Speaking In Tongues (part 32)

Skipping past what appears to be an interpolation that does not seem to fit at all with the ethos of Paul’s letters (verses 33b-35, which is sometimes found in manuscripts at the conclusion of verse forty, with this fluid placement indicative of its potentially extraneous nature, not unlike the story of the woman taken in adultery of John chapter eight, which is not found in many early manuscripts and sometimes shows up after Luke 21:38), this study picks up with Paul asking the question “Did the word of God begin with you, or did it come to you alone?” (1 Corinthians 14:36)  This is a rather pointed question, and seems to flow quite naturally from the statement concerning disorder and peace.  It is clear that the question is directed to the wider church, but one is forced to wonder why. 

Though dogma-level assertions are probably not possible, considering the regular competitions for honor that took place amidst the meal associations of the day, it is possible that here Paul speaks to the possibility of multiple church bodies within the same community entering into some type of similar honor competition that pitted body against body in their attempts to honor their object of worship (namely Jesus).  As it is quite easy to see churches effectively competing against each other for members, for recognition, and for the types of public honors that are available in our own time, this possibility does not seem overtly remote. 

Closer to home, an individual member of the body that was the primary recipient of this message (leaving open the possibility that this letter was directed to multiple assemblies of Christ-worshipers) could hear these words in a more personal manner, as they follow hard upon Paul’s insistence that participation within the church should be widespread, with all exercises attributed to the influence of the Spirit accorded equal value. 

This equal valuation of the Spirit’s presence and the person through whom the Spirit is active (with whether or not Jesus’ Lordship, which can be declared in any number of ways, and especially in ways that are derived from the understanding of the Jesus tradition that was then in circulation prior to the formation of the Gospels as we have them, is affirmed as the sole determiner of the activity of the Spirit of the Creator God), along with the insistence upon mutual subjection (preferring one another in humility) in the exercise of the gift that Paul most highly encouraged, provides a helpful framework in which a hearer could understand the words of verse thirty-six, making it possible to understand it as Paul’s continued encouragement for individuals to continually disavow the personal accumulation of honor. 

Hearing these words in this way could lead to seeking opportunities for community affirming mutual subjection that is based upon the desire to emulate the one to whom they look as Lord (who consistently sought out the lowest place rather than the highest place while instructing His disciples to do the same, who performed the role of a slave, and who set Himself amidst those considered to be possessive of shame or who stood completely outside the system of honor and shame, such as children) and who is deserving of all honor.  

No One Knows The Hour (part 27)

Redundancy is necessary to break through the clutter of so much ridiculous, textually irrelevant, and ultimately unhelpful “end times” speculation that has grown up around these Matthean, Markan, and Lukan passages.  In Jesus’ discourse on the fall of the Temple (as He answers His disciples’ question in regards to His statement about the stones of the Temple being cast to the ground), “He,” of course, is the Son of Man, and He is right at the door, ready to go before the Ancient of Days to receive His kingdom. 

When will this appearing before the Ancient of Days and the reception of a kingdom take place, or when will all know for sure that this appearance and reception has taken place?  When the Temple falls.  That is still the context.  Even though this will happen, and even though most of Jesus’ primary audience would consider the fall of the Temple to be a horrific and cataclysmic event equivalent to the sun, moon, and stars falling from the sky and the world being rocked from its foundations, signaling the Creator God’s judgment upon Israel, it is actually to be understood as the time in which the Creator God renders His judgment against those that do battle against His people, establishing His kingdom reign through the Son of Man.  So in effect Jesus here delivers a message of hopefulness.  Helpfully, Luke again renders Jesus’ words with slight differences, there reporting Him as saying “So also you, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near” (21:31).  This statement about the kingdom of God, considering the overt Daniel seven context, is unmistakably clear in its message.     

Though Matthew and Mark have been nearly identical from their report of words concerning the gathering of the elect, to the mention of the fig tree, and on to the Son of Man being near and at the door, with Luke diverging slightly from that Matthean and Markan renderings, the three synoptic evangelists all go on to agree, word for word, with what Jesus has to say next.  Matthew reports: “I tell you the truth, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” (24:34).  This type of congruence, considering the regularity of differences that are encountered, especially when comparing Matthew and Mark to Luke, should arrest attention.  Clearly, much rested on these words, as well as those that would immediately follow, which will be observed momentarily. 

What is one to make of these words?  How would they have been heard?  How should they be heard?  Well, in all honesty, this is all rather uncomplicated.  All that has to be done to grasp the meaning of these words of Jesus with one hundred percent confidence is to reach back to what has premised all that Jesus is saying throughout this lengthy discourse which was set in motion by His triumphal entry, subsequent actions in the Temple, and all that took place in the Temple prior to His explicit leaving of the Temple.  Doing so, one once again hears Matthew reporting that “as Jesus was going out of the Temple courts and walking away, His disciples came to show Him the Temple buildings” (24:1).  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)  This, as is quite obvious, is what prompted the disciples to say “Tell us, when will these things happen?” (24:3b) 

Now, as He has progressed through His answer, Jesus finally informs them that “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.”  This is quite specific.  Jesus has said “the Temple will be torn down.”  The disciples have asked “when?”  Jesus effectively says, “Pretty soon.  In fact, this generation will see it.”  If one is willing to put the blinders to pre-conceptions, turn a deaf ear to so many fanciful interpretations that have attempted to hold sway through the years, and inhabit the narrative in order to hear Jesus speak, what one finds is that this is about as straightforward of an answer as Jesus ever gives when a question has been on offer to Him.  Frankly, there’s very little mystery here.  In addition to that, the eyes and ears are drawn to the “these things” of the first and third verses of the twenty-fourth chapter, and the “these things” of the thirty-fourth verse of the chapter.  The repetition provides a clue as to the explicit connection between the verses as part of this revealing and informative answer on the part of Jesus. 

No One Knows The Hour (part 6)

So, with the Temple as the backdrop, Jesus embarks on a series of parables.  The first one of these is known as the “parable of the two sons.”  Not only is the parable offered in the Temple, but it begins with a question, “What do you think?” (Matthew 21:28a), with that being directed to “the chief priests and elders of the people” (21:23b).  They had posed a question to Jesus.  Jesus had not answered the question, but instead posed a question to them.  He continued to question them, as was just said, by prefacing a parable with a question. 

The parable of the two sons, spoken in the Temple and to the Temple authorities, uses a vineyard as its setting, with a father and two sons as the characters in the story.  Thus Israel as the point of reference is unmistakable.  The father and two sons theme is quite prevalent in Israel’s history: Abraham with Ishmael and Isaac, Isaac with Esau and Jacob, and Joseph with Manasseh and Ephraim.  The fact that it is being directed to whom it is being directed, in the place where it is being spoken, with the conclusion drawn about a failure to believe on the part of those to whom Jesus speaks (Temple authorities), builds on the Jeremiah theme and is further judgment upon the Temple and its system.  Remember, Jesus has already pronounced judgment on the Temple by way of His actions and His words in the Temple.  The fig tree has withered and He has spoken of the mountain to be thrown into the sea.  The setting has not changed, so it is correct to continue hearing Him speak according to this train of thought, without any unwarranted deviations from this path. 

Following the parable of the two sons is the “parable of the tenants.”  Jesus commences with “Listen to another parable” (21:33a), with this serving as a reminder that Jesus is speaking to the same people to whom He was speaking with the previous parable.  This parable tells a horrible story, and Jesus uses terms such as “evil” to describe the antagonists in the tale.  Of course, Matthew removes all ambiguity when he writes “When the chief priests (Temple authorities---representatives of the Temple) and the Pharisees heard this parable, they realized that He was speaking about them” (21:45).  Jesus is calling the chief priests “evil.”  Thus, He effectively de-legitimizes them, their positions, and that which they represent. 

With this, one cannot help but think about the Apostle Paul standing before the council in Jerusalem and being struck on the mouth.  Paul responds to his abuser by saying “God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall!” (Acts 23:3a)  The reply that comes to this statement is “Do you dare insult God’s high priest?”  (23:4b)  Now, this is not to say that Jesus was speaking to or of the high priest, and of course He did not speak these words overtly, as they were implied in the parable and the chief priests made the connection themselves, but as one considers the issues of legitimacy and authority and the words of Jesus, it is interesting to note that Paul says “I did not realize, brothers, that he was the high priest, for it is written, ‘You must not speak evil about a ruler of your people.’” (23:5) 

Because Jesus refers to the antagonists in the parable of the vineyard as evil, with the knowledge that this epithet was meant for those who were challenging Him there in the Temple, Jesus may very well have been emphasizing that these men (and even the high priest) were not legitimate rulers, and that they were nothing more than the caretakers of a Temple and system that has been judged as illegitimate by Israel’s Creator God.  Indeed and to that point, Jesus also says “I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken from you” (21:43b), and it was the Temple---the place of God’s dwelling and the place where heaven and earth met---that represented the Creator God’s presence and His kingdom.  This carries meaning on multiple levels, especially if one considers that Matthew, using these words that are absent from Mark’s account, is most likely composed in a time following the destruction of the Temple at the hands of the Romans.