Thoughts on the so-called "violent eschatology" of Matthew

koot van wyk (DLitt et Phil; ThD)

Kyungpook National University

Sangju Campus

South Korea

Conjoint lecturer of Avondale College

Australia

25 August 2010

It is conventional for scholars these days to investigate Matthew and to see a difference between the Jesus of Matthew 5 and the Jesus of Matthew 25. Scholars operate with a hermeneutics of suspicion and that is why they remove miracles, the role of supernatural (good and bad), inspiration of the Bible, and sitting with a humanistic book, they then employ novel analysis, modern literary analysis, redactional analysis, rhetorical analysis, narrative criticism to investigate books of the Bible. This is what they have done with Matthew as well. The work of the Australian Catholic scholar David Sim is under review and revision here.

Thoughts on the Eschatological Jesus

When we talk about eschatology, it is important to bring together much more than meets the eye for the modern reader. It is not just a narratological exercise of a text at hand, or a literary analysis of features in a text. When we are looking at the subject of eschatology, we are dealing with a substratum of knowledge that starts from Genesis and reach until the time Matthew wrote his book. All these sources, are important for their contribution of the understanding of eschatology in general. Unless one properly investigate this important corpus of data given by God for His people that are faithful to Him, unless one follows the principles of interpretation that are necessary in a proper paradigm to analyse this corpus, writing on the eschatology of Matthew per se or only, is problematic. First of all, the concept of a millennium that one finds only mentioned in Revelation 20, is making a distinction between the Second Coming of the Messiah and the Executive Judgement or Hell, Hades, as the New Testament is presenting it. Then there is the other aspect of Judgment that logic and reading the sources supplies: If Jesus comes at His Second Coming to bring His reward, then, as far as those who are rewarded is concerned, their Investigative Judgment is already done. You can only reward someone after they have been judged to be worthy of reception of the reward. To cast the Judgement in the Eschaton is then correct, but there are fine distinctions that one has to keep in mind here, and once the model is set out, one realize that the whole corpus of eschatological texts actually supported this model all along. It is our inability to construct a proper model that leads to all kinds of claims regarding eschatology in Daniel, in Amos, in any other prophet, in Maleachi and also in Matthew. All these books are intertwined so that a proper understanding of eschatology in the other books is a necessary prerequisite to understand eschatology in Matthew. Approach is important. The prophetic approach of the analyser or reader of the Bible is of tremendous importance. If your axiom is a prophetic paradigm that is only preteristic, you are going to face serious problems. The Second Coming of Christ does not fit the preteristic model. Christ did not lie when He said He would come again and the authors like Matthew did not mistakenly thought He was talking in their own day. There were no errors and no mistakes, that the Holy Spirit as editor made sure of, despite misspellings, or dialectical differences, or strange syntax expressions of individual writers. When the thoughts were lining up with the Holy Spirit, this writing by men and their own choice of words and phrases, He canonized to be the Word of God. Historicism is a paradigm that cannot be overlooked in working with the Old Testament prophets. It was a model that was even used by the authors of the New Testament. The coming of the wise men from the east and their ability to look for Jesus in 4 BCE as a "prince that should be born in Bethlehem" was all based on a proper historicistic interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27. The other aspect that we need to understand is that eschatological pericopes are not the only understanding that those people had about eschatology. If a book hardly contains eschatology, it may be that they understood the eschatological model very well, but when there is an elaborate explanation by the Spirit of God to the prophet, it is because eschatological understanding lacks in that generation. It is the opposite of the method of Walther Eichrodt who worked with the axiom: what you see is the only knowledge they had. This is a very important point in eschatological analysis. The chronological order of events in eschatology we call a model or prophetic chart. The authors of both the Old and New Testament worked with a "chart" in mind. Our task as modern analysers is to discover and reconstruct that chart. There are not conflicting charts. The corpus of the Old and New Testament brings a harmonious complete chart of events that has to occur one after the other until the New Heaven and New Earth will be created (Revelation 22). Matthew's eschatology will not be different than that of Jesus or that of Daniel or that of John the Revelator. They are all bringing fragments or aspects of the same big picture or chart.

Is the eschatology of Jesus a portrayal by Matthew or an exact report?

This is a very important question. Is Matthew taking the data of Jesus in reality presented in the event and concocting his own fabrication of the situation for propaganda purposes or for his own agendas later than the times of Jesus? Scholars answer in the affirmative. On what basis? Simply because they are all belonging to a generation of scholars who places a high premium to the hermeneutics of suspicion that was born or gave rise to Classical Rationalism as we know it since the 17th century. It is honored to be enlightenment. What it in effect is, is a stripping of the Bible from its miracles, supernatural aspects, divine inspiration, and leaving it as a mere humanistic book that can be analysed like any modern novel.

Not only Matthew provides precise details of eschatology

It is not only Matthew who focuses on end-time events, nearly all the authors of the New Testament does. It is not vague texts about the issue, it is a fact that a full understanding only needs half a word!

Eschatological understanding did not develop

If is a fallacy created by the modus operandi of Walther Eichrodt that little information means little understanding. Therefore, scholars writing on the eschatology of Matthew, claims that Matthew had a very "developed" understanding of eschatology similar to that of Revelation.1 It means, that they had a fuller understanding of this topic even when they wrote nothing about it.

Scholars are thinking that it is difficult to bring together Jesus ethical meekness and concept how to treat our enemies with Christ's eschatological role (Sim 2010: 13).

They are thinking that Matthew is extrapolating his information from Mark. Nothing is further from the truth. The method of writing is at stake here. Writers had a bundle of fragments which were anecdotes of witnesses jotted down by someone, memos, letters, legal documents, reports of decrees, all together. This was copied by copyists for distribution and commercial purposes. Such a collection came in the hands of each evangelist and they faithfully arranged the various genres into a chronological order or subject order "kingdom" or "parables" etc. and copied them in that order into their book creating a continuous report. At the seams of the various documents they just added a line to help the transition but it did not change the content matter. If Matthew's report on something is shorter, it is because that particular witness was a dictographer writing down the exact words of what Jesus said that day. We are also sitting with the situation that not all 12 disciples sat all the time together with Jesus. Some may stand up and walk around while others remain. The one who stands up during the speech will have a shorter version than the one who remained throughout the sermon. It has nothing do to with shortening what was a longer version or theories of manipulation presented by scholars working with a hermeneutics of suspicion.

For this reason, Matthew 24:29-31 is not a "redacted version of Mark 13:26-27" (Sim 2010: 13). Matthew is not following Mark, he is following the fragment of the dictographer who was present when the statements were made.

Matthew is not describing a Jesus Coming with the clouds in power and glory that is different than the meek Jesus in Matthew 5. Anyone that has properly studied the prophets of the Old Testament will know that these two aspects of the lamb and lion of Judah are two phases of the Messiah's work. Even Judaism works with the two phases although they want to see it all in one event and not in two events like the New Testament also supports. Some of the scholars in Judaism are working with two Messiahs and two events but close to each other. The one will be priestly and the other will be kingly. So Matthew is not creating Jesus or concocting an image of Jesus that is not present already in the Old Testament Messianic pericopes.

Unfortunately, a number of scholars postulate that Matthew is describing Jesus with an increased militaristic image so as to combat the Roman enemy of his own day in 66-70 CE. It means for them that Matthew is using the whip of the words of Jesus, remodify it to be more intense, and then Matthew is whipping the Romans with Eschatological trauma that is awaiting them when Jesus comes again. Sim said:

"But over and above this [the difference between the meek Jesus and the eschatological Jesus], the evangelist [Matthew] introduces into the Marcan material an overtly military theme".2

Using Qumran as source for understanding

The commentators and copyists of Qumran, used the biblical text for their own purposes: at times copying painly precise, at other times with a degenerative quality of copying, at other times only paraphrasing the biblical text to function, and in the creation of para-biblical texts. The analyst or researcher comparing Qumran fragments with the New Testament, need to be very careful as to the genre that is involved, the quality of the genre (accuracy of copying practices etc.) before a conclusion is made. One cannot use the paint in my garage to compare the paint of Vincent van Gogh. Throwing all the Qumran texts into one corpus and trying to come up with a theology or systematic theology at Qumran, is not wise. The variety does not allow us to do that. The link to the sect of some texts may be possible but to claim that all of them are connected to the sect, is also not wise. The detail of eschatology in Qumran literature, is only a secondary source decorating what we already know from the Old Testament in the first place and what we know in a particular book like Matthew. Qumran cannot be formative in our understanding of what Matthew had in mind. Matthew did not visit Qumran library and neither did he belong to that sect and neither did he share the views that any of those people had there. Matthew kept to his sources that he used very accurately. The military battle at Qumran is not relevant for a consideration of the role of trumpets at the Second Coming of Christ. Matthew does not say, "let me use Qumran's battle trumpets to explain that Christ will also come with trumpets". Joel had already this in mind in Joel 2:1, 15. The description of the day of the Lord is very vivid in Joel. He is not the only prophet with these vivid scenes.

The Jesus of the Old Testament has given to Israel's prophets enough information of the vivid shocking aspects at His Second Coming, shocking for the evil and not for the faithful. Sim concluded:

"The motif of peacemaking, so evident in 5:9 in the teaching of Jesus, has now given way to the theme of justifiable and even necessary eschatological warfare."3

Contrary to Sim and in line with Jesus' words in Matthew 24, Joel 2:2 states that Jesus' Coming will be with the clouds, in the early dawn, with numerous angels accompanying Him. The vividness of the battle is continued in the rest of the chapter. A scholar who wants to analyse Matthew's eschatology, must study the eschatology of the rest of the Word of God.

The Judgment in Matthew

Matthew provides us with much information regarding the judgment of all peoples. Again, all the information that is given regarding this judgment is already explained in depth in the Old Testament prophets, Wisdom literature and even in some Narrative Historical material. The Old Testament, just as the New and as Matthew makes it clear that the righteous or remnant will be saved first before God will take care of the evil. That means, and it is indicated that way in both Testaments, that the righteous will be judged before His coming since His reward at His Second Coming means that the "Judgment of the house of God" (see book of Peter [written before his death in 64 CE]) is already finished. The evil is in trouble, since they may have been judged in an Investigative Judgement that preceded the Second Advent, but their punishment, as opposed to the reward of the faithful, will be later in an Executive Judgement by fire. The two Testaments explains the fire aspects of the lot of the evil very vividly and clearly. Jesus words in Matthew just means that He is well acquainted with the Scriptures that He helped provide to the Prophets of the Old Testament. Even here there is a separation between His fire of extinguishing evil in order to create a New Heaven and New Earth and the appearance at the Second Advent to rescue the remnant that will be like a glorious fire too bright for the evil who will cry to the mountains to fall on themselves. That is why the millennium that separates these two events, Christ's Advent and the 'Hell" proper, is not just attempts by John in Revelation to delay the executive punishment of the wicked. It is functional since the righteous has to clear for themselves in a kind of Confirming Judgment that the Investigative Judgment of Christ of their loved ones, were indeed correct and that is why He will wipe the tears from their eyes during the millennium. By the time He administers the Executive Judgement, they have all accepted His destiny for all.

Matthew 25 does say that Jesus will come in glory and does say in verse 31 that He will sit on His throne when He comes, but Daniel 7 specifies that Christ stands for the Judgment before His father who is sitting on the throne. Note that when Christ comes according to Matthew 25:32, He is not judging humanity but separating good and evil since they were already judged in an investigative judgment when He was not sitting on the throne according to Daniel 7. It simply means, some stay, some go. A judgment has two phases: investigative process and the executive punitive part. This verse is talking about the establishment of who is right. The dealing with who is wrong is later.

The righteous will receive rewards

1. Transformed into angels (Matthew 22:30; cf. 13:43).

2. Eternal life (Matthew 19:16; 19:29; 25:46).

3. Participate in a messianic banquet (Matthew 8:11-12).

4. Will be in peace and harmony in the presence of God (Matthew 5:8; 18:10) (Sim 2010: 14).

Scholars feel that the views of Matthew of the evil are the harshest in the whole of the New Testament. Again we are sitting with the problem that these scholars have made the Bible a mere humanistic book similar to Shakespear's works, and with a calculator they are sitting to count phrases and words in order to measure velocity with a computer. The velocity of punishment against the wicked is very vivid and very strong in the Old Testament. There is no need to soften the position or seek for doing so. Jesus who gave the messages of the Old Testament to those authors, did not have to soften what He said to them earlier.

Sim concluded: "It is, however, the opposite notion, the fate of the wicked, that is of more concern to Matthew, and his views are the harshest that we find in the New Testament."

Sim's violent eschatology of Matthew examples

Sim listed the cases:

1. They will meet with condemnation (Matthew 12:41-42).

2. Destruction (Matthew 7:13).

3. Eternal punishment (Matthew 25:46). Here we need to explain that a eternal fire is not in mind here. It is eternal extinction. The wages of sin is death and their death will be eternal.

4. "The wicked will be sent to a place of complete darkness. They will be consigned to the outer darkness (Matthew 8:12; 22:13 and 25:30), which

results from their removal from the presence and the light of God." Here scholars completely misunderstand since Joel 2 explains the darkness and bright fire of God's presence in the same chapter, as aspects at the Second Coming.

Gehenna in the Bible

It is not correct to scoop up readings from Intertestamental literature and pseudepigrapha and to park those concepts next to the biblical word and insist that those concepts apply. Why? For the textual criticism of intertestamental literature and pseudepigrapha is a can of worms. They all are so late [dating no earlier than the Late Roman IV period], that insisting on a stable form of the text, untouched or unblemished by any inserts or conflations, is impossible.

The problem in the methodology of David Sim is that he has done just that.4

Angels as tormenters of the evil

By using pseudepigrapha and interterstamental writings, David Sim wants to make the point that angels will "torture" the evil who are burning "forever" (citing Sir 39:28-31; 2En. 10; T.Ab. 12:1-2; T. Levi 3:2;).5 Note that all these pericopes are outside the Word of God. They are thus not relevant to the discussion with Matthew. In another point Sim wanted to see angels tormenting the evil in Matthew where Jesus told the parable of the wicked servant and the employer of that servant return and "cut him in pieces" and assign him to the hypocrytes [he is still alive] and the result will be gnashing of teeth and weeping. In all fairness to the biblical text, there is nothing to imply that angels will become God's punishing machine. This concept is extra-biblical and the biblical text does not allow us to carry this idea in.

Sim concluded:

"The future Jesus exhibits almost none of the characteristics that were proclaimed as necessary by the past Jesus. Meekness and humility are exchanged for power and glory, and peace-making gives way to war. Retaliation replaces turning the other cheek, while extreme violence, sheer brutality and even torture take over from nonviolence and pacifism. The love of enemies and prayers for persecutors have no place in the eschaton where the emphasis now falls on vengeance of the basest kind" (Sim 2010: 16). He further continued:

"The earthly Jesus did often practise what he preached, even if he did lapse to some extent in his dealings with and treatment of the scribes and Pharisees. But the eschatological Jesus appears to ignore completely the ethical commands that he expects of his followers, and he fails to follow his earthly example in terms of meekness, pacifism, non-retaliation, love, mercy, forgiveness and compassion. He is a figure characterised by vengeance and brutality, who has no hesitation consigning the wicked to the eternal flames and to the hands of angelic torturers. There is no love, forgiveness or compassion for this Jesus, and yet he is the same figure who preached the Sermon on the Mount in his earlier appearance on earth" (Sim 2010: 17).

Ellen White and Matthew 25

Ellen White wrote in Desire of Ages 1898: 638

"But not to any class is Christ's love restricted. He identifies Himself with every child of humanity. That we might become members of the heavenly family, He became a member of the earthly family. He is the Son of man, and thus a brother to every son and daughter of Adam. His followers are not to feel themselves detached from the perishing world around them. They are a part of the great web of humanity; and Heaven looks upon them as brothers to sinners as well as to saints. The fallen, the erring, and the sinful, Christ's love embraces; and every deed of kindness done to uplift a fallen soul, every act of mercy, is accepted as done to Him. "

This analysis of Ellen White reading Matthew 25 stands in contrast to scholars who tries to create a polarization between the Christ of Matthew 5 and the Christ of Matthew 25. Anyone who understands Biblical Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology will know that trying to polarize portions of the Bible, or people of the Bible books or gospels against one another, is based not on a proper modus operandi for investigation of the Word of God.

Does Matthew have a violent eschatology?

The view of David Sim is that Matthew has a violent eschatology (Sim 2010:16)

It is also the view of B. Reid.6 She investigated whether Matthew wants to allow violence among Christians. She found that it is not the case since the violence is ascribed to God after the Judgment. Sim argues that violence mentioned in Matthew is not only God the Father but also Jesus since He is the Judge and he listed a number of references from Matthew. Another scholar Carter said:

"In redeeming and resisting the violence of the imperial status quo, the gospel also affirms that some violence, namely the violence of God and of Gods agent Jesus, is legitimate and necessary, Matthew's gospel finally, but ironically, capitulates to and imitates the imperial violence from which it seeks to save".7

As cumbersome as Carter's reading of Matthew is focusing on what he perceived to be violence, so are the words of his critic Sim:

"While Carter correctly identifies that the returning Jesus in Matthew is a figure of violence and merciless cruelty, he does not fully explore the contradiction between the earlier teachings of Jesus and his actions at the eschaton" (Sim 2010: 18).

The scholar D. J. Neville also explored the socalled violent eschatology in Matthew and wanted to explore how a loving and compassionate God can "sponsors violence" (Sim 2010: 19). Neville explained that Jesus the Judge and Jesus the meek are "incongruent".8

Neville proposes the following:

1. If you have to choose between a peaceful historical incarnated Jesus and a eschatological violent Judge as Jesus, "priority should rest with the message of the historical and incarnated Jesus (Sim 2010: 19).

2. The eschatological violence in Matthew is only in Matthew and one should see it as a inreading into Matthew's own background in his "socio-historical circumstances" around 66-70 CE. Says Neville: "One can hold

tightly to Matthews record of Jesus mission and message, while sitting

loosely to his vision of eschatological vengeance"9

So what is the problem with Neville's methodology here?

Not only is he unfamiliar with the Old Testament expressions of the velocity of the wrath of God and the reality of that upcoming event, he apparently is operating with a self-created worldview that pacifism, although a noble position, will solve all problems. The reason is that he cancels the role of the supernatural evil forces that are still haunting this planet and our nearby universe. The prophetic charts of the Old and New Testaments are realities that did happen and will happen and any sense of apathy or sidestepping of those realities, is nonsense.

Sim concluded his work: "And finally and sadly, his [Matthew's] Jesus fails to provide the perfect role model for his readers and for Christians today" (Sim 2010:20).

Conclusion

We have seen how scholars like D. Sim, W. Carter, D. Neville and B. Reid are employing the hermeneutics of suspicion to analyse the eschatology of Matthew. They came to the conclusion that Matthew describes a violent eschatology. For that reason they want to disassociate from that kind of Jesus and wish to emphasize the meek Jesus of Matthew 5. The problem with these Catholic scholars is that they are polarizing the personalities, authors, contributors to the Scripture and then on the basis of their own philosophical world-views, wish to evaluate one of the polarized aspects as good and the other one as less important. They are also using non-Biblical sources to introduce aspects to be considered in the Word of God that is not supported in any way by the Word of God (eternal fire; torment by angels).

Author: Koot van Wyk (DLitt et Phil; ThD) is teaching at Kyungpook National University Sangju Campus in South Korea and is also Cojoined lecturer at Avondale College, Australia. and a member of the Adventist Theological Society.

Email: kootvanwyk@gmail.com

Source: The article in mind here is that of David Sim, "Jesus as Role Model in the Gospel of Matthew: Do the Matthean Jesus Practise what He Preaches?" AEJT16(August2010):1-20.

Endnotes

1. Sim, Apocalyptic Eschatology, passim; and D. Marguerat, Le Jugement dans l'angile de Matthieu (La Monde de la Bible; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2nd edn 1995).

2. D. Sim, 2010: 13. Also D. Sim, Apocalyptic Eschatology, 104-08, and literature cited there. Later studies to accept this interpretation include Davies and Allison, Matthew, III, 359-64; J. Draper, The Development of the Sign of the Son of Man in the Jesus Tradition, NTS 39 (1993) 1-21; W. Carter, "Are There Imperial Texts in the Class? Intertextual Eagles and Matthean Eschatology as Lights Out Time for Imperial Rome (Matthew 24:27-31)," JBL 122 (2003): 467-87; D. L. Turner, Matthew (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008) 582-83. For a critical response to this view, see France, Matthew, 926 n. 103.

3. Sim 2010: 13.

4. Sim, Apocalyptic Eschatology, 47-48 for the eternal fire for the wicked in Jewish works. Sim, Apocalyptic Eschatology, 130-34 where Sim admitted that the theme of an eternal fire burning for the wicked is not so common in the Christian New Testament. Sim felt that he found the eternal fire concept in Revelation in 19:20 [but that is not correct since there is no reference to eternal] and 20:10 and in 20:14 [not correct since no reference to eternal] and 20:15 [not correct since no reference to eternal]. The case of Revelation 20:10 has to stand under the umbrella of what is understood by the Second Death (Revelation 20:14). That means, eternal result of nothingness. An eternal fire is not in mind here. One may now harmonize the meaning in the context with words from the context saying that Revelation 20:10 reads that they will be tormented day and night [for some time] until they reach the Second Death [which result of nothingness will be] for ever and ever. John was a geronti when he wrote this and syntax should be placed in proper context. What is the kind of syntax we get from geronti in modern times? How do we get to a more proper understanding at times?

5. See D. C. Sim, Angels of Eschatological Punishment in the Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic Traditions, and in the Gospel of Matthew, Hervormde Teologiese Studies 55 (1999): 693-718; also Sim 2010: 15. See also his article D. C. Sim, The Dissection of the Wicked Servant in Matthew 24:51, Hervormde Teologiese Studies 58 (2002): 172-84.

6. Sim 2010: 17; B. E. Reid, "Violent Endings in Matthew's Parables and Christian Nonviolence," CBQ 66 (2004): 237-55.

7. W. Carter, Constructions of Violence and Identities in Matthew's Gospel, in S. Matthew's and E. L. Gibson (eds), Violence in the New Testament (London: T & T

Clark International, 2005): 81-108.

8. D. J. Neville, "Toward a Teleology of Peace: Contesting Matthews Violent Eschatology," JSNT 30 (2007):131-61.

9. Neville, Teleology of Peace, 153.