Visit our new blog. It lists all the new things that we are doing and what new material has been added to our site. We even list new missionaries who sign up with us for technical support so you can pray for them. FCM News
Seven Woes
1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2"The
teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3So you
must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what
they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4They tie up
heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves
are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
5"Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their
phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6they
love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats
in the synagogues; 7they love to be greeted in the marketplaces
and to have men call them 'Rabbi.'
8"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one
Master and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth
'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are
you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ.
11The greatest among you will be your servant. 12For whoever exalts
himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
Explanation: THE FUTURE AND THE KINGDOM (23:1-25:46)
Matthew's final discourse (chaps. 23-25) approximately balances
the first discourse (chaps. 5-7) in length and concludes with the
same summary statement as the other discourses: "When Jesus
had finished saying all these things" (26:1). But whereas Jesus'
first sermon in Matthew opens with blessings for the meek (5:3-12),
his last opens with woes against the religious elite. Jesus here
condemns much of the religious leadership of his and Matthew's day.
Judgment against both the religious teachers (scribes and Pharisees)
and the temple blend together with the final judgment in this final
sermon of the Gospel. Matthew's audience, probably facing increasing
pressure from the religious elite of their own day (very possibly
successors of the Pharisaic scribes), would have heard in these
warnings cause for hope.
At the same time, scribes and Pharisees are hardly the address's
main audience; these words function instead to warn Christians.
The explicit audience, as in the first discourse section (5:1-2;
7:28), consists of both disciples and crowds (23:1). Sometimes Christian
preachers have caricatured Pharisaic piety to avoid the demands
that Jesus' condemnations otherwise would make on Christians today
(see Odeberg 1964). Just as judgment separated true from false religion
at Jesus' first coming, it would do the same at his second, laying
bare the hearts of church leaders (24:45-25:30).
Judgment on the Religious Elite (23:1-39)
Jesus opens his prophecy of end-time judgment with a severe critique
of the religious establishment of his day--the same establishment
that had been challenging him in the previous chapter. Although
Matthew's first audience would hear in this critique a promise of
judgment on the Judean leaders of their own day, who continued to
oppose their message, Matthew also wanted them--and us--to look
deeper. Jesus' own professed servants can belong among the "hypocrites"
(24:51). Like Paul in Romans 1--2 and Amos in Amos 1--3, Matthew
forces leaders in his own community to see themselves through the
prism of a disobedient religious establishment that opposed its
Lord and thereby summons them to take warning.Religion for Show
(23:1-12)
Teachers of the law are literally "scribes," which throughout
the Empire included those who wrote legal documents for others,
but in Judea and Galilee included educated teachers who instructed
children in the law and in some cases taught adults as well. Pharisees
were a particularly scrupulous brotherhood of teachers and laypersons
committed to interpreting the law according to the traditions received
from earlier Pharisees. Both groups (which overlapped at points)
probably derived from families with some means, and Pharisees clustered
especially (though not exclusively) in Jerusalem, where some of
them belonged to the urban elite. Luke correctly distinguishes scribes
and Pharisees (Lk 11:39-54), but like modern preachers, Matthew
is telling the story in a manner that addresses the enemies of his
own community, of whom Pharisaic scribes seem to be the dominant
element (compare Hare 1967:81). Matthew is sensitive to the Jewish
orthodoxy of his own audience, which probably included some Christian
scribes (Mt 13:52; 23:34) and Pharisees (Acts 15:5; compare 23:6),
but by Matthew's day the non-Christian Pharisaic leadership had
probably marginalized all Christians, Pharisaic or not.
Religious Leaders Must Live What They Teach (23:1-4)
Jesus agrees that many of the scribes and Pharisees' ethical teachings
are good; the problem is not their teaching but their lives (vv.
2-3; Rom 2:21), a dichotomy known to exist among many religious
professionals and other religious people today. The religious leaders
here have seated themselves in Moses' seat, probably meaning that
they have adopted the role of the law's interpreters (compare Carson
1984:472). Although Pharisaic ethics emphasized being as lenient
or strict with others as one was with oneself (ARN 23, Section 46B),
in practice Jesus accuses them of being too strict with others and
too lenient with their own failings (compare 5:18-20; 15:1-20),
which fits the way Christians often evaluate sins today.
Religious Leaders Must Not Seek Marks of Honor (23:5)
Many Greek philosophical teachers wore identifying apparel that
elicited respectful greetings (as in Justin Dial. 1), and Jewish
scribes may have preferred identifying raiment as well (see b. Baba
Batra 98a). Whereas phylacteries were supposed to glorify God (Bonsirven
1964:61), the wearers here use them to draw attention to themselves.
Jewish sources associated phylacteries, tepillin, with sissim, tassels
or fringes attached to the outer cloak's four corners (Num 15:38-40;
Deut 22:12). Following the law, Jesus himself presumably wore sissim
(9:20; 14:36) and used tepillin. The issue here is not about wearing
fringes or not, but whether we seek honor for ourselves or for God
alone.
Religious Leaders Must Not Seek Honored Treatment (23:6)
As in much of the Mediterranean world, Palestinian Jewish society
included a heavy emphasis on honor and even hierarchy. Seating was
normally by rank (as in t. Sanhedrin 7:8; 8:1; Lk 14:7-11; 1QS 2.19-23),
and greetings (Mt 23:7; compare 26:49) were virtually mandated by
social custom.
Religious Leaders Must Not Seek Honorary
Titles (23:7-11)
Social etiquette dictated the manner of greetings: one must greet
one's social superior first (Manson 1979:99; Goodman 1983:78). Sages
were objects of special honor (as in t. Mo`ed Qatan 2:17). Fitting
this context of public honor and salutations (vv. 6-7), in Jesus'
day Rabbi was probably an honorary greeting, "my master"
(vv. 7-8; only gradually did it come to be added as a title to a
given teacher's name). But whereas Jesus' disciples will carry on
his mission of teaching, they will make disciples for him rather
than for themselves (28:19).
Some people used abba ("papa") as a respectful title for
older men and other prominent individuals (Jeremias 1971:68), and
may have especially viewed Bible teachers in these terms (see, for
example, Sipre Deut. 34.3.1-3). But with God as their Father, Jesus'
disciples are all siblings (compare 12:48-50; 18:15; 28:10). Matthew's
original readers, who knew all about the titles and power Pharisaic
teachers were claiming for themselves, would hear Jesus' teaching
as a warning not to be like their competitors by seeking honorary
titles or a position above others.
John Meier, a Roman Catholic scholar, notes Jesus' prohibition of
the title father and questions the use of ecclesiastical titles,
which arose even in Matthew's church in Syria a few decades after
his Gospel (1980:265). But while we Protestants may determine "pecking
order" by different means, most of our churches offer the same
temptations for personal advancement. In most church services, ministers
(including guest ministers performing no function in the service)
grace the platform; many churches use various forms of social conformity
to increase offerings. In some circles ordained ministers are taken
aback if they are not greeted with the title "Reverend,"
which literally means "one worthy of reverence, one who should
be revered." Is it possible that the very criticisms Jesus
laid against the religious establishments of his day now stand institutionalized
in most of his church?
God Alone Exalts in the End (23:12)
Sometimes we grow jealous of others' ministries or spiritual gifts.
But Jesus teaches here that exalting remains God's business alone.
He echoes the biblical (as in Is 2:11-12; 5:15-16; Ezek 21:26) and
later Jewish (as in Sirach 11:5-6; 1 Enoch 104:2; 1QM 14.10-11)
emphasis on end-time reversal of present status.
13-32
13"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!
You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do
not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
15"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!
You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he
becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.
16"Woe to you, blind guides! You say, 'If anyone swears by
the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of
the temple, he is bound by his oath.' 17You blind fools! Which is
greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? 18You
also say, 'If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but
if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.' 19You
blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the
gift sacred? 20Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it
and by everything on it. 21And he who swears by the temple swears
by it and by the one who dwells in it. 22And he who swears by heaven
swears by God's throne and by the one who sits on it.
23"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!
You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cummin. But you
have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy
and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without
neglecting the former. 24You blind guides! You strain out a gnat
but swallow a camel.
25"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!
You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full
of greed and self-indulgence. 26Blind Pharisee! First clean the
inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.
27"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!
You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside
but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean.
28In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous
but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
29"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!
You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the
righteous. 30And you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our forefathers,
we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of
the prophets.' 31So you testify against yourselves that you are
the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32Fill up, then,
the measure of the sin of your forefathers!
Explanation: Woes Against Human Religion (23:13-32)
Jesus' woes are the angry laments of wounded love, incited by compassion
for those whom religious leaders have led astray (see 23:37). Second-century
rabbis, probably passing on many ideas from the Pharisees of Jesus'
day, harshly condemned hypocrisy (for example, t. Yoma 5:12). Christians
today often think of "Pharisees" as hypocrites and hence
do not feel threatened when hearing them denounced. But the Pharisees'
contemporaries thought of them as very devoted practitioners of
the Bible, and of the scribes as experts in biblical laws. In today's
terms, Jesus was thundering against many popular preachers and people
who seemed to be living holy lives--because they were practicing
human religion rather than serving God with purified hearts.
I suspect that much of what passes for Christianity today is little
more than human religion with the name of Jesus tacked onto it,
because like most of the religion of Jesus' contemporaries, it has
failed to transform its followers into Christ's servants passionately
devoted to his mission in the world. When rightly understood, Jesus'
woes may strike too close to home for comfort. When religion becomes
a veneer of holiness to conceal unholy character, it makes its bearers
less receptive to God's transforming grace.
Religious Leaders Sometimes Do More Harm
Than Good (23:13-15)
Jesus first accuses these religious leaders of "shutting"
off the kingdom, using the image of a majordomo, a prominent official
who carried keys (16:19; Is 22:22; Rev 3:7). This may allude to
scribes' purported authority to "bind" and "loose"
by their knowledge of the law (Mt 16:19), here used to hinder would-be
followers of Christ (Meier 1980:268-69). Thus they are blind guides
of the blind (23:16, 19, 24; compare 15:14).
They are eager to make converts, but their converts simply mimic
and accentuate their flaws. (One thinks by contrast of the stone-drunk
man who told D. L. Moody, "I'm one of your converts,"
to which Moody reportedly replied, "I can certainly see you're
not one of the Lord's.") Although Judaism had no central sending
agency, hence no "missionaries" in the formal sense, plenty
of evidence testifies that many Jewish people were winning Gentiles
to Judaism (for example, Jos. Ant. 20.17, 34-36; Apion 2.210; Tac.
History 5.5). Jewish people actively courted many conversions in
the Gentile world until Christian emperors began enforcing earlier
Roman laws to shut down Jewish proselytism (see Jeremias 1958:11-12).
Presumably by exposing converts to the truth of God's standards
while allowing hypocrisy through their own bad example (23:3, 13),
these Pharisees were leading their converts to be doubly damned.Inconsistency
in Standards of Holiness Dishonors God (23:16-22)
See comments on 5:33-37. An oath involved invoking a deity as witness
to the veracity of one's claim. On the popular level, people had
begun using many surrogate phrases for God's name, hoping to avoid
judgment if they broke the oath. Pharisees endeavored to distinguish
which oath phrases were actually binding, but Jesus rejected such
casuistry (E. Sanders 1990:55, 91; compare CD 16.6-13). On blind
guides (23:16, 24; compare 23:17, 19; Lk 6:39), see 15:14 and the
principles in 6:22-23, 7:3-5 and 13:14-17.
As in 23:19, Jewish people viewed the altar as consecrating whatever
was offered on it (Bonsirven 1964:124). Pharisees may have prohibited
swearing by the gold of the temple because they believed that it,
unlike the temple or the altar, was subject to lien (Gundry 1982:463);
in any case, Jesus rejects their reasoning. Jesus rails in part
against traditions that have created inconsistent standards of holiness.
(We might compare churches today that rightly condemn smoking or
overeating as polluting the body yet remain silent on watching television
programs that pollute the mind. Some traditional churches regard
particular styles of clothing or music as "worldly" yet
harbor jealousy, materialism and other attitudes the Bible explicitly
condemns as worldly. Some churches fight for the authority of Scripture
yet care so little for it in practice that they ignore the context
of verses or explain away passages that seem too difficult, like
God's demand that Christians care for the poor or witness to their
neighbor.) But Jesus' attack is ultimately directed against the
profanation of God's name. Because any surrogate oath nevertheless
represents God's name and implicitly calls him to witness, any breach
of truthfulness demands judgment no less severe.
Religion Should Not Miss the Forest for the
Trees (23:23-28)
While emphasizing what we believe to be holiness in the details,
we can miss more critical issues of holiness; some older churches,
for example, condemned wearing earrings yet did so in a spirit of
self-righteousness or anger--hardly reflecting the "gentle
and quiet spirit" (1 Pet 3:4 NASB) they wished to promote.
Having remarked on the religious leaders' inconsistency in ritual
matters (vv. 16-22), Jesus now turns to their inconsistency in other
respects, beginning with tithing. Ancient Israel had been an agrarian
society, and Israelites brought one-tenth of their produce into
storehouses to provide for all the (landless) Levites and priests,
and once every third year for a major festival, paying the way of
the poor who otherwise could not participate (Lev 27:30; Num 18:21-32;
Deut 14:22-29; Neh 13:10-12). (Modern ministers who use Mal 3:8-10
to warn nontithers they are "robbing God" ought to beware:
to be consistent we must use these tithes for what the Bible commands--the
support of ministers and those in need. Yet Jesus' more radical
standard is that everything we are and have belongs to God and the
work of his kingdom--Lk 12:33; 14:33.)
Pharisees were particularly known for their scrupulousness in tithing
(as in ARN 41A; Borg 1987:89). Building their fence around the law,
these religious people were careful about tithing even substances
whose status as foodstuffs was disputed, so that it was not clear
whether the Old Testament agrarian tithe applied to them (compare
Jeremias 1969:254). Jesus accepts that the leaders should have kept
these biblical laws but insists that they have missed the forest
for the trees (compare 7:3-5); their neglect of the law's basic
requirements (Deut 10:12-13; Mic 6:8) is inexcusable.
Like Jesus, most Jewish teachers recognized some commandments as
more important, literally "weightier," than others (compare
Johnston 1982:207). Although he, like his contemporaries, regarded
no commandment as light (see comment on 5:19; compare Jas 2:10-11;
m. 'Abot 4:2), Jesus himself taught much about "weightier"
matters, even in this context (Mt 23:5, 17, 19). Today as well,
many of us separate from or condemn other Christians on the basis
of our interpretations of isolated passages while neglecting broader
principles (like charity or the equal standing of all believers
in Christ).
Jesus illustrates the inconsistency in verse 24 with a witty illustration
about Pharisees who were more scrupulous than Pharisaic legal rulings
required. If a fly fell into one's drink, Pharisees taught that
it must be strained out before it died, lest it contaminate the
drink (compare Lev 11:34); but they decided that any organism smaller
than a lentil (such as a gnat) was exempt (E. Sanders 1990:32).
Since most of us today would not want a gnat dying in our drink
either, we may have sympathy with a Pharisee who for a different
reason--passion for purity--went beyond the letter of the law to
remove it (see E. Sanders 1990:38). Nevertheless, these Pharisees
were so inconsistent, Jesus said, that they concerned themselves
with purity issues as trifling as a gnat but did not mind swallowing
a camel whole. In ancient writings gnats are cited as the prototypically
smallest of creatures (Ach. Tat. 2.21.4-5; 2.22); camels, which
were explicitly unclean under biblical law (Lev 11:4), were the
largest animal in Palestine (see comment on 19:24).
Although Jesus speaks metaphorically about the inside of a cup (that
is, the human heart) in Matthew 23:25-26, he may allude to a matter
of some debate among his contemporaries. The Shammaite school of
Pharisees were less concerned whether one cleansed the inner or
outer part first. In contrast, the Hillelite Pharisees thought that
the outside of a cup was typically unclean anyway and thus, like
Jesus, insisted on cleansing the inner part first (Neusner 1976:492-94;
m. Berakot 8:2). On the surface Jesus' statement challenges Shammaite
practice (though for the effect of the metaphor); but he actually
addresses the purity of our hearts, a point he reinforces in his
next illustration.
Although dead creatures in a beverage produced impurity (23:24),
corpse uncleanness (v. 27) was more severe, extending seven days
(Num 19:11-14; Jos. Ant. 18.38; m. Kelim 1:4). If so much as one's
shadow touched a corpse or a tomb, one contracted impurity (E. Sanders
1990:34, 232). Although Jesus may have originally alluded to the
springtime practice of using whitewash to warn passersby and Passover
pilgrims to avoid unclean tombs lest they become impure and hence
barred from the feast (m. Mo`ed Qatan 1:2; Ma`a'ser Seni 5:1; Seqalim
1:1), as in Luke 11:44, Matthew focuses on an incidental effect
of the marking. For him whitewash is a beautifying agent to cover
a tomb's corruption (borrowing the image from Ezek 13:10-12). The
leaders' outward appearance (compare Mt 23:5, 28) merely provided
a veneer for the impurity, hence lawlessness (literally; NIV wickedness),
of their hearts. To those who prided themselves on obedience to
Torah, the charge of lawlessness would be deeply offensive and shaming.Those
Who Hate Prophets Have a Long Line of Predecessors (23:29-32)
It is possible to be very religious yet hate God's message and messengers!
In verses 29-36 Jesus challenges the hypocrisy of those who honor
the prophets by caring for their tombs, yet like their ancestors
will kill the Prophet who has come to them. Their behavior proves
that, spiritually speaking, they are not descendants of the prophets,
but rather descendants of those who killed them. (A parallel today
would be to claim, "If I had lived in 1830, I would have opposed
slavery," while treating others in racist or otherwise demeaning
ways today; or to say, "If I had lived in Nazi Germany, I would
have helped Jewish people escape Hitler," while fearing to
speak against abortion or racism lest someone think us too reactionary.)
Employing irony in a manner typical of the prophets (who sometimes
told the people to go on sinning but to expect God's judgment for
it--Is 6:9; 29:9; Jer 23:28; 44:25-26; Ezek 3:27; Amos 4:4-5), Jesus
tells the leaders to fill to the brim the role of prophet murderers
they have inherited, so that the judgment accumulating for generations
will finally be poured out (Mt 23:36).
33-39
33"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being
condemned to hell? 34Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise
men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others
you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35And
so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed
on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah
son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
36I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.
37"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone
those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children
together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were
not willing. 38Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39For I
tell you, you will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he
who comes in the name of the Lord.'"
Explanation: Impending Judgment on the Religious Establishment
(23:33-39)
Many of us today do not like to preach on judgment, but the prophets
of Scripture, including Jesus, heavily emphasized warnings about
judgment. If we are to be faithful to our calling as Christ's followers
and if we care about others, we dare not shortchange Scripture's
message of judgment on individuals and nations. We must recognize
that every nation, including our own, will face divine punishment
(if Israel, how much more Gentiles!). Yet we must remember that
God's heart of judgment sometimes sounds most like a lament (v.
37).
Persecutors of God's Servants Will Face Judgment (23:33-36)
Just as the religious people had murdered God's spokespeople in
the past (vv. 29-31), they would do to Jesus (v. 32) and his followers
(v. 34). But whatever judgments past generations might have suffered,
the true guilt had been saved up for the climactic murder of this
generation--the execution of Jesus (27:25). Like Matthew 24, this
section views the destruction of the temple, due to occur in the
leaders' generation (23:35-38), in the context of the final period
of judgment (vv. 33, 39).
John the Baptist had demanded to know who warned these offspring
of vipers (see comment on 3:7; compare 12:34) to flee approaching
hellfire yet failed to call them to bear fruits of repentance (3:7-8).
Jesus offers the same message (23:33). The prophets, wise men (hokmim,
"sages") and teachers ("scribes") Jesus would
send represent the various missions of his own followers (5:12;
13:52; compare "apostles" in Lk 11:49), whether they came
as prophetic or teaching figures (see 11:18-19). Jesus here fills
a role that God filled in the biblical tradition (as in 2 Chron
36:15-16). These prophets, like the earlier prophets Jesus mentioned
(Mt 23:29-31; compare 21:35-36) and himself (23:32, 36; compare
21:39), would face persecution (see again 10:17, 23).
Filling up the cup to the brim refers to meriting all the blood
(bloodguilt) saved up among past generations, never punished as
was deserved (compare Deut 32:43; Ps 79:10; Is 40:2; Rev 6:10).
The blood of Abel, a prototypical martyr (as in Ps-Philo 16:2),
had cried for vengeance against his fraternal slayer (Gen 4:10;
Heb 11:4; 12:24; Jub. 4:3; 1 Enoch 22:6-7). Jesus' second example
is probably the Zechariah of 2 Chronicles 24:20-22, martyred in
the temple. According to Jewish tradition, Zechariah's blood, like
Abel's, cried against the murderers for vengeance, yielding the
massacre of many priests (b. Gittin 57b; p. Ta`anit 4:5, Section
14; Pes. Rab Kah. 15:7). The bloodguilt for Jesus' death would fall
on that generation (Mt 27:25). And as Zechariah's blood had once
desecrated the priestly sanctuary and so invited judgment (Lives
of Prophets 23:1; Sipra Behuq. pq. 6.267.2.1), so would the blood
of the priests in A.D. 66 as the "abomination that causes desolation"
(24:15).
Jesus Longs for Repentance Rather Than Judgment (23:37-39)
In contrast to the woes earlier in the chapter (vv. 13-29), verse
37 represents a true lament. That Jesus wishes to gather his people
under his wings recalls the image of God sheltering his people under
his wings (as in Ex 19:4; Deut 32:11; Ps 17:8; 36:7; 63:7; 91:4;
1 Enoch 39:7). But as often in the case of God in the Old Testament,
Jesus' love for Jerusalem here gives way to the brokenhearted pain
of their rejection. God also weeps over his judgment of Israel (for
example, Jer 8:21-22; 9:1, 10). Israel had killed (Jer 26:20-23;
here especially 2 Chron 25:16) and persecuted (Is 30:10; Amos 2:12)
the prophets God had sent; Jewish tradition amplified prophetic
martyrology further (Manson 1979:126-27), as did Christian tradition
(the interpolation in Sib. Or. 2.248). After A.D. 70, Jewish prayers
also confessed that Israel's sins had brought on the calamity of
exile.
This passage reminds us that God does not forget his promises to
his people. For Luke, Jesus' grief and his promise that they will
see him later (Lk 13:34-35) precedes, hence is fulfilled in, the
triumphal entry (19:41); Matthew places it among the woes of coming
judgment, but in so doing transforms this into a promise of future
hope (compare Mt 10:23; Glasson 1963:96-98; Aune 1983:176). Israel's
restoration was a major theme of the biblical prophets and reappeared
at least occasionally in early Christianity (Rom 11:26), though
the emphasis of early Christian apologetic came to focus on the
Gentile mission.
In this context, the impending judgment Jesus promises for the climactic
shedding of his blood is the "desolation" of their house--the
temple's destruction. To this theme the discussion quickly turns
(24:1-3, 15).
