1993 - dale c. allison - matt. 23.39 = luke 13.35b as a conditional prophecy

8/13/2019 1993 - Dale C. Allison - Matt. 23.39 = Luke 13.35b as a Conditional Prophecy

1/11


2/11

75

MATT. 23:39 = LUKE 13:35bASA CONDITIONAL PROPHECY

Dale C. Allison,Jr.,Texas Christian University,

Ft. Worth,Texas,U.S.A.

Matt. 23:39 (= Luke 13:3Sb: Q) reads as follows: &dquo;For Isay to you, you will not see me from now on until you say,

Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord&dquo; (cf. Ps.118[117]:26) /1/. Whether with reference to Matthew or Luke,to Jesus or Q, interpretations of this verse have generallyfollowed one of two paths. Either it has been construed as adeclaration of unqualified judgement, or commentators havethought the verse to hold forth the hope that Israel might oneday accept her Messiah, Jesus (cf. Rom. 11:25-27). (The tworeadings agree in assuming that the eschatological redemptionis in view /2/.) John Calvin, representing the first alternative,wrote, &dquo;He [Jesus] will not come to them Ithe Jews] until theycry out in fear - too late - at the sight of His Majesty, trulyHe is Son of God &dquo; /3/. T.W. Manson paraphrased to similareffect: &dquo;The time will come when you will be ready to say to

me, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; butthen it will be too late&dquo; /4/. And J.C. Fenton has affirmedthat, according to Matt. 23:39, &dquo;Jesus will not be seen byJerusalem again before he comes in judgement, and then they

will greet him, but with mourning&dquo; /5/. But against Calvin,Manson and Fenton, E6XoycUv and c6Xoynp6vog are not words of fearand trembling, nor are they typically voiced by the ignorant,the condemned or those in mourning. In the LXX - including,notably, Ps. 117:26, which is cited in our text - and in theNew Testament, EUOYELV and c6Xoyqpevog (like the Hebrew 11-1)are usually expressions of joy, and they consistently have avery positive connotation: &dquo;to praise,&dquo; &dquo;to extol,&dquo; &dquo;to bless,&dquo;&dquo;to greet&dquo; /6/. For this reason, it is not easy to envision

the words of Ps. 118[117]:26 as coming, begrudgingly orotherwise, from the lips of those for whom the messianic adventmust mean only destruction. Further, what precedent is therein ancient Jewish or early Christian literature for the notion

by guest on February 9, 2013jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/


3/11


4/11

77

13:2; 14:58; and Luke 23:27-31. It follows that the temple inthe capital cannot be, as it is in Ps. 118[1171:26, the sourceof any proper blessing. It likewise follows that those in thetemple do not now bless Gods spokesman, Jesus, he who willsomeday come as the Messiah. But this means that the words ofPs. 118[117]:26, if they be understood (as they are in Matt.23:39 = Luke 13:35b) as prophetic /13/, must refer to some timeyet ahead. And this is precisely what one finds in our synoptictext: the time for the blessing of the one who comes in the nameof the Lord is moved into the future. So it appears that Matt.

23:38-39 = Luke 13:35 reflects a consistent interpretation ofPs. 118[117]:26. &dquo;Your house is forsaken&dquo; is the reason whythere is presently no fulfillment of the prophetic Psalm, whythe exclamation, &dquo;Blessed is he who comes in the name of the

Lord,&dquo; is thought of as outstanding. The lines from Q areaccordingly best regarded as a unit, which puts a question markover

any interpretation that requires us to divide them.

There is a third possible interpretation for Matt. 23:39 =

Luke 13:35b, one which, we urge, should be adopted. &dquo;Until yousay&dquo; (w av ECRNTE or gwg IcL 6TE /14/) can be understood tosignal a conditional sentence /15/. The text then means not,when the Messiah comes, his people will bless him, but rather,when his people bless him, the Messiah will come. In otherwords, the date of the redemption is contingent upon Israelsacceptance of the person and work of Jesus. Four considerationsbolster this interpretation.

First, belief in the contingency of the time of the finalredemption is well-attested in Jewish sources of the secondcentury and later. The following passages are typical: (1)R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus (ca. 80-120 C.E.) is purported to havesaid that if Israel does not repent she will not be delivered;but if she does

repentshe will be delivered

(b.Sanh.

97b) /16/.(2) According to R. Simeon b. Yohai (ca. 140-160 C.E.), if thenation would keep only two Sabbaths, the Lord would immediatelyusher in salvation (b. Sabb. 118b). (3) In b. Sanh. 98a we readthat Zeiri (middleAmoraic) declared in the name of R. ijanina b.Hama (earlyAmoraic) that the Son of David will not come untilno conceited men remain in Israel. (4) Sifre Deut. 41 (79b,Tannaitic) announces that if Israel were to keep the Law, Godwould therewith send Elijah. Similar sentiments are expressed

in, among other places, b. B. Bat. l0a (R. Judah, ca. 170-200C.E.), b. Sanh. 97b (R. Samuel b. Nahmani [middleAmoraic] inthe name of R. Jonathan [earlyAmoraic]), b. Sanh. 98a



5/11

78

(R. Alexandri, earlyAmoraic), b.Yoma 86b (R. Jonathan,earlyAmoraic), and y. Taan. 63d (R. Joshua b. Levi, earlyAmoraic).In addition to the wealth of the relevant rabbinic material,

Acts 3:19-21 - which probably contains pre-Lukan tradition -supplies firm evidence that belief in a contingent eschatologycould be found already in the first century /17/. Moreover,there are a number of places in the Pseudepigrapha whererepentance and the consummation of the age are held together,and in some of these it seems likely that repentance is assumedto be a precondition for the coming redemption /18/.Possibilities include T. Dan. 6:4 (lst or 2nd cent. B.C.E.?),T. sim. 6:2-7 (lst or 2nd cent. B.C.E.?), T. Jud. 23:5 (1st or2nd cent. B.C.E.?),As Mos. 1:18 (2nd cent. B.C.E. or 1st cent.

C.E.), 2Apoc. Bar. 78:7 (late 1st or early 2nd cent. C.E.), and

Ap. Ab. 29 (2nd cent. C.E.?) /19/. Finally, 4 Ezra (late first,early 2nd cent. C.E.) rebuts the thought that the Kingdom of Godhas been delayed on account of the sins of those who dwell onthe earth /20/ and thereby evidently discounts the claim -presumably made by someone known to the author - that

righteousness might hasten the climax of the eschatologicaldrama /21/.

Secondly, lwg can indicate a contingent state in Greeksentences in which the realization of the apodosis is dependentupon the realization of the protasis /22/. In such cases the

meaning of Ews is not simply temporal (&dquo;until&dquo;) /23/ butproperly conditional (close to &dquo;unless&dquo;). Matt. 5:26 = Luke15:59; Matt. 18:30; Acts 23:12; and 2 Thess. 2:7 are examplesfrom the New Testament /24/. Similarly, the Hebrew orAramaic1y - which, presumably, lies behind the ~wg of Matt. 23:39 =Luke 13:35b if we have to do with a word of Jesus or the

Palestinian community (cf. the Syriac: nnuy) - sometimessignifies more than the inevitable passing of a temporal span:it can also be used when an envisioned state is contingent uponsome act that may or may not be performed /25/. Illustrationsof this are: Gen. 19:22: &dquo;I can do nothing until (1Y; LXX: w)you arrive there.&dquo; Gen. 29:8: &dquo;We cannot water the sheepuntil (1Y; LXX: lwg) all the flocks are gathered and the stoneis rolled away from the mouth of the well.&dquo; Deut. 22:2: &dquo;It

shall be with you until (1y; LXX: Ewg av) your brother seeksit&dquo; (cf. 11 Q Temple lxiv, 15). Ezra 4:21: &dquo;Make a decree ...that this city not be built again until (1y) a decree is made

by me.&dquo; Ahikar 130-31: &dquo;Rest for your soul do not take until(~y) you have paid back the loan.&dquo; Cowley ii, 17: &dquo;Ours you havea right to seize until (1y) you are indemnitied in full.&dquo; I Q S



6/11

79

viii, 19: &dquo;No member of the Covenant who blatantly takes away aword from all that is commanded shall touch the sacred meal ...until (1Y) his deeds are cleansed from all error.&dquo; 11 Q Templelviii, 18: &dquo;And he will not go forth until (1Y) he has firstgone before the high priest.&dquo;

IIm. Ber. 7:5: &dquo;The blessing over

wine may not be said until (1y) water be added to it.&dquo; b. Sanh.98a: &dquo;The Son of David will not come until (7y) all judges andofficers are gone from Israel.&dquo; Lev. Rab. 24:3 &dquo;They should not

go away from this place until (1Y) they notice a clot of bloodon the surface of the water.&dquo; y. Ter. 46c: &dquo;They shall not seeme until (1y) they have taken a bath.&dquo; In most of the textsjust cited, &dquo;unless&dquo; would be no less adequate a translationthan &dquo;until.&dquo;

Thirdly, the structure of Matt. 23:39 = Luke 13:35b arguesfor the conditional interpretation. There appears to have beena

standard way of expressing ones beliefas

to what condition(s)must be realized before the eschatological redemption couldcome. Consider the following passages:

b. Sanh. 98a: Zeiri (middleAmoraic) said in R. Haninas name

(late Tannaitic): &dquo;The Son of David will not come until (1Y)there are no conceited men in Israel.&dquo;

b. Sanh. 98a: R. Hama b. Hannina (earlyAmoraic) said: &dquo;The Sonof David will not come until Oy) even the pettiest kingdomceases to hold power over Israel.&dquo;

b. Sanh. 98a: R. Simlai (earlyAmoraic) said in the name ofR. Eleazar b. Simeon (late Tannaitic): &dquo;The Son of David willnot come until (1y) all judges and officers are gone from Israel.

b. sanh. 98a: R. Hanina (late Tannaitic) said: &dquo;The Son of Davidwill not come until

(1Y)a fish is

soughtfor an invalid and

cannot be procured.&dquo;

b. Ab. zar. Sa: R. Jose (ca. 130 C.E.) said: &dquo;The Son of Davidwill not come until (1y) all the souls destined for bodies are

exhausted.&dquo;IT

b. sanh. 98b: Rab (last half of the second century C.E.) said:&dquo;The Son of David will not come until (Ty) the [Roman] power

enfolds Israel for nine months.&dquo;

Each of these texts has the same structure, which can be set

forth thus:



7/11

80

(a) statement about the messianic advent with adverbialparticle of negation attached (&dquo;The Son of Davidwill not come&dquo;)

(b) conditional particle (uy)

(c) condition to be met (in Israel) for fulfillment ofthe messianic advent (e.g., &dquo;no conceited men inIsrael&dquo;)

Now Matt. 23:39 = Luke 13:35b can be analyzed as havingprecisely the same structure:

(a) statement about the messianic advent with adverbialparticle of negation attached (&dquo;You will not see me,&dquo;&dquo;me&dquo; being Jesus, the Messiah)

(b) conditional particle (E

(c) condition to be met (in Israel) for fulfillment ofthe messianic advent (those in Jerusalem utter,&dquo;Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord,&dquo;and thereby acknowledge the person and work of

Jesus).

It therefore appears that the synoptic verse sets forth, in atraditional fashion, a condition for the great redemption.

Fourthly, we have argued that whereas, on the one hand,Matt. 23:39 = Luke 13:35b is not likely to be a statement ofutter rejection, on the other hand, an unqualified announcementof salvation does not follow well upon Matt. 23:37-38

= Luke

13:34-35a (see above, pp. 1-3). The conditional interpretationcommends itself by

findinga middle

groundthat avoids the

pitfalls of the other alternatives. The thought of judgementis present because, for now, Israel has not received the

messenger of God; she has refused to accept the one sent to her,and therefore the redemption has not come. And yet, despitethis element of judgement, the thought of salvation is alsopresent. For Jesus affirms that, if she will, Jerusalem can,in the end, bless in the name of the Lord the one who will come,and her doing so, that is, her repentance, will lead to

deliverance.

Even if it does not require a Sitz im Leben within Judaism

or early church, we cannot be certain that the lament over



8/11

81

Jerusalem, Matt. 23:37-39 = Luke 13:34-35, was spoken byJesus /26/. But whatever one concludes concerning the genesisof our text, its conclusion, Matt. 23:39 = Luke 13:35b, wasevidently formulated to give expression to the conviction that,if Israel would repent, the end would come. The verse shouldthus be compared withActs 3:19-21, in which Peter exhorts the

people of Jerusalem to repent and turn again, in order thattimes of refreshing might come from the Lord, that is, that hemight send Jesus the Messiah. Both the text from Q and thesentence from Peters sermon make the time of the Kingdomscoming hinge upon the repentance of Gods people (cf. also2 Pet. 3:11-12 and 2 Clem. 12).

NOTES

/1/ Luke doesnot

have Matthews "fromnow

on" (&aacgr;&aacgr;),which must be regarded as redactional (cf. 26:29 and 64).Matthew does not have Lukes "the time comes when" (&eeacgr; &oacgr;),which may have stood in Q; but there is much uncertainty here.&eeacgr; &oacgr; has weak textual support (D lat sys c). Simple &eacgr;&sfgr;is read by P75 B L R syP sa 892. &eacgr;&sfgr; &aacgr; is found inp45 N f13. Nestle has &eeacgr; &oacgr;ϵ in the text but in brackets,indicating doubtful authenticity./2/ For the reasons see T.W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus,London: SCM, 1949, 127-28. Luke, however, may have seen thesayings fulfillment in the triumphal entry; see Luke 19:38.Matthew, by placing the verse after Jesus arrival in Jerusalem,excludes this possibility./3/ John Calvin, A Harmony of the Gospels Matthew, Mark andLuke, vol. III, trans. A.W. Morrison, Edinburgh: SaintAndrew,1972, 71.

/4/ Sayings, 128./5/ J.C.

Fenton,Saint Matthew, Middlesex:

Penguin, 1963,377.

Cf. S. Schulz, Q: Die Spruchquelle der Evangelisten, ZUrich:

Theologischer Verlag, 1972, 358./6/ See H. van der Kwaak, "Die Klage ber Jerusalem (Matth.XXIII 37-39)," NovT 8 (1966), 165-66; W. Beyer, "ϵ&uacgr;&ogr;&eacgr; .,"TDNT 2 (1964), 754-765; and J. Scharbert, "" TDOT 2 (1975),279-308.

/7/ According to E. Schweizer (The Good NewsAccording toMatthew, Atlanta: John Knox, 1975, 445), Matt. 21:9 shows "that

one can rejoice while still in ignorance, without realizingwhat one is doing." This, however, hardly applies to Matt.23:37-39, where the eschatological vindication of Jesus is inview: that event will not leave people in ignorance.



9/11

82

/8/ F. Godet, A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke, 5th ed.,Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1957, 2:131-132; I.H. Marshall,Commentary on Luke (New International Greek TestamentCommentary), Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1978, 577; andJ. Ernst, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (RNT), Regensburg: FriedrichPustet, 1977, 434. Schweizer(Matthew, 445) and D. Hill (TheGospel of Matthew New Century Bible , London: Oliphants, 1975,316) leave the question open.

/9/ Cf. van der Kwaak, "Klage ber Jerusalem," 165./10/ Cf. R. Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition,rev. ed., New York: Harper& Row, 1963, 115./11/ Matthew adds &eacgr;&ogr;&sfgr;, "desolate," at least according tomost early mss.

/12/ Scholars have debated whether the &ogr;&Tgr;&ogr;&sfgr; of Matt. 23:38 =

Luke 13:35a is the temple or Jerusalem; see, e.g., O.H. Steck,Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten (WMANT 23),

Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1967, 228,n.

3;D.E. Garland,

The Intention of Matthew 23 (NovTSup 52), Leiden: E.J. Brill,1979, 198-200; and F.D. Weinert, "Luke, the Temple, and JesusSaying about JerusalemsAbandoned House (Luke 13:34-35)," CBQ44 (1982), 75-76, But it is not necessary to distinguish herebetween temple and city. Jewish "texts dealing with the Templealways implicitly, and usually explicitly, implicate the city,just as Jerusalem became the quintessence of the land, so alsothe Temple became the quintessence of Jerusalem." As far as

the ancient literature is concerned, one may speak of "theinterpenetration or the identification of the City and theTemple and the indiscriminate transition from the one to theother." So W.D. Davies, The Gospel and the Land, Berkeley,California: University of California, 1974, 152 and 144respectively. For texts and discussion see further ibid.,144-145 and 150-154; also L.R. Fisher, "The Temple Quarter,"JSS 8 (1963), 34-41./13/ In the early church Ps. 118 was viewed as containingprophecies of the messianic advent; it was an important sourceof testimonia. NoteActs 2:33; 4:11; Mark 11:9-10; 12:10; and1 Pet. 2:7 and see B. Lindars, New TestamentApologetic, London:

SCM, 1961, 43-44, 111-112, 169-174, 179-180, 184-186. There isalso evidence that Ps. 118 was interpreted messianically inJudaism; see E. Werner, "Hosanna in the Gospels," JBL 65(1946), 97-122 and J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus,London: SCM, 1966, 256-260.

/14/ Seen.

1 above./15/ Cf. van der Kwaak, "Klage ber Jerusalem," 165-70.



10/11

83

/16/ It should be noted that R. Eliezars statement occurs in adebate with R. Joshua, who takes the other side: the redemptionwill come even before Israel repents. For discussion of thisdebate see L. Landman, "Introduction," in Messianism in theTalmudic Era, ed. L. Landman, New York: KTAV, 1979, xix-xxiiiand E.E. Urbach, "Redemption and Repentance in Talmudic Judaism,"in Types of Redemption (Studies in the History of Religion 18),ed. R.J. Zwi Werblowsky and C.J. Bleeker, Leiden: E.J. Brill,1970, 191-206./17/ For discussion ofActs 3:19-21 see especially R.F. Zehnle,Peters Pentecost Discourse (SBLMS 15), Nashville: Abingdon,1971, 45-60, 71-75 and F. Hahn, "Das Problem alterchristologischer berlieferungen in derApostelgeschichteunter besonderer Bercksichtigung vonAct 3, 19-21," in Les

Actes des Aptres: Traditions, rdaction, thologie (BETL 48),ed. J. Kremer, Gembloux/Leuven: J. Duculot/Leuven University,

1979, 129-154./18/ We cannot here enter into the problem created by thejuxtaposition of apocalyptic determinism and a contingenteschatology in some of the intertestamental literature - exceptto observe that the undeniable contradiction is not extraordinarybut simply one more instance of those paradoxes or antinomiesthat run throughout all religious traditions, including theBiblical. Is the conjoining of a Naherwartung with belief inthe conditional nature of prophecy any more difficult than therabbinic statements that hold together divine foreknowledge andhuman free-will? "All is foreseen, but freedom of choice is

given" (m. Ab. 3:16). One can hardly answer, Yes, especiallyin view of the "essential irrationality" of eschatologicalthinking; see R. Otto, The Kingdom of God and the Son of Man,new and rev. ed., London: Lutterworth, 1943, 59-63. It is alsoto be observed that several apocalypses combine the ideas ofdeterminism and human freedom; contrast, e.g., 1 En. 41:8;2Apoc. Bar.

42:7;andApoc. Ab. 22 with 1 En. 43:2; 2Apoc. Bar.

54:15, 19; 85:7; and Apoc. Ab. 26./19/ InApoc. Ab. 29 we have a vision in which righteous men"hasten" the glory of Gods name: "And then shall righteous menof thy seed be left in the number which is kept secret by me,hastening in the glory of My Name to the place preparedbeforehand for them ..."(Box). Cf. the ϵ&upsi;o&sfgr; of 2 Pet.

3:12.

/20/ 4:39: "It is perhaps on account of us that the time of

threshing is delayed for the righteous - on account of the sinsof those who dwell on earth" (RSV). The seer goes on to rejectthis notion; see 4:40-43.



11/11

84

/21/ We should also perhaps observe that in the Testament (orAssumption) of Moses, it is the death of Taxo and his sons - adeath that is actively sought - which "forces" the end; seeJ. Licht, "Taxo, or theApocalyptic Doctrine of Vengeance,"JJS 12 (1961), 95-103 and D.C. Carlson, "Vengeance andAngelicMediation in Testament of Moses 9 and 10," JBL 101 (1982),85-95. And it is interesting that Ps. Sol. 17 places thepromise of redemption within a context of moral exhortation andthus seems to assume that national penitence can hasten thedivine intervention; cf. S. Mowickel, He That Cometh, Oxford:Basil Blackwell, 1956, 297./22/ Cf. W.W. Goodwin, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of theGreek Verb, New York: St. Martins, 1965, 235-37./23/ In some instances,of course, &eacgr;&sfgr;, like the Hebrew and

Aramaic (with which we shall be concerned below), losesaltogether the idea of termination and expresses "a limit whichis not absolute

(terminatingthe

preceding action),but only

relative, beyond which the action or state described in the

principal clause still continues" (E. Kautzsch andA.E. Cowley,Gesenius Hebrew Grammar, 2nd ed., Oxford: Clarendon, 1910, 503).See e.g., Gen. 26:13; 49:10; Ps. 112[111]:8; Matt. 10:23;Mark 9:1; and 13:19./24/ Cf. van der Kwaak, "Klage ber Jerusalem," 170./25/ For further discussion of see K. Beyer, Semitische

Syntax im Neuen Testament, SUNT 1, Gttingen: Vandenhoeck&

Ruprecht, 1962, 132, n. 1./26/ At least five points can be made in favor of authenticity.(1) The threat against Jerusalem and its holy place has itsparallel in Jesus prediction of the end of the temple (Mark13:2 and parallels). (2) Jesus elsewhere spoke of the violentfate that the true prophet must suffer (Luke 13:31-33; Luke6:22 = Matt. 5:11-12; Matt. 23:34-36 = Luke 11:49-51).(3) The fate of being stoned is perhaps envisioned for thespeaker (so J. Jeremias, New Testament Theology, New York:Charles Scribners Sons, 1971, 284). (4) There are synopticpassages which, if authentic, show us that Jesus did not thinkof the time of the eschatological redemption as unalterablyfixed; see, e.g., Luke 13:6-9; 18:1-8; and Mark 13:18. (5) No

explicit claim to Messiahship is made: the status of the speakeris only indirectly indicated, which is consistent with what weotherwise know of Jesus.

1993 - dale c. allison - matt. 23.39 = luke 13.35b as a conditional prophecy

Documents