This past Lord’s Day we concluded Matthew 23. The passage does have some interpretative challenges. I didn’t want to deal with all the views in a sermon, so here is my attempt to fairly represent each position. Good and godly people disagree here and there is much to learn. I tend to be in between the second and third view with a slight nod to the second.
THREE VIEWS OF MATTHEW 23:39
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! See, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'"
NATIONAL REPENTANCE OF ISRAEL VIEW
This view holds that the words of Jesus in Matthew 23:39 is conditional on Jerusalem acknowledging Jesus as the Messiah. Interpreters of this view emphasize, you will not see me again, until you say, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord”. They hold to the fact that Jesus is willing to return and bless Jerusalem as He once before, if they acknowledge Him as the Messiah. They apply this verse not to mean when the Messiah comes, His people will bless Him, rather it means when His people acknowledge Him as the Messiah, and He will come and bless them. Proponents of this view hold that Jesus condemnation is directed to Israel’s leaders, not Israel as a whole. They also point to many statements in the Old Testament regarding God’s covenant with Israel, and therefore they believe God’s credibility is at stake in verse 39.
Strengths of this view
1. Emphasizes the Messianic promises of Psalm 118.
2. Compliments many of the Old Testament passages concerning God’s faithful promises to Israel.
3. Highlights that much of Jesus condemnation is directed toward Israel’s leaders (woes of chapter 23) than to Israel as a nation (since many Jews did acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah).
4. Seeks to be exegetically sound by emphasizing the until of verse 39.
Weakness of this view
1. The immediate context is one of judgment.
2. Jesus does address more than just the religious leaders according to verse 37, and it isn’t the religious leaders who exclusively participate in the killing of Jesus.
3. Exegetically this position loosely puts verse 38 and 39 as clearly Matthew has them tighter together.
4. Nowhere in Matthew’s gospel does he explicitly speak of a national conversion of Israel. In many passages it is quite the contrary.
JUDGMENT VIEW
This view holds closest to the immediate context. Interpreters of this view emphasis the final judgment of Jerusalem. The context is that Jesus is lamenting Israel’s rejection of Jesus and all He has sent her. He then judges them with desolation which is connected with His presence departing. See your house is left to you desolate, for I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.” This view connects verses 38-39 together with the “for” a key preposition stating cause. In other words, the cause of Jesus departing is connected to the desolation that is coming on Israel. Many Old Testament texts teach a similar thing, God’s presence departs from the Temple; the land is left to waste. This seems to go with the surrounding context of Matthew 23 and 24 as well. The ‘woe’ oracles preceding and the prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem all illustrate God’s judgment to a people that reject Him.
But what does one do with the quotation from Psalm 118 a purely Messianic psalm? The interpreters of the Judgment view believe this should be taken to other similar passages of universal acknowledgment of Jesus the Messiah (Isaiah 45:23; Romans 14:11; Philippians 2:10-11). In other words, the inhabitants and religious leaders of Jerusalem will acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah, but they will do so at the Judgment when it is too late for redemption. They will confess Jesus as the Messiah not in voluntary faith, but in involuntary worship. This has been the majority position throughout church history. Its proponents run from John Calvin to modern day commentators.
Strengths of this view
1. This view holds the immediate context together the best.
a.This view places the preposition “for” in its proper position of linking verses 38 and 39 together.
b. The entire context is one of judgment: the woes of chapter 23, the pronouncement of desolation verses 37-39, and the prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem (Matthew 24).
2. There will be a universal acceptance of Jesus the Messiah by all people.
Weakness of this view
1. The original purpose of Psalm 118 was to give a Messianic hope. How does this reconcile with the judgment language of verses 37-39?
2. How does this square with the teaching of Paul in Romans 11?
HOPE OF REMNANT VIEW
Those who embrace this view take verse 39 to be a hope of some in Jerusalem acknowledging Jesus as the Messiah; the remnant. The proponents of this view see a parallel here to Paul’s words in Romans 11 (11:1, 17-32) concerning an end time conversion of Israel so that “blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord” means that there will be a joyful acknowledgement of Jesus the Messiah. Interpreters of this view point to the quotation of Psalm 118 and prophetic literature as a whole. Many prophets who prophesy judgment (as is taken place in Matthew 23) will often end their doom with a message of hope. Also if one reads Psalm 118 the refrain, “the Lord’s steadfast love endures forever” is repeated no fewer than five times emphasizing this hope.
Strengths of this view
1. Exegetically, this compliments the entire immediate context.
a. It deals with the clear judgment passages in Matthew 23.
b. It applies the hope of Psalm 118 as Jesus quotes it in verse 39.
2. It seems to be consistent with most prophetic oracles.
a. First the doom.
b. Concluding with the hope of the faithful.
Weakness of this view
1. The hope of the remnant is there by implication, and assumes that Jesus is using Psalm 118 for that reason.
2. The overall context of judgment seems for one verse of hope to be misplaced.
No comments:
Post a Comment