NT Wright on the desctruction of Jerusalem in Paul's thought

Continuing the futurist/preterist discussion started by Sarah B, here is a pertinent quote from Tom Wright who argues that the destruction of Jerusalem was the imminent apocalyptic event that Paul was aware of and that the second coming of Christ and renewal of creation was something much further away on Paul's eschatalogical horizon.

"[T]here are some passages in Paul which are often taken to refer to this final apocalypse, but which Paul probably did not intend that way. When he speaks of God's wrath coming 'at last' upon the inahabitants of Judea (1 Thessalonians 2.16) he is probably not thinking of the great moment he describes in chapter 4, but of an interim judgement, warned of by Jesus himself, on the city and on the people that had rejected their messiah. Indeed, when he grieves over his fellow Jews in Romans 9-11, I think part at least of that grief is conditioned by his awareness that they are living under the shadow of impending national disaster. Likewise, when he writes in 2 Thessalonians that the young church should not be worried if they got a letter saying that the Day of the Lord had arroved, it is clear that he cannot be referring to anything of the same order as the renewal of creation in Romans 8 or the royal presence of the Lord in 1 Thessalonians 4 or 1 corinthians 15 - still less to the end of the space-time universe, which the Thessalonians themselves would presumably have noticed. Her again I think Paul is aware - and his allusions to what we know as Matthew 24 and parallels may bear this out - that early tradition included solemn warnings from Jesus himself about the imminent destructino of Jerulsalem and the Temple. This is the event which had to happen within a generation; and this, I think - though this is boud to be controversial - is why Paul felt a sense of urgency in his mission to the gentile world, which has commonly been thought of as a feature of his apocalyptic style theology theology. It was not that he had to save as many many people as he could, a quick representative sample, before the ultimate end of things. It was that he had to plant stable Jew-plus-Gentile churches on Gentile soil before the event occured which would make Jews blame the Christians for letting the side down, and which woul invite Gentiles to sneer at Jews for having lost their home and capital city. Here as elsewhere, when we understand Paul's apocalyptic theology we will find it rooted within and referring to, actual historical events."

[Source: NT Wright, Paul in Fresh Perspective, 56]

Who are the Nations in Matthew 25:32?

Thanks to Sarah, David and Jane, and Fiona, for contributing to the discussion here on how we should read Mathew 25. This is something of a response to Sarah's argument, not because I think Sarah must agree with me, or that I even have a hard and fast opinion on the subject, but because there are some problems with her argument which need fixing if it is to be convincing.

Firstly, I like Sarah's summary of the message of the first two parables in Matt 25, of the Ten Virgins: "the kingdom of Heaven is an imminent event that is coming but will take a bit longer than expected!" and of the parable of the Talents: "we need to do the best with what we have and keep on working untill the master returns." I don't know that anyone would disagree with that. But it is fair to say that the climactic and sudden event that the parables describe is usually thought of by Christians as describing the end of history when Christ returns to judge the living and the dead and to renew the creation. So why does Sarah instead read them as relating to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 and the end of the Jewish system of temple sacrifice? The substantial part of Sarah's argument relies on identifying the "nations" (ethnos) in Mathew 25:32 as the Jewish diaspora. This is distinctly unlikely for the following reasons:

1. Just because a word is used one way by one author in Acts that does not control its meaning when used by a different author in Matthew.
2. But, in this instance Acts 2:5 is referring to Jews who have come FROM every nation. The word "nation" does not describe the Jews but merely where they have been living. So for there to be consistency (although there does not have to be) between the passages, ethnos would not refer to the Jews at all but the nations in which the diaspora was found.
   
3. Most importantly the words here rendered "nations" (ethnos) is a word used 14 times in Matthews gospel and every time it is used it refers to foreign pagan nations not the Jewish people living among those nations.* This reason alone is enough to render Sarah's argument as it stands untenable. For the writer of Matthew's gospel to have used the word consistently, as he has given every indication of doing, it simply must refer to foreign nations.
   
4. When the word ethnos appears in the plural and with the definite article as it does in this passage my Greek NT dictionary tells me it can be translated: "non-Jews, gentiles, pagans, heathen, unbelievers." I cannot find any reason to understand this word to refer to a diaspora.

Now there are other issues but that is the big one. I think if the argument is to have any merit it needs to concentrate more on the immediate context. Most people (in my experience) agree that Matt 24 refers (at least in part) to the AD 70 fall of Jerusalem. As Matt 25 is part of the same monologue as 24 this needs some explaining.

Let me know what you think :)

* In the NIV Matt 4:15, 10:5, 10:18, 20:19, 20:25, rendered "Gentiles"; Matt 6:32, rendered "pagans"; Matt 12:18, 12:21, 24:7, 24:9, 24:14, 25:32, 28:19 rendered "nation/s" (not the Jewish nation); Matt 21:43 rendered "a people" (not the Jews);

Sarah B. on Matt 25

[It is my pleasure to introduce the first of our guest posters. Sarah is a Kiwi, raised in the Philipines, who lives most of the time in East Germany. She is mum to two girls and she and her husband are currently involved with YWAM. I have invited a few different people to contribute and Sarah is the first to respond with something. She would appreciate your feedback, she is writing here to help here refine her thoughts and understanding. Do you agree with what she has written? Do you disagree? Most importantly, why? What arguments to you find convincing/problematic? What evidence has been missed or interpreted in a way you are unsure of? Let us know what you think - Jonathan :)]

Matt 25 is a really hard one to interpret because it really needs to be read and understood in the context of Matt 24. It does not really stand alone as it is a continuation of Jesus speaking about events that will soon take place and giving more pictures to explain this. It starts by likening the Kingdom of heaven to five wise virgins who took extra oil with them, waited and did not share with others because they might need it themselves and were then invited into the wedding feast. So... the kingdom of Heaven is an imminent event that is coming but will take a bit longer than everyone anticipates! (If Jesus were communicating a more than 2000 year wait instead of just 30 years then I think he would have used a different illustration but it is not clear what time frame from these verses.)

The next part of the chapter compares the kingdom of heaven to wise servants who use their talents and multiply them so that those that have will receive more and those that don’t have will be tossed out. So we need to do the best with what we have and keep on working until the master returns.

Then Jesus talks about the nations (ethnos) being gathered and judging them, separating the sheep from the goats. First of all, I believe Jesus is talking about the same "nations" (ethnos) as he just mentioned in Matt 24. Mat 24:14 and this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations (ethnos), and then the end will come. And it must be the same "nations" that is mentioned in Acts 2:5. "Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation (ethnos) under heaven." If there were people from every nation under heaven in Jerusalem does that mean there were Maoris’ there? Germans? A lot of people groups and nations didn’t even exist then as we know them today. So "Nations" either meant the Roman Empire or perhaps more precise, all the Jews that were living in all the nations that were known in that time. The meaning has to stay the same for all of these passages to remain consistent so with that in mind it follows that the gospel has to be preached in all nations in the Roman Empire before the end will come. In the end and when the kingdom of heaven begins all (Jews in the) nations in the Roman Empire will be gathered and judged. Then finally in Acts it is recorded that people from all the nations were gathered in Jerusalem and heard the gospel. Also in Col 1:5, "because of the hope laid up for you in heaven. Of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel, which has come to you, as indeed in the whole world it is bearing fruit and growing" and even in Romans 16:26- 27, “but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith-- ) So if all the nations did hear the gospel and the end (the beginning of the kingdom of Heaven) was imminent and actually did come in AD70 during the colossal destruction of Jerusalem when it is estimated that almost 1 million Jews were killed and the Jewish nation ended. Then I believe they must have also been judged and the sheep separated from the goats. What was this end that is talked about? I believe that the end that is talked about is in fact the end of the Jewish (Mosaic) covenant and system of temple worship and “righteousness”. A process that Jesus began with his birth and then death on the cross and it was completed when the Jewish race was "judged" and destroyed by the roman armies in AD70.

So the separating of the sheep and the goats refers to the judgement of the Jews that died from the beginning of the Jewish covenant untill that point. Those who were the true sheep went into eternal life and the goats were sent away to eternal punishment. Notice that Jesus talks specifically about what they did and didn’t do in relation to Jesus and his family (the least of these...) on earth... "I was hungry and you gave me nothing to drink". It was a judgement specifically for the Jewish nation in their time and context. Jesus spoke of this coming judgement in the parable of the vineyard owner in Matt 21:33. This judgement concluded the Jewish (Mosaic) age (time or covenant) and the Kingdom of heaven was established and began to grow here on earth as it is in Heaven.

We are now Abraham's offspring by faith in Jesus and no longer by blood and circumcision and his everlasting covenant applies to all of us. Rom 4:13 "for the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith." Rom 4:14 "for if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void." Gal 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Gal 3:29 "And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise." How does this change the way we live today? We have focussed on a very small part of Jesus’s teaching about the end times that was not even intended for us but was for the Jews pre AD70. Because of this we have missed the major message that Jesus spoke to us about! The Kingdom of Heaven! What is it and how do we live it and bring it here on earth as it is in heaven. That is what we are here for, what Jesus died to set us free to do and is all we need to focus on! Bringing God’s kingdom on earth is our job with his and the Holy Spirit’s help and the more we do it the more we will see it come. It is up to us and we need to start living it and doing it!