Historical Context For The Gift Of Tongues (part 2 of 2)

Several of the mystery religions that inhabited the Greco-Roman world in which the church first developed also record the phenomenon of speaking on tongues.  These include the Persian cult of Mithra, the Egypt-based cult of Osiris, and the Dionysian, Eulusinian, and Orphic cults of Macedonia, Thrace, and Greece.  Lucian of Samosata, a reliable historian of the ancient world that lived in the second century, to whom we owe a debt because of his records concerning the meal practices of the Greco-Roman world, described an example of glossolalia in one of his written works.  In it, the ecstatic utterance was performed by somebody described as a roaming believer in the Syrian goddess that went by the name of “June” (the month is named after her).  Focusing on Corinth, the prevalence of cults that spoke in tongues, especially in what is the wider geographic area by which the city of Corinth was bounded, informs us that there would be a high degree of familiarity with the practice within the city.  This becomes especially poignant if we are to consider the geographical and cultural position in which Corinth was situated at the time of Christ, and a short time later, of Paul. 

Corinth was a very wealthy city, as it was a center of commerce.  Naturally, a city that is a center of commerce is also an intersection of culture as well.  Corinth was situated on the isthmus that connected the area of Achaia with that of Macedonia and Thrace, all of which, taken together (along with some islands), form the area generally referred to as Greece.  Situated on the isthmus, Corinth had two harbors, east and west, thus effectively connecting Asia with Italy (Rome most importantly) and by extension the rest of the known western world.  One can easily imagine Corinth’s being viewed as a quite attractive place to do business.  Owing to that, it would also be an ideal place from which to exert cultural influence, which probably accounts for the fact that Paul spends so much time with this church, taking great pains to influence it in its unique role as an embassy for the kingdom of God, and working diligently to see that it behaves in ways that will appropriately represent the King and the kingdom to which it claims its allegiance.  At the same time, we can also understand how and why accepted practices of the wider culture could creep into this church, as its members were constantly exposed to the ideologies and practices of practically the entire world, and almost always within what would have been a competitive commercial environment. 

Not only was Corinth a center of commerce, but it was center for sport, as it would play host to the Isthmian games (similar to the Olympics) every two years, while hosting the Imperial and Caesarean games every four years.  This, of course, would attract tourists, increasing the opportunities for commerce as well as its cultural importance.  Though Corinth would have had its share of wealthy inhabitants, it would also have had its poor, with some in-between, therefore reflecting the variety of social levels which characterized the large cities of the ancient world.  As we consider Paul’s letters to the church of Corinth, and specifically deal with the issue of speaking in tongues and what it would represent within the church and to those outside the church, as the church lived and worshiped and exercised their spiritual gifts within a culture largely dependent on constructs of honor and shame (the pursuit of honor for social advancement in public and in private associations), we cannot allow ourselves to forget the underlying and quite visible and accepted social stratifications of the ancient world. 

It is also quite interesting to note that the very term “glossolalia,” which is used to denote what is generally believed to be the uniquely Christian practice of speaking in tongues, is a term that is in wide use long before the church is on the scene.  This lets us know that it is not a term that needed to originate with Christians so as to explain their ecstatic utterances.  They were simply able to employ a term already in use, to describe a relatively widespread and known practice, with the term adequately conveying, for the Christians, the same information it would have conveyed on behalf of non-Christians---speaking in tongues while possessed by a god.  Glossolalia did not describe something new that originated with or in the church, but was merely adopted and adapted, by Christians, as an accepted religious practice that was full of meaning and richly symbolic.    

It is undeniable that what can be seen in the church today bears a heavy resemblance (identical?) to the occurrences of ecstatic tongues that took place in these ancient cults well before the day of Pentecost, to which is generally looked as the time of the outpouring of the Spirit that has, since then, enabled the ecstatic speech of Christians, though there are marked differences between both Christian, non-Christian, and pre-Christian speaking in tongues from what is recorded in the second chapter Acts.  Let us not be naïve.  In all cases of speaking in tongues, based upon the facts of history, the one performing the action is said to be doing so under the influence of their god.  Speaking in tongues is not a uniquely Christian practice by any means.  A large number of studies have revealed the fact that speaking in tongues is present in non-Christian religions all around the world.  We can find it practiced, distinct from the church, in China, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Indonesia, Siberia, Arabia, and Burma, just to name a few locations.  Glossolalia can be heard among Eskimos, in Japanese séances on the island of Hokkaido, from the shamans of Zar cult in Ethiopia, in Haitian Voodoo, and quite extensively in African tribal religions.  In each case, it functions differently for the group, though it will generally sound the same.      

Historical Context For The Gift Of Tongues (part 1 of 2)

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but I do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. – 1 Corinthians 13:1  (NET)             

Whenever the topic of “speaking in tongues” is considered, a common misperception, together with a failure in basic knowledge of the subject, is advanced.  That common misperception is that “speaking on tongues,” or “glossolalia,” somehow began with Christians.  Whether one is “for” or “against” the idea of speaking in tongues, which is generally considered to be an ecstatic form of speech that is unintelligible to both the speaker and any hearers as it does not bear resemblance to any known languages, it is impossible to engage in a discussion without first considering the fact that the practice of speaking in tongues predates Christianity.  In fact, records of its historical practice, akin to the way in which it is practiced by millions of Christians around the world today, can be found centuries prior to the advent of the church, and in complete isolation from the influence of God’s chosen people Israel. 

The Apostle Paul, in his first letter to the congregation of Corinth, deals extensively with the issue of spiritual gifts, with that of speaking in tongues receiving what appears to be an inordinate amount of focus and attention.  This particular spiritual gifting appears to be of grave concern to the Apostle, and we can only have any hopes for understanding the reasons for Paul’s dealing with the subject in the context of the body of people that stood in representation of the kingdom of God, if we understand a bit of the history of the actions, its place in the culture, what it signified, how it was received, how it functioned, and in what it would result. 

So yes, as we gaze through the pages of recorded history, we will find that there have been many occasions where people have spoken in what has been referred to as ecstatic language.  The records indicate that this is no different, in practice and in appearance, than what is to be seen in the contemporary Christian practice of speaking in tongues (ecstatic language).  We also must understand that the given reasons for the speech have remained unchanged, and that they are merely adapted to the new situation.  Most of the accounts of ecstatic speech predate Pentecost (though we will have to admit to a helpful distinction between what is recounted in the second chapter of Acts and the activity that is being addressed in Paul’s letter to the Corinthian church) and were of decidedly non-Christian origin (this should give pause to Christians that decry, perhaps quite rightly, the fusion of pagan holidays into Christianity, rejecting the celebration of Easter and its associated traditions or Christmas and its associated traditions because of their questionable origins, while uncritically embracing pre-Christian acts such as speaking in tongues that have also been carried over into the church).  As the simple facts of the matter will serve to demonstrate, Christians cannot say, with any degree of confidence, that every occurrence of glossolalia (again, this is not necessarily what we see in the Acts two) must be an expression of the will of God.  Many, of course, subscribe to this view, though it is historically untenable and does not withstand an even moderate degree of scrutiny. 

The very first recorded cases of that which can be termed as glossolalia, or ecstatic speech attributed to the activity of the gods upon a believer, goes as far back as 1100 B.C.  On that occasion, it is a worshiper of the Egyptian God Amun that attracted attention to himself through making sounds in a strange, ecstatic tongue.  He reported himself to have been possessed by the god.  Seven hundred years later, the famous Greek philosopher, Plato, demonstrated that he was quite well acquainted with the phenomenon of speaking in tongues, as he made reference to several families who habitually practiced ecstatic speech, with prayers and utterings offered as they were supposedly possessed by the spirit of their gods.  He would also go on to point out that these practices had even been said to have brought physical healing to those who engaged in them.  Accordingly, and because they had no reason to presume otherwise, Plato, and those contemporary with him, casually and confidently asserted that these occurrences were in fact caused by some type of divine inspiration.  It was his suggestion that the god simply took possession of the mind during this state, inspiring him with utterances that he could neither understand nor interpret. 

In the century prior to the coming of the Christ, the poet Virgil, speaking of the Sybilline priestess that lived on the island of Delos, described her activity of speaking in ecstatic tongues.  This was explained by her being in union with the god Apollo.  This was said to have happened while she meditated in a haunted cave, amidst what was described as the eerie sounds of the wind, as it played strange music through the narrow crevices of the rocks. 

Son of Man, The Temple & The Hour (part 2 of 2)

Tying off Jesus’ Temple-fall-and-coming-of-the-Son-of-Man related speech, and continuing a clearly pronounced connective theme, Matthew writes “When Jesus had finished saying all these things” (26:1a).  There is a heavy synoptic use of “these things,” and the fact that it appears in a related passage in Peter’s second letter, its usage here simply cannot escape our attention or be at all considered as a random placement.  Matthew, most especially it would seem wants to draw our attention to the fact that all that we have just heard from Jesus, from the fourth verse of the twenty-fourth chapter, through the final verse of the twenty-fifth chapter, was presented in relation to the fall of the Temple and the coming of the Son of Man to the Ancient of Days for the purpose of receiving His kingdom.

This, of course, includes Jesus’ insistence that “as for that day and hour no one knows it---not even the angels in heaven---except the Father alone” (24:36).  What Jesus is saying here could not be any more obvious.  In fact, by this point, it would take a willful refusal to acknowledge the point that is being made, or to hear Jesus talking about anything but the fall of the Temple when He makes this statement.  This probably does not even need to be said, but to somehow connect this to some kind of rapture or to the return of Jesus to earth, considering the incredibly obvious context that is on offer, strains credulity to the point of breaking. 

Throughout the whole of Matthew twenty-four, Jesus has never once wavered from answering the question that was posed by His disciples, and which was prompted by His statement about the Temple.  By way of review, we can read “Now as Jesus was going out of the Temple courts and walking away, His disciples came to show Him the Temple buildings” (24:1).  In response to what He sees, Jesus says “Do you see all these things?  I tell you the truth, not one stone will be left on another.  All will be torn down!” (24:2)  His disciples, who did not imagine that He was talking about anything but the Temple being torn down, with not one stone being left on another, which would have been catastrophic and unimaginable to their way of thinking, say “Tell us, when will these things happen?” (24:3b)  To that is added, by Matthew, “And what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” (24:3c)  We know that the question is based upon the quite popular seventh chapter of Daniel, and that the coming of the Son of Man to the Ancient of Days, and the concordant receipt of His kingdom will mark the end of one age and the beginning of another.  Apart from that, we remember that Mark and Luke simply have the disciples adding, “And what will the sign that all these things are about to take place?”  Yes, the disciples know that Jesus is speaking about the fall of the Temple and want to know how they will know when it is that this singularly cataclysmic event will occur. 

In response, we find that “Jesus answered them” (24:4a).  Jesus did not set about answering an unasked question about the end of time or about the time that He would return to earth following His crucifixion, Resurrection, and ascension.  Such an idea is nowhere in sight.  No, He answered the question that He was asked.  No, we do not always expect this from Jesus, but then again, He is not answering a challenge from the Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes, or experts in the law.  He is answering His disciples, and as usual, when it comes to them, He is speaking plainly.  Yes, to the crowds He speaks in mysterious language, but He gives answers to His disciples.  So Jesus answers them.  His answer begins in verse five of chapter twenty-four, and it runs to the end of chapter twenty-five. 

The entire time, the focus of the answer remains unchanged, though He does provide interesting information in the process---unexpected information (unexpected in terms of Mark and Luke’s presentation of the disciples’ question, but anticipated in the question from the disciples as presented by Matthew) about the connection of the fall of the Temple to the time of the Son of Man’s coming to the Ancient of Days.  He even reinforces the connection, speaking about the Son of Man beyond our thrust text, repeating the term three times in rapid succession, from verse thirty-seven to verse forty-four.  In all three cases, the Son of Man comes to receive His kingdom at an unexpected time---no one knows the hour.  The Temple is going to fall.  Jesus says that His disciples can count on this happening.  When?  No one knows the hour, but here’s the types of things that will precede the event, and it is to be conceptually linked with the Son of Man appearing before the Ancient of Days.   

Throughout the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew (as well as Mark thirteen and Luke twenty-one), Jesus gives His disciples a great deal of information, clueing them in so that they will have a decent idea as to when the Temple is going to fall.  It bears repeating however, that He could not be more clear that they will not know the exact moment that events will coalesce and conspire to bring down the Temple.  When it comes to that, “as for that day and hour, no one knows it---not even the angels,” the ones that will be sent out to gather His elect (24:31) and that accompany the Son of Man when He comes in His glory (25:31), “except the Father alone.” 

With the repeated mentions of the Son of Man, which seems to override the importance of fall of the Temple and truly becomes the point of the discourse, we get the sense that Jesus’ words, though initially prompted by the question about the Temple, becomes less about them knowing the exact time of the Temple’s collapse, and more about them knowing that when it happens, and when Jesus’ prediction comes true, that they can then know that He, the Son of Man, has had His universal dominion confirmed and that He indeed rules as King and Lord of all.  If we had been hearing Jesus speak, we may not have been able to know the hour that the Temple was going to come crashing down, but we could be certain that, according to His words, when it did, we could be supremely confident that He ruled as King of Kings and Lord of Lords.  Indeed, we can look to the place where the Temple once stood, see that it stands there no longer, and know that Jesus spoke truly, that He rules His kingdom, and that He demands our participation in that kingdom along the lines outlined in the narrative found in Matthew.  Is it not that knowledge that should animate our lives in this day?     

Son of Man, The Temple & The Hour (part 1 of 2)

But as for that day and hour no one knows it---not even the angels in heaven---except the Father alone. - Matthew 24:36  (NET)

If we hold to the idea that the early church, having rightly comprehended what Jesus meant by His fall-of-the-Temple-focused discourse (as recorded in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21), tightly connected the fall of the Temple with the coming of the Son of Man to the Ancient of Days in order to receive His kingdom, then the heavy inclusion of all of the Son of Man language throughout the Gospels makes even greater sense.  While we will not take the time to review all of the mentions of the Son of Man, it is worth taking a bit of time to review and to draw out some conclusions and inferences that would have been obvious to Jesus’ original audience. 

In a superficial review, we notice that John has the fewest uses of “Son of Man.”  Mark clocks in with the next fewest, while both Matthew and Luke are replete with its usage (Luke nearly doubling Mark’s count, while Matthew more than doubles Mark’s usage).  While John obviously pursues its agenda on a different path than do the synoptics, Mark’s relative restraint in using the term is understandable if it is, in fact, cautiously and expectantly composed before the fall of the Temple.  Of course, we do not simply assert that a lack of details in indicative of a pre-fall composition, as Mark could certainly have been just as precise and non-verbose, as opposed to his evangelistic counterparts, while writing after the Temple’s fall. 

Once we hear correctly and contextually hear Jesus’ Son of Man language within His crystal clear, prophetical, and predictive speech about the coming fall of the Temple, doing so in the light of Daniel’s seventh chapter, we do ourselves a tremendous disservice if we do not reflect on a few of its appearances prior to the Temple speech in which Jesus connects the Temple’s fall with the Son of Man’s arrival and kingdom acquisition.  Sticking with Matthew’s presentation for our purposes here, we find ourselves in a state of superior comprehension of the words of Jesus when we hear such things as “Whenever they persecute you in one place, flee to another.  I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes” (10:23); “The Son of Man will send His angels, and they will gather from His kingdom everything that causes sin as well as all lawbreakers” (13:41); “For the Son of Man will come with His angels in the glory of His Father, and then He will reward each person according to what He has done” (16:27)---a clear Daniel seven reference; and “I tell you the truth, there are some standing here who will not experience death before they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom” (16:28).  We can comfortably equate the last of these mentions of the Son of Man with the fall of the Temple, as would be made clear later in Matthew.  For the followers of Jesus, seeing the Son of Man coming in His kingdom was the same thing as seeing the Temple fall. 

We must also make mention of the fact that talk of “heaven and earth,” in that day, was a common way of referencing the Temple.  This leads us back to consider that which precedes Jesus’ statement that “as for that day and hour no one knows it---not even the angels in heaven---except the Father alone” (Matthew 24:36).  Just before Jesus says this, and immediately after He speaks about the generation that will see the Temple fall, Jesus says “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away” (24:35).  This, though the synoptic authors disagree in so many of their details in their presentation of Jesus’ Temple-and-Son-of-Man focused apocalyptic discourse, is identically reported by the three evangelists---a fact that, like the other identically reported statement that preceded it (concerning the generation that would see the fall of the Temple), should not escape our attention.  Now, do we let our imaginations wander about, causing us to hear Jesus going off on a tangent about the end of the world when He speaks these words, or do we hear Him within context, speaking in a very understandable way?  Obviously, we should choose the latter option. 

Jesus has not changed the subject.  Jesus has not gone off on a tangent.  He is speaking about the fall of the Temple.  He is continuing to answer the question posed to Him at the beginning of the chapter, following His declaration that not one stone of the Temple would be left upon another, as to when this would happen.  He has given the bulk of His answer, telling His disciples and other hearers the types of things that they would see and which should prepare them for the Temple’s fall, and re-asserts the finality of His prediction when He says that “Heaven and earth,” the Temple, “will pass away, but My words,” perhaps this prediction, “will not pass away.”  In other words, Jesus says, “Oh yes, the Temple is going to fall.  You can count on it happening.”  Beyond that, we can hear Him making an existential claim, in that even though the Temple will pass away, His words, words that spring from the true Temple, will never pass away.  Also, because it is coincident with the fall of the Temple that Jesus (the Son of Man) will be going before the Father (the Ancient of Days) to receive His kingdom, those who are listening to Him, and those who come to believe in Him through the preaching of His disciples, can have confidence that His words are words that will endure.   

Peter & The Temple (part 5 of 5)

As we round out this study, we now take the opportunity to bolster the conjecture in which we have been engaging concerning second Peter.  To get there, we look to Matthew.  As Jesus continues on with His discourse about the fall of the Temple, He says to “stay alert, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come.  But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, He would have been alert and would not have let his house be broken into” (Matthew 24:42-43).  Because of what we have determined to be a possibility, which is that the author of second Peter is referencing the prediction that the Temple would indeed fall, again (if the letter is indeed composed before the fall of the Temple and the production of the Gospel of Matthew in the form in which we now have it), realizing that the author of the letter is relying on the oral tradition that surrounds Jesus’ talk of the fall of the Temple (the passing away of heaven and earth, along with the celestial bodies), we are not at all surprised when we hear him say “But the day of the Lord will come like a thief” (3:10a), as the analogy from the Jesus tradition is drafted into use. 

Along the same lines, if second Peter is being written with a knowledge of that which will eventually come to be codified and communicated in Matthew twenty-four, then we are also quite unsurprised to hear the regular Petrine references to Noah and the judgment of the flood, especially considering what we hear Jesus saying: “For just like the days of Noah were, so the coming of the Son of Man will be.  For in those days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and given in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark” (24:37-38).  To that, Jesus adds “And they knew nothing until the flood came and took them all away.  It will be the same at the coming of the Son of Man” (24:39).  It cannot be repeated enough that this coming of the Son of Man is the Danielic coming of the Son of Man to the Ancient of Days, which, according to Jesus, is to be thought of coincidentally with the fall of the Temple (a cataclysmic sign of judgment by Israel’s God to be sure) that He, according to the synoptic authors, has been predicting. 

If Jesus’ prediction is, in fact, in mind, and if questions concerning the legitimacy of His prediction and therefore the legitimacy of His ministry and therefore the legitimacy of the church and its proclamation concerning Him, then this provides an interesting avenue by which to approach something to be found in the first chapter of the letter, which is “Moreover, we possess the prophetic word as an altogether reliable thing.  You do well to pay attention to this as you would to a light shining in a murky place” (1:19a). 

In the third chapter, after insisting that the day of the Lord will come like a thief, a question is proffered: “Since all these things are to melt away in this manner,” as we remember the three uses of “these things” in the synoptic recounting of Jesus’ discourse (while also remembering that, if this is indeed written before the Temple’s fall, that there is no access to Matthew, but rather, only the oral tradition and possibly Mark, if it was written before the fall, though this particular letter seems to make reference to that which would find its way into the Matthean tradition), “what sort of people must we be?” (3:11)  Jesus proposes an answer to this question about the sort of people that His people must be as they wait for the fall of the Temple and the coming of the Son of Man to receive His kingdom.  He says “Who then is the faithful and wise slave, whom the master has put in charge of his household, to give the other slaves their food at the proper time?  Blessed is that slave whom the master finds at work when he comes.  I tell you the truth, the master will put him in charge of all his possessions” (24:45-47).  Jesus then goes on to provide a contrast with an evil slave. 

Jesus continues, saying “At that time,” the time when the Son of Man comes to the Ancient of Days and the Temple falls, “the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom” (25:1), with a further contrast between those that were wise and foolish in their preparation in relation to the coming of the bridegroom, who clearly stands in for the Son of Man for purposes of this parable.  Following that, Jesus offers up that which is referred to as “the parable of the talents,” saying “For it is like a man going on a journey, who summoned his slaves and entrusted his property to them” (25:14).  

Like the previously mentioned slaves, these slaves were all given certain responsibilities.  Continuing, as we continue to seek the answer asked by Peter, which was “what sort of people must we be?”, we hear Jesus say “When the Son of Man comes in His glory and all the angels with Him” (another telling mention of angels---not even the angels in heaven know when the Son of Man is going to come to the ancient of days), “then He will sit on His glorious throne.  All the nations will be assembled before Him,” as Daniel seven indicates, “and He will separate people from one another like a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.  He will put the sheep on His right and the goats on His left.  Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” (25:31-34). 

To whom is Jesus referring when He speaks of sheep?  It is those to whom the Son of Man, the King, speaks and says “For I was hungry and you gave Me food, I was thirsty and you gave Me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited Me in, I was naked and you gave Me clothing, I was sick and you took care of Me, I was in prison and you visited Me” (25:35-36).  He, as the Son of Man, the King, goes on to add: “I tell you the truth, just as you did it for one of the least of these brothers or sisters of mine, you did it for Me” (25:40).  If we are looking for an answer as to what sort of people we must be, this is as good as any, especially when the goats are described as those that did not do these things.    

Peter & The Temple (part 4 of 5)

Though there are ongoing debates about the time frame for the production of the synoptic Gospels and of the second letter of Peter, and though there could certainly be written records that would be incorporated into the Gospels themselves that were composed at an early stage, it is generally accepted that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Mark preceding the other two) in the forms in which we now have them, were all composed roughly around the year seventy.  Some suggest an earlier dating for Mark, perhaps in the late sixties.  If true, this is not entirely problematic for our suggestion.  While we say this, it is more than possible that Mark did in fact write His Gospel before the Temple had come to its end, as is sometimes posited.  Mark’s Gospel lacks the embellishment (in the sense of a more rounded-out presentation) that are to be found in Matthew and Luke, with this being quite understandable. 

If Mark writes before the Temple’s fall, whereas Matthew and Luke write after the fall and because of the fall, then it is understandable that Mark’s account would be more direct and straightforward, lacking the material details and stories to be found in the narratives on offer in Matthew and Luke.  Understandably, composing their accounts of Jesus in a post-Temple-fall world, Matthew and Luke could be far more comfortable relating more of Jesus’ life story, as preserved and transmitted via the oral tradition.  However, if our insistence is correct, and the early church did indeed hold Jesus’ prediction concerning the Temple in very high regard (as we consider that Jesus is reported to have made precious few of what we might term “predictions”), giving it a place at the center of their teaching about Jesus as the thing that would bring about a great validation of His ministry, then it would be quite understandable to place all three of the synoptic Gospel accounts as being produced shortly after the very fall of the Temple that was predicted by Jesus, as recorded by the Gospel authors.   

We must place great weight on the fact that, despite numerous differences in details throughout the whole of their accounts of Jesus’ ministry and of His time and activities in the Temple, all three of the synoptic tales coalesce to identically report His talk about the generation that will see the fall of the Temple, as well as the words that immediately followed.  This single fact should be endlessly fascinating.  It would make perfect sense for all three of the evangelists’ works to spring from the fall of the Temple, with all being produced after that event in a veritable rush to generate and disperse the written account that would include His words about the Temple’s fall, placing it in a standardized form that could be used as a substantial legitimization of Jesus’ life and ministry.  It would also be used as a polemic against those that attempted to question the claims about Jesus and His kingdom that were being made by the Christian community.    

This then gives some weight to our theory that Peter’s writing comes before the fall of the Temple, and that part of it serves as a response to the questioning experienced by the early church communities concerning their report about Jesus’ words regarding the Temple and its fall.  It does seem possible that Peter’s words are in response to the accusation that Jesus is a false prophet precisely because the Temple (heaven and earth) is still standing, so Peter draws from the reservoir of judgment history, particularly the story of Noah (also alluded to by Matthew during His presentation of Jesus’ apocalyptic discourse), to point out that God can certainly visit judgment upon His own timetable.  This would not then run contrary to what we find reported in the synoptic, that it would be this generation that would see the fall of the Temple and its concurrent (though certainly not visible) coming of the Son of Man to the Ancient of Days.   

Though there was certainly a firmly held belief in Jesus as having been crucified and resurrected, it is conceivable that, in their minds, the fall of the Temple would be the final piece of the puzzle, validating all that Jesus had said and done.  Now, with the Temple destroyed, which also meant that the Son of Man had undoubtedly gone before the Ancient of Days to receive His kingdom (for if one prediction was correct, then the prediction that is reported to be so closely tied to it must be considered to be correct as well), all of the preaching and teaching about Jesus that had been taking place within the nascent church movement, and all of the persecution undergone by the church, primarily at the hands of the Temple authorities, could be seen to not have been done or experienced in vain. 

This line of thinking becomes especially poignant when we consider that Jesus’ dealings with and in the Temple are a central feature of the shared accounts of Jesus, and thus would have been particularly important to the nascent church.  They would have told and continued to tell this story and its associated predictions, doing so against all appearance (a still-standing Temple), doing so because the one that believed to have told it was also understood to have been resurrected.  We also realize that all three make it more than clear that it is this ongoing clash with the Temple authorities, culminating in Jesus’ judgment against the Temple, that ultimately resulted in the collusion with the Roman authorities that was productive of His death by crucifixion. 

Peter & The Temple (part 3 of 5)

Returning then to second Peter, we are able to read and hear him from a more enlightened perspective.  We do so as we keep clearly in view the fact of Jesus’ prediction about the fall of the Temple, along with the need, amongst the followers of Jesus in the years after His death, Resurrection, and ascension, for this prediction to come true, that He might not be cast aside as a false prophet, His single most dramatic “prophecy” having failed to come to pass.  Having laid the groundwork, this author writes “Now, dear friends, do not let this one thing escape your notice, that a single day is like a thousand years with the Lord and a thousand years are like a single day.  The Lord is not slow concerning His promise, as some regard slowness, but is being patient toward you, because He does not wish for any to perish but for all to come to repentance” (3:8-9).  So with this we are here insisting that the promise is the judgment prophesied against the Temple, and that, folding in the Jesus tradition as presented in the Gospels alongside the insistence that the Temple will fall, this will also coincide with the coming of the Son of Man to the Ancient of Days, providing the ultimate signal of the fact of Christ’s reign. 

Continuing, we read “But the day of the Lord will come like a thief; when it comes, the heavens will disappear with a horrific noise, and the celestial bodies will melt away in a blaze, and the earth and every deed done on it will be laid bare” (3:10).  There’s that heaven and earth language again, combined with talk of celestial bodies, which was also well-understood Temple-related language.  It leads into “Since all these things are to melt away in this manner, what sort of people must we be, conducting our lives in holiness and godliness, while waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God?”  (3:11-12a)  Do we here recognize the Daniel seven reference, which then also is a reference to the oral traditions (if indeed this is written in the sixties of the first century) concerning Jesus’ speech about the Temple, to the coming of the Son of Man?  The thought is rounded out with “Because of this day, the heavens will be burned up and dissolve, and the celestial bodies will melt away in a blaze!  But, according to His promise, we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness truly resides” (3:12b-13).  What is the new heavens and the new earth?  Not only does it carry the thought of a restored creation, but it is also a new Temple, indwelt by the Creator God.

Indeed, they were waiting for it to be made clear to all that Jesus was the true Temple, which would be demonstrated when the Temple in Jerusalem was taken out of the way, just as Jesus had said would happen.  Jesus was to be recognized, by all, as the new heavens and the new earth, the place of the coming together of heaven and earth, which is part and parcel of the meaning behind His ascension---fusing the realm of God’s existence with that of man.  When it comes to being the place where righteousness dwells, when righteousness is understood as God’s covenant faithfulness, which is that which was represented by the Temple, then when it is Jesus that is left standing, resurrected following His crucifixion by Rome, whereas the Temple was destroyed by Rome never to rise again, then yes, Jesus is that which represents God’s covenant faithfulness to His people and to His creation.  

As we hear the words of the second letter of Peter (as a perfect example, though we could also comb through Paul’s letters as part of this exercise), and consider the possibilities surrounding the potential interpretation of what is to be found there, while also considering the possibility that it was produced before the fall of the Temple, in demonstration of the church’s expectation of that fall and what it would mean for their faith, we can’t help but think about the time frame in which the written synoptic Gospels are said to have been produced.  If indeed it was well understood that Jesus, as reported by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, was speaking of the fall of the Temple as something that would occur within the lifetimes of many of those that heard His answer to the disciples’ question about when the Temple would be thrown to the ground with not one stone left upon another, then this can also help to explain the time period that saw the relative explosion of Gospel narratives on to the scene in the first century.