No One Knows The Hour (part 31)

Is all this talk of the message of Jesus’ prediction about the fall of the Temple being an included and important part of the message of the earliest Christ-followers pure conjecture?  Is there any scriptural basis, or any evidence from the time period of the early church upon which to base such conjecture and related assertions?  The second letter of Peter presents an interesting possibility.  Now, this will not be an open and shut case by any means.  Again, this is conjecture, and is far from being dogmatic, especially considering the questions that surround the composition of the letter itself. 

Second Peter is something of a mystery.  There are many that insist that it is a composition of the Apostle Peter himself, while there are just as many that insist that it is a composition by another individual, composed well after the time of Peter’s death.  If it was composed by Peter, then according to the traditions about the dating of Peter’s death, which is said to have occurred in the late sixties, it had to have been written before the fall of the Temple, which took place in the year seventy. 

If one adopts the mindset that the prediction about the fall of the Temple, which would coincide with (or indicate) the Son of Man receiving His kingdom from the Ancient of Days and which Jesus said was going to be seen by the generation to which He was speaking, was a crucial component of the message about Jesus that greatly served to validate the message about Him, then one is provided with an interesting backdrop against which to view a portion of second Peter.  If this conjecture is not too terribly wide of the mark, it may actually perform a role in the ongoing debate about authorship and time frame for the letter. 

If the letter was composed by Peter before the fall of the Temple, if it is believed that the fall of the Temple (and all that goes along with that) is crucial to the message of Jesus, and if the ongoing presence of the Temple, in light of the fact that the traditions about Jesus included His well-understood prediction that the Temple would fall relatively soon, the fact that the Temple remained standing would have been a major thorn in the side of the young community of Jesus loyalists, practically mocking their allegiance to Jesus (who would be little more than a false prophet perhaps rightly executed if the Temple continued to stand).  Thus, one can make note of much of the third chapter with a renewed interest and focus.  Beginning in the third verse the author writes: “Above all, understand this: In the last days blatant scoffers will come,” understanding quite well what is meant by the “last days” (essentially, the time before the Son of Man receives His kingdom and the time in which the Temple will fall), “being propelled by their own evil urges and saying, ‘Where is His promised return?” (3:3-4a) 

Continuing the scoffing towards the claims of the Christians, and especially the claims concerning the Temple, with a still-standing Temple serving to counterfeit all other claims being made about Jesus including His Resurrection, one reads “For ever since our ancestors died,” thinking about Jesus’ assertion (reported identically in the synoptic Gospels) that this generation will not pass away until all these things take place, “all things have continued as they were from the beginning of creation” (3:4b).  While the church claimed that the Creator God had acted dramatically within history to resurrect Jesus, to which the church then pointed as the evidence of the beginning of the renewal of that God’s creation, even not-so-keen observers could scoff at this remark, offering up the insistence that things are continuing pretty much as they have always been.  

No One Knows The Hour (part 19)

The point that must be underlined is that the disciples are quite obviously asking the question about the fate of the Temple and the time of its being torn down in relation to what Jesus has said about the Temple.  When considered together, the synoptic Gospels witness to this fact, with the weight of the evidence insisting that Matthew’s report of the use of “end of the age” (and all that comes after that question) should be tied to the fall of the Temple. 

Along with this, the reader must be aware of the possibility that the Gospels authors are writing after the Jewish revolt and after the Temple has been destroyed by the Romans (though sharing a narrative that existed prior to the composition of the written Gospels), which most certainly colors any approach to the narrative, attempts to understand what is being said, and shapes the responsibility of Christ-followers to make the correct applications in their own days, places, and times.  Now, this is not to take away from the prophetic activity of Jesus, but allows for a dimension of analysis in which the authors, and therefore those who are hearing and reading these biographical compilations about the life of Jesus, are reporting these words of Jesus from the perspective of a world in which revolution has been attempted and crushed, and in which Rome and its legions have destroyed the Temple and Jerusalem. 

Even though Mark provides the foundation for Matthew, this study will continue to rely upon Matthew’s account, for it is the most detailed of the “end of the age” narratives and it provides the foundation from which one can deal with a number of pertinent issues related to coming to grips with Jesus’ statement about no man knowing the day or the hour.  Interestingly, it is Matthew’s presentation that becomes the guide, in many Bible translations, that provides the summary heading for various sections.  For example, in a number of translations, this paragraph of Matthew twenty-four is headed by “Signs of the End of the Age.”  This makes sense, as the disciples have asked “what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” 

However, even though the disciples do not ask the question this way in either Mark or Luke, not making mention of the end of the age, the same paragraph in those Gospels are often headed with “Signs of the End of the Age.”  This demonstrates the way in which the very non-Jewish (Greek-influenced) conceptions of the end of the world have somehow become equated to such an expression by a Jew in the first century, though it is has no such connection.  Beyond that, one can see that the conflation of end of the age and end of the world are read into Mark and Luke, becoming the controlling paradigm by which those two accounts are so often heard, even though, according to the words of the disciples that are on offer by those two evangelists (Luke and Mark), the end of the age (or end of the world---as conceived of by a great number of interpreters) is nowhere in sight. 

Again, it becomes helpful to let the weight of evidence be the guide.  Since the foundational narrative, that being Mark, which is significantly expanded upon by Matthew (due to either written materials in the author’s possession, a more robust oral tradition, or a more vivid imagination) does not resort to such language, and Luke, which also builds on Mark, does not have the disciples posing their question in such a matter, it is best to distance oneself from the end of the age language because of the inherent confusion that ensues when using the language.  This distancing will have to take place even though it has been established that, in its usage, it does not point to the end of the world, but it is difficult for many to shake free from long-ingrained sensibilities.       

...Like A Gentile Or Tax Collector (part 4)

When pressed on the fact that He is dining with “tax collectors and sinners,” Jesus ultimately responds by effectively saying “I came to call sinners.”  That is, “these are the people---these tax collectors and sinners (Gentiles and those treated as Gentiles, if you will)---that I intend to gather into the kingdom of the Creator God.  I am going after these people.”  Concordantly, a regular accusation that would be leveled against Jesus, that was intended (among other things) to show that He could not possibly be Israel’s Messiah, was the manner of His table fellowship and the people with which He surrounded Himself. 

In the eleventh chapter of Matthew, recognizing the constant building of the story and the inter-connectivity of the pieces of the narrative, Jesus Himself gives voice to this charge, reporting what it was that was being said about Him: “Look at Him, a glutton and a drunk, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!” (Matthew 11:19b).  Surely, the thoughts seemed to run, Israel’s messiah would not surround Himself with those that are taken to be outside of the Creator’s covenant---not displaying or adhering to the accepted and determined covenant markers (circumcision, dietary laws, Sabbath-keeping) of the people of the Creator God.  By His consistent fraternization with and acceptance of such people, Jesus demonstrated His attitude towards and compassion for said classes of people, while also providing the example to be followed by all those that would come to cast their lot with Him and His kingdom way. 

In a way that seems to run contrary to that which has been seen to this point, in the tenth chapter Jesus can be found sending out His twelve disciples and instructing them “Do not go to Gentile regions and do not enter any Samaritan town.  Go instead to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (10:5b-6).  Right along with Matthew’s hearers, any reader of the Gospel should find this to be highly unusual, as it would seem to run counter to what has been seen and heard from Jesus.  This can be understood just a bit better upon hearing what it is that is to be the content of their message, which is that “The kingdom of heaven is near!” (10:7b)  This is a fundamentally Jewish concept that would not necessarily have been understood by Gentiles and Samaritans.  So this instruction by Jesus may need to be understood less as a restriction, and understood more alone the lines of practicality.  At the same time, a careful inspection of Matthew seems to reveal that Jesus limits His talk of the kingdom of heaven to His interaction with the people of Israel, which can also serve to make sense of the practical nature of the instructions. 

Of course, this tension is held in mind and ultimately balanced by the great commission that will be encountered in the closing verses of Matthew’s Gospel.  This tension and expectation of what is to come is played out here in the tenth chapter, as Jesus continues His instructions by saying “I am sending you out like sheep surrounded by wolves… Beware of people, because they will hand you over to councils and flog you in their synagogues” (10:16a,17), which would come to be the experience of the community of Christ-followers in the years following the Christ-event and in the time in which this Gospel would have been composed and shared. 

As it relates to understanding what it means to treat someone as a Gentile or tax collector, Jesus relates the greater purpose of this treatment of His disciples, saying “And you will be brought before governors and kings because of me” (10:18a).  Here, one cannot help but think of the records of the travails of Peter, John, and Paul and their respective appearances before the authorities (especially those of Paul), which would quite likely have been known to the community for which Matthew has compiled his narrative.  When standing before governors and kings, Jesus’ persecuted disciples would act “as a witness to them and the Gentiles” (10:18b).  Yes, Jesus was always cognizant of His mission.  Accordingly, His church has always been cognizant of its mission.  This mission, as Matthew’s hearers would well-know and would routinely hear, included reaching out to Gentiles so as to bring them into the plans and purposes and ever-widening fold of the people of the kingdom of the Creator God.