No One Knows The Hour (part 21)

What must be done when one hears the disciples ask about Jesus’ coming, is hearing them ask that question as first-century Jews whose mindsets were thoroughly influenced by the imagery on offer in the extraordinarily popular and influential work of Daniel.  In the seventh chapter of Daniel, a vision is reported in which “with the clouds of the sky one like a son of man was approaching.  He went up to the Ancient of Days and was escorted before Him.  To Him was given ruing authority, honor, and sovereignty.  All peoples, nations, and language groups were serving him.  His authority is eternal and will not pass away.  His kingdom will not be destroyed” (7:13b-14).  In this vision, one like a son of man came to Ancient of Days.  Presumably this movement is from earth to heaven.  This is the coming to which the disciples make reference, and to which Jesus will make reference in His answer as reported by Matthew. 

Is this a leap of logic and an unsupported assertion?  Well, the issue of common sense has already been addresses, demonstrating that the disciples could not possibly have been asking Jesus about a coming to earth when He was already there, as there is nothing in the Gospel narratives to that point that would suggest that such a question would be appropriate or that such thinking would be warranted.  As supported by the Gospel narratives and the general disposition of the vast majority of the members of the nation of Israel, the disciples were not expecting Jesus to die, let alone be raised from the dead, nor ascend to heaven following a resurrection or return to earth from heaven at some point in the future. 

To go along with that, the prevalence and popularity of Daniel in that time and culture compels the reader to hear talk of “coming” along the lines that it suggests, which was a coming before the Creator God (the Ancient of Days) of that one that represented Israel, that Israel might be delivered from those under which it suffered oppression.  That, of course, was one of the primary concerns of the day.  In any consideration of Jesus’ presumptive messianic activity or mission, the deliverance of Israel was paramount. 

Matthew underscores the fact that Daniel is in mind and that it was an instructive work in that day, as later on, as Jesus answers the disciples’ question, He makes reference to Daniel, saying “So when you see the abomination of desolation---spoken about by Daniel the prophet” (24:15a).  It is fascinating to make note of the fact that it is Matthew alone that has Jesus specifically naming the book of Daniel as part of His responsive discourse, informing his audience that Daniel was a major influence of his worldview and is one of the primary lenses through to which to view his Jesus story, especially when it is Matthew’s report of Jesus’ “end times” vision that is so often mis-interpreted. 

Though Mark makes reference to it by mention of the abomination of desolation, there is no specific mention of Daniel.  In Mark, it is the mention of the abomination of desolation that first calls Daniel to the mind of the hearer or reader, whereas the one hearing Matthew’s tale has already had Daniel called to mind by the mention of the signs of Jesus’ coming.  It therefore makes sense that Matthew’s Jesus makes mention of Daniel, whilst Mark’s Jesus merely makes a reference.  Both build on the crucial reference.  For Matthew’s purposes, Jesus’ coming (not to earth but to the Ancient of Days) is what marks the end of the age (of Israel being oppressed, among other things) and is emphatically linked to the destruction of the Temple.  He makes that explicit in the foreground, with his framing of the disciples’ question.  This link is also found in Mark and Luke, but as has been shown, they do not have the disciples marking their query with a concern for the end of the age, so the connection between the two comes later in Jesus’ response to the question. 

Corinth's Communion (part 8)

Looking at Paul’s discourse concerning the communion in this way---in the larger context of what precedes it in the eleventh chapter and in consideration of the general tone of the letter (Paul’s constant focus on the church body/body of believers) while also holding on to the reality of a general and public reading to the group rather than an individual and private reading, prompts an observer toward a better way of coming to terms with what follows.  The twenty-seventh verse reads “For this reason, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:27). 

When isolated from what prompted Paul to write about that which he is said to have received from the Lord, this verse prompts all types of interesting thoughts concerning what it means to take in an unworthy manner.  When one goes on to hear “A person should examine himself first, and in this way let him eat the bread and drink of the cup” (11:28), an even larger range of potential interpretations come into view. 

In fact and unfortunately, it is proof-texting that almost immediately comes into view.  Accordingly, and rather than considering the statement from its own context, a separate statement from what is presented as Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians, that of “Put yourselves to the test to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves!” (13:5a) is brought into service, so as to aid the unsure reader of the first letter in their comprehension.  That won’t do at all, of course, as ideas communicated in the second letter would have little to zero bearing on the way the hearers of the first letter are meant to understand Paul’s directions.  As a matter of logic, the recipients of letter one would not have letter two in order to provide an interpretive matrix when they first hear letter one.  This would seem to be rather obvious, but is sometimes lost to view in an effort to create a coherent systematic theological system that would not be of any help to this particular church body.  

Nevertheless, herein lies much controversy, as rightly introspective Christians grapple with what it means to take the bread or cup in an unworthy manner, or with what it means to examine oneself in light of the fact that Paul continues on to write “For the one who eats and drinks without careful regard for the body eats and drinks judgment against himself.  That is why many of you are weak and sick, and quite a few are dead” (11:29-30). 

Naturally, judgment, weakness, sickness, and death are ends to be avoided.  Unfortunately, large numbers of Christians, down through the centuries, have not only looked at the words of these verses and attempted to understand them in isolation from the larger picture into which they are painted, they have also looked at them from within the overarching idea that the goal of the Christian life is simply to achieve heaven and avoid hell. 

Therefore, words such as “guilty” and “judgment” are associated with the proverbial and everlasting fires of hell.  In addition, individualistic concerns and notions of personal salvation, and the corollaries of heaven and hell (as the ideals of salvation and judgment) have further colored the interpretation in a way that simply would not have been in the minds of Paul’s original hearers, especially if they had already been well-instructed by him in the fundamentals of all that was implied by the kingdom of heaven, and by concepts such as justification (the means by which one enters into the kingdom of heaven).