Apocalyptic & Matthew 24

Here's something I'm considering on the apocalyptic in Matthew 23-25:

Scholars (ahem, N.T Wright) often level out the vertical eschatology of Matthew by placing a heavy emphasis on the destruction of the temple during the Roman invasion in 70. But, I'm wondering if this doesn't do justice to the narrative flow of chapters 23-24. In 23.38, Jesus declares "your house is left desolate." Many take this as an oblique reference to his spirit leaving the Jewish Temple permanently based on Jewish rejection of the gospel (23.37). What if the symbolic nature of 23.38 is physically represented in 24.1, when Jesus leaves the temple? The syntax could bring this out with a bit more force, but I'm at Starbucks and don't have a grammar near-by.

I'm wondering if Jesus' words in 24.2, obviously in reference to the temple, are also word-pictures of a physical reality to be flushed out in response to the disciples' questions in 24.3. What merits attention is the temporal/thematic distance of 24.3 from 24.1. Jesus sits on the Mount of Olives when disciples approach him and ask the question. They've digested the meaning of the word-picture in 24.1-2 and the complexity of the rich symbolism. They know that the prophecy of the temple destruction must take on symbolic significance parallel to the physical representation of Jesus actually/physically leaving the temple. So, instead of asking what will happen, they ask when it will happen.

I think this may show that Matthew was sharpening the apocalyptic nature of Mark's gospel. Mark brackets the temple incident with the fig tree account. He curses the fig tree, and upon returning later the tree has withered. The connotation obviously, in my opinion, links the withering of the tree with the temple's imminent destruction. Hence, clearing the temple indicates a picture of the temple's soon-to-come destruction (at least in Mark's gospel!).

Matthew, writing to a community disillusioned by the delay of the parousia, condenses the fig tree account into a single event. Jesus curses the tree and immediately it withers (22.18-22). Notice two important details. First of all, Matthew does not bracket the temple incident with the fig tree account. I think he does this because he doesn't want to make the connection between the event - he wants to lessen the rhetorical force of Mark's gospel. He does not want the fig tree to directly correspond to the temple incident (perhaps only obliquely!). Notice also that Matthew changes Jesus' words to the poor fig tree. In Mark, no one will ever eat from the tree. In Matthew, the tree will never bear fruit again (21.19). I think there's significance here. IN both cases, I think Jesus was fully aware of the fact that it was not the season for the tree to bear fruit. What's operative here is an object lesson.

Matthew wants to explain to his audience why there has been a delay in the second coming. So, instead of stressing the immediate coming of the messiah, in the sense that he will come in this generation, he stresses the immediacy of the events when they actually do happen. It's the difference between when and how. That's why he does not stress the correspondence between the fig tree and the Temple. That's also why he emphasizes the immediate results of Jesus' curse. This helps explain the reference to the fig tree when it reappears in 24.32-34. When the season is right, then the tree will bear leave. Similarly, when the disciples see the signs, they will know that "it is near, right at the door" (24.32-33).

Granted, the major hole is 24.34, where Matthew has Jesus say that all these things will happen within this generation. However, I still think the author expects the second coming. He's trying to explain why it hasn't happened yet. This is the rhetorical significance of 21.21-22. In contrast to Mark, Jesus curses the tree to never bear fruit. In 24. 32-33, the second coming will occur when the fig tree bears leaves! Why the discrepancy? I think this is a brilliant use of literary technique. The Matthean Jesus has issued a curse on the tree, much like the author's generation labors under the curse of persecution (24.4-29). When Jesus returns, the curse will be reversed. In the interim, the author's generation must respond in faith. They must pray for the return to come speedily. This is the explicit point of 24.21-22. They can and should pray for the eschatological reversal of their present circumstances, just as the curse on the fig tree will be lifted, signaling, as it were, the second coming.