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. 

Run to Ruin

I'm told about what today's teens are 
The most informed, the most educated
The most politically involved generation in forever

Color me dubious

I hear that Hilary would have been better than Trump
Cruz is a sleaze and Rand is a quack like his dad
But Bernie or Kasich would have most certainly been rad

Color me unimpressed

They say they can't wait for today's teens to run this country
I can't wait for them to spell 'ruin' correctly
Ignore that Planned Parenthood reps sell baby parts for a Lamborghini

Color me confident

I see marching for women's 'reproductive rights' and LGBT
Free college and healthcare and 'Gender Affirming' surgery
While protesting Trump's conspiracy with Russia to destroy global democracy

Color me confused

So little time, so much to choose
Confederate flag or a first century immigrant Jew?
Wearing all black in solidarity for the Black Panther party too?

Color me benighted

Be sure to get the latest dopamine fix and flu shot
Like and share the peer reviewed studies of spoons making us fat
Science will inevitably make a new vaccine for that

Color me irritated

Prop your feet next to the media hype
Rest our future upon the foundation of sand
Tell yourself that public ignorance and intellectual bullying are on the other hand

Color me contrary

We believe what we're sold through the illusion of choice
Forget about building number seven, or how the second one fell first and at free fall speed neatly within it's own footprint
Just don't buy into all the "thoughts and prayers bullshit"

Color me mulish

Psyops are unheard of, along with truth from Fox News
Guns and racist white nationalists like Milo are the cause of mass shootings, too
But rejoice because we've got a Savior whose Tesla is on its way to mars

Color me amused

Dark Side of the Moon

Who really knows science so called?
Scientia potentia est is the theoretical dictum
Spinning faster than the speed of sound
Spiraling through an infinite vacuum
Perusing across this terra firma
All is fine as long as one giant leap is made on behalf of mankind 

Satellites everywhere now fill our eyes with wonder and glory
The ideocracy of globulizing and scientizing reality captivates us
The opposite of joy is unearthed once we begin to question authority

Friendships become feuds with comments like daggers
Marriages liquidize like coconut oil in hot summer pantries
Dresden like bombings of cynicism anesthetize our minds 

Just as water within its container always finds its own level
So the atomization of everything razes the science of being
Who cares if material presupposes existence?
The electromagnetism and sacramentality of it all still remains
After the mushroom cloud dissipates and the trending tweets die down
Indwelling the personal is what we really need to know and be known 

Existence is what science needs for every one to be known at all

Like the two things every monk is taught to avoid at all costs
Sacramentality and its authority are what scientism must deflect our attention away from

The plane truth underlies it all while the dreams of man dominate one small step at a time

Potentia est scientia is the official praxis
Who really sciences knowledge so called? 

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