1. Introduction
2. Jesus' Awareness of Rejection
    2.1. Jesus' Cup and Baptism (Mark 10:35-40 = Matt 20:20-23)
    2.2. Rejected Stone (Mark 12:10-11 = Matt 21:42-44 = Luke 20:17-18)
    2.3. Preference for Old Wine (Luke 5:39)
    2.4. To Bring Fire and to Have a Baptism to Undergo (Luke 12:49-50)
    2.5. No Peace on Earth (Luke 12:51-52 = Matt 10:34-35)
    2.6. Anointing for Death
3. Jesus' Condemnation of His Generation
    3.1. Uncooperative Children (Luke 7:31-35 = Matt 11:16-19)
    3.2. Guilty of Righteous Blood (Matt 23:34-36; Luke 11:45-51)
    3.3. Missing the Significance of the Present (Luke 12:54-56; Matt 16:2-3)
    3.4. Greater Than Jonah (Luke 11:31-32; Matt 12:41-42)
    3.5. Few Will Enter (Matt 7.13-14; Luke 13.22-24)
4. The Destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem
    4.1. Fig Tree Cut Down (Luke 13:6-9)
    4.2. House Abandoned (Luke 13:34-35 = Matt 23:37-39)
    4.3. Not Recognizing the Time of Visitation (Luke 19:41-44)
    4.4. No Stone upon Another (Mark 13:1-2, 14-20 = Matt 24:1-2, 15-25 = Luke 21:5-6, 20-24)
    4.5. When the Tree Is Dry Luke 23:28-31
5. Offer of the Kingdom of God Extended to Others
    5.1. Giving the Vineyard to Others (Mark 12:1-9 = Matt 21:33-41 = Luke 20:9-16)
    5.2. Banquet Still Held (Matt 22:1-10; Luke 14:16-21)
6. Jesus’ Community
    6.1. Simon the Rock (Matt 16.13-19)
    6.2. New Covenant (Mark 14:24 = Matt 26:28 = Luke 22:20 = 1 Cor 11:25)
    6.3. To All Nations (Matt 28:19-20; Luke 24:46-47)
7. Jesus and the Future
    7.1. Israel’s Future Hope (Luke 22:14-16, 18; Mark 14:25)
    7.2. Events at the End
    7.3. Being Prepared for Jesus' Return
    7.4. Judgment of the Nations (Matt 25:31-46)

1. Introduction

Some of Jesus’ teaching presupposes a context of the rejection of the offer of Kingdom of God by the majority of Jews and especially the Jewish authorities. When it is clear that his mission will be a failure, Jesus criticizes his generation for their spiritual obduracy, and begins to explain what the consequences of the rejection of the Kingdom will be. He says that the offer of the Kingdom to the nation is rescinded and the Temple and city will be destroyed as God’s judgment. Nevertheless, he believes at some unspecified point after his rejection the progress of the Kingdom will resume for the nation. Jesus explains that the Kingdom of God now is to come to realization for the community that he will establish, those Jews who have accepted him and his message, who are the believing remnant from Israel. He also says that, because of its rejection by Jews, the offer of the Kingdom of God to the nation, having been rescinded, will now be made instead to gentiles. Most surprisingly of all, Jesus interprets his death as part of his mission, even though in a non-rejection context there is no death anticipated and the incorporation of his death as part of his message in this context would be incongruous. In a rejection context something new emerges from Israel’s failure, being causally tied to it: the consequences of the rejection of the Kingdom of God is actually part of God's salvation-historical purposes.

2. Jesus' Awareness of Rejection

There are several sayings of Jesus in which he indicates his awareness that his message about the Kingdom of God has been rejected along with himself as its messenger.

2.1. Jesus' Cup and Baptism

Mark 10:35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. "Teacher," they said, "we want you to do for us whatever we ask."  36 "What do you want me to do for you?" he asked.  37 They replied, "Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory." 38 "You don't know what you are asking," Jesus said. "Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?"

In the context of James and John's request that, when he comes into his glory (i.e., at the culmination of the Kingdom) (see Matt 19:28), her sons be granted the privilege of sitting at his right and left. In response, Jesus does not deny that there are such positions to be granted, but says that he has a cup from which to drink and baptism to undergo (Mark 10:35-40 = Matt 20:20-23). Matthew introduces the fact that James and John's mother was involved in attempt to secure the two positions of highest status for her sons. He also abbreviates his Markan source, in particular, by eliminating Jesus' question about whether the two brothers are willing to undergo the same baptism that he is destined to undergo. To say that one has cup to drink is a metaphorical way of saying that one has a destiny of suffering; the metaphor of drinking a cup down to the dregs to mean suffering occurs in the Old Testament (Ps 75:9; Isa 51:17-22; Ezek 23:32-34; see also Ps 11:6; 75:8; Jer 25:15; 49:12; 51:7; Lam 4:21). (Jesus also uses the metaphor of a cup as a destiny in Mark 14:36 = Matt 26:39 = Luke 22:42.)

Contrary to Bayer, in using the cup metaphor Jesus is not speaking about judgment, but about his destiny, even though the cup is used metaphorically in prophetic literature and in second-Temple texts to denote God's judgment (Jer 25:17, 27, 28; 51:7; Isa 51:17, 22; Zech 12:2; Ezek 23:31-35; 4Q163 [4QpNah] frags. 3-4 4.5-6) (Jesus' Predictions of Vindication and Resurrection, 70-77). Bultmann claims that Mark 10:35-45 is composite. The original apothegma is reconstructed as consisting of Mark 10:35-37, 40 (History of the Synoptic Tradition, 24). According to Bultmann, Mark 10:41-45 can be separated from Mark 10:35-40, since it is clearly supplemental; it is said to have its origin in the early Christian community since its primary concern is precedence in that community and not precedence in the future Kingdom. In addition, the fact that the request in 10:37 "Grant that we may sit, one on your right and one on your left, in your glory" receives two different responses in 10:38-39 and 10:40 is interpreted to mean that the unity of the original apothegma has been disturbed by an interpolation. Bultmann judges that it is 10:38-39 that is secondary. Bultmann's tradition-historical reconstruction is not convincing. The fact that there are two responses to the original request does not require that one of the two responses has been interpolated. It is equally as conceivable that Jesus gave two responses to the one request and both of these became part of the apothegma. It must always be borne in mind that the so-called pure form of an apothegma is only an ideal construct, so that Bultmann's methodological assumption that every apothegma that does not conform to this pure form must have been altered in the history of the tradition in some way must be rejected. It is no doubt true that Jesus' conversations tended to be shaped according to the form of an apothegma, it does not follow that every departure from that pure form is an indicator of development in the tradition. Finally there is no reason to relegate Mark 10:41-45 to the status of a later supplement to what precedes it. It reflects the dispute that arose because of the request and itself has been shaped according to the form of an apothegma. On this topic, see Taylor, Mark, 438-42; Bayer, Jesus' Predictions of Vindication and Resurrection, 54-85; V. Howard, “Did Jesus Speak about His Own Death?,” CBQ 39 (1977) 515-27; A. Feuillet, “La coupe et la baptême de la passion (Mc, X, 35-40; cf. Mt, XX 20-23; Lc, XII, 50)”, RB 74 (1967) 356-91.

In the longer Markan version, Jesus explains that he also has a baptism to undergo (10:38). To undergo a baptism similarly means to face calamity; in the context, baptism means to be perilously overwhelmed by water. (There is no positive sense of Jesus' use of baptism in this saying.) The metaphor of being overwhelmed by water to denote calamity is found in the Old Testament (2 Sam 22:5; Job 22:11; Pss 18.4, 16; 32.6; 42.7; 69.1-2, 13-15; 88.6-7; 69:2, 15; 124.1-5; 144:7; Isa 8:7-8; 43:2; see also 1QH-a 11.13-18). In Hellenistic sources the verb baptizô is used metaphorically of being overwhelmed by catastrophe. Jesus is informing these two disciples that if they want a share in the future glory of the Kingdom, they must be prepared to suffer in the present, because the Kingdom of God and its messenger have been rejected.

2.2. Rejected Stone

Mark 12 10 Have you not you read this scripture: "'The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; 11 the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes' [Psalm 118:22, 23]?"

Matthew 21 42 Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: "'The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes' [Psalm 118:22, 23]?  43 "Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.  44 He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed."

Luke 20 17 Jesus looked directly at them and asked, "Then what is the meaning of that which is written: "'The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone' [Psalm 118:22]?  18 Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed."

In a saying attached to the Parable of the Vineyard and the Tenants because of a thematic overlap, Jesus interprets his rejection in light of Ps 118:22-23 (see also Acts 4:9-11) (Mark 12:10-11 = Matt 21:42-44 = Luke 20:17-18).

Bayer argues that the citation of Ps 118:22-23 is not an appendix to the parable but was originally attached to it (Jesus' Predictions of Vindication and Resurrection, 90-109). He claims that Ps 118 is the key to identifying who the tenants are in the parable: Jewish leadership. He also connects the parable with CD 4.19-20; 8.3, 12. Bayer's argument is not wholly convincing.

In the same way that the stone that the builders rejected turned out to be the cornerstone (kephalê gônias), the stone in a building that joins two walls of a building together, so Jesus will turn out to be the Israel's most important figure in salvation history. The kephalê gônias may also be the keystone of an arch or a gateway (Taylor, Mark, 476). At any rate, it is an important stone in a building. Ps 118:22-23 is not clearly interpreted messianically in any of the earliest extant sources (see Str.-B. 1. 875-76 for some evidence of a messianic interpretation of Ps 118:22). Ps 118:25-26, however, is messianically interpreted in Midr. Ps. 118. 22, an interpretation that Jesus seems to have known (see Matt 23:29; Luke 13:35b; see also Mark 11:1-11 = Matt 21:1-11 = Luke 19:28-40 = 12:12-19), and therefore one that probably extended back to the first century, if not earlier (Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 256-62). Thus, Jesus interpreted other parts of Ps 118 as messianic, including vss. 22-23. He, therefore, was adopting the well-known Jewish practice of finding not-so-obvious eschatological meanings in Old Testament texts (pesher-type interpretation).

    Luke adds the phrase, "He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, and he on whom it falls will be crushed." (Luke 20:18). This was likely a free-floating saying that the author added to his Markan source; the thematic parallels are obvious, although the rejected cornerstone would not fall on anyone, since it is rejected and a cornerstone. Although it is difficult to know for certain, originally Jesus may have been alluding to the stone in Dan 2:34, 45, the stone cut from the mountain, not by human hands, that will crush the statue made of different materials representing different world kingdoms to come. (Matt 21:44 is probably an interpolation in Matthew of a saying similar to Luke 20:18) (see Manson, The Sayings of Jesus, 322-23). His point is that rejection of him and his message of the Kingdom will have dire consequences, because, contrary to what may first appear to be the case, it is not possible ultimately to oppose and thwart the purposes of God.

2.3. Preference for Old Wine

Luke 5:39 And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for he says, "The old is better."

By means of the link-word oinos ("wine"), Luke attaches what was probably an originally independent saying to his Markan source; this saying belongs in a rejection context (Luke 5:39). Jesus speaks about the difficulty that people have in accepting his teaching about the Kingdom of God because it is new and contains elements discontinuous with expectation; for this reason, many Jews reject Jesus' message and him as its messenger. Jesus says, ‘And no one, after drinking old wine wishes for new; for he says, “The old is good enough”’. By means of a common proverb, Jesus compares his teaching to less-preferred, new wine, whereas traditional Jewish beliefs are like the more-preferred, aged wine (see m. Abot 4.20). This saying expresses Jesus’ melancholic realization that the majority has rejected his message.

2.4. To Bring Fire and to Have a Baptism

Luke 12 51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three.  53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.

Luke includes two short and enigmatic sayings of Jesus in his gospel. The second (Luke 12:50) is similar to Mark 10:38, but certainly not a reformulation of it by Luke (see Gos. Th. 10 for another parallel saying) (Luke 12:49-50). In the first saying, "I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled," Jesus expresses his purpose as that of bringing fire on the earth: the use of the phrase "I have come" + infinitive is a Semitism used to communicate intention. To bring fire (lit. "to throw fire") on the earth is a metaphor of being the instrument of divine judgment. In the Old Testament, fire is used often as a metaphor of the judgment of God (see Deut 9:3; 32:22; Ps 21:9; 80:16; 89:46; Isa 4:4; 9:19; 10:16; 29:6; 30:27-28, 30; 33:14; Jer 4:4; 21:12) ; the same metaphor occurs in the second-Temple period (1QpHab 10.13; 1QH-a 11.24-31; 1 En 102.1; Ps. Sol. 15.4-5; 2 Bar 48.39; see also John the Baptist's use of the metaphor of fire in Matt 3.11-12 = Luke 3.16-17). Probably, Jesus says this in the context of his rejection and the disastrous consequences that this will have for the nation. Jesus' primary mission is to announce that the Kingdom of God has drawn near. A positive response to this message would result in the continued progress of the Kingdom of God to its culmination; a negative response, however, would bring judgment. So, in the context of the rejection of the Kingdom of God and its messenger, Jesus' mission becomes that of the mediator of the judgment of God upon a recalcitrant nation. Jesus' further statement "And how I wish it were already kindled" expresses Jesus' desire that what is about to happen would happen soon; it is not to be taken a spiteful desire for revenge on those who have rejected him. (The ti probably corresponds the Aramaic mah, being used as an exclamation "how" [M. Black, The Aramaic Approach to the Gospel and Acts, 87-89; Blass-Debrunner, 299.4].) (The phrase thelô ei is also Semitic [see LXX Isa 9:4 (5); Sir 23:14].) The reason that Jesus wishes that the fire be kindled soon is that the nation's judgment will presuppose his own suffering, as Luke 12:50 indicates, so that he would prefer to be done with this unpleasant eventuality (Manson points out that the closest parallel to Jesus struggle with his salvation-historical calling is the prophet Jeremiah, who had similar reservations about what awaited him as a prophet [The Sayings of Jesus, 120]).

Bultmann is unjustifiably suspicious of the authenticity of all of Jesus' "I have come" sayings; unconvincingly, he hypothesizes that Luke 12:49 may have originated as part of the gnostic myth of the redeemer who descends to bring destruction to the earth (History of the Synoptic Tradition, 152-55, 163). E. Arens claims unconvincingly that Luke 12:50 is a creation of the Lukan redactor (The ELTHON-Sayings in the Synoptic Gospels, 63-90. He bases this conclusion on the following evidence. First, 12:50 has a parallel with Mark 10:38d, which indicates that 12:49 and 12:50 were not originally paired together, which allows for the conclusion that 12:50 was a Lukan creation. Second, the phrase "to be baptized with a baptism" occurs only in Lukan writings, suggesting that it is distinction of Lukan usage (Luke 7:29; Acts 19:4). Third, the semitizing use of a verb together with its cognate noun occurs also in Luke 2:9; 11:46; 22:15; 23:46; Acts 5:28; 23:14. Fourth, the connection between fire and baptism occurs again only in Luke 3:16 and Acts 1:15; 11:16. Fifth, the verb echein + infinitive is distinctly Lukan. By contrast, according to Arens, based on its non-Lukan and Semitic character 12;49 derives from L or Q. Even on the assumption that all of Arens’ evidence should be accepted as valid, it is better to say that there is evidence of Lukan redaction in 12:50 rather than that Luke created it. Jeremias judges that only the use of echein + infinitive is redactional, whereas the rest of the logion is traditional (Die Sprache, 169). Arens' evidence is too meager to be convincing. Sato argues that the two sayings belong together: the first describes the effect (Wirksamkeit) of Jesus, while the second describes his suffering destiny (leidvolle Schicksal) (Q und Prophetie, 292-94). Contrary to Arens' view , the two cannot be separated. The verbs anêphthê and telesthê are passives and express the work of God as the implied subject. See also G. Delling, “BAPTISMA BAPTISQHNAI,” NovT 2 (1957/58) 92-115; A. Feuillet, “La coupe et le baptême de la passion,” RB 64 (1967) 356-91; G. Graystone, “‘I Have Come to Cast Fire on the Earth…’” Scripture 4 (1949-51) 135-41; O. Kuss, “Zur Frage einer vorpaulinischen Todestaufe,” MTZ 4 (1953) 1-17; Kümmel, Promise and Fulfilment, 69-70; H. Schürmann, “Wie hat Jesus seinen Tod bestanden und verstanden?” in Orientierung an Jesus; A. Vögtle, "Todesankündigen und Todesverständnis Jesus,” in Der Tod Jesu: Deutungen im Neuen Testament; McKnight, Jesus and His Death, 144-47.

    In the second saying, "But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed," Jesus refers to the "baptism" that he must undergo, by which he means the suffering that he must endure, which is the consequence of his rejection. (For meaning of "baptism" see notes on Mark 10:38 above). Calamity expressed by the metaphors of water and fire together occurs Ps 66:12; Isa 43:2; Ezek 38:22). Jesus also expresses his distress at what awaits him (see G. Klein, “Die Prüfung der Zeit [Lukas 12, 54-56],” ZThK 61 [1964] 373-90). (The verb senechô) has the sense of being in distress.)

Jesus' sees his own rejection by his generation as anticipated in the rejection and mistreatment of the prophets (see Matt 5:12 par Luke 6:23; Matt 23:29-31 par Luke 11:47-48; Matt 23:37 = Luke 13:34). In addition, the fate of the Teacher of Righteousness, the founder of the Qumran community, is also parallel to that of Jesus (1QH 2.11-12, 14-15, 32-33).

2.5. No Peace on Earth

Matthew 10 34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.  35 For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—36 a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.  37 Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

The saying in Matt 10:34 ("Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword") is found in another version in Luke 12:51 ("Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division"), which helps to interpret the Matthean version (Luke 12:51-52 = Matt 10:34-35). (Probably, two independent Greek translations of an original Aramaic saying of Jesus were produced, one ending up in Matthew and the other in Luke. The other alternative is to posit heavily redactional activity on the part of Luke, which is improbable.) Jesus explains that he has not come to bring peace to the earth but division (Matt: "a sword," which seems to be metaphorical of Luke's "division") (see Gos. Th. 16 for a parallel to this saying). Matthew’s expression “to throw peace” is probably a more literal translation of an Aramaic idiom, whereas the Lukan “to give peace” is more acceptable Greek but still a Semitism; see Genesis Apocryphon 22.8: "to throw upon them" (M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, 3d ed., 132-33).

E. Arens seeks to establish the original form of the “I have come” saying but on his own admission it is hypothetical (The ELTHON-Sayings in the Synoptic Gospels, 67-71). Arens has proposed that Matt 10:34a “Do not think that I have come to bring (“throw”) peace on the earth is a redactional composition based on Luke 12:49a “I have come to bring (“throw”) fire on the earth.” Matthew had access to this either from Q or pre-Lk. If so then the original form of the Matthean saying is “I have not come to bring peace (on the earth?) but a sword” (Matt 10:34b). He also concludes that Luke 12:50 is a Lukan insertion and that Luke 12:51a is an alteration of the more version of the saying found in Matt 10:34b. Arens’ tradition-historical reconstruction is based on excessive supposition. See M. Black, “Not Peace but a Sword,” in Jesus and the Politics of His Day; D.C. Allison, Jr., “Q 12:51-53 and Mark 9:11-13 and the Messianic Woes,” in Authenticating the Words of Jesus; S. McKnight, Jesus and His Death, 201-204.

It has been argued that Luke 12:52 is secondary, being a Lukan creation (Schulz, Spruchequelle, 258-59; Hoffmann, Studien, 41; Arens, The ELTHON-Sayings in the Synoptic Gospels, 72-73; Marshall, Luke, 548). Although it has some typical Lukan redactional features, such as apo tou nun (“from now on”), the use of the verb “to be” + perfect participle (esontai…diamerismenon), and the use of composite verbs with the preposition dia/ (diamerizô), Luke 12:52 also has non-Lukan, traditional elements, which suggests that Luke 12:52 is not simply a Lukan creation (Jeremias, Sprache, 224). Rather, it was original to the Lukan version of this saying. Klostermann (Matthäusevangelium, 91-92) and Bultmann (History of the Synoptic Tradition, 154-55) hold that Luke 12:52 is original and that Matt 10:35 is a secondary, because putting Jesus in the place of God and making him say that he would bring the time of eschatological trouble is a church creation. It is preferable to interpret Luke 12:51-53 and Matt 10:34-36 as two independent versions of the same Aramaic saying.

The prophet speaks about how, with the disappearance of the righteous, society breaks down, so that even family members are at odds with one another. Jesus may be re-applying this to his own generation: the unrighteous will persecute the righteous, who have recognized and responded positively to the in-breaking of the Kingdom of God, Israel's eschatological salvation. (In the second-Temple period, social chaos, including division among families, is sometimes said to be part of the crisis just prior to the eschaton, the so-called Messianic woes [see Isa 34:5; 66:16; Ezek 21; 1 En. 63:11; 91:12; 100.1-2; Jub. 23:16, 19; 4Q174 1.10-13; 2 Bar. 70.3-7; 4 Ezra 6.24].) One should contrast Jesus' saying with the conciliatory role that Elijah is to play at the eschaton (Mal 4:5-6). Clearly, Jesus' saying implies that his mission has not been successful.

2.6. Anointing for Death

About six days before his arrest and execution, while he is reclining at the house of a man known as Simon in Bethany, Jesus allows Mary to anoint his head and his feet with expensive perfume (Mark 14:3-9; Matt 26:6-13; John 12:1-8). She intends it to be an act of devotion. When she is criticized, Jesus defends her by saying that what she is doing is appropriate expression of her devotion to him, since it is as if she is anointing his body for burial (Mark 14:8; Matt 26:12; John 12:7) (see John 19:38-42). Jesus' response presupposes his awareness of his imminent death.

Question 

What are the ways in which Jesus expresses his awareness of the rejection of him and his message of the Kingdom of God?

3. Jesus' Condemnation of His Generation

In light of the rejection of the Kingdom of God by the majority of his contemporaries, Jesus describes his generation as resistant to God’s purposes and as evil. He sees it now as being under the judgment of God because of its rejection of the offer of the Kingdom of God. Regrettably, only relatively few have responded positively to it.

3.1. Uncooperative Children

There are two slightly different versions of a parable, its application and a concluding saying in Matthew and Luke (Luke 7:31-35 = Matt 11:16-19). In the parable Jesus compares ‘this generation’ to disagreeable and peevish children who will not cooperate with one another long enough to play a game together.

Most assume that Matthew and Luke had access to the same version of this tradition, and therefore explain all differences between Luke 7.31-35 || Matt 11.16-19 as redactional. On this assumption, the attempt is made to assign the differences to one or the other redactor (Hoffmann, Studien, 224-31; Schulz, Spruchquelle, 379-80; Arens, The ELTHON-Sayings in the Synoptic Gospels, 223-25; Marshall, Luke, 297-304; Herrenbrück, Jesus und die Zöllner, 255-62; Hultgren, The Parables of Jesus: A Commentary, 204; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2.259-65; Kloppenborg, Formation of Q, 110-12; Becker, Jesus of Nazareth, 166-69; Riniker, Die Gerichtsverkündigung Jesu, 361-65). But it is unadvisable to take as one’s point of departure the hypothesis of a common, written source, the Q-source. It is probable that Matthew and Luke used different versions of the same tradition and what is considered redactional is actually original to their respective versions. It follows only those features of Luke’s account that are distinctive of the Lukan style and vocabulary can be attributed to Lukan redaction. Thus, only those features of Luke's account that are distinctive of the Lukan style and vocabulary can be attributed to Lukan redaction (see Jeremias, Die Sprache des Lukasevangeliums, 166-67). The phrase paidois tois...kathêmenois kai prosphônousin allêlois ("children sitting...and calling out to one another") (7:32) probably derives from Luke because he has a preference for this type of construction: a participle with the article as an attribute situated after an articleless noun (see Luke 23:49; Acts 1:12; 4:12; 7:35; 9:22; 10:1, 41; 11:21; 19:11, 17, 26; 20:19; 27:14). Similarly, since Luke has a preference for constructions with pas ("all"), the phrase pantôn tôn teknôn autês ("all of her children") (7:35) probably originates with Luke.

Although it is somewhat ambiguous, the parable seems to depict two groups of children who argue about which game to play: "We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not cry" (Luke 7:32). As a result of this quarreling, neither game is played. Jesus’ generation is like the children in the parable, insofar as it is so querulous that it will not respond to or cooperate with any of God's salvific overtures to it.

There is disagreement over how the children in the marketplace are like "this generation." Frequently, the interpretation is understood as an allegory: the children who play the flute represent Jesus and the children who sing a dirge represent John the Baptist (Zeller, ‘Die Bildlogik des Gleichnisses Mt 11 16f./Lk 7 31f.’, ZNW 68 (1977) 252-57; Schweizer, The Good News according to Matthew, 263-64; Fitzmyer, Luke, 1.679-80; Funk and Hoover (eds.), The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus, 180, 303; Kloppenborg, Formation of Q, 111; Becker, Jesus of Nazareth, 167). In both cases the children who are called out to do not respond. The identification of Jesus and John with the negative image of complaining and uncooperative children, however, makes this interpretive approach ill-advised (Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2.261-62; Hultgren, Parables of Jesus, 206). Another common interpretive approach is to understand one group of children as trying to dominate another by making them ‘dance’ or ‘mourn’; those who are said to be sitting in the marketplace are ordering the other children, not sitting, to do the more strenuous task of dancing and mourning (Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, 160-62; seePerrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, 85-86; Marshall, Luke, 300-301). According to this interpretation, Jesus’ purpose is to compare his generation to the children sitting in the marketplace and the other group of children to John and Jesus, who are ordered to do the bidding of the former. But there are not enough clues from the narrative context to support such a detailed reconstruction. Probably, the point of comparison is more general: to compare these peevish and uncooperative children to his own generation.

In particular, it criticizes and rejects John for being demon-possessed because of his extreme asceticism, but it also criticizes and rejects Jesus as too indulgent and morally lax, as demonstrated by his association with tax-collectors and sinners. But this generation cannot reject both men at the same time, because the reasons for their rejection are logical opposites. Thus, Jesus and John find themselves in a ‘no-win situation,’ for there is no pleasing this generation. Jesus is criticizing his contemporaries for their rejection both of John’s message of looming judgment and of his own proclamation of the Kingdom of God. The use of the phrase ‘son of man’ in Jesus' saying is self-referential, an indirect reference to the speaker, Jesus, used in order to avoid making a direct claim for himself.

Arguments in favor of authenticity are as follows: 1. The fact that Jesus and John are placed on the same salvation-historical level is likely due to Jesus not the early church, which tended to subordinate John to Jesus; 2. The interpretation contains the insulting remark that Jesus is a glutton and drunkard, which the early church would not likely have invented; 3. There are probable Semitisms: a. The use of anthrôpos with the meaning of tis (Matt 11.19 = Luke 7.34); b. The phrase hê genea hautê; c. "Son of man" as referring to one (or "I"); d. Parataxis in Matt 11.17 = Luke 7.32. Riniker defends the authenticity of the parable and interpretation even assuming a titular use of son of man (Gerichtsverkündigung, pp. 380-87).

    Attached to his parable is a related saying: "Wisdom is proved right by her children" (Luke 7:35) or "But wisdom is proved right by her works" (Matt 11:19). (Luke's "by her children" is metaphorical way of saying "by her works," as found in Matthew: one's "works" are like children insofar as they come "from" a person and define that person.) Wisdom's "children" or "works" represent those who accept Jesus' message of the in-breaking Kingdom of God (see Prov 8:32 and Sir 4:11 for other references to Wisdom's children). Jesus' point is that his message (and that of John) will prove to be the wisdom of God in a soteriological sense. Thus, those who believe his message will be vindicated. In this saying, Jesus makes use of the Jewish tradition of Wisdom as a hypostasis of God's communication to human beings, the agent sent to disclose the mind of God, assumed to be hidden and inaccessible to human beings (Prov 8; Sir 1, 24; Bar 3-4; Wis 7:22-8:1; 1 En. 42).

3.2. Guilty of Righteous Blood

In a saying, of which there are two versions, Jesus pronounces irrevocable judgment on his contemporaries because of their rejection of him and his message (Matt 23:34-36; Luke 11:45-51). Both versions of the saying should be handled as originally independent and so their contexts in Matthew or Luke should not be used in their interpretation. The speaker in the two versions differs: in Luke 11:49 the Wisdom of God speaks, whereas in Matt 23:34 Jesus speaks directly on behalf of God. But there is no contradiction if one assumes that Wisdom is a personification of an attribute of God, who sends messengers to human beings.

    Jesus criticizes his generation along deuteronomistic-historical lines for being the latest in a long procession of those who have rejected God by rejecting God’s messengers. In Luke’s version, looking prospectively, it is said that the Wisdom of God will send to Israel prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and others they will persecute. By prophets is meant the biblical prophets, and apostles are more generally those sent by God in whatever capacity. Wisdom foretells that Israel will kill and persecute some of them. In Matthew’s version, God sends prophets and wise men and scribes to Israel. Prophets are the biblical prophets, wise men are those who understand the ways of God and scribes are those who are learned in the scriptures. Each class of people represents God and God’s interests to Israel. But Jesus, speaking on behalf of God, says that the nation kills, crucifies, flogs in its synagogues and pursues these men from city to city. In general, it is clear that for its entire history the nation has been disobedient and unresponsive to God, which climaxes in Jesus’ own generation with the rejection of the Kingdom of God and its messenger.

    For this reason it is said that Jesus’ contemporaries will be held responsible for all the innocent blood of those whom God has sent to the nation. Matthew’s version has, "And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth" (23.35), while Luke’s version reads, "Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world" (11:50). Probably, the term "prophet" in Luke is used loosely, as virtually synonymous with Matthew's "righteous," different from its use in 11:49. These martyrs are then defined temporally as those from Abel to Zachariah who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. It is not that Jesus’ generation is appreciably worse than other generations. Rather the point is that intergenerationally Israel has been filling up the measure of its sin, so that with the rejection of Jesus and his message of the Kingdom of God the measure will be full and the entire wrath stored up will be visited upon the nation. This presupposes the idea of national solidarity. The idea of fullness of sins is also found in Dan 8:23 (LXX and Theod.); Jub. 14:16; 2 Macc. 6:12-17; T. Levi 6:11; Wis. 19:3-5; LAB 26:13; 36:1; 41:1; 47:9; Matt 23.32 (see also 4 Ezra 15.6; 2 Bar. 41). Similarly, in Sipre Num. 18.1 (116), it is said that the desecration of sacred things led to the sealing of Eli’s judgment and that of those living in Jerusalem.

The authenticity of Matt 23.34-36; Luke. 11.49-51 has been questioned. It is thought that the saying could only be a saying of the risen Jesus; the Q-community sought to rationalize ‘the failure of the prophetic preaching’ (R.J. Miller, "The Rejection of the Prophets in Q," JBL 107 [1988] 225-40 [233]; see E. Earle Ellis, "Lk xi.49-51: An Oracle of a Christian Prophet," ExpTim 74 [1964] 157-58). The fact that this is the only saying in which Jesus speaks through a personified Wisdom raises the suspicion that it does not derive from Jesus (Riniker, Gerichtsverkündigung, 436). But being unique is an argument neither for nor against authenticity. Sato argues that Luke 11.49b-50 is not coherent with Jesus’ other sayings (Q und Prophetie, 155-56). First, although when sending them out he warns his disciples of possible rejection and persecution, Jesus never makes reference to the whole history of the murder of the prophets and never foresees judgment on the whole nation but at most only on the city that rejected his messengers. Second, Jesus’ proclamation ("Heilsbotschaft") is incompatible with the view that his generation must bear the guilt of all past generations resulting from the rejection of those whom God sent to the nation. Sato writes, ‘Auch wenn es Gott selbst wäre, dessen Wort Jesus zitierte, bliebe es schwer vorstellbar, *daß Jesus solch ein auswegloses Unheilswort an ganze Volk weitergegeben hat’ (Q und Prophetie, 156). Neither of these arguments takes into consideration that Jesus utters Matt. 23.34-36 = Luke 11.49-51 in a rejection context, when opposition has hardened to the point of irreversibility. In fact this saying is similar to Luke 13.34-25 = Matt 23.37-39, although it does not have the personal pathos of the latter, and other sayings that depict the irreversible judgment of the nation that cohere with this saying. It is circular reasoning to deny the authenticity of all such sayings and then argue that a given saying is not coherent with what is known of Jesus’ views.

3.3. Missing the Significance of the Present

In two independent traditions, Jesus points out that, if the people of his generation are able to predict the weather based on empirical observation, then all the more should they be able to discern the salvation-historical significance of their recent experience (Luke 12:54-56; Matt 16:2-3). But tragically they are not able to do so. In Luke 12:54-56, Jesus points out that his hearers know that it will rain when they see a cloud rise in the west and that it will be hot that day when the wind is blowing from the south. Based on present experience they are able to forecast the weather. In Matt 16:2-3, Jesus appeals to the well-known adage that a red sky at sunset foretells fair weather for the next day, but a red sky at dawn means that the weather will be stormy for that day. Each saying concludes with a rhetorical question intended as a criticism. (There is a parallel in Gos. Th. 91: "He said to them, 'You examine the face of heaven and earth, but you have not come to know the one who is in your presence, and you do not know how to examine the present moment'.")

Luke 12.54-56 and Matt 16.2-3 have too little in common to be considered two versions of the same saying (contrary to Gundry, Matthew, 322-25). Only six words out of forty-seven or forty eight are the same, and some of the overlap in vocabulary is trivial. Also the clauses are in a different order: in Luke the rainy weather (ombros) comes first but in Matthew the storm (xeimôn) comes second. Finally, the imagery used is different, for in Luke people predict the next day’s weather based on the clouds and the wind, whereas in Matthew prediction is based on the color of the sky (Fitzmyer, Luke, 2.999; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2.577-78). Actually, Matt. 16:2-3 is textually poorly attested, and has been bracketed in the N-A, so that it is possible that it is an early interpolation into the gospel.

    Jesus’ purpose in these two sayings is to condemn his generation for not being able to recognize that their present is the time of the inception of the Kingdom of God. In Luke 12.56, Jesus expresses this by saying that it cannot discern ‘the present time’ (ton kairon touton). What Jesus means in Matt 16.3 by ‘not discerning the signs of the times’ (ta sêmeia tôn kairôn) is that his contemporaries have not been able to discern that the Kingdom of God has drawn near in spite of the fact that they have ample evidence of this from their own experience. The reason that Jesus calls his hearers hypocrites is that he is offering an implicit qal vahomer argument (from minor to major): he argues that being able to recognize the signs of in-breaking of the Kingdom of God should be easier than being able to predict tomorrow's weather, were it not for their spiritual obduracy. This makes his generation's rejection of him and his message of the Kingdom of God irrationally tragic.

3.4. Greater Than Jonah

Luke 11:31-32 and Matt 12:41-42 represent two versions of a saying in which Jesus criticizes his generation for missing the salvation-historical significance of the present. The saying consists of parallel comparisons of Jesus’ generation with the Ninevites and the Queen of Sheba. The Ninevites repented when they heard Jonah’s preaching of imminent judgment, and the Queen of Sheba traveled a long way to hear the wisdom of Solomon. Both sayings end with the same concluding statement: “And behold something greater than X is here.” What is greater than Solomon or Jonah is the Kingdom of God. At the resurrection, the examples of Ninevites and the Queen of Sheba will serve to condemn Jesus’ generation at the final judgment, since it did not respond positively to Jesus’ message of the Kingdom of God, in spite of all the empirical evidence. Jesus is offering a qal vahomer argument: if gentiles responded positively to Jonah’s preaching and Solomon’s wisdom then how much more should Jesus’ contemporaries have responded positively to his proclamation of the Kingdom of God, even when it was accompanied by signs.

3.5. Few Will Enter

Matthew and Luke have similar dominical sayings that implicitly compare entering the Kingdom of God with the experience of going through a narrow entrance (Matt 7:13-14; Luke 13:22-24). Jesus’ point is that tragically only a few have responded positively to his message and so will enter the Kingdom at its future culmination. Both sayings begin with an imperative followed by explanatory hoti-clause. There are enough differences between them, however, to conclude that they are two independent sayings of Jesus.

    The saying in Luke 13.24 uses the metaphor of entering through a narrow door, but with no corresponding wide door; in addition, unlike the version in Matthew, there is no reference to the two ways. The metaphor probably presupposes the setting of a banquet hall where the eschatological banquet is to be held. Jesus tells his disciples that relatively few will be saved from the eschatological wrath of God and exhorts his disciples to strive to enter the narrow door into the banquet hall, by which he means to meet the conditions of entering the Kingdom of God in its future culmination.

Those who believe that Matt 7.13-14 and Luke 13.22-24 are two versions of the same saying, usually assumed to derive from the Q-source, cannot agree on how in the history of the tradition the two came to be so different. Arguments for the priority of one version over the other tend to be circular insofar as they presuppose a hypothesis about the original saying. Those who support the priority of Matthew include: Steinhauser, Doppelbildworte in den synoptischen Evangelien, 149-50; Schulz, Spruchquelle, 309-11; Guelich, The Sermon on the Mount, 385-90; Zeller, Die weisheitlichen Mahnsprüche bei den Synoptikern, 139-41). Those who support the priority of Luke include: Streeter, The Four Gospels, 283-84; Manson, Sayings of Jesus, 175; Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke, 109; Klostermann, Matthäusevangelium, 29; Dupont, Béatitudes, 1.98-100; Hoffmann, "Pantes ergatai adikias: Redaktion und Tradition in Lc 13,22-30," ZNW 58 (1967) 188-214 (195). Kloppenborg argues that both have altered the original Q version (Formation of Q, 223-25).

    Matt 7.13-14 uses the metaphor of entering through two city gates, a narrow gate and a wide gate and two corresponding ways, a narrow way that leads to life and a broad way that leads to destruction. Jesus urges his disciples to enter the narrow gate into life. He compares the decision to meet the conditions of future entrance into the Kingdom to entering a narrow city gate and travelling on a narrow way. By contrast, without taking steps to do otherwise, most people will enter the wide gate and by default find themselves on the broad way to destruction. (The motifs of the way to life and the way to destruction are common in the Bible and second-Temple Judaism: Ps. 1.6; Prov. 14.2; Jer. 21.8; Sir. 21.10; 1QS 4.2-14; T. Ash. 1.3-5; 6.3; 2 En. 30.15; 4 Ezra 7.6-8, 48, 129; 2 Bar. 85.13.) The point is that a deliberate choice is required to avoid this outcome: a man does not find himself on a narrow way or entering a narrow gate unintentionally. It is probable that the two gates and two ways are intended to be interpreted as complementary metaphors not as two parts of a single metaphor.

Some have argued that Matthew has introduced the motif of the ‘two ways’ into the original saying (Dupont, Béatitudes, 1, pp. 98-100; Hoffmann, "Pantes ergatai adikias: Redaktion und Tradition in Lc 13,22-30," ZNW 58 [1967] 195; Jeremias, TDNT, VI, p. 923; Klostermann, Matthäusevangelium, 68; Manson, Sayings of Jesus, 175; Zeller, Mahnsprüche, 139; Denaux, "Der Spruch von den zwei Wegen in Rahmen des Epilogs der Bergpredigt [Mt 7,13-14 par. Lk 13,23-24]. Tradition und Redaktion’, in J. Delobel [ed.], Logia. Les Paroles de Jésus, 305-35; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1.696; Luz, Matthew, 1.371-73). Its absence in Luke is thought to support this conclusion. In addition, its presence in Matthew is awkward, which suggests that it is not original. In Mt. 7.13a Jesus refers to entering the gate, but in 7.13b-14 he speaks about a gate and way and in 7.13c the reference to those who enter ‘it’ makes sense if the antecedent is gate and not way. But if the two metaphors are intended merely as complementary then the awkwardness is mitigated. Its absence in Luke is irrelevant since the Lukan saying is independent.

    Since they reveal a defeated attitude towards the prospect of bringing about national repentance and renewal, these two sayings need to be interpreted in a rejection context. With the rejection by the majority, Jesus now understands that only a small number of his hearers will respond positively to his message of the Kingdom of God. Only a minority of his hearers will enter the narrow door into the Messianic banquet, and only a relatively small number have chosen to be on the narrow way and to enter the narrow gate. For this reason he exhorts his hearers to be among this minority.

Question 

In what ways does Jesus criticize his generation for its rejection of him and his message of the Kingdom of God?

4. The Destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple

The consequence of Jesus' generation’s decision to reject him and his message of the Kingdom of God will be the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem. At least for a time, the Kingdom of God will no longer be centered in Jerusalem and will be independent of the Temple, contrary to what the Old Testament prophets announced.

4.1. Fig Tree Cut Down

Luke 13 6 Then he told this parable: "A man had a fig tree, planted in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it, but did not find any. 7 So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, 'For three years now I've been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven't found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?'  8 "'Sir,' the man replied, 'leave it alone for one more year, and I'll dig around it and fertilize it. 9 If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.'"

Jesus tells a parable of the unfruitful fig tree growing in a vineyard (Luke 13:6-9). (It was the practice to plant fig trees in vineyards. See the close association of vineyards and fig trees in 1 Kgs. 4:25; 2 Kgs. 18:31; Cant. 2:13; Jer. 5:17; 8:13; Hos. 2:12; Joel 1:7, 12; Mic. 4:4; Zech. 3:10; see Pliny, Nat. hist. 17.35, 200. ) After three years of futilely looking for fruit, its owner in frustration instructs his gardener to remove the tree: "Cut it down. Why should it use up the soil?" The gardener intercedes on behalf of the fig tree and asks that the owner for a reprieve of one year, during which time he will give it special care by digging around it and providing applications of manure. If it has not produced any figs in a year’s time, the tree can then be cut down. The outcome of the story is left open.

    Jesus intends the fig tree to represent Israel. He can assume that his hearers are already familiar with the metaphor of a fig tree as Israel and fruit as actions. If the fig tree is Israel then its owner must represent God, who threatens judgment upon the nation because of its lack of fruit, i.e. disobedience. This raises the question of whether the gardener is intended to have a metaphorical value. Some argue that the details of the parable must not be pressed for equivalences and so turned into an allegory; rather it must be interpreted as making the general point of the urgent need for repentance in light of impending divine judgment. But it is more probable that a fourth metaphorical identification is intended: the gardener as Jesus. John the Baptist describes the impending eschatological judgment metaphorically as an axe being ready to cut down every tree that does not bear fruit (Matt 3:7-10 = Luke 3:7-9). Jesus understands his role as messenger and mediator of the Kingdom of God as likewise to prepare his generation for ‘the coming wrath’. Like John, he expects his hearers to believe his message and produce the fruit of repentance. But at some point he begins to see evidence of the irreversible rejection of the Kingdom of God: the expected fruit—repentance—is not produced. This parable addresses this dire situation. Jesus warns that, if in the next little while there is still no fruit, the nation will fall under God's judgment: "If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down." (Whether the one year in the parable can be taken to indicate that Jesus saw his generation as having only one year remaining before judgment becomes irrevocable is not clear.)

Source

Figs Figs are grown and consumed in Palestine; they are eaten fresh and also dried, sometimes being pressed in cakes.  In the two of the synoptic gospels (Mark 11:12-13, 20-21; Matt 21:18-20), Jesus curses a fig tree because it bore no fruit.  His action was symbolic:  the Jewish people, who should have borne "fruit" to God, but had not, would fall under the curses of the covenant.

4.2. House Abandoned

The two versions of a saying of Jesus, an announcement of judgment, have substantial verbatim agreement, but are found in different contexts in Matthew and Luke (Luke 13:34-35 = Matt 23:37-39). Jesus laments the fact that Jerusalem, representative of the entire Jewish people, would not accept his message about the Kingdom of God and become his disciples. He begins by pointing out that Jerusalem has an inglorious record of ‘killing the prophets and stoning those sent to it’. In other words, the covenant people have had a history of spiritual obstinacy that has manifested itself in rejecting those whom God has sent to them. The use of present participles serve to express Jerusalem’s historically ever-present attitude of rebellion towards God and the prophets sent to it. In order to describe the relationship to him that his contemporaries have rejected, Jesus uses the metaphor of a mother bird who gathers her chicks under her wings. He is implicitly appealing to the natural order against his generation. It is natural for chicks to seek out the protection of their mother; so by analogy his contemporaries should recognize that the Kingdom of God has drawn near and then choose to become his disciples. (The metaphor of a mother bird gathering its chick under its wings occurs in Deut 32:11 in order to describe Yahweh’s relationship to Israel: "Like an eagle that stirs up its nest, which hovers over its young, he spread his wings and caught them; he carried them on his pinions." See also "in the shadow of your wings" (Pss 17:8; 36:7; 57:1; 63:7), "in the shelter of your wings" (Ps 61:4) and "under the shadow of his wings" (Ps 91:4). Other uses of the metaphor include: Ruth 2:12; 2 Bar. 41:4; 4 Ezra 1:30.) To reject Jesus is as unnatural and senseless as chicks refusing to be gathered under their mother’s wings. So the result is that Jesus’ generation desires the opposite of what he desires.

The use of the divine passive apestalmenoi distinguishes Jesus from God, who sends the prophets to ‘Jerusalem’. But it is held by some that the subject of the saying cannot be the historical Jesus, for which three arguments are advanced. First, the statement about ‘how often’ the speaker wanted to gather Jerusalem’s children together implies that the whole of Israel’s history is being surveyed from a supra-historical perspective, which the historical Jesus did not have. In this case, Jerusalem and her children are identical, both referring to the totality of the covenant people (Bultmann, History, 114; Steck, Israel, 53-54; Schulz, Spruchquelle, 355; Suggs, Wisdom, Christology and Law in Matthew’s Gospel, 66; Boring, Sayings, 171; id., Continuing Voice of Jesus, 224; Kloppenborg, Formation of Q, 228; Sato, Q und Prophetie, 159). Second, nowhere in his teaching does Jesus speak about God’s abandonment of Jerusalem as judgment, so that this saying is anomalous and for that reason cannot be attributed to the historical Jesus (Steck, Israel, 54-55). Third, Jesus speaks about his return in the first person singular, which is thought to be incredible since there is no evidence that Jesus ever speaks about his death, removal and parousia (Steck, Israel, 55; Boring, Sayings, 171). If the speaker of Matt 23:37 = Luke 13:34 is not the historical Jesus then who is it? Two explanations are proffered. Some have argued that the speaker is personified Wisdom (see Luke 11:49) (Bultmann, History, 114-15; Steck, Israel, 230-31; Schulz, Spruchquelle, 346-60; Suggs, Wisdom, Christology and Law in Matthew’s Gospel, 63-71; Christ, Jesus Sophia, 136-52; Kloppenborg, Formation of Q, 228). Others propose that the speaker is the risen Lord who is speaking through a Christian prophet (Boring, Sayings, 171-73; id., Continuing Voice of Jesus, 224-27; Miller, "The Rejection of the Prophets in Q," 235-40; Sato, Q und Prophetie, 156-60). On this hypothesis, the risen Jesus has many times attempted to gather Israel by means of the preaching of the Q-prophets. In fact, Boring identifies personified Wisdom with the risen Lord (and the son of man), albeit in a conceptually untidy manner, so that it is the risen Lord who sent to Israel the Old Testament prophets, John the Baptist, Jesus and is at present sending the prophets of the Q-community. But to argue that the speaker is someone other than Jesus makes little sense. The three arguments advanced are not convincing (see Hoffmann, Studien, 173-74; Tan, Zion Traditions and the Aims of Jesus, 100-12; Miller, "The Rejection of the Prophets in Q," 235-37; Bayer, Jesus’ Predictions of Vindication and Resurrection, 45-48; Riniker, Gerichtsverkündigung, 415-21). In response to the first argument, it is clear from the Johannine chronology that Jesus visits Jerusalem several times before his final visit and this saying reflects that fact. It should also be noted that Jerusalem symbolizes all the Jewish people so that he need not go to Jerusalem to find ‘her children’ (Manson, Sayings of Jesus, 127). Jesus is not necessarily addressing Jerusalem in a supra-historical, universalistic sense in Mt. 23:37b = Lk. 13.34b. The use of the aorist êthelêsa could be taken to imply that he is speaking about his personal experience with "Jerusalem," which would mean his contemporaries. In this case, Jerusalem and her children are not to be identified; rather the latter is the most recent generation of the covenant people. The second argument is unconvincing because there are many synoptic traditions in which Jesus teaches that his generation is under divine judgment because of its rejection of him and his message of the Kingdom of God. To argue that all these other traditions are inauthentic is circular reasoning and does not take into consideration the rejection context of some of Jesus’ teaching. The third argument is also circular, since to say that Jesus could never have spoken about his parousia in the first person presupposes the inauthenticity of all the synoptic traditions in which Jesus does speak about his death, removal and parousia. There is no reason to attribute this saying to anyone other than Jesus. See Kümmel, Promise and Fulfilment, 79-81; Jeremias, New Testament Theology, 284; Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, 2.307; Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence, 300-304; Riniker, Gerichtsverkündigung, 425; Tan, Zion Traditions and the Aims of Jesus, 104-109.

    Jesus says that as a result of his generation’s rejection of him and his message, "Behold, your house is abandoned." His use of "behold" (idou) conforms to the Old Testament use of hnh occurring at the beginning of prophetic threats, and the present tense expresses prophetic certainty. By the term "house," he probably he means the Temple. "House" sometimes refers to Jerusalem, but in this case such an interpretation is unlikely: since "your" in "your house" refers back as its antecedent to a personified Jerusalem, a pars pro toto for the Jewish people, it would be awkward and confusing if what belongs to Jerusalem ("your") is Jerusalem itself. But it does not ultimately matter much whether "house" means city or Temple since the two are inseparable: the fate of one is the fate of the other. Jesus warns that with the rejection of him and his message of the Kingdom of God judgment against the nation becomes unavoidable. God will abandon the Temple, and its abandonment will mean the deliverance of the Temple and city to destruction. Jesus concludes by saying that they will not see him again until they greet him with the words from Ps 118.26: "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord" (Ps 118.26). This implies that God’s abandonment of the nation is not a permanent condition, but will come to end in the future when Jesus returns to the nation.

House meaning Temple occurs in 1 Kgs. 6:2; 9:1-10; 2 Chron. 3:6-7; 7:7, 19-22; Ezra 9:9; 10:1, 6, 9; Isa. 64:11; Jer. 7:10-14; 26:6; 1 En. 89:56; Jub. 49.19; 2 Bar. 8.2-4. See Manson, Sayings of Jesus, 127; Kümmel, Promise and Fulfilment, 181; H. van der Kwaak, "Die Klage über Jerusalem," NovT 8 (1966) 156-70 (p. 160); Jeremias, Parables, 168; Ellis, Luke, 191; Schulz, Spruchquelle, 356 n. 230; Tan, Zion Traditions and the Aims of Jesus, 113-15; Rinker, Gerichtsverkündigung, 411-15. Billerbeck cites Midr Ps 118 (I 850), Targum Ps 118 (I 876) and Pes 119a (I 849-50) as texts in which Ps 118:26 is interpreted messianically of the Davidic Messiah (see Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God, 306; Sato, Q und Prophetie, 157 n. 144. Not all agree that Ps 118 was messsianically interpreted (see Hoffmann, Studien, 177 n. 83; Steck, Israel, 236 n. 3 Hahn, Hoheitstitel, 265).

4.3. Not Recognizing the Time of Visitation

Luke 19 41 When he approached Jerusalem, he saw the city and wept over it, 42 saying, "If you had known in this day, even you, the things which make for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes. 43 For the days will come upon you when your enemies will lay siege to you, and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44 They will raze you to the ground, you and the children within you. They will not leave one stone on another because you did not recognize the time of your visitation.

Luke inserts the tradition represented by Luke 19:41-44 into a block of Markan material (Luke 19.:29-22:13 = Mark 11:1-14:16). It bears the linguistic marks of a being slightly redacted Lukan special tradition. Jesus predicts the destruction of the city of Jerusalem. He addresses the personified city and specifies what will be done to it: ‘Your enemies will lay siege to you, and encircle you and hem you in on every side. They will raze you to the ground, you and the children within you. They will not leave one stone on another’ (19:43-44). What is being described is the siege of the city, followed by the destruction of the city’s fortifications and killing of its population. Although it conforms generally to what Titus will do to the city years later, it does not follow that what is being described is a vaticinium ex eventu. This is because the language used probably derives from Old Testament prophetic predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem. Besides, the description of the siege and conquest of Jerusalem in this passage is typical of any siege; there is nothing so unique that one should suspect that it is a vaticinium ex eventu.

It should be noted that Jesus was not the only one to predict the destruction of Jerusalem in a time when the possibility was remote. Four years before the war with Rome began in 62, Jesus ben Hananiah appeared in Jerusalem and prophesied the destruction of the city and Temple. He cried out in the Temple, "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the Temple, a voice against the bridegroom and the bride a voice against all the people" (War 6.300-305). According to Josephus there was no reason to think that the Temple was under any threat at the time. So what Jesus did about forty years before this event was not completely unique and therefore not historically incredible.

    Jesus attributes this expected fate of the city to the fact that the inhabitants did not recognize the "time of their visitation" (ouk egnos ton kairon tês episkopês sou), meaning that they have not recognized that the time of eschatological salvation has arrived. The use of the term "visitation" (episkopê; Heb: pqydh) to mean eschatological salvation for the sons of light and judgment for all others occurs in some of the Qumran sectarian texts (1QS 3.14, 18; 4.6b-14; 4Q286 frg. 7 col. 2.3b-5a). They did not recognize that this was the time when God would give his people "peace"; in this context, "peace" is a synonym for the Kingdom of God. Of interest also is the fact that Josephus reports that, during the Festival of Pentecost in 62, four years before the beginning of the war with Rome, priests serving at night upon entering "the inner court" (parelthontes eis to endon hieron) of the Temple heard voices in concert (phonês athroas) announce, "We are leaving from here" (metabainomen enteuthen) (War 6.300). The same event is described by Tacitus: "All of a sudden, the doors of the shrine opened and a superhuman voice (maior humana vox) cried, 'God is departing'" (Hist. 5.13). In addition, Josephus reports that before this time a certain Jesus son of Ananias constantly announced in the Temple judgment upon the nation: "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the sanctuary, a voice against the bridegroom and the bride, a voice against all the people" and "Woe to Jerusalem" (War 6.300-309). This went on for seven years and five months, until he was killed during the siege of the Temple by a stone hurled from a ballista.

4.4. No Stone upon Another

In what form-critically would be defined as a Pronouncement Story, Jesus predicts the destruction of the Temple (Mark 13:1-2, 14-20 = Matt 24:1-2, 15-25 = Luke 21:5-6, 20-24). The disciples marvel at the magnificence of the Jerusalem Temple; Jesus takes this opportunity to warn them that this magnificent structure will be destroyed: "Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down" (Mark 13:2).

Source

Blocks from Herodian Temple The Romans burned and destroyed the buildings of the inner courts, the Temple proper. Some portions of the walls of the outer courts, however, survived. The outer face of each block used in the construction of the outer wall was smoothed down. Herod's masons then chiseled a margin around the edge of each block; in this way, anyone could easily see that the wall was composed of individual blocks. The blocks were fitted together using the "dry construction" method, which means that no mortar was used in the construction.

    The reason that the Temple will be destroyed is the appearance of "the abomination that causes desolation." In Mark 13:14-20 = Matt 24:15-25, Jesus speaks about the coming time when "the abomination that causes desolation" will stand in the Temple (lit. "holy place") (Matt) or standing where it does not belong (Mark). The phrase means an abomination that causes the Temple to be desolate or deserted (by the righteous). In the Matthean version, Jesus says that the coming destruction of the Temple was prophesied by Daniel. He is no doubt referring to Dan 9:27b, where the prophet predicts: "And on a wing he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him." Jesus believes that what Daniel prophesied about the destruction of the city and the Temple is close at hand; Daniel's prophecy is to be fulfilled in part, at least, his own time. In the near future, "the abomination that causes desolation" will appear in the Temple, which must be synonymous to "wing" in Dan 9:27 (see LXX Dan 9:27 epi to hieron ["upon the sanctuary]); when this occurs the disciples are to flee the city, because total destruction will soon follow.)

Now the identity of "the abomination that causes desolation" is not disclosed by Jesus. It may be significant, however, that in Mark there is an unexpected change of gender from the neuter to bdelugma tês eremoseos ("the abomination that causes desolation") to the masculine estekota ("the man standing"); this may imply that "the abomination that causes desolation" finds its historical manifestation in a particular man. If so, then the Roman general Titus, as a representative of the Roman empire, is a prime candidate for this role. This interpretation is borne out by Luke's account: "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies." Read in light of Mark 13:14 and Matt 24:15, the armies surrounding Jerusalem, commanded by Titus, are "the abomination that causes desolation." Titus, along with his generals, did enter the holy place of the sanctuary (tou naou to hagion), which, of course, was prohibited (War 6.260). In addition, the Romans sacrificed to their standards while Temple was in flames (War 6.316), which Jews would consider to be an idolatrous act. It should be stressed, however, that, as a prophecy, Dan 9:27 is not exhausted in Titus' destruction of the Temple in 70. It seems that Jesus sees Titus as a prefiguration of an eschatological persecutor of Israel (see references to him in Dan 7:8, 23-25; 11:36-45), just as Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who is also said to set up an abomination that causes desolation, prefigured Titus. This is why he can cite Dan 9:27 as being fulfilled by Titus: Titus is the historical prefiguration of still future persecutor of the covenant people, who was prefigured by Antiochus IV. The antecedent of "he" in Dan 9:27 is probably "the people of the ruler," who destroy the city and Temple in 9:26. Nevertheless, whereas Dan 9:26 refers to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 (and so Titus is to be identified as "ruler" in the phrase "the people of the ruler" in Dan 9:26), Dan 9:27 refers to a future, final assault by another "people of the ruler."

4.5. When the Tree Is Dry

Jesus warns while being led away to be crucified that destruction that was coming on the city (Luke 23:28-31). As Jesus was being led to the place where he was to be executed, some women followed him and mourned and wailed for him. (Sipre Deut 308 refers to how a mother and father weep and mourn for their son who is about to be crucified.) Jesus turns to them and warns them that they should be morning for themselves because of the trouble that is to come upon the nation. He concludes with the saying: "For if men do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?." The central idea is that a dry wood burns more readily than green wood. Whatever exactly he may have meant by it, this proverb is a warning of future judgment. Perhaps Jesus' meaning is that if God does not spare Jesus who is innocent of wrongdoing, how much less will God spare this guilty generation.

Question 

According to Jesus what will the consequences be of his generation’s rejection of him and the Kingdom of God?

5. Offer of the Kingdom of God Extended to Others

According to Jesus, the negative response to the offer of the Kingdom of God results in the suspension of its progress already under way for the nation. The Jewish leaders who reject Jesus and the Kingdom of God will likewise be rejected by God. Having been rescinded for Jesus’ generation, the offer of the Kingdom of God instead is extended to others, those who were not initially invited to enter the Kingdom of God. In other words, gentiles are now offered the Kingdom of God, which would be at variance with the eschatological expectations of Jesus’ contemporaries.

5.1. Giving the Vineyard to Others

In order to communicate that, because of their rejection of him, the Jewish leaders are themselves rejected, Jesus tells a parable in which he compares his generation to homicidal tenant farmers who are evicted from their land, which is then given to others (Mark 12:1-10 = Matt 21:33-41 = Luke 20:9-16). Given the many differences between Matthew, Mark and Luke, it is probable that there are at least two versions of this parable, although some of the differences between the versions are no doubt redactional in origin. It would seem that Jesus uses variations of this parable, resulting in two or more different versions of it in the tradition. All versions of the parable presuppose a situation of an absentee landowner who lets his vineyard to tenant farmers, who contract with him to give him a portion of the harvest.

The minor agreements between Matthew and Luke are evidence for the existence of a non-Markan version of the parable. They include: 1. Having anthrôpos before ampelôna (Matt 21:33 = Luke. 20:9); 2. Stressing kairos by placing it at the beginning of the sentence (Matt 21:34 = Luke 20:10); 3. Inclusion of hoi geôrgoi as subject (Matt 21:35 = Luke 20:10); 4. Inclusion of idontes ton huion / idontes…auton (Matt 21:38 = Luke 20:14); 5. Agreement in having the son thrown out and then killed (Matt 21:39 = Luke 20:15); 6. Inclusion of chief priests archiereis (Matt 21:45 = Luke 20:19); 7. Inclusion of second stone saying (Matt 11:44 = Luke 20:18 [if Matt 11:44 is original]); 8. Having a response from the listeners to Jesus’ question (Matt 21:41; Luke 20:16b (but not identical responses). Further evidence that Luke had access to another version of the parable is his use of the Semitism prostithêmi + infinitive (kai prosetheto…pempsai) in 20.11, 12—imitative of wywsp l-—rather than kai palin, as found in Matthew and Mark. Luke would not have replaced an original kai palin in his Markan source with kai prosetheto. (Although prostithêmi is a Lukan word [Matthew: 2; Mark: 1; Luke: 7/Acts: 6] prostithêmi + infinitive occurs only in Luke 19:11; Acts 12.3.) The best explanation is that Luke took it from another source. Luke’s use of direct speech in 20.13—different from Mark 12:6 and Matt 21:37—is uncharacteristic of Luke, who prefers indirect speech. Also the hapax iseôs in 20:13 is more easily explained a deriving from Luke’s non-Markan source rather than being redactional.

All agree that at the proper time, the landowner sends servants to obtain his share of the harvest, but they are unsuccessful. He then sends his son, whom they murder. The tenant farmers intend to seize the vineyard for themselves and propose that, by killing the son and heir, they will gain possession of it. In response, the landowner kills the tenants and gives the vineyard to others. Jesus’ parable is actually an allegory, for it consists of several interconnected metaphors. The astute hearer is expected to make several equations between elements in the story and reality. Unlike many of his other parables, his hearers are able to decode this allegory.

    The description of the construction of the vineyard in Matt 21:33 and Mark 12:1 provides direction to the interpretation of the allegory insofar as it alludes to LXX Isa 5.1-7, in which the covenant people are represented as an unfruitful vineyard that God, the owner of the vineyard, threatens to destroy. But even without this intertextual clue the hearer would be able to make the equation, since this was a conventional metaphor. (Luke’s version provides no details about the construction of the vineyard.) The identification of the vineyard with Israel and correlatively the owner of the vineyard with God is the point of departure for the interpretation of the parable, but there is a shift of focus in the parable from the vineyard to the tenants. Since in the parable, as in Isa 5.1-7, Israel is represented by the vineyard, it is natural to take the tenant farmers, absent in Isa 5.1-7, as representing the Jewish religious leadership, responsible for the cultivation of the vineyard and the rendering to God, the owner of the vineyard, his due, represented by the fruit.

    Complicating the interpretation is the introduction of servants and the son of the landowner into the parable. The hearer would understand the servants in the parable to be the prophets, for this was a conventional metaphor at the time of Jesus and the narrative context permits this equation. Since in the second-Temple period it is used in this sense, the hearers would have no choice but to decode the figure of the son in the narrative as the Davidic Messiah. They would probably understand that Jesus is making an indirect claim to being the ‘son’, whom the leaders of the people have rejected and intend to execute, just as leaders from previous generations rejected and killed the prophets. The leaders who reject Jesus include the chief priests, scribes and elders (Mark 11:27; 12:12). Of course, the High Priest would also be included in this group.

    The consequence of rejecting the son, i.e. the Davidic Messiah, will be rejection in turn. The hearer would agree that the landowner, "the lord of the vineyard,” is justified in killing the tenants who murdered his son and in giving the vineyard to others. The question, "What will he do?" is rhetorical, because the hearers know what he must do. So by parabolic analogy, God is equally justified in removing and destroying Israel’s leaders, who reject and will murder the Davidic Messiah, and in giving the leadership to others. The identity of these others is not clear from the context. Perhaps Jesus is thinking of the twelve disciples, to whom he promised a share in the administration of the Kingdom of God (Matt 19.28; Luke 22.30).

There are no grounds for rejecting the authenticity of this parable, even though some have judged it to be a community product (Bultmann, History, p. 177; Klostermann, Markusevangelium, 135; Kümmel, "Das Gleichnis von den bösen Weingärtnern Mk 12,1-9," in Heilsgeschehen und Geschichte, 207-17; Steck, Israel, 269-73; Gubler, Frühesten Deutungen des Todes Jesu, 71-84; Carlston, Parables of the Triple Tradition, 181-88; Luz, Matthew, 3.36-38). First, the parable is not likely to have originated with the Hellenistic church since there are so many Semitisms in it, especially in Mark’s version, which is a source for Matthew and Luke (Hengel, "Das Gleichnis von den Weingärtnern Mc12,1-12 im Lichte der Zenonpapyri und der rabbinischen Gleichnisse," ZNW 59 (1968) 1-39 (7 n. 31); Hubaut, La parabole des vignerons homicides, 100; Pesch, Markusevangelium, 2.213-19; Carlston, Parables of the Triple Tradition, 187; Bayer, Vindication, 95; McKnight, Jesus and His Death, 151-53). Second, the parable could not be a disguised vatininium ex eventu because the description of rejection and vindication (Ps 118) is too general; in addition, there is no interpretation of Jesus’ death beyond that of a martyr and there is no mention of the resurrection (Snodgrass, Parable, 108-109; Hultgren, Parables of Jesus, 360-62).

    Matthew includes an isolated saying in 21:43 after the citation of Ps 118:22-23 in 21:42. Jesus says, "I say to you that the Kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a people who produce its fruits." The use of dia touto to introduce the saying suggests that its inclusion in this context is redactional. Matthew has inserted it into its present context based on the common theme of taking away and giving to others and link-word karpoi. But there is no reason to consider the saying itself a Matthean creation. The fact that Kingdom of God (basileia tou theou) and not the more typically Matthean Kingdom of Heaven (basileia tou ouranôn) is evidence of its traditional provenance. In this saying Jesus is probably addressing the Jewish people as a whole and not simply its leaders; in a context of rejection, he tells them that the offer of the Kingdom of God has been rescinded because of their lack of fruit, which is a metaphor for actions. The implicit subject of the passive verbs is God. The actions in response to his message of the Kingdom of God that Jesus expected from his generation was to believe the good news about the Kingdom of God and to repent if necessary. But, since this fruit is not forthcoming, the Kingdom now will be given to a people who will produce the expected fruit. The people (ethnoi) to whom the Kingdom will be given can only be those—considered collectively—to whom the offer of the Kingdom was not initially made. In other words, they are gentiles.

5.2. Banquet Still Held

Speaking parabolically, Jesus teaches that, in spite of its rejection, the banquet, which is a metaphor of the Kingdom of God, will still be held, but with different guests, who are replacements for the ones originally invited (Mt. 22.1-10; Lk. 14.16-21). He intends obliquely to communicate that the Kingdom of God is now to be offered to gentiles.

    Although they each tell a similar story, two parables in Matthew and Luke are too different from each other to be ascribed to a common written source (Matt 22:1-10; Luke 14:16-21). In fact, they are so different that it is advisable to handle them as literarily and tradition-historically independent of each other, rather than as two versions of the same original parable. It is conceivable that Jesus told both parables at different times to make the same point. In general, each parable is a narrative about a man who holds a banquet, sends out his servant(s) to summon the guests to the banquet to which they have been previously invited. (It was the practice to summon the guests to the banquet at the moment when everything was ready.) When the invited guests do not come to the banquet, however, the man becomes angry, writes them off and sends out his servant(s) again in order to find replacement guests among those who would not ordinarily be invited to one of his banquets. The point made in both parables is that the banquet is still held even when those invited refuse to come and in their place the host must invite his social inferiors to the banquet.

In Matthew’s parable, those originally invited seize the servants sent to them to deliver the invitation, and kill them. The response is predictable: "The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city" (22:7). It is often argued that Matt 22:6-7 is a Matthean addition, since it is allegorical, breaks the connection between 22:5 and 22:8—unrealistically placing the event between the refusal of the original guests and the invitation of the originally uninvited guests—and reflects the historical event of the destruction of Jerusalem (Bultmann, History, 175; Manson, Sayings of Jesus, 129; Jeremias, Parables, 63-65, 66-70; Linnemann, Gleichnisse, 99; Breech, Silence of Jesus, 117; Kloppenborg, Formation of Q, 229). But there is good reason to suppose that Jesus predicts the destruction of Jerusalem. Any unrealistic elements in the parable result from its being an allegory, of which Jesus is capable of using. Likewise, interpreters hold that Luke’s two sendings of servants is a later addition intended to be interpreted allegorically: the first sending is to the social and religious outcasts in Israel whereas the second sending is to gentiles (14:21-23) (Bultmann, History, 175; Vögtle, "Die Einladung zum grossen Gastmahl und zum königlichen Hochzeitsmahl. Ein Paradigma für den Wandel des geschichtlichen Verständnishorizonts,"’ in Das Evangelium und die Evangelien. Beiträge zur Evangelienforschung, 171-218 [171-90]; Michaelis, Gleichnisse Jesu: Eine Einführung, 179; Jeremias, Parables, 64; Weiser, Knechtgleichnisse, 62; Reiser, Jesus and Judgment, 241). It is questionable, however, whether the two sendings should be interpreted in this manner and not as simply making the point that God’s mercy is great: "There is still room."

    Both parables are allegories, although not every narrative detail is intended to be decoded. The use of hyperbole pushes the narrative to the point of incredulity: a hearer would not expect first that none of the invited guests would come to the banquet and second that the host would be so indiscriminate in his choice of replacements. This lack of realism serves to guide the hearer in the decoding of the allegory, insofar as it focuses the hearer’s attention on those two points. Jesus presupposes knowledge of a conventional metaphor on the part of his hearers: eschatological salvation is a banquet. From this point of departure, the allegory unfolds. If the banquet is metaphor for the Kingdom of God, which is Jesus’ preferred term for Israel’s eschatological salvation, then the host in each parable must represent God. The invited guests would be understood to be Israel: God offers to the nation the opportunity to accept the Kingdom of God. What comes next in the parable has the potential to cause great offense to his readers. When the offer of the Kingdom of God is refused, God offers it to those who were not originally invited, who are the inferiors of Israel in a salvation-historical sense. These others can only be gentiles, since Jesus offers the possibility of entering the Kingdom of God to all Israel, even to "tax-collectors and sinners."

A very common interpretation of this parable, usually in its hypothetical, more original form, is that Jesus is defending his decision to offer the Kingdom of God to "tax-collectors and sinner." On this interpretation, since the righteous, who are the socially and religiously respectable, have rejected him and his message, Jesus then turns to the social and religious outcasts in Jewish society. In the parable, the righteous in Israel are represented by the originally-invited guests and the tax collectors and sinners by those not invited. (In Luke’s parable these are ‘the poor, crippled, blind and lame’.) See Dodd, Parables of the Kingdom, 93; Manson, Sayings of Jesus, 130; Jeremias, Parables, 179-80; Hahn, "Das Gleichnis von der Einladung zum Festmahl," in Verborum Veritas, 51-82; Schulz, Spruchquelle, 400-402; Linnemann, Gleichnisse, 97; Dupont, "La parabole des invites au festin dans le ministére de Jésus," in Etudes sur les Evangiles synoptiques, 667-705 (682-91); Eichholz, Gleichnisse der Evangelien, 145-47; Wenham, Parables of Jesus, 136-39; Snodgrass, Stories, 316-17. But there is no evidence that Jesus first seeks out the righteous and only when his overture is rebuffed turns to the "tax collectors and sinners." Rather, from the beginning he offers the Kingdom of God to all Jews. There are other interpretations that also miss the point of the parable (Perrin, Rediscovering, 110-14; Weder, Gleichnisse Jesu als Metaphern, 177-93; Breech, Silence of Jesus, 114-41; Harnisch, Gleichniserzählugen Jesu, 230-53; Schottroff, "Gleichnis vom grossen Gastmahl in der Logienquelle," 204-205; Forbes, God of Old, 105-107; Hultgren, Parables of Jesus, 339-40). There seems to be reluctance on the part of interpreters to have Jesus rescind the offer of the Kingdom of God to Israel, even temporarily.

Question 

What happens to the offer of the Kingdom of God when it is rejected by Jesus’ generation?

6. Jesus’ Community

In response to the failure of his mission, Jesus establishes a community composed of his disciples and others who have accepted him and his message of the Kingdom of God. He turns from the nation as a whole to a minority of Jews defined by their relationship to him. Jeremiah’s new covenant, a synonym for the Kingdom of God, is established for Jesus’ community, and this by means of his death. Presumably, to this community will be added those gentiles who respond positively to the offer of the Kingdom of God.

6.1. Simon the Rock

Following Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Davidic Messiah, Jesus explains that henceforth he will concentrate his efforts on creating his community and Peter is to be the foundation of this new people of God.

    Matt 16.13-19 represents a longer version of Peter’s Confession than that found in Mark 8.27-28, one that includes Jesus’ response to Peter’s confession of him as the Davidic Messiah (Christ) (Matt 16:16-19). The origin of Matt 16.17-19 has been disputed by commentators, but one position that the evidence does not support is that it is Matthean redaction. There remain two options: either Matt 16.17-19 was interpolated into the Markan framework or it originally belonged to a longer, non-Markan version of Peter’s Confession. The latter explanation is the best, since Matt 16.13-19 gives evidence of being a unity. (Matt 16.17-19 is a triad, and each of the three parts consists of three lines having a thematic statement followed by an antithetically structured distich.) Using wordplay, Jesus says to Simon that his name is "Rock" (petros) because on "this rock" (petra) he will build his community.

The term ekklêsia corresponds to the Hebrew qhl. In the LXX the term ekklêsia is used to translate the Hebrew term lhq in the phrase ‘congregation of Israel’ (e.g. Deut 31:30; Jos 8:35; Lev 16:17) or ‘congregation of Yahweh’ (Micah 2:5; Num 16:3; 20:4). The term is used especially of the restored community after the exile (e.g. Ezra 10:12, 14; Neh. 8:2, 17). Assuming that he spoke in Aramaic, Jesus would have used the word qhl (or perhaps the synonymous term knsht') (JMeier, A Marginal Jew, vol. 3, Companions and Competitors, 229).

In the original Aramaic the same word, kyp', would have been used in both clauses. In response to his realization that he and his message of the Kingdom of God will ultimately be rejected (see Matt 16.21), Jesus says that he will create a community under the leadership of Simon, one of the twelve disciples. No longer is he thinking of the restoration of Israel as his goal, but now seeks to create a community consisting of a believing remnant from Israel, those who have accepted his message. Jesus compares his community to a building and Simon to the bedrock foundation on which that building rests. The same metaphor is used in the Hodayot (Thanksgiving Hymns) to describe the building of the Qumran community: "For you have placed the foundation upon a rock (sl')" (1QH-a 14.26). Likewise the founder prays, "And you have established my house upon a rock (sl')" (1QH-a 15.6-9). The Qumran use of the metaphor differs from that of Jesus insofar as in the former there is no one individual identified as the foundation. Nevertheless, in 4QpPsa (4Q171) 3.15-16 the Founder is said to be the means by which the community is established.

Matt 16:17-19 has never been a strong candidate for authenticity; on the assumption of its continuity with the theology of the early church, most commentators have judged it to be a post-Easter creation: from the risen Lord through an early Christian prophet (Bultmann, History, 259; Bornkamm, "End-Expectation and Church in Matthew," in Tradition and Interpretation Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, 45). But there is no reason to question the historicity of Matt 16:17-19 (Meyer, Aims of Jesus, 185-97; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 146-47; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2.602-47). It provides the historian with Jesus’ response to the rejection of his message of the Kingdom of God and its messenger. It is often said that Jesus preached the imminent Kingdom of God and therefore could not have founded the institution of the church, since the two are incompatible as aims (Manson, Sayings of Jesus, 202-203; Beare, Matthew, 353-54). But he could have done both in two different historical contexts. In a non-rejection context Jesus proclaims the Kingdom of God, but in a rejection context he teaches his disciples that he will create a separate community consisting of the minority who has accepted his message. Jesus does not set out to found a sect of his own, separate from the rest of Israel; rather his community comes into existence by default (Meyer, "Jesus and the Remnant of Israel," JBL 84 [1965] 123–30; id., Aims of Jesus, 196-97; Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, 217; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2.612-13). In addition, Jesus’ decision to create a community accounts for the existence of a post-Easter church that still hopes for national eschatological renewal (Acts 1:6; 3:19-21). It is pointed out the term ekklêsia occurs in the gospels only three times in two passages (16:18; 18:17bis), and the authenticity of 18:17 is suspect. So the concept of Jesus’ community lacks multiple attestation (Meier, A Marginal Jew, vol. 3, Companions and Competitors, 231-33). But one should not dismiss Matt 18:17 as a community-product on this basis: if single attestation is the decisive criterion then other valued Jesus traditions must also be discarded. Besides, elsewhere in the synoptic gospels Jesus refers to his community metaphorically as a flock (Luke 12:32) (Jeremias, New Testament Theology, 168). Sometimes it is asserted that Jesus would not say ‘my community’ (mou tên ekklêsian) (Bultmann, "Die Frage nach der Echtheit von Mt 16, 17-19," ThBl 20 [1941] col. 265-79; Meier, A Marginal Jew, vol. 3, Companions and Competitors, 232-33). But this is exactly what he would say: the community is Jesus’ insofar as its members are determined as such by their relation to him. The terminological parallels between Matt 16:17-19 and Gal 1:15-16 are frequently advanced as evidence that the former has its provenance in the early church: "But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his son in me so that I might preach him among the gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood…" (see Meier, A Marginal Jew, vol. 3, Companions and Competitors, 235). But this parallelism can just as easily be explained as Paul’s dependence on the tradition in Matt 16:17-19 (see Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2.609-10). Some have even argued that 16:17-19 cannot be authentic because Peter never exercised the type of authority that Jesus describes (Manson, Sayings of Jesus, 203; Beare, Matthew, 354). Those who argue in this manner do seem to notice that, if true, this would count as evidence for authenticity, since it would be dissimilar both to early Judaism and the early church. Indicators of the authenticity of Mt. 16:17-19 include: 1. There are Semitisms in 16:17-19: bariôna, sarx kai haima, pulai haidou, dêsai...lusai along with asyndeton in 16.19 (Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2.605); 2. The saying meets the criterion of dissimilarity because it neither had a Jewish origin nor is any of the key terms distinctly Christian: ‘gates of Hades’, ‘keys of the kingdom’, ‘bind and loose’ (Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2.610).

    Jesus adds that the gates of Hades shall not prevail against his community, founded upon Simon. In other words, in spite of Satan's success at thwarting the national realization of the Kingdom, Jesus intends to build a community that Satan cannot thwart. The phrase "the gates of Hades" is a metaphor rooted in the Old Testament; Sheol or death is depicted as a city, and the phrase "the gates of Sheol" or "the gates of death" represents the metaphorical "city" of Sheol, the gates standing for the whole city as an example of synecdoche (Isa 38:10; Job 17:16; 38:17; Pss 9:13; 107:18). The phrase "gates of Hades" also occurs in Wis. 16:13; 3 Macc. 5:51; Ps. Sol. 16:2, with the same meaning. Jesus’ use of the metaphor "the gates of Hades" does not mean, however, the realm of death, but the realm of evil, which is depicted as an organized power, expressed by the use of the metaphor of a city. Simon is given "the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven." "Keys" are a symbol of authority (see Isa 22:22). His authority is over the Kingdom of Heaven, which implies that Israel’s eschatological salvation, in part at least, continues to be a present reality, but now only for the community, the believing remnant from Israel. Thus, Simon has the authority to "bind and loose" on earth. What this means is that Simon has preeminent authority within Jesus’ community.

The Qumran community (Essenes) is a parallel to Jesus' community: the Qumran sectarians saw themselves as the minority within the nation with whom God established the (new) covenant and whom God would vindicate at the eschaton; in their judgment, the majority of the nation was destined for destruction, unless they repented and joined the community before it was too late. In two places in the Damascus Document (text A) it is said explicitly that those who belong to the community have actually entered the new covenant (6:19; 8:21; see also 20:12 text B). The new covenant is contrasted implicitly in CD with the covenant of the forefathers, the covenant that God made with Moses and the generation of the exodus. Because of their disobedience, the members of the covenant of the forefathers came under the wrath of God, which culminated in the exile; in contrast God made a covenant forever with the remnant who held fast to the commandments, revealing to them the hidden things in which Israel went astray (3:10-14). It is not so much that there exists in God's purposes two different covenants, but rather one covenant with two different phases: a preliminary phase ending in failure and an eschatological phase ending in God's final victory over all wickedness, beginning at some point after the exile.

6.2. New Covenant

At the conclusion of his last Passover meal, Jesus takes the third cup, the cup of blessing, gives thanks for the meal, passes it around, and unexpectedly interprets it in terms of the new covenant (Mark 14:24 = Matt 26:28 = Luke 22:20 = 1 Cor 11:25). In all probability the more original version of the word over the cup is: This cup [is] the new covenant in my blood (touto to potêrion hê kainê diathêkê en tô haimati mou).The cup, or more precisely, the red wine in the cup, is metaphorical of the blood that he is about to shed. Jesus' word over the cup can be paraphrased as follows: ‘The wine in this cup represents the blood that I will shed when I die in order to establish the new covenant’. The tertium comparationis in the case of the wine is that it was a red liquid, like blood. Wine as a metaphor of blood is well-attested in the Bible and second-Temple Jewish writings.

    Jer 31:31-34 is the obvious candidate for the religious-historical background of Jesus' use of the term ‘new covenant’. The prophet speaks of a time in the future when Yahweh will make a new covenant with Israel and Judah. This new covenant is an eschatological idea insofar as it pertains to Israel’s restoration (Jer. 30-33). The covenant that Yahweh made with the generation of the exodus (Exod 24:8) is contrasted with the covenant that he will make with the generation of the eschaton (Jer 31:31-34). According to Jesus, the Jeremian new covenant is coming to realization by means of his death. Obviously, different from the original prophecy, the new covenant is not actualized for the entire nation but now only for Jesus’ community, symbolically represented by his disciples. In Jesus’ understanding, the realization of Israel’s eschatological salvation was conditional on the nation’s co-operation. Because this condition was not met, the promise of that salvation remains unfulfilled on a national basis. Now only those Jews who have accepted Jesus and his message, whom Jesus describes as his community, will receive the benefits of the new covenant, but in a modified form. It should also be noted that Jesus causally connects the realization of the new covenant with his own death; nothing is said or even implied in Jer 31:31-34 of such a condition.

There is no reason to reject the authenticity of Jesus’ word over the cup and in particular his statement that the new covenant has come to fulfillment for his community (Backhaus, "Hat Jesus vom Gottesbund gesprochen?" Theologie und Glaube 86 [1996] 343-56 [351-56]). First, if Jesus has spoken about the Kingdom of God then he can easily speak about the new covenant, since they are conceptually correlatives (criterion of coherence). The fact that only this once in the gospels does he refer to the new covenant only means that the term is not his preferred term for Israel’s eschatological salvation. Second, Jesus is not the first to give the Jeremian concept of the new covenant what could be called a remnant-interpretation: the Qumran community did so a few centuries earlier (criterion of Palestinian environment). Third, surprisingly the new covenant is not a major theme in the rest of the New Testament. Paul alludes to it twice (1 Cor 11:25, 2 Cor 3:6) and the author of Hebrews uses it in the service of proving Jesus’ superiority as High Priest (8:8; 9:15; 12:24). Nor, apart from a few references in second-Temple texts, is it a major theme in second-Temple Judaism (criterion of dissimilarity).

    As Jesus uses it, the concept of the new covenant is a synonym for the Kingdom of God: both denote Israel’s eschatological salvation. There is nothing unusual about his speaking of the new covenant when he has already spoken of the Kingdom of God. So when he speaks about establishing the new covenant for his community he also means that the Kingdom of God is established. Moreover, the new covenant is a conceptual correlate of the Jewish understanding of the Passover in the second-Temple period. The annual celebration of the Passover was an eschatologically-charged festival. So, if Nisan 15 was to be the day of Israel's final redemption, it must also be the day on which God would bring to realization the promised Jeremian new covenant. Jesus seems to have made this connection. He understands his last Passover as the day of Israel's eschatological redemption, the day on which the new covenant or Kingdom of God will be established, but only for those who have accepted his message and no longer for the entire nation.

According to the LXX, early rabbinic texts and the Targums, the celebration of Passover intends a future event as well as a past one. The first-century Jew probably looked forward to a future messianic redemption as well as back to redemption from Egypt. In the LXX, the Mekilta and the Targumic material there is evidence that the Passover meant for its first-century participant both the remembering of a past redemption and the hope of an analogous redemption on the same date in the future. (For a more detailed study see Füglister, Heilsbedeutung des Pascha, 219-26.) LXX Jer 31:8 (38:8) places the restoration of Israel—and by implication the establishment of the new covenant—on Passover. Nisan 15, according to the Mekilta, is the designated time of redemption. On that date God spoke to Abraham at the covenant between the parts, the ministering angels announced to Abraham that Sarah would give birth and Isaac was born exactly a year later, and Israel was redeemed from Egypt. Some time in the future, therefore, on Nisan 15 Israel would be redeemed again. This is R. Joshua’s interpretation of the phrase ‘a night of watching unto the Lord...for all the children of Israel throughout their generations’: it was a night of watching and it continues to be for all Israel, for Israel will be redeemed in the future on that night (Mek. Pisha 14.113-121 [on Exod 12:42]). R. Eliezer, however, expresses a contrary opinion; he sees the future redemption as coming in the month of Tishri. His exegesis, however, seems to be idiosyncratic. The poem of the four (Passover) nights in the Palestinian Targums speaks of Passover as the night of redemption on which God redeemed Israel out of Egypt and would act savingly again at the end of the world. The first Passover night was the creation of the world; the second Passover night the Lord revealed himself to Abraham; the third night saw the exodus of the Israelites, in fulfilment of the promise to Abraham; the fourth night is yet to come: "When the world reaches its end to be redeemed: the yokes of iron shall be broken and the generations of wickedness shall be blotted out; and Moses will go up from the desert. One will lead at the head of the flock and the other will lead at the head of the flock and his Word will lead between them, and I and they will proceed together. This is the night of the Passover to the name of the Lord: it is a night reserved and set aside for the redemption of all the generations of Israel." A Passover night in the future will be the night on which the final redemption of all the generations of Israel will take place. Passover as the eschatological time of redemption is also found in Exod Rab.12.1 (on Exod 15:11) in an interpretation of Exod 12:1, "This month is for you the first month, the first month of your year. In this month Isaac was born, and bound as a sacrifice; in this month, Jacob received his blessings and predicted that this month would be the beginning of salvation; in this month God redeemed Israel out of Egypt; finally in this month Israel ‘is destined to be redeemed again, as it says: as in the days of thy coming forth out of the land of Egypt will I show unto him marvellous things (Micah 7:15)."

Source

Sea of Galilee at Evening

6.3. To All Nations

The resurrected Jesus sends his disciples to the nations (Matt 28:19-20; Luke 24:46-47). In Matthew, they are to make disciples baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. In Luke, Jesus says that repentance and forgiveness will preached in his name to the nations.

 
  Question

What is Jesus’ community and how does it relate to the Kingdom of God?

7. Jesus and the Future

In the context of his rejection and his anticipated death, Jesus speaks about his eventual return when he will reassemble the tribes of Israel in the land, as the prophets foretold. (Earlier, it was noted that Jesus said that his people would not see him again until they they say "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord," which would be a messianic confession [Luke 13:34-35 = Matt 23:37-39].) It seems that Jesus teaches that the eschatological salvation offered to Israel but rejected will still come to realization upon his return. The interval between his death and his return will see the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem, the building of his community (ekklesia) and the discipleship of the nations. In a non-rejection context Jesus taught that the Kingdom of God was a historical process which began with John the Baptist and his appearance and would culminate in eschatological reversal, restoration to the land, resurrection, judgment, removal of Satan and allied spirits. (This was continuous in many ways with Jewish eschatological expectation.) In a rejection context, Jesus teaches that the Kingdom of God will still come to completion, but now at his second appearance. Israel retains a hope for the future. At his return Jesus will assume the role of judge of not only Jews but also gentiles. He instructs his disciples that until his return they must wait and be faithful. How Jesus' community relates to the Kingdom of God in its culmination is not specified in Jesus' synoptic teaching. It seems clear, however, that the building of his community is a manifestation of the Kingdom of God in a rejection context, but not its culmination. At his return, the Kingdom of God will be present in a way that it was not before his return.

7.1. Israel’s Future Hope

Jesus still holds out hope for the nation. The condition of being under the judgment of God is not permanent but only temporary. At a time in the future, the progress of the Kingdom of God will resume for the nation. When this will occur, however, is not specified. This hope is expressed primarily in the "eschatological outlook" (Luke 22:14-16, 18) (see Mark 14:25) (but see also Luke 13:35 = Matt 23:39). See also Dispute about Greatness and Granting of Kingdom.

    During his last Passover meal, Jesus twice indicates his belief in an abiding eschatological hope for Israel. Before the Passover meal begins, he tells his disciples, ‘For I say to you, I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God’ (22:16). He indicates that this is his last Passover meal with his disciples before he dies, but he expects to celebrate Passover with them again (22:15). By the phrase ‘in the Kingdom of God’, he is referring to the time of culmination of the Kingdom, so that in spite of the fact that it has been rejected by his contemporaries, Jesus still expects the Kingdom to come to realization for the nation. Later Jesus commands his disciples to take the first Passover cup, the Qiddush cup, which he has blessed, and to divide its contents among themselves (Luke 22:17). What Jesus does likely departs from the usual practice. The practice of passing around the first cup is not found in the sources, although there is evidence for the passing around of the third cup. (The disciples may have drunk from their own cups in addition to the cup passed around by Jesus.) Jesus then adds, "I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the Kingdom of God comes" (22:18). Luke 22:18 is close to Mark 14:25 and arguably is a variant of it. Mark’s version is as follows: "Truly I say to you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the Kingdom of God." There are no substantial differences between the two versions: both refer to the time of culmination of the Kingdom of God when Jesus again will be drinking wine in a festival setting. No doubt Jesus is alluding to the eschatological banquet, which he may have further specified as an eschatological Passover (see Luke 13.29; 14.15; 22.29-30). Again this saying presupposes that Jesus believes that, in spite of its rejection by his generation, the Kingdom of God will still come for the nation. It should be noted that, whereas in a non-rejection context he taught that the Kingdom of God would culminate within the lifetime of some of his contemporaries, Jesus now says that there will be an indeterminate period of time between his death and the realization of the Kingdom of God for the nation.

7.2. Events at the End

Matthew combines material from Mark and another source, which Luke keeps separate from his Markan source. These two sources provide information about Jesus' view of the future. The material in them can be organized as follows: Mark 13:24-32 = Matt 24:29-36 = Luke 21:25-33; Luke 17:22-37 = Matt 24:23-28, 37-42; Luke 12:39-40 = Matt 24:43-44.

7.2.1. Mark 13:24-26 = Matt 24:29-30 = Luke 21:25-27

Jesus says that the son of man will come upon the clouds of heaven, which is a unmistakable allusion to Dan 7:13-14. Jesus interprets his coming as that of the son of man (see Jesus' Titles for a more complete discussion of Jesus' use of the term "son of man.")  This description follows immediately upon Jesus' prediction of the destruction of the Temple, and could be interpreted to mean that Jesus expects to return immediately after 70, a little less than forty years after his departure. Indeed, Jesus says, "I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened" (Mark 13:30 = Matt 24:34 = Luke 21:32), which seems to mean that his generation would see both the Temple destroyed and Jesus' return as the son of man. If so, then Jesus' return is delayed. But a better explanation suggests itself. Jesus' return could immediately follow upon the destruction of the Temple in the sense that no other eschatologically significant event will intervene between the two. The phrase "in those days" (en ekeinais tais hemerais) is an eschatological reference, pointing to the time of the end when God would bring salvation and judgment to the world (see Jer 3:16, 18; 31:29; 33:15-16; Joel 3:1; Zech 8:23). In other words, it does not necessarily mean the time immediately following the destruction of the Temple. Indeed, Jesus teaches that his coming will be unexpected (Luke 12:39-40 = Matt 24:43-44; Matt 24:36), since no one can know its exact hour or day, which would not be the case if it were to occur immediately following 70. Thus, Jesus interweaves two perspectives into his discourse, the imminent and the eschatological. These are unified by Dan 9:27, which he takes to predict the destruction of Temple by Titus but also to refer to the coming of an eschatological oppressor of Israel, who will emerge just before Jesus' appearance as "the son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory" (see Dan 7:8-12). This explains the reference to the "distress" (thlipsis) prior to appearance of the son of man (Mark 13:24; Matt 24:29). The period in which Jesus "builds his community" is situated between the destruction of the Temple and the appearance of the son of man on the clouds. As such this salvation-historical period is depicted as atemporal, so that these prophetic events appear to be close in time, but only in prophetic time. Jesus provides no information on how long this salvation-historical period of the church will actually be.

Beasley-Murray proposes that Mark 13:24-26 (and its parallels) is secondarily joined to what precedes it, so that one should not take Mark 13:24 to mean that the return of son of man follows upon the destruction of the Temple (Jesus and the Kingdom of God, 331). He argues that the phrase "But in those days" was "added at some stage in the tradition to make connection with a preceding context."  Mark then inserted the next phrase "following that distress" to make the connection more explicit.  If so, then originally the saying described the nature of the return of the son of man after an unspecified tribulation (thlipsis). But is better to handle Mark 13 as a literary unity.

The idea that penultimate to the end would comes a time of great distress is common in second-Temple Judaism (see Apocalypse of Weeks [1 En. 93:1-10; 91:11-17]; 4 Ezra 5:1-13; 6:20-24; 8:58; 8:63-9:13; 13:14-20; 16:70-75; 2 Bar. 25-30; 70; 1QH-a 3.6-18; 3.19-36). Jesus also warns his disciples to ignore any any false Messiah or false prophets who will appear before his return.

7.2.2. Mark 13:27 = Matt 24:31

Angels will gather the elect from the four corners of the earth. The gathering of the elect is probably the reassembling in the land of all Jews alive at the time of the coming of the son of man. (This is a dominant expectation in the Old Testament and the second-Temple literature.)

7.2.3. Luke 17:34-36 = Matt 24:40-42

The appearance (parousia) of the son of man (Matt 24:39) (or, as Luke has it, "The day on which the son of man will be revealed [apokaluptetai] [17:30]) will be a time of judgment. In particular, there will be a separation of human beings for the purpose of judgment, expressed as the taking of one of a pair and the leaving of the other. In Matthew's version, of the two in a field one is removed while the other remains. Likewise, there are two woman grinding at a mill; one is taken and the other is left. In Luke's version, instead of the two in the field, the picture is of two in a bed: one is removed while the other remains. (It seems that Matthew and Luke had access to different versions of this saying, which explains most of the differences between them.) Whether it is Jews or all human beings who are being judged is not clear from the context.

Temple Scroll The text known as the "Temple Scroll" is one of the longest of the Dead Sea Scrolls. It measures 8.75 meters in length and consists of nineteen leather sheets ten inches high and about eighteen inches wide. The text is a rewriting of the Torah beginning at Exod 34 (Actually the first column of the scroll is missing); the sequence of topics covered roughly follows the order in the Torah, but the material has been re-organized, systematized and augmented; in addition all of the narrative elements from Exodus 34 onward have been omitted, leaving only legal material. This section of the Temple Scroll deals with the sacrifices to be offered for the annual consecration of priests (11QTem 15-17).

7.3. Being Prepared for Jesus' Return

Jesus instructs his disciples to be watchful and prepared for his return, because they will not know when he will return. They are to act on the assumption that Jesus will return, and will hold them accountable for what they have done (Matt 25:1-13; Luke 12:35-48 = Matt 24:45-51; Luke 12:41-48).

• Matt 25:1-13

In Matt 25:1-13, Jesus tells the Parable of the Five Foolish Young Women, the point of which is that the disciples must be prepared for Jesus' coming.  In accordance with the custom of the day, a bridegroom would come to his house during the night to take his bride, who had been taken there earlier. When the bridegroom's approach was announced, women would leave the bride to meet the bridegroom light their way with oil lamps and then accompany him to his house. There could be quite a delay between the arrival of the bride and that of the bridegroom. The wedding party then moved on to the house of the bridegroom's father, where the guests were entertained (Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 173). This is what is being described in Matt 25:1: "At that time the Kingdom of Heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom." Jesus then relates a story about five "wise" young women who had brought enough oil to keep their lamps lit until the bridegroom arrived and five "foolish" young women who did not.  Jesus compares the Kingdom of Heaven to this situation; his point is that the Kingdom of Heaven in its future culmination will come with his appearance, so that the disciples must be prepared for this eventuality. This is the application of the parable: "Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour" (Matt 25:13).

• Luke 12:35-40 = Matt 24:42-44

In Luke 12:35-40, there is found a series of sayings that probably once circulated independently; Matthew has the two sayings represented by Luke 12:24:39 (= Matt 24:42-43) (Matt 24:42 may be Matthew's own introduction to the parabolic saying) and Luke 12:40 (= Matt 24:44). Luke 12:35 is joined to Luke 12:36-38 by means of the link-word "to gird one's loins" (perizonnumi), which is then joined to the following saying (12:39) by the common theme of unexpected coming; the final saying is joined to the preceding not only the common theme of unexpected coming by also by the link-word "hour" (hora).

    In Luke 12:35, Jesus commands his disciples to be ready; he does so by means of two metaphors. First, he says that they should gird up their loins. In the first century, most Jews in Palestine wore the Greek chiton (Latin: tunica), an long, ankle-length, loose-fitting garment with a belt around the waist. (The outer garment was the himation [Latin: toga].) In preparing for work or other activities, a person would pull up the garment and hold it in that position with the belt; the excess garment would hang over the belt. In using this image, Jesus is instructing his disciples always to be prepared. Second, Jesus says that the disciples should keep their lamps lit. Again his point is that the disciples should be in a state of readiness. In Luke 12:36-38, Jesus advises the disciples to be like servants who wait for the return of their master from a wedding feast, which lasted well into the night, even until "the second and third watches of the night." Thus, Jesus is using another metaphor to describe his expectation of his disciples: they are the servants who wait for Jesus' return, their master. He promises the disciples that the master will serve them upon his return, symbolized by the master's girding up his loins; this could be an allusion to being a participant at the Messianic banquet (12:37). In Luke 12:39 = Matt 24:43, Jesus compares his coming to that of a thief:  since a householder does not know when a thief will come to break into his house, he must be prepared for the thief to come at any time. In the final saying, Jesus says, "But you must be prepared, because the son of man comes at an hour when you do not expect him to come" (Luke 12:40 = Matt 24:44).

• Matt 24:45-51 = Luke 12:41-46

In Matt 24:45-51 = Luke 12:41-46, Jesus tells his disciples to be like a "wise" servant, who, while waiting for his master's return, behaves circumspectly. He will be found to be blameless when his master comes back, and rewarded by being given charge of his master's possessions. By contrast, the wicked servant, who does not know when his master will return, behaves criminally, and is caught unawares when his master returns. Such a servant will be punished. (Luke adds another saying at the end of the parable [12:48b].)

7.4. Judgment of the Nations

Jesus foresees a judgment of the nations at the end (Matt 25:31-46) (see Matt 28:19-20; Luke 24:47). In Matt 28:19-20, Jesus, after his resurrection, instructs his disciples to go to the gentiles and make disciples of them, teaching them to keep everything that he commanded them. In Luke, Jesus tells his disciples to preach in his name a repentance for the forgiveness of sins to the gentiles. In Matt 25:31-46, Jesus says that at his return, he—the son of man—and all the angels with him will sit upon the throne of his glory. This, no doubt, denotes the culmination of the Kingdom of God. Jesus refers to a future judgment of all human beings, not just Jews: "All the nations will be gathered before him; and he will separate them from one another" (25:32). After this, he will separate the righteous and the wicked among the nations as a shepherd separates sheep and goats.  (He compares this judgment to a shepherd's separation of sheep and goats.) The righteous—the sheep—inherit the Kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world. The wicked—the goats—are removed to the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. It is not clear whether this judgment is of the living and the dead or just the living. (In a non-rejection context, Jesus spoke also of judgment at the culmination of the Kingdom of God, but the judgment concerned only Israel.) The criterion of this final judgment is what a person has done. Jesus also refers to the fact that "the devil and his angels" will be punished by means of being sent into the same eternal  fire as unrighteous human beings (25:41). It is a commonplace in second-Temple texts to find that, at the eschaton, the devil (or one of his other designations) and the angels under his control will be removed from the earth and judged (see Jub. 23:14-31; 50.5; 1 Enoch 55; 61; 90:24-25; T. Levi 18:12; T. Dan 5:10-11; T. Judah 25:3; T. Zebulon 9:8; 11QMelch; 1QM 1.9-15)  In 1 Enoch 55.4, in fact, it is the Messiah, "my Elect  One," who judges Azaz'el and his allied spirits (see also 1 Enoch 61.8).

 
  Question

What does Jesus foresee with respect to the future?

BACK TO INDEX PAGE