The Olivet Discourse (part 2 of 2)

    In the previous post, based on careful exegesis of the Olivet Discourse and its surrounding context, we determined that it must have been fulfilled in the first century, specifically in the events surrounding the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. Now we must examine the specific predictions made in this discourse to see if they were fulfilled in the first century. If not, then all our previous exegesis is invalidated, and the Olivet Discourse is yet to be fulfilled in the future. But if these prophecies do find a convincing fulfillment in the past, then this confirms that the Olivet Discourse deals with the events surrounding the fall of Jerusalem, and not the future Second Coming.

    The Discourse

    At the beginning of the Olivet Discourse, the disciples ask Jesus questions about the timing of the destruction of the Temple, and “the sign” that will precede it (Matt. 24:3; Mark 13:3, 4; Luke 21:7). These questions and their significance were discussed in the previous section of this paper. After they ask him these questions, Jesus responds:

“Take heed that no one mislead you, for many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will mislead many.” (Matt. 24:4-5)

    In my earlier posts titled “Refuting Preterism”, I argued that there were no other Messianic claimants in the first century, and so this prophecy could not refer to the time preceding AD 70. However, I now think that this interpretation is indefensible. If Jesus immediately began by talking about the events preceding his Second Coming, this would leave the disciples’ questions about the Temple’s destruction completely unanswered.

    As it happens, there were many false Messiahs in the first century preceding the destruction of the Temple. Josephus refers to numerous Jewish religious leaders who stirred up revolts in Judea between AD 30 and 70, many of whom claimed to be prophets empowered by God, some of whom had royal aspirations. [1] He spoke of this period as a time when “the country was again filled with robbers and imposters, who deceived the many” (Antiquities 20.8.5). Although Josephus did not refer to these “imposters” as Messiahs, this is no surprise, since he only used the title “Christ” once in his writings (Antiquities 20.9.1). [2] Therefore, Jesus’ prediction about false Messiahs indeed applies to the period preceding the fall of Jerusalem.

“You will then hear of wars and rumors of wars. But see, do not be troubled; for this must take place, but it is not yet the end. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in places. Yet all these are the beginning of agonies.” (Matt. 24:6-8)

    In my “Refuting Preterism” posts, I argued that this could not apply to the pre-AD 70 period, since the Roman Empire was governed by the pax Romana. However, I failed to note that although there were no wars within the Empire, Rome was actually at war with the Parthian Empire during AD 58-63. Moreover, there was civil war throughout the Empire during the Year of the Four Emperors (AD 68-69), as well as the First Jewish-Roman War itself, which began in AD 66. These could easily qualify as the “wars and rumors of wars” which would take place before “the end” (AD 70). [3] Indeed, such wars would have been much more notable during the pax Romana period than today.

    As for famines, one famine which occurred “over all the inhabited world” is recorded in Acts 11:28. This Empire-wide famine is also described by Josephus and Tacitus, who relates that it was so severe that Rome itself had only enough provisions for fifteen days at one point. [4] Likewise, an earthquake is recorded in Acts 16:26, and many others during AD 30-70 are described in contemporary records. [5] Luke’s account adds that there will be “terrible sights and great signs from heaven,” which aligns with the numerous rare cosmic phenomena that took place during this time, as reported by Josephus, who says that the signs “foreshadowed the desolation that was coming upon [Israel]” (Wars 4.4.5; 6.5.3).

    All three synoptic accounts state, “do not be troubled; for this must take place, but it is not yet the end” (Matt. 24:6; Mark 13:7; Luke 21:9). This implies that these “beginning of agonies” (Matt. 24:8) are not specific signs that would precede the destruction of the Temple, but events that will occur throughout that period, which should not worry believers. [6] Deceitful charismatic leaders, wars, famines, and earthquakes have existed since time immemorial, and will continue to exist until Jesus’ return. Thus, although these things did take place in the first century, it’s a mistake to try to correlate them to specific events that preceded AD 70.

“At that time they will hand you over to persecution and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of my name. Many will stumble, and betray one another, and hate one another, and many false prophets will arise and mislead many. And because of the increase of lawlessness, the love of many will grow cold.” (Matt. 24:9-12)

    The Greek conjunction tote (“at that time”) at the beginning of v. 9 means that Jesus must still be describing first-century events. The Markan and Lukan accounts add more detail, stating that people will betray their own families, and believers will appear before kings and governors to testify. This very accurately matches the Jewish persecutions described in the book of Acts. [7] Furthermore, during the reign of Nero, the first organized persecution of Christians took place, in Rome itself as well as the other provinces (Tacitus, Annals 15.44; Orosius, Seven Books Against the Pagans 7.7).

“Yet the one who endures to the end will be saved. And the gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed in the whole inhabited world, as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.” (Matt. 24:13-14)

    “The end” (Gk: to telos) in v. 13 may refer back to “the completion of the age” (Gk: sunteleia tou aiōnios) in the disciples’ second question (Matt. 24:3). However, the term telos is more ambiguous than the technical phrase sunteleia tou aiōnios (“completion of the age”) which is found in v. 3; therefore, it may simply refer to the end of persecution, rather than the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 (cf. Matt. 10:22). In contrast, “the end” in v. 14 likely does refer to the fall of Jerusalem, because the alternative (“the end” of the gospel of the kingdom) is quite unlikely.

    One superficial difficulty with this reading is that “the gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed in the whole entire world as a testimony to all nations” does not seem to fit the events before AD 70. However, this ‘difficulty’ involves an overly-literal reading of the text. The Greek word oikoumenē (“inhabited world”) does not refer to the entire earth, but the world known to the New Testament authors, which is the Roman Empire. [8] According to Paul, the gospel had been preached to “all nations” and “the whole world” (Gk: panti tō kosmō) by the time of his imprisonment (Rom. 10:18; 16:26; Col. 1:6). Therefore, the gospel was indeed proclaimed to the whole oikoumenē prior to AD 70. [9]

“Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in a holy place — let the reader understand — then let those in Judea flee to the hills. Let not the one on the housetop descend to take anything out of his house; and let not the one in the field turn back to take his cloak. But woe to those who are pregnant and nursing in those days! Now pray that your flight may not be in winter, or on the Sabbath.” (Matt. 24:15-20)

“Now when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, know that her desolation is near. At that time, let those in Judaea flee to the mountains, and let those in her midst depart, and do not let those in the countryside enter into her; for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that has been written. But woe to those who are pregnant and nursing in those days! For there will be great distress upon the Land and wrath to this people. They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all nations, and Jerusalem will be trodden down by Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” (Luke 21:20-24) 

    The “abomination of desolation” (bdelugma tēs erēmōseōs) is a term which refers to the pagan desecration of the Jewish Temple. This happened for the first time in the second century BC, during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who set up an altar to Jupiter within the temple (Dan. 11:31; 1 Macc. 1:54). It also took place in August AD 66, when Roman troops stormed the Temple, stole money out of its treasury, and slaughtered thousands of Jews. [10] According to later Christian historians, the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem fled to the surrounding area at this time, fulfilling Jesus’ warning to flee. [11]

   The description of the siege in the Olivet Discourse very accurately describes the first-century siege of Jerusalem. In any normal siege, it would be far too late to flee by the time that the city is “surrounded by armies” (Luke 21:20). However, when Jerusalem was first surrounded by Roman troops in November AD 66, the Romans shortly thereafter “retired from the city, without any reason in the world” (Wars 2.19.7). Furthermore, when the Romans began to besiege Jerusalem in late AD 68, they retreated again due to the civil war that engulfed the Roman Empire at that time (Wars 4.9.2). This would have given the Jewish Christians in the city ample time to flee, and later historians confirm that they did. [11]

“For at that time there will be great distress, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall be. And if those days had not been shortened, then no one would be saved; but for the sake of the elect, those days will be shortened.” (Matt. 24:21-22)

    Because of the Greek conjunction tote (“at that time”) in v. 21, this must be referring to the same period as the earlier prophecy, namely the fall of Jerusalem. But if that’s the case, how can Jesus say that the distress will be greater than anything before or after? Verse 21 is sometimes taken to be an allusion to Dan. 12:1, but it is certainly not a direct quotation. [12] Instead, this is standard apocalyptic language, which is also found in Joel 2:2 and the apocryphal writings 1QM 1.11-12 and Testament of Moses 8.1. [13] The unspeakable atrocities committed against the Jewish people during the Siege of Jerusalem are certainly worthy of this hyperbolic description. [14]

    What about Jesus’ claim that “no flesh would have been saved” if the days of Israel’s distress had not been shortened? Since the immediate context (Matt. 24:15-20) establishes that this passage is referring to the AD 70 fall of Jerusalem, it’s not necessary to take Jesus’ statement as a claim that no flesh on the entire earth would have survived. Rather, it could just as easily be taken to mean that no flesh in Jerusalem, or in Judea, would have survived had those days not been shortened. This is certainly conceivable given the atrocities of the Romans against the Jews during this time, and the fact that 1.1 million people died in the city during the siege (Wars 6.9.3).

    Notably, Josephus uses almost the same terms as Matt. 24:21-22 in describing the siege of Jerusalem. According to his account, “neither did any other city ever suffer such miseries, nor did any age ever breed a generation more fruitful in wickedness than this was from the beginning of the world” (Wars 5.10.5). Furthermore,

had the Romans made any longer delay in coming against those villains, the city would either have been swallowed up by the ground opening upon them, or been overflowed by water, or else been destroyed by such thunder as the country of Sodom perished by, for it had brought forth a generation of men much more atheistical than were those that suffered such punishments; for by their madness it was that all the people came to be destroyed. (Wars 5.13.6)

Therefore, Jesus’ statements that the distress would be greater than any other time, and that no one would have been saved if it had been any longer, were certainly accurate (if hyperbolic) statements about the siege of Jerusalem in AD 70.

“At that time, if anyone says to you, ‘Behold, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There!’ do not believe it. For there will arise false Messiahs and false prophets, and they will give great signs and wonders so as to mislead even the elect, if possible. Behold, I have forewarned you. Therefore, if they say to you, ‘Behold, he is in the wilderness!’ do not go forth; or, ‘Behold, in the inner rooms!’ do not believe it. For just as the lightning flashes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the arrival of the Son of Man.” (Matt. 24:23-27)

    Many commentators interpret this passage to mean that Jesus’ coming will be visible to all, which means that it refers to the Second Coming and not the fall of Jerusalem. [15] It is quite possible to interpret Jesus’ words in this way; he might be saying that his disciples should not believe anyone who claims that Jesus is present in a secret location, because his coming will be visible to all. However, it’s also possible to interpret Jesus as saying that his parousia will not be a bodily coming, but instead a sudden and one-time event like a flash of lightning. [16] Interestingly, “from the east... [to] the west” was the direction that the Roman troops rapidly moved through Judaea. [17]

    Furthermore, the use of tote (“at that time”) in v. 23 belies the possibility that vv. 23-27 could refer to the Second Coming. This conjunction demonstrates that the warning of vv. 23-27 must refer to the same period as the events of vv. 15-22 (and Luke 21:20-24), which very accurately describe the first-century siege(s) of Jerusalem. Therefore, the “coming of the Son of Man” in v. 27 cannot be the Second Coming, but rather the same “coming” referred to in Matt. 24:3, 30 which coincides with the fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple.

“Wherever the corpse is, there the eagles will gather.” (Matt. 24:28)

    The meaning of this verse has been long debated, and many different interpretations have been suggested. [18] However, in my opinion, the reference to “eagles” (aetoi) would have been understood by any first-century Jew as a metaphor for Roman military troops, which always carried an eagle standard. [19] The gathering of eagles around a corpse, therefore, should be understood as the Roman army gathering around ‘dead’ Jerusalem (cf. Matt. 8:22) during its siege in AD 70. According to Josephus, the city was indeed surrounded by Roman eagle standards during its siege (Wars 5.2.1), literally fulfilling Jesus’ prophecy.

“Now immediately after the distress of those days, the sun will be darkened, the moon will not give its light, the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.” (Matt. 24:29)

    Since these heavenly events did not literally occur in AD 70, futurist commentators argue that it must refer to the future Second Coming. However, these signs are said to occur “immediately [eutheōs] after the distress of those days,” which precludes a major shift in time. Rather than viewing these as literal signs in heaven, we should see them as apocalyptic language referring to the fall of Jerusalem, which is God’s judgment on Israel. Consider the following texts which use similar language:

“For the stars of the heavens and their constellations will not give their light, the sun will be darkened in its rising, and the moon will not shed its light... Therefore I will make the heavens shake, and the earth will move out of its place at the wrath of Yahweh of hosts and the day of His fierce anger.” (Isaiah 13:10, 13)

“I looked on the earth, and it was complete chaos, and to the heavens, and they had no light.” (Jer. 4:23)

“When I extinguish you, I will cover the heavens and make its stars dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon will not give its light.” (Ezek. 32:7)

“...the sun will suddenly begin to shine at night, and the moon during the day. Blood will drip from wood, and the stone will utter its voice, the peoples will be troubled, and the sky will be changed.” (4 Ezra 5:4-5)

The first three texts are biblical texts describing God’s judgment on Babylon (539 BC), Judah (587 BC), and Egypt (6th century BC) respectively. The fourth text is particularly interesting, because although it is not a biblical text, it is a Jewish ex eventu (after the fact) prophecy of Jerusalem’s destruction, dating to about AD 100. [20] Notably, 4 Ezra uses similar apocalyptic language as Matt. 24:29 to describe the AD 70 fall of Jerusalem. What all of these texts have in common is that they describe God’s judgment upon a nation. Therefore, when Jesus uses this language, we should understand him to be describing God’s judgment on Israel, not literal signs in heaven.

“And at that time, the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and at that time, all the tribes of the land will mourn, and will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” (Matt. 24:30)

    The use of tote (“at that time”) twice in this verse shows that it must still refer to the fall of Jerusalem. “The sign of the Son of Man” (Gk: to sēmeion tou huiou tou anthropou) is very likely the answer to the disciples’ question about “the sign” (Gk: to sēmeion) that would precede the destruction of the Temple (Matt. 24:3; Mark 13:4; Luke 21:7). Exactly what this “sign” refers to is debated, but it may refer to any of the heavenly signs that Josephus says preceded the fall of Jerusalem (Wars 6.5.3). Alternatively, it may not be a literal sign in heaven, but rather the ‘signs’ of v. 29, which symbolize national judgment (see above).

    “All the tribes of the Land will mourn” is an allusion to Zech. 12:10-14, which describes how the people of Israel will mourn at the arrival of the Messiah “whom they pierced”. However, this passage is being re-applied to describe the Israelites’ mourning at the destruction of their city and temple. [21] Although some have argued that “all the tribes of the Land” refers to everyone on the planet, this is not in line with the use of the word phulē (“tribe”) elsewhere in the New Testament, nor the original passage (Zech. 12:10-14) which refers solely to the land of Israel. [22]

    “The Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven” is equated by futurist commentators with the Second Coming. However, as demonstrated earlier, this is a quotation of Dan. 7:13-14, which describes the ‘coming’ of the Messiah to God to receive power and glory and judgment, and alludes to Yahweh’s cloud-comings in the Old Testament which symbolize judgment (Psa. 18:7-15; Isa. 19:1; Nah. 1:2-6). Therefore, the cloud-coming of the Son of Man in v. 30 does not refer to Jesus’ bodily return to earth, but to the enthronement of Jesus and his judgment upon Israel which took place in AD 70.

“And he will send his messengers with a great trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.” (Matt. 24:31)

    This verse draws upon the text of Isaiah 27:13, which states that “the great trumpet shall be blown” and elect believers from around the world will gather at Jerusalem to worship God. Elsewhere in the New Testament, we are told that God has rejected physical Jerusalem in favor of heavenly Jerusalem, of which all believers are citizens (Gal. 4:24-30; Heb. 12:18, 22). Elsewhere, the imagery of gathering is used to describe evangelization (Matt. 12:30; Luke 11:23; John 11:52; cf. Heb. 10:25). Therefore, this ‘gathering’ is already ongoing, and does not require a future fulfillment at the Second Coming. In this verse, “his messengers” might refer to either human or angelic messengers; either way, this interpretation is not ruled out.

    In summary, the statements found in Matt. 24:29-31 (and in Mark 13:24-27; Luke 21:25-28) should not necessarily be seen as a description of the eschatological parousia of Jesus. Rather, in these verses, Jesus draws upon the apocalyptic language of the Old Testament prophets to describe God’s rejection and judgment of false Israel, and His acceptance of the believing remnant of true Israel (cf. Rom. 11). The loss of the temple would seem like a terrible disaster, but ultimately would be a fulfillment of God’s will, and would not interfere with the salvation of true Israel.

“Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. But about that day and hour, no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matt. 24:34, 36)

    Having answered the disciples’ question about “the sign” preceding the Temple’s destruction (Matt. 24:30; cf. 24:3), Jesus now turns to answer their first question, “When will these things take place?” His answer is that it will take place before “this generation” passes away, but the exact day and hour cannot be known. Elsewhere in the synoptic gospels, “this generation” always refers to Jesus’ contemporaries, not a generation in the distant future (Matt. 12:41, 42, 45; 23:36; Mark 8:12; Luke 7:31; 11:29-32, 50, 51; 17:25; Acts 2:40). Therefore, as argued earlier, Jesus believed that the events of the Olivet Discourse would take place within the first century.

    “Heaven and earth will pass away” most likely does not refer to the destruction of the physical heavens and earth. In the Old Testament, God’s covenant with Israel was described symbolically as heaven and earth (Isa. 51:16), and the first exile of Israel was figuratively the ‘destruction’ of heaven and earth (Isa. 51:6; Jer. 4:23, 28). [23] The second exile of Israel which began in AD 70 could therefore also be called the ‘passing away’ of heaven and earth. The authors of the New Testament looked forward to the renewal of the physical creation, not its destruction (Acts 3:21; Rom. 8:19-21). Thus, whenever the New Testament talks about heaven and earth passing away or being destroyed (e.g., Matt. 5:18; 2 Pet. 3:10), it likely refers to the end of the Old Covenant and the AD 70 exile of Israel, not the destruction of the physical creation.

“For as the days of Noah were, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in the days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark, and they knew nothing until the flood came and swept them all away, so, too, will be the coming of the Son of Man. Then two will be in the field; one will be taken, and one will be left. Two women will be grinding meal together; one will be taken, and one will be left. Keep awake, therefore, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming.

“But understand this: if the owner of the house had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and would not have let his house be broken into. Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.” (Matt. 24:37-44)

    As shown earlier, “the coming of the Son of Man” does not refer to Jesus’ bodily Second Coming, but the coming of the Messiah to God to receive power and glory and judgment (Dan. 7:9-14). This took place at the fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple, when corrupt Israel was judged and the era of the Old Covenant ended.

    But how was this “as the days of Noah”? Some commentators believe that this refers to the wickedness of Noah’s generation (cf. Gen. 6:5), but the actions mentioned here (“eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage”) are not inherently evil. Rather, the emphasis is on the fact that life continued as usual until the flood “swept them all away,” because they did not know when the flood would come. Likewise, no one could know the exact day or hour of the fall of Jerusalem (v. 36), so the disciples are exhorted to remain watchful at all times (vv. 42-44).

    Many lay Christians believe that “one will be taken, and one will be left” (vv. 40, 41) describes the ‘pre-tribulational Rapture,’ largely because of the 1970s song “I Wish We’d All Been Ready.” However, virtually all biblical scholars, including futurist pre-tribulationist scholars, are agreed that this does not describe the Rapture. [24] The context is “the days of Noah,” in which those who were “taken” were killed in the flood (v. 39). Thus, Jesus is saying that the judgment at “the coming of the Son of Man” will be so severe that about one in every two people will succumb to it. This is accurate, as according to Josephus, 1.1 million out of more than 2.7 million people died during the siege of Jerusalem (Wars 6.9.3).

    The Sheep and the Goats

    The main section of the Olivet Discourse ends with the exhortation to keep alert, because the day of the coming of the Son of Man is unknown. This is where the Markan and Lukan accounts end the discourse. However, the Matthean account adds a series of parables which further illustrate the point. The first three of these parables further deal with the exhortation to keep alert. Jesus makes a distinction between the “faithful slave,” the “five wise virgins,” and the “good and trustworthy slave” who remained alert and were rewarded, and the “wicked slave,” the “five foolish virgins,” and the “wicked and lazy slave” who did not remain alert and were judged with the rest (Matt. 24:45-25:30). This aligns with the perspective of the Hebraist, who says that those who return from New Covenant to Old Covenant Judaism have a “fearful prospect of judgment and furious fire” (Heb. 10:26-31).

    The fourth parable, however, is very different from the others, and is often referred to as “the Sheep and the Goats” because of the analogy which Jesus uses (Matt. 25:33). In this passage, Jesus states:

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. Then the king will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world’… Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘You who are accursed, depart from me into the eonian fire prepared for the slanderer and his messengers’… And these will go away into eonian punishment, but the righteous into eonian life.” (Matt. 25:31-34, 41, 46)

The key to understanding this passage is to recognize that the imagery of ‘separating sheep from goats’ is used in regard to judgment only one other time in Scripture, in Ezekiel 34:17-24, where it is a judgment of believing and unbelieving Israelites that is in view. Likewise, in Zech. 10:2-3, the false teachers of Israel are described as “male goats” whom God will “punish.” This strongly suggests that Jesus has in view a judgment on unbelieving Israel, and especially the corrupt Jewish leadership.

    Furthermore, Jesus says that this judgment will occur “when the Son of Man... will sit on the throne of his glory”. The New Testament states that the Son of Man “came on the clouds” to be enthroned at God’s right hand on two separate occasions: first, at his exaltation (Matt. 26:64; Acts 2:29-36), and again at the AD 70 judgment (Matt. 24:30). As no judgment took place when Jesus was exalted to heaven, this judgment must have taken place at Jesus’ second enthronement in AD 70, in which case the judgment may be equated with the fall of Jerusalem.

    The difficulty with this interpretation is that Jesus says that “all nations will be gathered before him,” which suggests that it is Gentiles who are being judged. However, elsewhere in the Olivet discourse, Jesus speaks of “all nations” to refer to representatives of all nations — after all, it is not true that every single Gentile heard the gospel or hated Christians before AD 70, although “all nations” did (Matt. 24:9, 14; cf. Rom. 10:18). Moreover, the Jewish Diaspora was said to comprise “all nations” when they were gathered in Jerusalem for the Passover (Acts 2:5-11). According to Josephus, the siege of Jerusalem in AD 70 began on Passover, and millions of Diaspora Jews were there (Wars 5.3.1; 6.9.3), so the inhabitants of Jerusalem during the siege could indeed be called “all nations.”

    At the time that the Old Covenant passed away, the kingdom of God would finally be received by Christians with full force (Luke 21:31, 32; Heb. 12:26-28); for the nature of the kingdom of God, see Romans 14:17. This took place “at the conclusion of the age” in AD 70, when Jesus was enthroned a second time (Matt. 24:30). Therefore, it was at this time that Christians “inherit[ed] the kingdom prepared for [them] from the foundation of the world” (Matt. 25:34). In contrast, the unbelieving Jews were punished with “eonian fire” at this time. [25] The fire is said to be prepared for “the devil and his angels” (Gk: tō diabolō kai tois angelois autou), but “devil” (Gk: diabolos) and “angel” (Gk: angelos) can both be used to describe human slanderers and messengers. [26] In this case, it likely refers to the slanderous high priest and his followers (cf. Matt. 26:3-5).

    What about the “eonian punishment” and “eonian life” in v. 46? These are typically translated as “eternal punishment” and “eternal life.” However, the adjective aiōnios derives from the noun aiōn (“age”), and is used dozens of times in the LXX to describe temporal things such as the Old Covenant. [27] Notably, in the prophecies of Jeremiah, the 70-year exile is often referred to as aiōnios (LXX 18:16; 23:40; 25:9). After AD 70, the Jewish people were exiled from their homeland for nearly 2,000 years, which certainly qualifies as aiōnios. Moreover, “eonian life” (Gk: zōē aiōnia) refers to the “life of the Age” [28], and the Old Covenant age was replaced by the New Covenant age in AD 70 (Matt. 24:3; cf. Heb. 8:13).

    In summary, the judgment in Matt. 25:31-46 is not a description of the final judgment, but depicts the Israelite people as sheep and goats (cf. Ezek. 34:17-24; Zech. 10:2-3). The Diaspora from “all nations” was gathered in Jerusalem during the AD 70 siege, and the Jewish unbelievers and false teachers there were punished with fire, while the Jewish believers were saved to Pella and received the spiritual blessings of the kingdom with full force. This aligns with the AD 70 theme of the Olivet discourse (Matt. 24:1-3), as Jesus did not finish saying “all these things” until Matt. 26:1 (cf. 24:34).

    Conclusion

    The Olivet Discourse, described in Matt. 24-25, Mark 13, and Luke 21, is crucial to understanding New Testament eschatology. This discourse describes the events surrounding the destruction of the Temple, the “coming” of Jesus in AD 70, and the end of the Old Covenant age (Matt. 24:3; Mark 13:4; Luke 21:7). According to Jesus, the events prophesied in the Olivet Discourse were fulfilled in the first century, before his contemporaries passed away, although the day and the hour could not have been known beforehand (Matt. 24:34-36). Therefore, the whole discourse must have been fulfilled in the events surrounding the AD 70 fall of Jerusalem, which was of great redemptive-historical significance, as it destroyed the last physical vestiges of the Old Covenant.

    A careful study of all of the events prophesied in the discourse shows that they were indeed fulfilled in the first century, during the period leading up to and culminating in the fall of Jerusalem. The match between the prophesied events and the historical account given by the first-century historian Josephus is nothing short of remarkable. This seems to confirm that the Olivet Discourse predicts first-century events, not future events to take place prior to Jesus’ Second Coming.

    What about the possibility of double fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse? There is no biblical indication that these events will take place again, and Jesus specifically limits the fulfillment of “all these things” to “this generation.” Although it is technically possible that the events in the discourse will happen a second time, it is vain speculation to say that they will. Therefore, we should not look for a future fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse, but rather consider the implications of its past fulfillment, as I will do in my next blog post.

______________________________

[1] Josephus, Antiquities 18.4.1; 20.5.1, 8.5-6; Wars 4.9.3ff.

[2] This was likely because he didn’t want to offend his Roman patrons by referring to the Jewish prophecy of a future ruler who would end all earthly powers (including Rome); see R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 902.

[3] R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, 903.

[4] Josephus, Antiquities 20.5.2; Tacitus, Annals 12.43.

[5] W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Matthew 19-28 (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 341 n. 87; R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, 904. For specific examples see Josephus, Wars 1.19.3; 4.4.5; Tacitus, Annals 14.27.

[6] Jeffrey A. Gibbs, Jerusalem and Parousia, 181; R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, 902.

[7] Acts 4:1-22; 5:1-11, 17-42; 6:1-8:3; 9:1-2, 13-16, 23-24; 12:1-19; 13:44, 50; 14:4-7, 19-20; 15:1-2; 16:19-40; 17:5-9, 13, 32; 18:12-17; 19:9, 23-41; 21:27-36; 22:22-26:32.

[8] https://biblehub.com/greek/3625.htm; see especially Luke 2:1 where “the whole oikoumenē” clearly refers to the Roman Empire.

[9] R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, 909.

[10] Josephus, Wars 2.14.6ff.

[11] Eusebius, Church History 3.5.3; Epiphanius, Panarion 29.7.8.

[12] Dan. 12:1 (LXX): kai estai kairos thlipseōs thlipsis hoia ou gegonen aph’ hou gegenētai ethnos epi tēs gēs heōs tou kairou ekeinou.
Matt. 24:21: estai gar tote thlipsis megalē hoia ou gegonen ap’ archēs kosmou heōs tou nun oud’ ou mē genētai.

[13] R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, 915.

[14] Josephus, Wars 5.10.2-3, 12.3, 13.7; 6.3.3-4.

[15] W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Matthew 19-28, 354; R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, 917.

[16] John Lightfoot, Lightfoot’s Commentary on the Gospels, Matthew 24:27; Matthew Henry, Bible Commentary, Matthew 24:27, 28; Adam Clarke, Clarke’s Commentary, Matthew 24:27.

[17] Adam Clarke, Clarke’s Commentary, Matthew 24:27.

[18] W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Matthew 19-28, 355-356.

[19] For the use of eagles (aetoi) as symbolic of the Roman military, see Josephus, Antiquities 17.6.2-3; Wars 1.33.2-4; 2.1.2; and especially Wars 3.6.2.

[20] Hindy Najman, “How Should We Contextualize Pseudepigrapha? Imitation and Emulation in 4 Ezra,” in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez, eds. Anthony Hilhorst et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2007).

[21] Note that the same passage, Zech. 12:10, is applied in John 19:37 to Jesus’ crucifixion.

[22] Jeffrey A. Gibbs, Jerusalem and Parousia, 200; R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, 924-925.

[23] For further examples of the close relationship between creation and covenant language, see N. T. Wright, “Creation and Covenant,” in Paul: In Fresh Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005).

[24] For example, see Thomas Ice, “An Interpretation of Matthew 24-25 Part 34.”

[25] See the “furnace of fire” imagery in Ezek. 22:17-22 and Matt. 13:42, 50, as well as the literal fire that engulfed Jerusalem in AD 70 (Wars 6.5.1).

[26] Diabolos: John 6:70; 1 Tim. 3:11; 2 Tim. 3:3; Tit. 2:3; Apoc. 2:10; cf. Matt. 16:23; angelos: Matt. 3:1; 11:10; Mark 1:2; Luke 7:24, 27; 9:52; Phil. 2:25; 2 Cor. 8:23; Jas. 2:25; Apoc. 2:1, 18; 3:1, 7, 14.

[27] LXX Gen. 17:17, 8, 13, 19; 48:4; Exod. 12:14, 17; 27:21; 28:43; 29:28; 30:21; 31:16, 17; Lev. 6:18, 22; 7:34, 36; 10:9, 15; 16:29, 31, 34; 17:7; 23:14, 21, 31, 41; 24:3, 8, 9; 25:34; Num. 10:8; 15:15; 18:8, 11, 19, 23; 19:10, 21; 25:13; 1 Chron. 16:17; Job 3:18; 10:22; 21:11; 41:4; Psa, 76:4; 78:66; 105:10; Isa, 24:5; 55:13; 60:15; Jer. 5:22; 18:16; 20:17; 23:40; 25:9, 12; 51:39; Ezek. 35:5; 35:9; Jon. 2:6; Mic. 2:9.

[28] Ilaria Ramelli and David Konstan, Terms for Eternity: Aiônios and Aïdios in Classical and Christian Texts (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2013).

The Olivet Discourse (part 1 of 2)

Disclaimer: This is not the standard eschatology of the group known as “Concordant believers.” Most “Concordants” believe that the Olivet Discourse, and the rest of the prophecies in the New Testament are yet to be fulfilled. Although I believe that this view is wrong, I don’t pretend to be infallible or 100% sure of anything I publish on this blog. Please take what I write here with a large grain of salt.

    Jesus’ discourse recorded in Mark 13, Matthew 24-25, and Luke 21, commonly known as the Olivet Discourse, is very important for understanding New Testament eschatology. Apart from the book of Revelation itself, the Olivet Discourse is the longest prophecy in the New Testament. Despite the importance of this discourse, there is disagreement among commentators about whether this prophecy was fulfilled in the past, if it will be fulfilled in the future, or if a combination of these two views is correct. Since the Olivet Discourse has a direct and significant bearing on the overall eschatology in the New Testament, this is a fairly important issue. In this post, we will begin to look at the Olivet Discourse in context to try to determine the extent (if at all) of its past fulfillment.

    Pre-Olivet Parables

    Although the Olivet Discourse is often discussed on its own, this discourse is set in the larger context of a series of parables against the Pharisees, which may be important for understanding the discourse itself. Therefore, we will begin by examining these parables. The first two parables can be found in Matthew 21, and involve a proclamation of judgment upon the hypocritical Pharisee sect.

“What do you think? A man had two sons; he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ He answered, ‘I will not,’ but later he changed his mind and went. The father went to the second and said the same, and he answered, ‘I go, sir,’ but he did not go. Which of the two did the will of his father?”

They said, “The first.”

Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him, and even after you saw it you did not change your minds and believe him.” (Matt. 21:28-32)

    This first parable is fairly straightforward. Jesus is pointing out that the Pharisees are hypocritical, because they claim to do God’s will and require others to follow their written and oral Law, but do not themselves do the will of God by following Jesus (cf. Matt. 23:3-5). Because of this, those who did follow Jesus — even the tax collectors and prostitutes — will enter the kingdom of God before the Pharisees.

“Listen to another parable. There was a landowner who planted a vineyard, put a fence around it, dug a winepress in it, and built a watchtower. Then he leased it to tenants and went away. When the harvest time had come, he sent his slaves to the tenants to collect his produce. But the tenants seized his slaves and beat one, killed another, and stoned another. Again he sent other slaves, more than the first, and they treated them in the same way. Then he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, ‘This is the heir; come, let us kill him and get his inheritance.’ So they seized him, threw him out of the vineyard, and killed him. Now when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?”

They said to him, “He will put those wretches to a miserable death and lease the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the produce at the harvest time.”

Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the scriptures: ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord’s doing, and it is amazing in our eyes’? Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that produces its fruits. The one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, and it will crush anyone on whom it falls.”

When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they realized that he was speaking about them. (Matt. 21:33-45)

    This parable adds more detail regarding the punishment of the Pharisees. They and their ancestors persecuted the prophets, and they now rejected (and murdered) the Son of God. Therefore, they would now be punished severely. Their punishment would involve the kingdom of God being taken away from them, as mentioned in the previous parable, but it would also involve their “miserable death.” Moreover, this punishment will fall upon the first-century Jewish aristocracy (high priests and Pharisees).

    The third parable adds another crucial detail, which allows us to identify this punishment in history:

Once more Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying: “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding banquet for his son. He sent his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding banquet, but they would not come. Again he sent other slaves, saying, ‘Tell those who have been invited: Look, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready; come to the wedding banquet.’ But they made light of it and went away, one to his farm, another to his business, while the rest seized his slaves, mistreated them, and killed them. The king was enraged. He sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city.

“Then he said to his slaves, ‘The wedding is ready, but those invited were not worthy. Go therefore into the main streets, and invite everyone you find to the wedding banquet.’ Those slaves went out into the streets and gathered all whom they found, both good and bad, so the wedding hall was filled with guests. But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing a wedding robe, and he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding robe?’ And he was speechless. Then the king said to the attendants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ For many are called, but few are chosen.” (Matt. 22:1-14)

    According to this parable, the punishment on the first-century Jewish aristocracy would not only involve their “miserable death,” but the destruction and burning of their city (Jerusalem). This took place during the First Jewish-Roman War (AD 66-73), when in AD 70 the Roman Empire besieged and burned the city of Jerusalem; for an eyewitness description of this event, see Josephus’ account in Wars books 5 and 6. The parable goes on to state that, after the burning of “their city,” there would be a wedding banquet for the king’s son; this must refer to the ‘marriage’ of the Son to the true Israelite remnant (cf. John 3:28, 29; Rev. 19:6). This corresponds to the kingdom of God being “given to another” in the previous parable (Matt. 21:43).

    For the rest of Matt. 22, there is a digression into other topics, including the morality of taxation (vv. 15-22), the bodily resurrection (vv. 23-33), the greatest commandment (vv. 34-40), and the Lordship of the Messiah (vv. 41-46). As these do not have any direct bearing on our study, we will skip ahead to chapter 23, where Jesus again deals with the punishment of the Jewish aristocracy. After outlining the hypocrisy of the high priests and the Pharisees, he says:

“Thus you testify against yourselves that you are descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your ancestors. You snakes, you brood of vipers! How can you escape the sentence of Gehenna? For this reason I send you prophets, sages, and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town, so that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly I tell you, all this will come upon this generation.

“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! See, your house is left to you, desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord.’“ (Matt. 23:31-39)

    Like in the second and third parables, Jesus here blames the Pharisees for the deaths of the prophets at the hands of their ancestors (Matt. 21:34-36; 22:6). Because of this, he states that they will undergo “the sentence of Gehenna.” Although this is often translated as “the judgment of hell,” which implies that it refers to a postmortem punishment, the word used is geenna, which refers to the Valley of Hinnom. In the Old Testament, this valley was used for child sacrifice (2 Kgs. 23:10; 2 Chron. 28:3; 33:6; Jer. 7:31; 32:35). Later on, it became associated with the siege and destruction of Jerusalem, during which the dead bodies were buried in Gehenna (Jer. 7:32; 19:1-9). Therefore, “the sentence of Gehenna” in Matt. 23:33 likely refers to the same AD 70 siege and burning of Jerusalem which Jesus predicted in Matt. 22:7.

    This is supported by Matt. 23:36, in which Jesus states that “all this will come upon this generation.” Throughout the synoptic gospels, the phrase “this generation” (hē genea tautē) consistently refers to Jesus’ own contemporaries, especially the corrupt Jewish aristocracy (Matt. 12:41, 42, 45; Mark 8:12; Luke 7:31; 11:29-32, 50, 51; 17:25; Acts 2:40). Thus, by referring to “this generation,” Jesus is pronouncing that the aforementioned “sentence of Gehenna” would be a judgment on the corrupt first-century Jewish aristocracy. This appears to confirm that Jesus is describing the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem.

    At the very end of the chapter, Jesus switches from talking about a judgment on the Pharisees to a judgment on the city of Jerusalem, in which its “house” (the Temple) would be “left desolate.” This must refer to the AD 70 fall of Jerusalem, during which the Second Temple was also burned to the ground. As far as I am aware, there are no commentators that disagree with this interpretation. Therefore, this confirms that the judgment described in the previous verses, “the sentence of Gehenna,” also refers to the fall of Jerusalem.

    In summary, the parables which precede the Olivet Discourse all deal with the punishment of the first-century Jewish aristocracy (especially the Pharisees) because of their rejection and murder of the prophets and the Son of God. This punishment involved the destruction of both Jerusalem and the Temple, which took place in AD 70 (Matt. 22:7; 23:36-38). 

    The Disciples’ Question

    Now that we have finished studying the parables that precede the Olivet Discourse, we can begin to exegete the discourse itself. Immediately after Jesus pronounces a judgment upon Jerusalem and its “house” (Matt. 23:37-39), we read the following:

As Jesus came out of the temple and was going away, his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. Then he asked them, “You see all these things, do you not? Truly I tell you, not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down.” (Matt. 24:1, 2)

Compare this to the Markan and Lukan accounts:

As he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher, what large stones and what large buildings!” Then Jesus asked him, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down.” (Mark 13:1, 2)

When some were speaking about the temple, how it was adorned with beautiful stones and gifts dedicated to God, he said, “As for these things that you see, the days will come when not one stone will be left upon another; all will be thrown down.” (Luke 21:5, 6)

This account is obviously a prophecy of the destruction of the Second Temple complex, which occurred after the siege of Jerusalem in AD 70. As far as I am aware, there are no interpreters that disagree with this view, as Jesus is explicitly talking about the destruction of “these great buildings” which the disciples were pointing out to him.

    Later, the disciples come to Jesus privately to ask questions about what he has just said. However, their second question slightly differs between the three synoptic accounts:

When he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of your coming and the conclusion of the age?” (Matt. 24:3)

When he was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked him privately, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign that all these things are about to be accomplished?” (Mark 13:3, 4)

They asked him, “Teacher, when will these things be? And what will be the sign that these things are about to take place?” (Luke 21:7)

    The disciples first ask Jesus “when will this be?” (Gk: pote [oun] tauta estai) In the Markan and Lukan accounts, they then ask about the sign that will precede “these things” (Gk: tauta), i.e., the destruction of the Second Temple, whereas in the Matthean account, they ask about the sign that will precede “your coming and the conclusion of the age”. Because “the sign” (Gk: to sēmeion) is singular and articular in all three accounts, it must refer to the same sign. Thus, for the author of Matthew, the destruction of the Temple would take place at the same time as “your coming and the conclusion of the age” — perhaps even being the same event. [x]

    But how can Jesus’ “coming” (Gk: parousia) have occurred in AD 70 at the destruction of the Temple, when he did not return to earth at that time? Although there will be a future visible, bodily return of Jesus from heaven (Acts 1:9-11; 3:21), at which the dead will be raised (1 Thess. 4:13-18), not every mention of a “coming” of Jesus must refer to his Second Coming (e.g., Rev. 2:5, 16; 3:3). The nature of the “coming” in the Olivet Discourse is elucidated in Matt. 24:30:

...at that time, all the tribes of the Land will mourn, and will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

The statement that “the Son of Man” would be “coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” is a quote from Daniel 7:13-14. This passage, however, does not describe the Messiah’s return to earth, but the Messiah coming to God in heaven to receive power and glory and a kingdom.

    Notably, at his trial, Jesus tells the Sanhedrin that “from now on, you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matt. 26:64). Since this is an event that would occur “from now on,” and because the members of this Sanhedrin died in the first century, Jesus cannot be speaking of his Second Coming. Instead, it must refer to his exaltation, when he sat at the right hand of God (Acts 2:32, 33; Heb. 1:3). Therefore, “seeing the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven” does not mean literally, visually observing Jesus on a cloud, but perceiving the fact of his exaltation.

    In addition, the ‘cloud-coming’ of Matt. 24:30 alludes to similar ‘cloud-comings’ in the Old Testament. When the Hebrew prophets spoke of Yahweh “coming on a cloud” or “riding a cloud,” this often described God’s judgment against a nation (Psa. 18:7-15; Isa. 19:1; Nah. 1:2-6; cf. Dan. 7:9-14). This aligns with the context of the Olivet Discourse, which deals with the judgment of the corrupt first-century Jewish aristocracy (Matt. 21:31, 41-45; 22:7; 23:30-39). Therefore, “the Son of Man coming on the clouds,” and the “coming” which the disciples asked about, deals with Jesus’ enthronement and the national judgment on corrupt Israel, not his bodily Second Coming.

    In fact, Jesus’ “coming” in the Olivet Discourse cannot refer to the Second Coming, because the disciples did not know about the Second Coming until after Jesus’ death and resurrection. They didn’t even believe that he would die, much less that he would ascend to heaven and leave them (Matt. 16:21, 22; Luke 24:18-27; John 16:16-18), so they certainly would not have known or asked about Jesus’ return to earth. Thus, when the disciples asked about “your coming” in Matt. 24:3, this must refer to the previously revealed coming of the Messiah to God in Dan. 7:13-14, not the Second Coming, which was first revealed in Acts 1:9-11.

    But what about “the conclusion of the age” (Gk: sunteleias tou aiōnos), which the disciples also asked about in Matt. 24:3? In the Septuagint (LXX), which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible used by the New Testament authors, the Old Covenant and its statutes are repeatedly described as “eonian” or “age-during” (Gk: aiōnios). [1] Consequently, the New Testament authors viewed the period of the Old Covenant as an “age” (Gk: aiōn). This period was already “passing away” when the epistle to the Hebrews was written (Heb. 8:13), but finally reached its end when the physical Temple, the last vestige of the Old Covenant, was destroyed in AD 70 (cf. Heb. 9:1-14). The end of the Old Covenant in AD 70 had immense redemptive-historical significance, especially for the Jewish Christians of the first century. [x]

    In summary, a comparison of the disciples’ questions in the Markan and Lukan accounts with their counterpart in the Matthean account shows that the destruction of the Second Temple, in AD 70, took place at the same time as Jesus’ “coming and the conclusion of the age” (Matt. 24:3; cf. Mark 13:3, 4; Luke 21:7). Although the Second Coming did not take place in AD 70, this doesn’t mean that Matthew made an error, because the “coming” in Matt. 24:3 refers to the ‘coming’ of the Messiah to God to receive power and judgment (Dan. 7:9-14; cf. Matt. 24:30), not Jesus’ bodily return to earth. As the disciples’ questions are clearly about the fall of Jerusalem, this suggests that the Olivet Discourse is likely about the events surrounding AD 70; otherwise, the disciples’ questions would be left unanswered.

    This Generation

    Later in the Olivet Discourse, Jesus provides some confirmation that the events which he prophesied took place in the first century, not in the distant future:

“From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, at the very gates. Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.” (Matt. 24:32-35)

In this passage, Jesus states that “all these things” — the events predicted in the discourse — would take place before “this generation” (Gk: hē genea autē) passed away. Throughout the synoptic gospels, “this generation” always refers to Jesus’ contemporaries, especially the corrupt first-century Jewish aristocracy (Matt. 12:41, 42, 45; Mark 8:12; Luke 7:31; 11:29-32, 50, 51; 17:25; Acts 2:40). This strongly suggests that the events of the Olivet Discourse took place in the first century.

    Despite the consistent meaning of “this generation” throughout the synoptic gospels, other interpretations of “this generation” in Matt. 24:34 have been proposed by futurist commentators, who do not believe that the discourse was fulfilled in the first century. The most common futurist view is that “this generation” refers to the generation which “sees all these things.” [x] However, this reduces Jesus’ statement to a meaningless tautology; of course the generation which “sees all these things” will not pass away until “all these things” take place. Moreover, if this were Jesus’ meaning, then it would be more accurate for him to speak of “that generation” (Gk: hē genea ekeinē) rather than using the near demonstrative “this generation” (Gk: hē genea autē).

    Others have suggested that “this generation” refers to the Jewish people, because genea can also mean “race.” [x] However, it is very rare for genea to mean “race”; in fact, there is no other place in the New Testament where it carries this meaning. Moreover, Jesus has already said that “this people” (Gk: tō laō toutō) will be present during these events (Luke 21:23), so it would be pointless for him to repeat the same thing using a rare definition of genea. The same problem exists for those who claim that “this generation” refers to the ‘race’ of evil and corrupt individuals [x], as Jesus has already stated that there will be evil people during these events (Matt. 24:5, 9-12), although admittedly this meaning of genea is attested elsewhere in the New Testament (Phil. 2:15).

    Because all other interpretations of “this generation” in Matt. 24:34 suffer from serious deficiencies, the best interpretation is that this phrase refers to Jesus’ contemporaries, just as it does elsewhere in the synoptic gospels (without exception). This meaning seems to be confirmed by Matt. 23:36, in which Jesus states that “all these things will come upon this generation,” where the context confirms that “all these things” refers to the fall of Jerusalem and “this generation” refers to the first-century Jewish aristocracy (Matt. 23:30-39). Likewise, in Matt. 24:2-3, “all these things” refers to the destruction of the Temple.

    In summary, Matt. 24:34 confirms that the Olivet Discourse took place in the first century, as Jesus states that the events prophesied in the discourse would be seen by “this generation.” Elsewhere in the synoptic gospels, “this generation” refers to Jesus’ contemporaries, specifically the first-century Jewish aristocracy. Moreover, when Jesus makes a similar statement in Matt. 23:36, the context confirms that he is speaking of the fall of Jerusalem. Because Jesus did not finish saying “all these things” until Matt. 26:1, it is implied that the entire Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24-25) was fulfilled in the first century.

    In the next post, we will take a look at the specific prophecies in the Olivet Discourse to see whether they were fulfilled in the events surrounding the AD 70 fall of Jerusalem. If not, then something must have gone wrong in our exegesis of the passage thus far.

______________________________

[1] LXX Exod. 12:14, 17; 27:21; 28:43; 29:28; 30:21; 31:16, 17; Lev. 6:18, 22; 7:34, 36; 10:9, 15; 16:29, 31, 34; 17:7; 23:14, 21, 31, 41; 24:3, 8, 9; 25:34; Num. 10:8; 15:15; 18:8, 11, 19, 23; 19:10, 21; 25:13.

The use of OT Yahweh texts for Jesus

     In my post from last week, in which I reviewed and rebutted the arguments in Robert Bowman Jr. and J. Ed. Komoszewski’s book Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ, I was unfortunately unable to get to some of their arguments for lack of space. One of the main arguments that I didn’t get to rebut was the argument from the NT application of OT Yahweh texts to Jesus. This is often used as a slam-dunk argument by trinitarians; after all, if the authors of the New Testament directly quoted biblical texts about Yahweh and re-applied them to Jesus, doesn’t this mean that Jesus is Yahweh? In this blog post, I will be explaining the unitarian interpretation of OT Yahweh texts applied to Jesus.

    How do the New Testament authors quote the Old Testament?

One fact that is often forgotten in this debate is how loosely the authors of the New Testament quote the Old Testament. This is especially the case when it comes to Messianic prophecies; many of the prophecies cited in the New Testament to apply to Jesus originally referred to an individual or entity long before Jesus. One of the most famous examples of this is Matthew 2:14-15:

Then Joseph got up, took the child and his mother at night, and went to Egypt and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet, “Out of Egypt I have called My son.” [Hosea 11:1]

The prophecy quoted here, Hosea 11:1, clearly referred to Israel in its original context: “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I have called My son.”

    The same issue occurs in Matthew 1:23, where the author states that Jesus was born of a virgin to fulfill Isaiah 7:14, “The virgin will conceive and bear a son, and they will call him Immanu’el.” However, the original passage spoke of a child who was born in the 8th century BC, before Assyria’s conquest of Israel (Isa. 7:14-17). Furthermore, in Matthew 2:17-18, the author says that the slaughter of the infants in Bethlehem fulfilled Jeremiah 31:15: “A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be consoled, because they are no more.” But the context of the original passage makes clear that this was about the 6th century BC exile of Judah to Babylon!

    So was the author of Matthew just completely ignorant about his own Scriptures? Of course not; if he knew of all of these prophecies, he should have known their immediate contexts as well. Rather, it was common in the first century AD for Jewish authors to interpret biblical passages symbolically, in reference to the events of their own time (a practice called “midrash”). This falls into two categories: remez, which is typological interpretation, and derash, which is application of a passage to the present-day based on one or more points of similarity. [1] Matthew’s citation of Hosea 11:1 was a form of remez, interpreting Israel as a type of Christ, whereas his citation of Isaiah 7:14 was derash, based on the fact that both the original child and Jesus were born of a young woman/virgin. [2]

    Matthew was not the only New Testament author to allegorically interpret the Old Testament. The gospel accounts repeatedly apply verses from the Psalms to Jesus, even though most of these passages were written in the first person by David and other pre-Exilic figures. [3] Paul also allegorically interpreted many Old Testament passages. [4] The Hebraist might be the most guilty of this, since he takes many Old Testament verses out of context and applies them to Jesus. For example, Psalm 2:7 (originally about David) is applied to Jesus in Heb. 1:5 and 5:5, Psalm 45:8 (originally about Solomon?) is applied to Jesus in Heb. 1:8, and Psalm 18:2, 22:22, and Isa. 8:18 are all applied to Jesus in Heb. 2:12-13.

    Therefore, when the Old Testament is quoted in the New Testament, this doesn’t automatically mean that the original referent of the passage is the same as the referent of the New Testament passage. We should always be on the lookout to make sure that the passage isn’t being interpreted loosely or allegorically. This is important to take into account when we consider the ‘Yahweh texts’ applied to Jesus. Did the authors of the New Testament really intend to say that Jesus is the same as Yahweh, or were they using these passages in a more allegorical sense?

    How did ancient Jewish authors use ‘Yahweh texts’?

We’ve already seen that the authors of the New Testament frequently changed the referent of Old Testament passages to apply them to more current people and events. But did they do the same for texts about Yahweh, the God of Israel, or was this considered blasphemous? It must not have been considered sacrilegious, because there are numerous ancient Jewish texts that re-applied passages about God to other referents. Typically, this was only done for those considered agents of Yahweh.

    A major example of this re-use of ‘Yahweh texts’ is from the Dead Sea Scrolls of the Qumran community, specifically, the scroll labeled 11QMelch. This scroll took passages from the Psalms and Isaiah about God and re-applied them to Melchizedek, whom the Qumran community believed to be a celestial being that God would use to judge all people. 11QMelch states:

It is the time for the “year of the favor of” Melchizedek [Isa. 61:2] and of his armies, the nation of the saints of God, of the rule of judgment, as it is written about him in the songs of David, who said, “God will stand in the assembly of God, in the midst of the gods he judges.” [Psa. 82:1] And about him he said, “And above it, to the heights, return: God will judge the peoples.” [Psa. 7:8, 9]

As for what he said, “How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked?” [Psa. 82:2] Its interpretation concerns Belial and the spirits of his lot, who […] turning aside from the commandments of God to commit evil. But, Melchizedek will carry out the vengeance of God’s judgments.

The author of 11QMelch obviously did not believe that Melchizedek was God Himself, but that God would empower Melchizedek to carry out judgment in the last days. This author quoted Isaiah 61:2, which talks about the “year of the favor of Yahweh,” but replaced Yahweh’s name with Melchizedek’s. Likewise, he interpreted Psalm 82 (which is about God judging celestial beings) and Psalm 7 (which talks about Yahweh’s judgment) to refer to Melchizedek. This shows that at least some ancient Jewish authors had no qualms about applying Yahweh texts to agents of God.

    Many other Yahweh texts are used to refer to non-God entities in Jewish midrash. One example is Psalm 68:18, which states about Yahweh, “You have ascended on high and led captive the captives, You have received gifts from men”. Many ancient Jewish texts, rather than applying this to God, applied it to Moses by allegorically interpreting it as Moses’ ascent to Mt. Sinai. [5] This also happens to be one of the Yahweh texts applied to Jesus (Eph. 4:8). Another example is Isaiah 59:20, which says about Yahweh, “The Redeemer will come to Zion”; this is interpreted in b. Sanhedrin 98b as referring to the Messiah, and again by Paul as referring to Jesus (Rom. 11:26-27).

    There are several other examples of Yahweh texts that are sometimes, but not always, applied to non-God entities in ancient Jewish literature. For example, Deuteronomy 32:43 states, “Let all the angels of God worship Him.” This was applied to Yahweh in Targum Neofiti, but in other texts (Targum Onqelos and the Masoretic text) it was taken to refer to God’s people instead. This was applied to Jesus in Hebrews 1:6. Isaiah 60:1-2 says, “Arise, shine, for your light has come and the glory of Yahweh has risen upon you.” Most ancient Jewish texts apply this to Yahweh in line with what the text actually says, but two texts re-interpret “the glory of Yahweh” as “the light of the Messiah.” [6] Paul alludes to this passage when he says, “Awake, sleeper... and Christ will shine on you” (Eph. 5:14).

    Finally, one last Yahweh text which is applied to a non-God entity in Jewish midrash is Psalm 102:25-27. Whereas the Masoretic Hebrew text has the Davidic king speaking to God about His creation of the heavens and the earth, the Septuagint (LXX) replaces “I said” with “He answered him,” thus changing this passage into Yahweh speaking to another person about their creation of the heavens and the earth! [7] This may seem absurd, since the Old Testament is clear that God alone created the heavens and the earth (see esp. Isa. 44:24). However, in Jewish midrash, the Messiah was credited with a role in creation, because the spirit of Wisdom given to the Messiah was thought to be the same spirit involved in creation in Genesis 1:2. [8] Similar reasoning may have been involved in the LXX rendering of Psalm 102:25-27, as well as Hebrews 1:10-12 which quotes Psalm 102:25-27 (LXX) in reference to Jesus.

    Yahweh texts and Jesus in the New Testament

We’ve now seen how some Yahweh texts were interpreted in Jewish midrash, and how these methods of allegorical interpretation were also used by the authors of the New Testament. But are all of the Yahweh texts applied to Jesus in the New Testament allegorical, or were they intended to show that Jesus is actually Yahweh Himself? Let’s examine each of these passages in turn. Five of them were already mentioned above as being used midrashically in other Jewish texts, so we won’t cover those in this section.

    The first Yahweh text applied to Jesus in the New Testament is Isaiah 40:3: “The voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way of Yahweh, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.’” This is quoted in Matt. 3:3, Mark 1:3, and Luke 3:4, in reference to John the Baptist and Jesus. Since this is a Yahweh text applied to Jesus in the very first gospel (Mark), it’s sometimes thought to prove that the earliest Christians already believed that Jesus was Yahweh. However, NT scholar J. R. Daniel Kirk has noted that Mark actually modifies this verse and combines it with another Old Testament quotation (Exod. 23:20), thus changing the meaning of the text: [9]

...as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, “I [God] will send My messenger [John] ahead of you [Jesus], who will prepare your [Jesus’] way” — “a voice of one [John] crying in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way of the Lord [Jesus], make straight his [Jesus’] paths.’” (Mark 1:2-3)

By adding in Exodus 23:20, Mark makes this about three people (God, Jesus, and John), instead of just two (God and His messenger). Furthermore, when quoting Isa. 40:3, Mark deliberately omits “our God,” replacing it with just “him,” which is difficult to explain if Mark was actually trying to say that Jesus is God. Therefore, this should be taken as an allegorical application of Isa. 40:3, rather than a declaration of Jesus’ deity.

    Another Yahweh text applied to Jesus is Zechariah 12:10, in which God says that “they will look upon Me, the one whom they have pierced, and they will mourn for him [sic] as one mourns for an only child”. This is applied to Jesus in John 19:37 and Revelation 1:7. However, in both cases this passage is quoted as saying, “They will look upon him whom they pierced.” For this reason, and because of the pronoun discrepancy in Zech. 12:10, some commentators have argued that the original Hebrew text referred to “him whom they pierced.” [10] Even if this isn’t the case, the fact that the text has been changed in the NT quotation implies that this is a midrashic reading, not a literal reading.

    The next Yahweh text applied to Jesus is Joel 2:32, which states, “everyone who calls upon the name of Yahweh shall be saved.” In the original context, this passage is about Israelites in Jerusalem being saved during the Day of the Lord. However, in Romans 10:9-13, Paul re-applies this passage to mean that everyone, Jew or Gentile, can be saved by calling on the name of “the Lord” (Jesus). Since this is not the original meaning of the passage, we can infer that Paul applying a midrashic interpretation, and we’re not meant to conclude that Jesus is Yahweh.

    Another Yahweh text is Isaiah 45:23, in which Yahweh swears that “every knee will bow to Me and every tongue will swear allegiance to God.” This is alluded to in Philippians 2:9-11, in which Paul says:

Therefore God highly exalted him and gave him the name above every other name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God, the Father.

Many trinitarians believe that the application of Isa. 45:23 to Jesus proves that he is Yahweh Himself, but the context doesn’t support this. Paul says that Jesus deserves these honors because he was given God’s name, and that this is ultimately to the glory of God, the Father. Based on this, it’s most likely that Paul is applying this Yahweh text to Jesus as an agent of God, just as various Yahweh texts were applied to Melchizedek in 11QMelch.

    The next Yahweh text is Jeremiah 9:24:

“Let the one who boasts boast in this, that they understand and know Me, that I am Yahweh, exercising lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness in the earth, for in these things I delight,” says Yahweh.

Paul applies this to Jesus in 1 Corinthians 1:31 and 2 Corinthians 10:17. However, he shortens it to “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord [Jesus],” whereas the original passage talks about boasting in Yahweh’s attributes like lovingkindness and righteousness. In the previous verse, Paul stated that Jesus has become the embodiment of God’s attributes like wisdom, righteousness, and sanctification (1 Cor. 1:30). Therefore, by citing 1 Corinthians 1:31, Paul isn’t equating Jesus with Yahweh Himself, but with Yahweh’s attributes of lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness.

    The last Yahweh text applied to Jesus in the New Testament is Isaiah 8:12-13, in which God says to the prophet Isaiah, “Do not call conspiracy that which these people call conspiracy, and do not fear what they fear, or be in dread. But you shall regard Yahweh of hosts as holy”. In context, this passage is about not fearing Judah’s enemies. 1 Peter 3:14-15 states, “But even if you suffer for what is right, you are blessed. Do not fear them or be in dread, but regard Christ the Lord as holy in your hearts.” Clearly, this passage is alluding to Isa. 8:12-13, but the meaning is changed from “Do not fear what they fear” (Judah’s enemies) to “Do not fear them” (persecutors). Since this is a midrashic interpretation, the point isn’t to equate Jesus with Yahweh, but simply that we should trust Jesus rather than fear persecution.

    In summary, none of the Yahweh texts applied to Jesus in the New Testament actually imply that he is Yahweh Himself. Five of them are applied to non-God entities in other ancient Jewish texts (Deut. 32:43; Psa. 68:18; 102:25-27; Isa. 59:20; 60:1-2). The meanings of five other Yahweh texts have been changed in the New Testament, which means that these texts are being interpreted midrashically, and not indicating that Jesus is Yahweh (Isa. 8:12-13; 40:3; Jer. 9:24; Joel 2:32; Zech. 12:10). One last Yahweh text, Isa. 45:23, is applied to Jesus in a context where it is clear that he is given this privilege as an exalted agent of Yahweh (Phil. 2:9-11).

    Conclusion

Many trinitarians claim that because OT Yahweh texts are applied to Jesus in the NT, the authors of the NT must have believed that he was God Himself. This is one of the primary arguments for ‘early high Christology’ (the view that the earliest Christians believed Jesus was God). However, in other Jewish texts from the same time as the NT, Yahweh texts are applied to non-God entities, either because those entities are agents of God or because a midrashic interpretation is being applied. The NT also frequently uses Jewish midrash to interpret OT passages, and as it happens, this pertains to all of the Yahweh texts applied to Jesus. [11] In contrast, the Father is repeatedly the subject of Yahweh texts that are not interpreted midrashically (e.g., Mark 12:29-30). Therefore, the application of Yahweh texts in the NT is perfectly consistent with unitarian Christian belief.

______________________________

[1] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardes_(exegesis).

[2] The Hebrew text of Isaiah 7:14 states that the mother of the child was an almah, which simply means “young woman,” whereas the Greek translation in the Septuagint (which was used by the New Testament authors) refers to a parthenos (“virgin”).

[3] For example, see Psalm 2:7 in Acts 13:33, Psalm 22 in the crucifixion accounts of all four gospels, Psalm 41:9 in John 13:18, and Psalm 69:9 in John 2:17; as a counter-example, see Psalm 110:1, which was written in the third person and is widely considered to be a true Messianic prophecy.

[4] For example, see Hosea 1:10 and 2:23 in Romans 9:24-26; Deut 25:4 in 1 Cor. 9:9-10; 2 Sam. 7:14 in  2 Cor. 6:16-18; and Gen. 2:24 in Eph. 5:29-32.

[5] Targum Psalms 68.19; Ruth Rab. 2.3; Pesiqta Rab. 20.4; Bavli Shabbat 89a; Exodus Rab. 28.1.

[6] b. Sanhedrin 99a; Pesiqta Rabbati 36.2.

[7] B. W. Bacon, “Heb I, 10-12 and the Septuagint Rendering of Ps 102, 23,” ZNtW 3 (1902): 280-285; L. D. Hurst, “The Christology of Hebrews 1 and 2,” in The Glory of Christ in the New Testament, eds. L. D. Hurst and N. T. Wright (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1987), 160-162.

[8] Genesis Rab. 2.4 equates the spirit of God which was involved in creation in Genesis 1:2 with “the spirit of King Messiah,” based on an allegorical interpretation of Isaiah 11:2; see also Midrash Tanhuma, Toledot 11, which credits the patriarch Jacob with creation by allegorically interpreting Jeremiah 10:16a.

[9] J. R. Daniel Kirk, A Man Attested by God: The Human Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016).

[10] Carol L. Myers and Eric M. Myers, Zechariah 9–14, Anchor Bible Series 25C (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 336.

[11] With the sole exception of Isa. 45:23, which is applied to Jesus in Phil. 2:9-11 by virtue of his being the human agent of God.

Jesus and the HANDS of God

    Over the past year and a half, I’ve rebutted many scriptural arguments for the deity of Christ — the belief that Jesus, the Messiah, is (or is a part of) the one true God, Yahweh. These arguments generally boil down to the claim that the Bible states that Jesus has the unique attributes of God and/or does things that only God can do. Two trinitarian scholars, Robert Bowman Jr. and J. Ed Komoszewski, published a book that compiles many or all of these arguments, thereby (according to them) proving beyond a doubt that the “big picture” of the New Testament is that Jesus is God, even if there is no single verse or passage that proves it. [1] But is this true? In this blog post, I’ll be reviewing their book in an attempt to show that the biblical teaching about Jesus is not that he is God Himself, but that he is the uniquely empowered human Messiah and Son of God.

    Does Jesus share the Honors due God alone?

In their book, Bowman and Komoszewski use the acronym HANDS, which stands for Honors, Attributes, Names, Deeds, and Seat, to classify the attributes applied to Jesus which they claim belong to God alone. They begin by listing the Honors applied to both Jesus and God, starting with John 5:23:

...so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.

Quite rightly, they point out that in monotheistic Jewish culture, it was considered irreverent to honor any creature with the same honor due to God. They conclude that in order for Jesus to be honored in the same way as God, without dishonoring God, he must be God.

    However, this ignores another aspect of ancient Jewish culture, which is the concept of agency, as expressed in the saying, “A man’s agent is [to be regarded] as himself.” [2] This principle can also be found in the New Testament itself (e.g., Matt. 10:40; John 12:44). As the uniquely empowered agent who was sent by God, Jesus deserves honor just as if he was God, regardless of whether he is really God. Indeed, the context of John 5:23 is all about how Jesus was sent and empowered by God. In v. 19, Jesus states that he can do nothing apart from the Father who sent him; in vv. 26-27, Jesus states that God gave him the authority to resurrect and judge; in vv. 43-44, Jesus states that he comes in his Father’s name, and refers to the Father as “the only God.” Therefore, the point of this passage is to show that Jesus was sent and empowered by God, not that he is God, and John 5:23 must be understood in this context.

    Next, the authors argue that doxologies and worship are given to Jesus in the New Testament, and worship is due only to God (citing Rev. 19:10), therefore the Bible teaches that Jesus is God. However, it’s simply not true that worship is due only to God, though this is a common assumption. The Greek verb proskuneo and its Hebrew equivalent shachah, which are used to describe the worship of God and Jesus, are also used to describe the worship of Joseph, Judah, Jethro, an angel of Yahweh, Boaz, king Saul, Samuel, Joab, king David, Bathsheba, king Solomon, Elisha, king Joash, the city of Jerusalem, and even Christians. [3]

    This is especially true in the case of kings David and Solomon, who are worshipped in the same context as God. [4] The only prohibitions against worship are against idols, demons, and in one case, “fellow servants.” [5] However, worship of a superior (human or divine) is not prohibited anywhere in Scripture. Therefore, when the Bible states that Jesus is (and should be) worshipped, this doesn’t mean that he is worshipped as God. Rather, he is explicitly worshipped as God’s son and firstborn (Matt. 14:33; Heb. 1:6). Since Jesus has now been exalted to a position second only to God Himself, he is certainly deserving of worship; not because he is God, but because he died for our salvation (Rev. 5:9-12; cf. Rev. 4:9-11).

    For their next argument, Bowman and Komoszewski point to several New Testament passages in which Jesus is prayed to (Acts 1:24-25; 7:59-60; 2 Cor. 12:8-9; Rev. 22:20-21). They correctly point out that praying to idols is expressly forbidden, and God is described as “He who hears prayer” in the Old Testament (Psa. 65:2; Isa. 44:17; 45:20). However, this is just as fallacious as their worship argument. Just because praying to false gods is forbidden doesn’t mean that only God can be prayed to. If God so chooses to raise a very unique human to a position of authority over the entire cosmos, why should we not be able to talk to him and make requests to him? Since there is nothing in the Bible to preclude this, this argument is simply not scriptural.

    Finally, the last Honors of God that are attributed to Jesus are hymn-singing and faith. Again, the authors quite rightly point out that Jesus is given these honors, and that they are also given to God, but this argument flounders on the claim that God alone deserves these honors. Just as hymns are sung to Jesus in the New Testament (Eph. 5:19; Rev. 5:9-10), at least one hymn was sung to the human Davidic king in the Old Testament (Psa. 45). Jesus is the Messiah, the greatest Davidic king of Israel, so of course he also deserves this honor, whether or not he is God. Likewise, just as people are exhorted to put their faith in Jesus in the New Testament, people in the Old Testament put their faith in other agents of God like Moses (Exod. 14:31). Jesus is not to be believed in as God, but as God’s Messiah, as shown by the fact that he himself stated, “You believe in God; believe also in me” (John 14:1).

    Does Jesus share God’s unique Attributes?

The authors next try to show that Jesus has many of the Attributes that belong to God alone. Before diving into this section, it needs to be said that in order to prove that Jesus is God, it’s not enough to show that he has some or even most of God’s attributes; he has to have all of God’s attributes. Otherwise, he wouldn’t be God. But this is quite difficult to demonstrate, because Jesus explicitly denies at least one of God’s attributes, omnipotence, by saying that he does not know the time of his return (Matt. 13:32). Likewise, two other attributes of God, omnipotence and essential goodness, are incompatible with the clear New Testament teaching that Jesus was tempted (Mark 1:13; Heb. 2:18; 4:15; cf. Jas. 1:13).

    So how do Bowman and Komoszewski attempt to show that Jesus has the unique Attributes of God? First, they point to Colossians 2:9, which states that “in him all the fullness of Godhood dwells bodily.” This, they claim, shows that everything that defines God can also be found in Jesus. However, as I argued in another post, this could just as easily be understood as referring to the fact that Jesus was given God’s spirit without measure (John 3:34). Many passages state that God was in Christ working miracles (e.g., Acts 2:22; 2 Cor. 5:19), and Col. 2:9 is likely the same thing. This is also supported by Col. 1:19, which states that the Father was pleased to cause His fullness to dwell in Jesus.

    They next point to passages which state that Jesus is the image of God and fully reveals Him. [6] This certainly means that Jesus has many of the attributes of God, but does it mean that Jesus is Him and has all of His attributes? Despite the authors’ confidence, it’s not at all clear that this is the case. There is nothing in Scripture that tells us that a ‘mere man,’ endowed with many of God’s attributes in order to more perfectly reveal Him to us than any other prophet, could not be “the image of God.” In fact, it seems strange that God Himself would be called “the image of God,” rather than simply God; how can an image of a thing be identical to the thing itself? The hidden premise in this argument is therefore not well-motivated, and the argument should be rejected.

    In the next two chapters, Bowman and Komoszewski cite an impressive number of passages which they claim prove that Christ existed before his human birth: (in order of citation) Phil. 2:5-7; Matt. 9:13; 20:28; Luke 4:43; 12:49, 51; 19:10; Gal. 4:4-6; Rom. 8:3; John 8:42; 10:36; 13:3; 16:28; Matt. 23:37; John 8:58; 12:37-41; Jude 5; John 1:1; and Heb. 1:10-12. I’ve already dealt with most of these specific passages in my lengthy refutation of every trinitarian proof-text. Many of these passages state that Jesus was “sent” by God for a specific purpose, which the authors assert shows that he came from heaven. However, this same motif appears in the statements of Old Testament prophets, who were obviously not sent from heaven. [7] But in any case, many (perhaps even most) unitarians believe that Jesus existed before his human birth; this doesn’t mean that he is God Himself.

    Next, the authors argue that Christ is uncreated, pointing to passages that state that he created “all things” (e.g., Col. 1:16). They point out that if all things were created through Christ, he himself cannot be created. This misses the fact that the “all things” created through Jesus encompass the new creation, not the original creation (2 Cor. 5:17-18). Quite convincingly, however, they demonstrate that the prooftexts claimed by Arians to show that Jesus was the first creation actually refer to his pre-eminence over all creation (Col. 1:15; Rev. 3:14). Rather than being the first created being, the point at which Jesus was created was at his human birth, which is described as “the genesis of Jesus the Messiah” (Matt. 1:18).

    They next argue that Jesus is immutable, based on Heb. 13:8, which says that he is “the same yesterday and today and forever.” If understood as an ontological immutability, this would contradict the gospel accounts, which state that Jesus grew, became hungry, tired, and most importantly, died. Rather, the context of Heb. 13:8 regards the security of our salvation and the gospel message, which is safe because Jesus is always the same — not ontologically, but morally. He will never go back on his promises.

    Finally, Bowman and Komoszewski try to show that Jesus has all of God’s ‘perfect being’ attributes, which are omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience. Again, however, this contradicts the clear teachings of the gospel accounts, which state in no uncertain terms that Jesus’ power was given to him by God (e.g., John 5:19; Acts 2:22), meaning that he is not essentially omnipotent. Likewise, they indicate that there were at least a few things Jesus didn’t know, which is incompatible with omniscience (Luke 8:45-46; Mark 13:32). The authors make a lot of the fact that Jesus repeatedly displayed knowledge of others’ thoughts, but this ability was given to him by God (John 16:30), just as it was given to other human prophets. [8]

  In summary, there are certain attributes of God that Jesus doesn’t have, such as immutability, omnipotence, omniscience, and essential immortality. This means that Jesus cannot be God Himself, because in order to be God, he would need to possess all of God’s attributes. But this doesn’t mean that Jesus doesn’t have many of the attributes of God; he most certainly does. Most importantly, he has the love of God, which is demonstrated in the fact that he died while we were still sinners (Rom. 5:8; 8:39).

    Does Jesus share the Names of God?

The next section of the book is devoted to arguing that Jesus has the Names and titles of God, and therefore that he is God. First, the authors point out that Jesus’ name holds an incredible importance in the life of a believer. Christians perform miracles in his name, are baptized in his name, receive salvation in his name, suffer for his name; as Paul says, we are to “do all things in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Col. 3:17). How can the name of a ‘mere man’ be exalted to such an extent? Surely this means that he has the name of God? Again, this argument sneaks in a hidden premise that is not scriptural. There is nothing in the Bible that tells us that God cannot choose to exalt a human to this level. Instead, we read that God chose to exalt Jesus by giving him “the name that is above every name,” because of his obedience unto death (Phil. 2:8-9).

    In the next chapter, Bowman and Komoszewski point to many passages which they claim apply the title “God” to the Messiah Jesus: namely, Isa. 7:14; 9:6; John 1:1, 18; 20:28; Acts 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8; and 2 Pet. 1:1. To their credit, they admit that nearly all passages have textual or contextual ambiguities, and the only passages that seem absolutely clear in calling Jesus “God” are John 1:1, John 20:28, and Hebrews 1:8. This is generally in agreement with the findings of other trinitarian scholars. [9] Setting aside John 1:1 for the moment, which I’ve dealt with in other blog posts, there are two texts which unambiguously call Jesus “God” (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8).

    Although it may seem strange in the modern day, since we only refer to Yahweh as “God”, in the Bible the empowered agents of God could also be called by the title “God” (Heb: elohim; Gk: theos). For example, Moses is said to be “God [elohim] to the pharaoh” in Exod. 7:1, the human Davidic king is called “God” (elohim) in Psa. 45:6, and human judges are called “gods” (elohim) in Psa. 82:6. Jesus himself makes the point in John 10:34-36 that ‘mere’ humans can be called gods, so it’s not blasphemous for him to call himself “Son of God.” Therefore, the fact that Jesus is called “God” two times in the New Testament is not proof that he is Yahweh Himself, especially compared to the fact that the Father is straightforwardly called God hundreds of times. And in fact, in the context of both instances where Jesus is called “God,” the Father is said to be Jesus’ God, which precludes Jesus from being the Most High God (John 20:17; Heb. 1:9).

    Next, the authors argue that because Jesus is consistently called “Lord” in the New Testament, and “Lord” (kurios) is the Greek rendering of God’s Hebrew name Yahweh, Jesus is Yahweh. It’s true that “Lord” (kurios) is how the Septuagint rendered the Tetragrammaton (YHWH), but the word kurios was also used to refer to human lords. A crucial text for understanding Jesus’ title “Lord” in the New Testament is Psalm 110:1:

Yahweh said to my lord [adoni], “Sit at My right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.”

This verse is quoted or alluded to no less than 20 times in reference to Jesus. [10] Crucially, however, the original Hebrew text refers to the Messiah as adoni, a title for a human lord which is never used in reference to Yahweh throughout the Old Testament. The title kurios in reference to Jesus, then, describes him as a (uniquely exalted) human Lord. Furthermore, the New Testament actually states that God made Jesus Lord, and that Jesus became Lord because of his obedience unto death (Acts 2:36; Rom. 14:9; Phil. 2:8-11), which doesn’t make sense if “Lord” in this context is understood as “Yahweh.”

    Finally, Bowman and Komoszewski argue that because Jesus is given certain titles that belong to God in the Old Testament, he must be God. They provide the examples of “Bridegroom,” “Savior,” and “Alpha and Omega.” It’s true that these titles are applied to God in the Old Testament, and to both Jesus and God in the New Testament. But does this prove that Jesus is God? Again, in order to be valid, this argument needs to add another premise: that these titles can only be used by God. This premise is not well-motivated scripturally, because there is nothing in the Bible that tells us that God cannot choose to exalt a human being to receive these titles.

    Does Jesus share in the Deeds that God alone does?

The penultimate section of the book argues that Jesus performs the Deeds that uniquely belong to God. Typically, trinitarians will point to Mark 2:7 as an argument that Jesus does things (forgive sins) that only God can do, but thankfully, Bowman and Komoszewski don’t make this fallacious argument. Instead, they begin by arguing that Jesus created the universe, and since God created the universe alone (Isa. 44:24), Jesus must be God. To make their point, they cite John 1:3, 10; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16; and Heb. 1:2. However, setting aside the prologue of John which is a unique case (since it refers to God’s word, not Jesus), all of these verses are talking about the new creation.

    To understand why I’m saying this, compare the similarities between Col. 1:16 and 2 Cor. 5:17-18, which is unambiguously talking about the new creation:

For in him were created all things in the heavens and on the earth and under the earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities; all things through him and for him were created. (Col. 1:16)

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old things have passed away; behold, the new has become. And all things are from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ (2 Cor. 5:17-18)

Both of these passages talk about a creation of all things in and through Christ. Therefore, they likely refer to the same event, which is the new creation in Christ. Similarly, 1 Cor. 8:6 states that “all things” are “through Christ.” Heb. 1:2 says that God made or prepared (poieō) the ages through Jesus. Since the first few chapters of Hebrews are about the coming world and ages (see esp. Heb. 2:5), and we know that Jesus will be ruling in the coming ages (Luke 1:33), this is probably also referring to the future ages, and not the original creation of the universe. Since there are no clear scriptural grounds to say that Christ was involved in the original creation — rather, this was a work of the Father — this argument is not sound. [11]

    Next, the authors make the argument that Jesus sustains the universe (Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3) and has power over nature, so he must be God. The problem with this argument is that there is nothing in the Bible that tells us God cannot exalt a human to this position, unlike the original creation, which the Bible does tell us that God did alone. According to the Old Testament and other Jewish literature, God’s Wisdom sustains the universe (e.g., Wisd. 1:6-7), and the human Jesus became the embodiment of God’s Wisdom for us (1 Cor. 1:30), so it makes sense that he now sustains the universe. Furthermore, God has given other exalted humans, most notably Adam and David, power to control nature. [12] Therefore, the fact that Jesus has the power to sustain the universe and control nature shows that he is an incredibly exalted human, but not that he is God Himself.

    Bowman and Komoszewski next argue that Jesus’ famous statement, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6), proves that he is God. Quite rightly, they state that God is also described as the way to salvation and the giver of life. Also correctly, they point out that no other human in the Bible is described in this way. However, like their argument from Jesus’ sustaining the universe, this ignores Wisdom Christology, which is a crucial part of New Testament Christology. God’s Wisdom is also described as the way, the truth, and the life (Prov. 3:17-22; 8:7, 32-35). Jesus, unlike any other human in the Bible, was given the great privilege of becoming the very embodiment of God’s Wisdom (John 1:14; 1 Cor. 1:24, 30). Therefore, he can rightly call himself the way, the truth, and the life, because he is the true way to life, as he is the embodiment of God’s Wisdom.

    Finally, the last argument in this section of the book is that Jesus is the judge, but God is the only one who can judge (Jas. 4:12), therefore Jesus must be God. The most striking example of this is Rom. 14:10, which says that “we will all stand before the judgment seat of God,” compared with 1 Cor. 5:10, which says the same thing but swaps “Christ” for “God.” Doesn’t this prove that Christ is God? Not exactly, because the human Davidic kings of the Old Testament like Solomon were also given the privilege to sit on God’s judgement seat over Israel (2 Chron. 9:8; Psa. 72:1-2). How much more is Jesus, who was exalted over the whole universe, given the privilege to judge the whole universe! Indeed, Jesus himself tells us that God gave him the ability to judge (John 5:22, 27), and Paul tells us that God “has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness through a man whom he has appointed“ (Acts 17:31). Thus, this doesn’t prove that Jesus is God, but a human who has been highly exalted by God.

    Does Jesus share the Seat of God’s throne?

The simple answer to the question of this final section is yes. Jesus does share the seat of God’s throne, according to numerous passages in the New Testament. [13] Furthermore, as the authors of the book point out, the Bible does tell us that Jesus has been exalted to rule over all things, which is a privilege formerly belonging to God alone (Matt. 28:18; 1 Cor. 15:27; Eph. 1:22; Phil. 2:9-11; Heb. 2:8-9). But the fact is that Jesus was given this position because of his death and resurrection (Acts 2:36; Rom. 14:10; Phil. 2:8-11; Heb. 1:3-4; Rev. 5:9-12), which precludes him from being God, who has always and will always have authority over all things (Psa. 90:1-2).

    To try and grapple with this fact, the authors argue that Jesus lost this position when he became human, by becoming obedient and subservient to God the Father, but regained it after his resurrection. However, this ignores the main point, which is that God essentially has authority over all creation; He could not lose it at any point, so neither could He regain it. Furthermore, John 7:39 explicitly tells us that Jesus had not been glorified before during his ministry.

    Another criticism of this line of reasoning that Bowman and Komoszewski raise is that there is no parallel to a ‘mere’ human being exalted over all things in other Jewish literature. But even if this is true, which I would dispute [14], why should God’s actions be confined to only things mentioned in other Jewish literature? There is also no parallel in other Jewish literature to a Messiah who dies and is raised to immortality, but God clearly had no qualms about causing that to happen. The Bible is quite clear that Jesus was exalted to rule all things, and that Jesus is a human.

    Conclusion

Although I wasn’t able to cover every single verse and argument used by Bowman and Komoszewski in their book, other prooftexts used by them are refuted in my other blog posts (see especially here). All of the arguments in this book essentially boil down to the following:

Premise 1. Jesus has attribute X / performs deed X.

Premise 2. Only God can have attribute X / perform deed X.

Conclusion. Jesus is God.

In every single case, the argument flounders because either Premise 1 or 2 is simply unsupported by Scripture. In the example of their ‘argument from creation,’ the Bible is quite clear that God created the universe alone, but scriptural support for Jesus being involved in the original creation is scanty and disputed. Whereas in the case of the ‘argument from worship,’ the authors of the New Testament state in no uncertain terms that Jesus should be worshipped, but the Bible nowhere states that only God should be worshipped.

    Everything considered, this book failed to convince me that “Jesus is God,” whatever that even means. But as always, you should decide for yourself whether their arguments or my rebuttals were more persuasive. Did you find the arguments in this book convincing?

_____________________________

[1] Robert M. Bowman and J. Ed Komoszewski, Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2007).

[2] Kid. 41b.

[3] Gen. 42:6; 43:26; 49:8; Exod. 18:7; Num. 22:31; Josh. 5:14; Ruth 2:10; 1 Sam. 20:14; 24:8; 25:23, 41; 28:14; 2 Sam. 1:2; 9:6, 8; 14:4, 22, 33; 15:5; 18:21; 18:28; 24:20; 1 Kgs. 1:16, 23, 31, 53; 2:19; 2 Kgs. 2:15; 4:37; 1 Chron. 21:21; 29:20; 2 Chron. 24:17; Psa. 45:11; 72:11; Isa. 60:14; Rev. 3:9.

[4] 1 Chron. 29:20; Psa. 72:11; see my earlier post “Davidic Christology and the human Messiah”.

[5] Exod. 20:4-5; 23:24; 32:7-8; 34:14; Lev. 26:1; Deut. 4:15-19; 5:8-9; 8:19; 11:16; 17:3; Judg. 2:12; 2 Kgs. 17:35-36; 2 Chron. 7:19-22; Psa. 81:9; Isa. 2:8; 44:9-20; Jer. 1:16; 13:10; 25:6; Zeph. 1:4-5; Matt. 4:8-10; Luke 4:5-8; Rev. 9:20; 19:10; 22:8-9 cf. Acts 10:25-26.

[6] John 1:18; 12:45; 14:7-10; 2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:3.

[7] Sending + purpose statements spoken by or about human prophets include Exod 3:13; Num. 16:28; Deut. 34:11; 1 Sam. 15:1; 16:2, 5; 25:32; 2 Chron. 24:19; Isa. 61:1; Jer. 26:12, 15; 42:21; Matt. 21:34 (parable); and John 1:6-7.

[8] For example, see 2 Sam. 12:7; 1 Kgs. 14:4-6; 2 Kgs. 5:19-27; Dan. 2:27-30; esp. Luke 7:39.

[9] See especially Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992): 270-275.

[10] Matt. 22:44; 26:64; Mark 13:36; 14:62; 16:19; Luke 20:42-43; 22:69; Acts 2:34-35; 5:31; 7:55-56; Rom. 8:34; 1 Cor. 15:25; Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3, 13; 8:1; 10:12-13; 12:2; 1 Pet. 3:22-24.

[11] The New Testament repeatedly tells us that God the Father created the universe, and distinguishes this work from Jesus; for example, see Mark 10:6; 13:19; Acts 4:24, 30; 17:24, 31; Heb. 2:10; and Rev. 4:11.

[12] For example, see J. R. Daniel Kirk and Stephen L. Young, “‘I Will Set His Hand to the Sea’: Psalm 88:26 LXX and Christology in Mark,” Journal of Biblical Literature 133, no. 2 (2014), 333-340.

[13] Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3; 8:1; 12:2; 1 Pet. 3:22; Rev. 3:21; also cf. Rom. 14:10 and 1 Cor. 5:10.

[14] See the exalted position of Enoch/Metatron in 3 Enoch as an example.