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.
No comments:
Post a Comment