9/22/13

From Jim McGuiggan... Matthew 24: Was Jesus wrong? (2)

Matthew 24: Was Jesus wrong? (2)

 Scholars have suggested that Matthew’s gospel is structured something like a catechism and while sometimes I’m compelled to think that scholars try too hard this suggestion about Matthew makes sense to the rest of us. It’s easy to see that Matthew gathers the discourses of Jesus together in a way that the other writers don’t (see chapters 5—7, chapter 13 and chapter 23—25). This is the preferred way for the oracles of the OT prophets to be put together. You only have to glance at Jeremiah, Isaiah and Daniel to see that there is no direct time line. That is, the oracles aren’t recorded in the chronological order of their occurrence. Take a look and see for yourself. While it isn’t always clear (in fact, it’s often not clear) why they are recorded in the order they have, there are indicators that subject matter and development of thought rather than temporal concerns are in the forefront.
In some respects Matthew makes it easier to remember the blocks of Jesus’ teaching by putting them together in keeping with subject material. I think that we should bear that in mind in chapters 23—25.
Bertrand Russell and a number of others insist that Jesus was proved wrong when he predicted the final consummation of human history before his generation passed away (Matthew 24:34—and see Mark 9:1). C. S Lewis thought texts like these were embarrassing; though, as best I can determine, he didn’t affirm Christ was mistaken. The wise man he was, he might well have recognised the difficulty, didn’t know how to solve it and left it for others to work with. In any case, these are texts non-believers call on to oppose the NT case for Christ and they are texts that more cautious believers continue to work with.
It’s the talk of cosmic disturbances associated with the coming of Christ that unsettles these people, don’t you know. The stars didn’t fall (presumably on us) in the first century or we wouldn’t be here to argue the case and since Christ was murdered (and allegedly remained dead) and didn’t return the whole thing from start to finish is nonsense. [Which raises the interesting question as to why the early church kept the damning record of Christ’s nonsense. Of course if he hadn’t risen that makes us wonder why there came to be a church that would be stupid enough to keep such a damning record.]
Much of the apocalyptic speech in Matthew 24 and its parallels is the language of judgement that takes the form of "uncreation". Genesis 1 and other texts speak the language of "creation" where the earth is formed and ordered, the heavens are formed and ordered, everything is in its place, where it belongs, as part of a harmonious whole that generates and promotes life. Human rebellion entered and God in a redeeming act of restrained judgement pronounced "uncreation". The creation is cursed and separated waters come together again (as in Noah’s day) to bring chaos and death rather than life. The heavens are troubled (as in the plagues on Egypt—but not so as to destroy the earth) and so is the land of Egypt in a series of acts of "uncreation". In the description of judgement brought on various nations, judgements that unhinge their structured worlds, we hear of heavens being rolled up, the earth staggering like a drunk, the birds and the fish disappearing from the skies and seas and even humans being obliterated. For all this and more see texts like Isaiah 13—14, 34, Jeremiah 4, Zephaniah 1 and Micah 1. None of these texts (or any like them) are speaking of the literal obliteration of the planet—but of the overthrow of the structured world of the people in question, whether it’s Babylon, Edom or Judah.
If we can even credit as possible that that kind of speech is commonplace in scripture maybe we won’t feel compelled to see Christ as predicting the literal undoing of the creation in Matthew 24, and much less, predicting it as happening within the lifetime of his generation.
There is an additional difficulty on the face of the Matthew 24 section. This overthrow of the "world" in question is associated with the "coming" of Christ. Accustomed as we are to waiting for "the second coming" of Christ, we tend always to apply the Christ’s "coming" to the yet future, but this is clearly a mistake on our part. It won’t hurt to remark before passing on to other things that the NT never speaks of the "second" coming of Jesus Christ—which leads too many people to think there were no "comings" of Christ after his first coming (at his birth). Hebrews 9:28 speaks of his second "appearance". My point is not to make a big issue out of the difference between the two words but to make sure that events that are different aren’t confused. Context is always the key issue.
Talk of God’s "coming" is not unusual in the OT. Isaiah 19:1 speaks of his coming on a swift cloud to judge Egypt. This text has nothing to do with God making himself present in Egypt in the way that, say, Cambyses or Alexander did. The text means that God will make his presence felt in Egypt, that he would exercise his power against Egypt so that they would know that he opposed them. Micah speaks against apostate Samaria and Jerusalem, telling them that the Lord is coming (1:3-6). Isaiah 63 speaks of God coming from Edom dressed as a warrior, having already come to her to judge her. He approaches Jerusalem and the look-out demands identification and the Lord identifies himself as the one that went to Edom and judged it. Malachi closes with a word about John the Baptist’s ministry to turn Israel back to God or God will come and smite the land with a curse.
"Comings" do not require us to understand some kind of "bodily" presence. God or Christ may exert their power to bless or curse and in that action they make their presence felt. In the letters in Revelation 2—3 to the various churches Christ speaks of "coming" to or on the churches. Some of the comings are conditioned on the response of the people. If they refuse to repent he will come and punish them, he says, and presumably if they were to repent he would not come. Read the brief letters there for yourself.
All that to say this, the "coming" of the Son of Man does not demand a physical presence. The context must determine how we’re to understand his coming.
If, for example, we should find that the wicked sect in Revelation 2:16 has been obliterated it would give us grounds for thinking that the Lord had come and brought an end to it. I think you see how that would then apply to other "coming" texts. That apostates priests and leaders would see the Son Man coming on the clouds of heaven (see Matthew 16:27-28 and 26:64) doesn’t require a physical fulfilment any more than Psalm 18:9-10 and Isaiah 19:1 demand one. The Lord is "seen" in the calamities or the invasions and in them he "comes" (makes his presence felt locally).
Bertrand Russell and others have missed the point!

©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.

Many thanks to brother Ed Healy, for allowing me to post from his website, the abiding word.com.