to consider. He wrote:

After He had exhorted His hearers to prepare themselves to suffer all things for the sake of truth and justice, and not to hide the good gift they were about to receive, but to learn it with such good disposition that they would teach it to others, while aiming their good work toward the glory of God, and not toward praise for themselves—then He begins to instruct them and to show them what they should teach. And, just as if they were saying by way of inquiry: ‘Behold, we are willing both to suffer all things for thy name’s sake, and not to hide thy teaching. But what is this very thing which you forbid to be hidden, and for which you command that all things be suffered? Are you going to mention other things in opposition to what is written in the Law?’He answers, ‘No.’ For He says: ‘Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to destroy, but to fulfill.’

So then, what did Jesus mean by “fulfill”?

In order to answer this question, let’s take a quick tour through Matthew’s use of this very word, “fulfill,” in order to see how it is used throughout this Gospel.

All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us). When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus. (Matthew 1:22-25, cited from Isa. 7:14)

Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.” And he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt and remained there until the death of Herod. his was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, “Out of Egypt I called my son.” 
Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men. Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah: “A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be comforted, because they are no more.”  (Matthew 2:13-18, cited from Hos. 11:1 and Jer. 31:15)

Now when he heard that John had been arrested, he withdrew into Galilee. And leaving Nazareth he went and lived in Capernaum by the sea, in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali, so that what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: “The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles— the people dwelling in darkness have seen a great light, and for those dwelling in the region and shadow of death, on them a light has dawned.” From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 3:12-17, cited from Isa. 9:1, 2)

And when Jesus entered Peter’s house, he saw his mother-in-law lying sick with a fever. He touched her hand, and the fever left her, and she rose and began to serve him. That evening they brought to him many who were oppressed by demons, and he cast out the spirits with a word and healed all who were sick. This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: “He took our illnesses and bore our diseases.” (Matthew 8:14-17, cited from Isa. 53:4)

Jesus, aware of this, withdrew from there. And many followed him, and he healed them all and ordered them not to make him known. This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: “Behold, my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved with whom my soul is well pleased. I will put my Spirit upon him, and he will proclaim justice to the Gentiles. He will not quarrel or cry aloud, nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets; a bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not quench, until he brings justice to victory; and in his name the Gentiles will hope.” (Matthew 12:15-21, cited from Isa. 42:1–3)

Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: “You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive.” (Matthew 13:14, cited from Isa. 6:9,10)

This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet: “I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter what has been hidden since the foundation of the world.” (Matthew 13:35, cited from Psalm 78:2)

Now when they drew near to Jerusalem and came to Bethphage, to the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, “Go into the village in front of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them to me. If anyone says anything to you, you shall say, ‘The Lord needs them,’ and he will send them at once.” This took place to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet, saying, “Say to the daughter of Zion, ‘Behold, your king is coming to you, humble, and mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.’ (Matthew 21:4, cited from Zech. 9:9 [it also echoes and alludes to various visions within Isaiah, e.g. Isa. 62:11])

While he was still speaking, Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a great crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the elders of the people. Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I will kiss is the man; seize him.” And he came up to Jesus at once and said, “Greetings, Rabbi!” And he kissed him. Jesus said to him, “Friend, do what you came to do.” Then they came up and laid hands on Jesus and seized him. And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?”  At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples left him and fled. (Matthew 26:47-56, alluding to many interwoven passages of Scripture about an end of the Old Covenant, but most especially Dan. 9:24)

Notice that according to Matthew’s own consistent use of this term to “fulfill”, it always occurs alongside citations from the Old Testament Scriptures. Taking that into account, along with it’s more straight-forward literal meaning to “fill full”, one obvious interpretation of what Jesus meant was to embody what was foreshadowed by the Law and the Prophets, thereby “filling full” what was lacking in them. In “The Law” and “The Prophets” of God we find clear illustrations of God’s holiness, loyal-love, righteous indignation, mercy, goodness, long-suffering, patience, and kindness. But did any single Israelite, or even any generation of Israel collectively, ever typify that reality? 

Even a cursory glance through Scripture will show that the answer is clearly ‘No’. Israel was given the Law and the Prophets, but every individual Israelite and even Israel collectively was lacking something significant which needed to be filled full. 

I realize that many Christians don’t accept this way of viewing the Law or the Prophets. But please bear with me and hear me out. 

What was Israel lacking, which the Law and the Prophets could not fill full?

We could also ask, what were the Law and the Prophets lacking?

The answer is actually much more simple than what ordinarily meets the eye. Both the people of Israel, and the Law and the Prophets they had received were lacking the power to raise the dead and grant eternal life and immortality (I Tim 6:16; II Tim 1:10; I Cor 15:53-54; Rom 2:7). Jesus came to accomplish that, once for all time, and even for those righteous saints who had already died (Heb. 11:1-12:2). But in order to do so, the filling full of what they were lacking had to be according to the terms of God’s Law as spoken through His prophets. The Law and prophets functioned as a pedagogy of death, with limited access into the Divine presence. Even the Law itself instructed Israel about an inevitable "time of reformation" which would result in direct access to the Divine presence without fear of death (Heb. 2:14-15; 9:8-10). As long as the "first tent" (the Holy Place) was still standing, the Holy Spirit was indicating that the way into Holy places, where Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father, was not yet opened for the living or the dead. As I have indicated elsewhere in an academic paper, the book of Revelation teaches that after the definitive end of the old covenant administration, with the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 70 A.D., that access into Holy places is opened for all, and all the saints who have died in Christ ascend thrones, and they are each given authority over the nations to participate with Jesus in making all things new.

Only the incarnation, death, resurrection, ascension, and vindication of the Son of God could open that way into the heavenly realities of eternal life with God (Heb 8:1-5). Not only did the temple of Jesus' Body have to be destroyed, but the Old Covenant temple and it's whole system of administration needed to be destroyed along with him in order for the New Covenant kingdom to advance throughout the world, uniting heaven and earth together in his Church and  thereby colonizing earth with the life of heaven.

So then, in a secondary sense, the Law and the Prophets were not only lacking the power to destroy the power of death, but they were also lacking their promised Messiah, the incarnate Son of God, who alone could accomplish that cosmic task.

Again, St. Augustine’s comments are helpful:

This sentence admits of a twofold meaning. …By saying that He has not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it, He says that He is going to make it complete by adding what it lacks and that He is going to observe it by doing what it contains. …He does not destroy what He has found in the Law when He supplies what it lacked; on the contrary, He strengthens it by giving it completeness. …For, when one is observing what has been added for the sake of completeness, he is all the more surely observing what has been previously established as the foundation.

Accordingly, it cannot be said that Jesus came to end all usefulness of God’s Law or what his prophets taught. Indeed, the very opposite seems to be the case. Yet, as I mentioned at the beginning of this post, Jesus is not only endorsing the usefulness of God’s Law and the teaching of His prophets. He is also teaching that there will come a time when “heaven and earth" will pass away, and when that occurs there must be a necessary change of Law (a “transfiguration” of the Law and the Prophets, so to speak). 

In the next post I will try to bring clarity about when that time would be, and what that implies for Christians today. Here’s a teaser though: That time is not in our future. The first “Heaven and earth” already passed away.