JOHN WYCLIFFE: BREAD REMAINS BREAD AFTER CONSECRATION

SHOWING THAT THE BREAD REMAINS BREAD AFTER CONSECRATION

[INQUIRY]  I pray you, now, to explain how it is that the bread remains bread after consecration, for many declare that if they had believed thus, they would never have observed the ceremony as they have done.

On a subject of this nature, we must attend to the words of Scripture, and give them absolute credence. And the words of Scripture tell us that this sacrament is the body of Christ, not that it will be, or that it is sacramentally a figure of the body of Christ. Accordingly we must, on this authority, admit, without reserve, that the bread, which is this sacrament, is veritably the body of Christ. But the simplest layman will see that it follows, that inasmuch as this bread is the body of Christ, it is therefore bread, and remains bread, and is at once both bread and the body of Christ. Again, the point may be illustrated by examples of the most palpable description. It is not necessary, but, on the contrary, repugnant to truth, that a man, when raised to the dignity of lordship or prelacy, should cease to be the same person. The man, or the same substance, would remain, in all respects, though in a certain degree elevated. So we must believe that this bread, by virtue of the sacramental words, becomes, by the consecration of the priest, veritably the body of Christ, and no more ceases to be bread, than humanity ceases, in the instance before supposed; for the nature of bread is not destroyed by this, but is exalted to a substance more honoured. Do we believe that John the Baptist, who was made by the word of Christ to be Elias, (Matt. 11) ceased to be John, or ceased to be anything which he was substantially before? In the same manner, accordingly, though the bread becometh the body of Christ, by virtue of his words, it need not cease to be bread. For it is bread substantially, after it has begun to be sacramentally the body of Christ For thus saith Christ, “This is my body,” and in consequence of these words, this must be admitted, like the assertion in the eleventh chapter of the gospel of Matthew, about the Baptist: “And if ye will receive it, this is Elias.” And Christ doth not, to avoid equivocation, contradict the Baptist, when he declares, “I am not Elias.” The one meaning that he was Elias figuratively, the other, that he was not Elias personally. And in the same manner it is merely a double meaning, and not a contradiction, in those who admit that this sacrament is not naturally the body of Christ, but that this same sacrament is Christ’s body figuratively.

Concerning the assertion made by some hardened heretics, that they would never have celebrated the ordinance had they believed this, it would, indeed, have been well for the church, and have contributed much to the honour of God, if such apostates had never consecrated their accident, for in so doing they blaspheme God in many ways, and make Him the author of falsehood. For the world God created they straightway destroy, inasmuch as they destroy what God ordained should be perpetual—primary matter—and introduce nothing new into the world, save the mendacious assertion, that it pertains to them to perform unheard of miracles, in which God himself certainly may have no share. In fact, according to their representations, they make a new world. What loss would it have been, then, if heretics, so foolish, had never celebrated an ordinance, the proper terms of which they so little understand, and who are so ignorant of the quiddity of the sacrament they observe and worship?

With regard to the points touching the truth of the belief, that this sacrament is bread, let heretics be on the watch, and summon up all their powers; for He who is called Truth, teaches us (Matt. 6) to pray that he would give us our daily, or supersubstantial bread. And according to Augustine, on this passage in our Lord’s sermon on the mount, by daily bread, Christ intends, among other happy significations, this venerable sacrament. Are we not, then, to believe, what would follow, viz. that if the sacrament for which we pray is our daily bread, then in the sacrament there must be bread? In the same manner the apostles recognised Christ with breaking of bread, as we are told in Luke 24. And Augustine, with the papal enactment, De Con. Dist. III. non omnes, tells us that this bread is this venerable sacrament. Or are we to doubt its following, that the apostles having known Christ in the breaking of this bread, therefore that seeming bread must have been bread? Our apostle, likewise, who takes his meaning from our Lord, calls this sacrament the bread which we break, as is manifest in 1 Cor. 10, and often again in the following chapter. Who then would venture to blaspheme God, by maintaining that so chosen a vessel could apply erroneous terms to the chief of the sacraments,—especially with the foreknowledge that heresies would take their rise from that very subject? It is impossible to believe that Paul would have been so careless of the church, the spouse of Christ, as so frequently to have called this sacrament bread, and not by its real name, had he known that it was not bread, but an accident without a subject; and when he was besides aware, by the gift of prophecy, of all the future heresies which men would entertain on the matter. Let these idiot heretics say, and bring sufficient reason to prove their statements, what this sacrament, which their falsehoods desecrate, really is, if not the holy bread. As was said above, Christ, who is the first Truth, saith, according to the testimonies of the four evangelists, that this bread is his body. What heretic ought not to blush, then, to deny that it is bread?

We are thus shut up, either to destroy the verity of Scripture, or to go along with the senses and the judgment of mankind, and admit that it is bread. Mice, and other creatures, are aware of this fact; for according to philosophers, they have the power of discerning what is good for them to eat. Oh, if believers in the Lord will look on, and see. Antichrist and his accomplices so strong as to have power to condemn and persecute even unto death, those sons of the church who thus yield their belief to the Gospel, yet certain I am, that though the truth of the Gospel may for a time be cast down in the streets, and be kept under in a measure by the threats of Antichrist, yet extinguished it cannot be, since he who is the Truth has said, that “heaven and earth shall pass away, but that his words shall not pass away!” Let the believer, then, rouse himself, and demand strictly from our heretics, what the nature of this venerable sacrament is, if it be not bread; since the language of the Gospel, the evidence of our senses, and arguments that have in their favour every probability, say, that so it is. For I am certain, that even heathens, who make their own gods, are perfectly aware of what they are in their own proper nature, though they pretend that a portion of divinity is bestowed upon them supernaturally by the highest God of all. The believer, therefore, hesitates not to affirm, that these heretics are more ignorant, not only than mice and other animals, but than pagans themselves; while on the other hand, our aforementioned conclusion, that this venerable sacrament is, in its own nature, veritable bread, and sacramentally Christ’s body, is shown to be the true one.^[1]

---

^[1] De Wycliffe, J. (1845). Tracts and Treatises of John de Wycliffe. (R. Vaughan, Ed.) (pp. 138–141). London: Blackburn and Pardon.

John Wycliffe & Great Flatterers of the People

GREAT FLATTERERS OF THE PEOPLE, NEITHER REPROVING NOR REMOVING THEIR SINS FROM AMONG THEM

Also friars show not to the people their great sins stably, as God bids, and namely to mighty men of the world, but please them, and glozen,^e and nourish them in sin. And since it is the office of a preacher to show men their foul sins and pains therefore, and friars take this office, and do it not, they be cause of damnation of the people. For in this they be foul traitors to God and eke^a to the people, and they be nurses of the fiend of hell. For by flattering and false behests^b they let men live in their lusts, and comfort them therein, and sometimes they pursue other true preachers, for they will not gloze^c mighty men, and comfort them in their sins, but will sharply tell them the sothe;^d and thus mighty men hire by great costs a false traitor, to lead them to hell And ensample men may take how friars suffer mighty men, from year to year, to live in avowtrie,^e and covetousness, and extortious doing, and many other sins. And when men be hardened in such great sins, and will not amend them, friars should flee their homely company; but they do not thus, lest they lose worldly friendship, favour, or winning; and thus for the money they sell men’s souls to Satan.^[1]

---

^e flatter

^a also

^b commandments

^c flatter

^d truth

^e adultery

^[1] De Wycliffe, J. (1845). Tracts and Treatises of John de Wycliffe. (R. Vaughan, Ed.) (pp. 229–230). London: Blackburn and Pardon.

More than a prophet

Click the link at the bottom of this post if you're interested in viewing a theological essay I wrote for a 2014 course on Holistic Mission at the Trinity House Institute for Biblical, Liturgical & Cultural Studies. 

I cannot adequately express how grateful I am for Rev. Wesley Baker of Peru Mission and the training we all received from him in this course. His philosophy of mission is incredibly thorough, practical, and theologically engaging. I'm also not the only student who walked away thinking his teaching was priceless, even though the Trinity House Institute offered it for an extremely reasonable price. (For more about that, check out the institute in the link above.) For my essay, click the link below.

The title of my essay is More than a prophet: A theological essay on acts of mission in Matthew's Gospel

A World Turned Downside Up

Frightening omens had shaken the heavens and earth in Jerusalem. For three hours the sun turned dark at noon. There were earthquakes in the evening and the morning. Were the foundations of the earth giving way? Were the mountains about to slip into the heart of the sea?

Reports of the resurrection of Jesus began to spread quickly throughout the city. Even stranger tales were spreading. Resurrection rumors were everywhere. Many saints were raised from the sleep of death and left their tombs to walk the streets of the Holy City, appearing to many (Matt 27:52–53). Jesus himself was seen by over five hundred witnesses at once (1 Cor 15:6). What did these reports mean? Was death itself a phantom? Had a door been torn open in the impassible boundary between life and death? A report circulated that the veil of the temple was torn in two. That veil marked the sacred boundary of holiness between God and man. It was death to trespass this veil. Was the way to life and to the presence of God now opened to man without fear of death? The followers of Jesus heard that Mary Magdalene had seen a vision of angels at the tomb of Jesus that recalled the ancient Holy of Holies (John 20:12). Could a woman now see into the most sacred precincts? Could someone once so defiled by demons have a holy vision? Did it no longer matter that only men and priests in former times could peer into these sacred mysteries. Has the priesthood now jumped the gender line to include women, too?

Soon thereafter the Holy Spirit descended upon the Jewish pilgrims who had come from many nations to the temple in Jerusalem for Pentecost. Language barriers suddenly disappeared. Everyone heard the gospel in his own tongue (Acts 2:6). At last a vision was given to Peter challenging him to see that all nations have been made clean (Acts 10:15). All his life Peter had kept strictly to kosher law. Did the deep divisions between clean and unclean now no longer matter? God showed Peter that no man should be called unholy or unclean (Acts 10:28). Is there no distinction any longer between the circumcised and the uncircumcised? If ritual barriers have dissolved, do racial divisions matter any longer? Does God accept an Ethiopian eunuch and a Roman centurion in the same way he accepts a Jew? Have national borders been set aside so that there is no difference between Jew and Gentile, Greek and barbarian, or even Scythian? Will God respect no difference in class any longer, dissolving the deep resentments separating bond slaves and freemen? The people begin to sell their possessions to distribute to any who have a need. Is there to be no scarcity any longer? Are rich and poor, who constitute the great civic divide, now brought together by some new reality in the spiritual world?

All the customary and ancient boundaries and borders seem to pass away. How can we orient ourselves any longer to these new and startling realities of a world where death itself has been made to die?

Jesus taught us to expect something like this. He said so many things that defined the kingdom of heaven as nothing less than a complete upheaval. He said that we should sell all we have in this world to secure riches in heaven. He said the first would be last and the last first. He said the greatest in the kingdom was the servant of all. He gave thanks that the kingdom was revealed to babes and not to the wise of this world. He admonished us to lose our lives in order to find them. He taught that the meek rather than the strong would inherit the earth. He said we should count ourselves blessed when men revile and persecute us; we should rejoice when all manner of evil is spoken against us. He said that persecution on earth means great treasures in heaven. He even said we should love our enemies. In sum, he was teaching us new ways to dream. He was instructing us in the imagination of resurrection power. In this strange new world publicans become evangelists (Matt 9:9), whores become virgins (Luke 7:36–50), thieves become alms-givers (Eph 4:28), and the chief of sinners becomes the chief apostle to the nations (1 Tim 1:15).

So vivid were these new realities that people began to do most unaccustomed things. In fact many did sell everything they owned and laid it at the feet of the apostles to distribute to those who had need. To have no fear of death or any recognition of scarcity was new to everyone. Somehow it was like a return to the world before the fall of man in the garden. These new horizons recalled the time when the earth brought forth abundantly for all and death was as yet unknown. It was like the Garden of Eden when God and man walked together in intimacy and joyful delight.

The law of Moses foresaw these days. Moses gave land allotments to all the tribes of Israel except the priestly tribe of Levi. He gave them no inheritance because the Lord’s priesthood was their better portion (Josh 18:7). There was a Levite in the early church named Barnabas. This man had bought and owned a piece of property that he sold and laid the money at the apostles’ feet (Acts 4:36–37). The Levite Barnabas had become a Levite indeed. But Barnabas was not the only one selling his property. Many were doing so in light of the new age that had dawned. It was as though all of God’s people were priests. Everyone was satisfied that the Lord was his portion. And just as Moses had wished that all the people of God might share in the spirit (Numb 11:29), even so now the Holy Spirit of God descended on all and filled everyone (Acts 2:4). Now all of God’s people were prophets, even as Moses had wished.

What was this new and radically democratic world where distinctions of ritual sacrament and race and sex and sanctity and national identity seemed no longer to matter? What had happened to cause the very foundations of Jerusalem to tremble? All social and civil and sacred and class boundaries were suddenly dismantled and disassembled. A new community began to form where all shared the same simple supper. Whether from east or west, all ate the same bread and drank the same cup. It was a supper that expressed the equality of all those who needed the Savior. The cross, it seemed, was the great leveler of men.

What could possibly cause such upheavals? Was all of this because someone had come back from the grave and many, too many to deny, had seen him? Who could have imagined such a new world?

But then even stranger things began to happen. The believers began to understand that signs and wonders were not supernatural but altogether natural to God’s world. All that in former times had been thought to be natural was in fact subnatural.

The apostles of Jesus first showed the way to the new world. They began to do the miraculous works of signs and wonders. They healed the lame. They cured the demonically oppressed. They even raised the dead. The power of the risen Jesus was working through his apostles in resurrection power.

The wonders were so glorious that suffering itself was recalculated. The same opposition Jesus encountered was raised again against his disciples. Peter and John were arrested by the Council and beaten for speaking openly in the name of Jesus. But the apostles left the Council rejoicing. They rejoiced that they were given the grace to suffer dishonor for the name of Jesus. What was this power by which they rejoiced in suffering, embracing the shame of their suffering like Jesus?

Likewise, Paul and Silas came to Philippi, where they too were arrested and severely beaten and left with bloody wounds. Afterwards they were taken to a dungeon and pinioned in wooden stocks. But in the midst of their cruciform suffering, they prayed and sang praises to the Lord (Acts 16:19–34). The bleeding apostles sang for joy. Even until midnight they praised God. What was the power that caused these men to rejoice in such suffering? Who could believe such things? Paul and Silas knew that God always takes suffering and brings forth glory. It was the way they who had died to their own lives were now living in Christ. It was Christ living through them. So they praised God in anticipation of the glorious deliverance he would work. They knew he would intervene to save them by resurrection power.

So at midnight God sent an earthquake. The chains fell off. The prison doors all opened (Acts 16:26). But no one moved from his place. God was calling the prisoners of Philippi to constitute a new community of faith. Even the jailer asked what he should do to be saved. Only the Lord God of resurrection would begin his church in Philippi with prisoners in a dungeon who had come to know a new life of liberty in Christ. The witness of suffering always led to glory. Christians by their increasing thousands were ready to embrace the cross and suffer even unto death that others might thereby come to know the power of Christ’s resurrection. They understood that by much tribulation we enter the kingdom of heaven (Acts 14:22). They learned to recalculate suffering in view of the gospel glory that was promised thereafter. They embraced imprisonments, beatings, stonings, shipwrecks, hunger, thirst, cold, and exposure, danger in the wilderness, danger in the sea, danger in the city, and all manner of toil and hardship (2 Cor 11:23–28) and called it all “momentary light affliction” unworthy to be compared to the “eternal weight of glory” prepared for them (2 Cor 4:17). It was redemption’s comic turn. Death lost its sting. The grave lost its victory. Redemption brought forth joyful singing. Lamentation gave way to laughter.

As the Savior had taught, “Unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit” (John 12:24). And the wheat fields of Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria, even to the ends of the world, were now white for the harvest. The apostles of Jesus went forth as sowers of seed. These faithful ones went forth weeping and bearing precious seed. But according to the resurrection promise, they understood they would surely return with shouts of joy, bearing their seed with them.1

1.  Gage, W. A. (2011). Return from Emmaus: The Resurrection Theme in Scripture (pp. 86–89). Ft. Lauderdale, FL: Warren A. Gage.

The God of binding dilemmas (Ezekiel 14:1-11)

Commenting on Ezekiel 14:1-11, Robert Jenson says:

We encounter again the mysteriously simple relation between the Lord's will and our wills. The antimony appears everywhere in scripture. Jesus tells his hearers that no one can come to him except those whom the Father gives him, and he does this in a speech aimed at bringing his hearers to him (John 6:65). In the case always adduced when theology takes up this matter, the Lord hardens Pharaoh's heart against letting Israel go and then destroys him for not letting Israel go (Exod. 7:3-5; 12:1-16). 

We should ask ourselves: if we find predestination offensive, what would we rather have the Lord do? Let us go the ways of our rebellion, to the destruction that terminates those ways? Or turn history over to our wise rule? Or, as Ezekiel here portrays God's rule, be himself in some mysterious way responsible also in our iniquities? One may of course say that God is surely not bound by such dilemmas. But that would be true only if he withdrew from his history with us; if he soldiers on with creatures who are both finite and fallen, he too faces alternatives. One may say that God should not in the first place create a history that poses such choices. But what other sort of history would we, in our great wisdom, institute?1

Most noteworthy, I think, is Jenson's commitment to God not withdrawing from history with us. That is to say, God is intimately involved in all of history. Then we should ask, what does he reveal about his involvement in history and with us? Is he so transcendent that he is entirely distant, decreeing all things which come to pass a long, long time ago, far, far away (while remaining there), and only "coming down" to visit his people here and there, from time to time, for the purpose of letting us know how distant and transcendent he always has been? 

Or is it because he is transcendent that he is also imminent, decreeing all things that come to pass, including his own personal involvement and interaction with men? If the former, then God is fully responsible in and for all our iniquities. If the latter, then God is only responsible for his choices--both his eternal decree and his personal involvement, moment by moment, with men who make choices freely (that is, by their own volition). When men make sinful choices, God not only responds accordingly, moment by moment, but he also works things out according to his eternally good purpose and pleasure.

Perhaps one way to apply this is to use Jenson's example of Pharaoh. God hardens Pharaoh's heart and God destroys him for not letting Israel go (whom he would eventually command to let go). But the human author of Scripture does not inform us about what volitional decisions of Pharaoh brought about or provoked God's decision to harden Pharaoh's heart, as revealed to Moses in time and space. Instead, the human author of Scripture informs us about one limited aspect of God's eternal decree, one limited aspect of God's over-arching plan for saving his people and glorifying his name in the Earth. 

But if God is intimately involved and deeply committed to his image-bearers, then why not assume that Pharaoh's own sins had provoked or moved the Lord to harden his heart? Yes, I realize that the Lord tells Moses that he would harden Pharaoh's heart before the narrative shows his heart being hardened. But does that really change the historical possibility that Pharaoh had already provoked the Lord to the point of planning a hardening of his heart? Only God knows anyway. It seems that it's entirely likely that Pharaoh was always confronted with alternatives--alternatives which could have kept him from the Lord's hardening. But if that's the case, then the Lord faces alternatives as well, alternatives in time and space among his image-bearers. If that's the case, then the Lord binds himself by such dilemmas and such dilemmas fully comport with the eternal decree of the Father, the provision of the Son, and the work of the Holy Spirit, all of which we only know about in an extremely limited manner anyway, as it has been revealed in Scripture.

1.  Robert W. Jenson, Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible: Ezekiel [Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2009], p. 119 

5th century Preterist exegesis of Matthew 24

In a fifth century document commonly referred to as Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum, the author makes a number of fascinating remarks concerning Matthew chapter 24. Of particular interest is his repeated reference to Jesus' statements about the destruction of Jerusalem. The author clearly believed that the prophetic statements of Jesus in Matthew 24 involved, in the very least, literal historical fulfillment in the Jewish wars leading up to the destruction of the Temple in 70A.D. But he also imposes a convenient distinction between a "spiritual Jerusalem and a physical Jerusalem," making it possible for many of Jesus' statements to also apply to the "spiritual Jerusalem" (i.e. the Church), which spans the entire course of church history until the final consummation.

The length of his comments are far too lengthy to record in full (spanning more than 20 pages), so I will condense each section accordingly, focusing mainly on his insights concerning the "physical Jerusalem":

But he [Jesus] answered them, "You see all those, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down." 

If some city rebelled against its earthly king, does he not remove the rights from that city and send his soldiers to make it desolate so that the city that did not recognize the power of its king in good times can know it in bad times and that its very desolation can attest how previously the good graces of the king had benefited it? But this nation rebelled against me, the heavenly king, ruined my law, scorned my commandments, killed my servants, raised their ungodly hands against me and further plots to kill me unless my immortal nature would defend me. So I will remove the pledge of my truth from it, that is, the Holy Spirit. I will remove my army, that is, my holy angels who protected it, so that here a stone will not stand upon another stone. Therefore, when salvation departs from it, perdition must rule it. 

As he [Jesus] sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?" 

That is, when will these things be so that stone will not remain on stone, as you say? ...[T]hey ask that first question of their own accord and for their own sake... [for] we never saw the destruction of that temple... 

And Jesus answered them, "Take heed that no one leads you astray." 

[T]he apostles asked... "What is the sign of the destruction of Jerusalem?" ...for at the end of the Jewish nation Jerusalem was destroyed, which seemed to be Jerusalem but really was not. ...[T]he Lord does not say distinctly which signs pertain to the destruction of Jerusalem...[so] the same signs may seem to pertain both the manifestation of the destruction of Jerusalem and to the manifestation of the end of the world... What can we say then? If we wish to fully understand in a spiritual manner these signs of famine, wars, and earthquakes, they cannot pertain to the manifestation of the destruction of Jerusalem because then spiritually a nation did not rise up against nation, that is, a heresy did not rise up against heresy. ...The physical Jerusalem existed, which already has been besieged figuratively, but there is another, spiritual Jerusalem, namely, the church of Christ, which also must be tested to the end of the world and still is being tested. Therefore, just as there are a spiritual Jerusalem and a physical Jerusalem, so also those signs of which the Lord speaks must be understood both in a spiritual sense and in a physical sense. When understood physically, they indicate the destruction of the physical Jerusalem, but when understood spiritually, they indicate the testing of the church at the end to come.  

"And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars." 

He was saying that at that time there would be rumors of physical battles, which the Roman emperor was preparing against Judea. For just as it is accustomed to happen in the preparation of war while leaders are chosen and an army is gathered and counted, a rumor runs around, especially to those against whom the army is being prepared. But as Josephus explains, after the army entered Judea, it did not immediately turn to Jerusalem but to the individual cities of that region, and various wars were first fought and many cities captured, and thus the army besieged Jerusalem last of all.1 So he commanded his disciples, "See that you are not alarmed," but fulfill the task of your preaching. The spiritual Jerusalem has the physical Jerusalem as its type. For unless that temple had been destroyed, the observance of that Law would not easily have been restrained. But it was destroyed so that even if the Jews wanted to keep the Law later, they could not. 

"For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom." 

At that time all the nations and the kingdoms, which seemed to be under the rule of the Romans, were gathered against the Jewish nation, and nearly all their kingdoms were gathered against the kingdom of the Jews. ...[N]early all those nations and kingdoms were stirred up against one nation, Judea.  

"And there will be famines, plagues, and earthquakes in various places." 

Whoever reads Josephus can find out what are the plagues and famines and earthquakes before Jerusalem was captured.2 

"So when you see the desolating sacrilege spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand)." 

Some say that the abomination of desolation was the image of Caesar that Pilate put in the temple. But the Evangelist Luke more accurately interprets what is the desolating sacrilege. For in the place where the current passage of Matthew and Mark write, "But when you see the desolating sacrilege," in that very passage Luke writes, "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near." And so he says who are in Judea, namely, in order to show by the other resemblance of the explanation of this passage what is the desolating sacrilege standing in the Holy Place. For there was an army of foreigners and the Roman emperor standing around Jerusalem, which up until then was holy. Peter also explained this in Clement.3 Finally, the text itself also showed that this is the desolating sacrilege. For it is as if he goes back over all those things that he had said earlier and summarized them briefly and says, "So when you see the desolating sacrilege...standing," that is, "When you see those very battles now standing around Jerusalem, which you had previously heard about." ...The Roman army is called the desolating sacrilege because he would make the souls of many Christians desolate of God. For before the Romans captured Jerusalem, for half a week Christ bore by his doctrine the constant sacrifice of the Jews from his midst. For it is said that he taught for three years and six months; that number makes half of seven years, so that that sacrifice that was constantly in use would be removed from their midst and the sacrifice of praise would be offered with their voice and the sacrifice of righteousness in works and the sacrifice of peace through the Eucharist. But up until the end of the age there was an uproar because the Jewish custom of offering sacrifices was never rectified.  

"Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains; let him who is on the housetop not go down to take what is in his house." 

[N]ote that when he says, "Let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains," it is possible to understand this physically according to history at the time of the Romans. 

"For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be." 

[E]ven if the Jews were sinners up to the time of Christ, nonetheless they were his children, not his enemies, and so every wrath that fell on them was a chastisement coming out of mercy, not a condemnation coming down in anger. But when the Lord was crucified, they ceased to be his children and became his enemies. For that reason now no longer corrective chastisement came on them, but an eradicating condemnation. For Jerusalem was captured by the Assyrians and was repaired again. It was destroyed by Antioch and rebuilt again. It was invaded a third time by Pompey, and again it was repaired. For just as before the day of a person's death comes, he indeed seems to be ill but is not able to die, so also Judea was vexed before Christ but was not destroyed. But after they had committed that horrible patricide, crucifying the Son of the Father and bringing death on him from whom they received life--and what is worse, killing their Lord though they were servants and killing God through they were mortals--he struck them with such a blow that they never have been healed. For just as they committed such a crime as has never been committed nor ever will be again, so also such a sentence came on them as never has come nor ever will.4 

1.  Josephus, Jewish War, 3-4
2.  Ibid. 4:285-86 
3.  Pseudo-Clement Recognitions of Clement 1.65 (see A. Roberts and J. Donaldson, eds., Ante-Nicene Fathers, 10 volumes. [Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature, 1885-189; Reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1951-1965; Reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994], 8:94
4.  Thomas Oden & Gerald Bray, eds., Ancient Christian Texts: Incomplete Commentary on Matthew (Opus imperfectum), volume 2 [Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2010], pp. 371-388

Literary Structure of Matthew 14-17

As I have noted in an earlier post, chapters fourteen through seventeen of Matthew's gospel comprise one complete narrative section. For simplicity's sake, I said that this section begins in chapter fourteen, but that section actually begins at the end of chapter 13, in verse 53, "when Jesus had finished" his discourse of parables (13:1-52). The structure of this narrative section is also chiastic:

A)  Jesus visits his hometown and his suffering for the Kingdom is foreshadowed by the prophet John (13:53-14:13)

   B)  Jesus feeds 5,000 Jews and is confronted by Pharisees about "bread" (14:14-15:20)

      C)  Jesus flees to the district of Tyre & Sidon and is confronted by a Canaanite woman of greater faith than the Pharisees: she loves even the "bread crumbs" which fall from the Master's table (15:21-28)

   B')  Jesus feeds 4,000 Gentiles and is confronted by Pharisees about "bread" (15:29-16:12)

A')  Jesus visits Caesarea Philippi and his suffering for the Kingdom is prophesied (16:13-17:27)

The literary parallels are even more obvious when compared section by section (as seen below):

A)  13:53-14:13 

• Jesus "came into" (ἐλθὼν εἰς) his hometown
• The people ask questions about Jesus: what they think of him, whose "son" (υἱός) is this man?
• Jesus affirms he is a "prophet" (προφήτης) who is not welcome in his own "household" (οἰκίᾳ)
• Jesus inadvertently "offends" (ἐσκανδαλίζοντο) some Jewish brothers
• Jesus flees because Herod's wife had "John the Baptist" (Ἰωάννης ὁ βαπτιστής) "deliver" (δός) his head to her on a platter
• Herod thinks Jesus is "John the Baptist" who has been "raised from the dead" (ἠγέρθη ἀπὸ τῶν νεκρῶν)
• Jesus could not do many mighty works there because of their "unbelief" (ἀπιστίαν)

B)  14:14-15:20

• Jesus is followed by "great crowds" (πολὺν ὄχλον)
• Jesus feeds 5,000 Jews
• Jesus crosses the Sea of Galilee & "got into the boat" (ἀναβάντων εἰς τὸ πλοῖον)
• Jesus is confronted & challenged by Pharisees and scribes
• Jesus speaks to his disciples about the Pharisees and eating "bread" (ἄρτον)

C)  15:21-28  Jesus withdraws to Tyre & Sidon and is confronted by a Canaanite woman of great faith



B')  15:29-16:12

• Jesus is followed by "great crowds" (πολλοὶ ὄχλοι)
• Jesus feeds 4,000 Gentiles
• Jesus crosses the Sea of Galilee & "got into the boat" (ἐνέβη εἰς τὸ πλοῖον)
• Jesus is confronted & challenged by Pharisees and Sadducees
• Jesus speaks to his disciples about the Pharisees and their "bread" (ἄρτων)

A') 16:13-17:27 

• Jesus "came into" (ἐλθὼν εἰς) the district of Caesarea Philippi 
• Jesus asks questions about about the people: what they think of him, and who the "son" (υἱὸν) of man is 
• The people think Jesus is "one of the prophets" (ἕνα τῶν προφητῶν)
• The people think Jesus might be "John the Baptist" (Ἰωάννης ὁ βαπτιστής) 
• Jesus speaks about John the Baptist's death (7:12-13) and himself being "delivered" (παραδίδοσθαι) by Jewish authorities and then "raised from the dead" (ἐγερθῇ ἐκ νεκρῶν)
• Jesus does a mighty work among his "faithless" (ἄπιστος) generation 
• Jesus doesn't want to "offend" (σκανδαλίσωμεν) a collector of Herod's temple-tax outside his "house" (οἰκίαν)