Jesus and the Language of Judgment, Part 2
Jesus and the Language of Judgment, Part 2
Matthew
(avg. read time: 5–10 mins.)
Now that we have reviewed the examples of Jesus’s teaching shaped by judgment shared among the Synoptic Gospels, we must now turn to look at the Gospels individually. What we see in each of these cases will prove to be consistent with what we have already noted, but extra details are added here and there. Also consistent with what we have seen will be the variety of audiences these teachings are directed to, as some will be more general, some will be directed against Jesus’s opponents and generation, and some will be directed as warnings to the disciples. Naturally, we will begin with those teachings that are peculiar to the Gospel according to Matthew.
Judgment language is implicit or explicit at many points in the Sermon on the Mount. We have noted some of these examples already insofar as they overlap with the other Synoptics (particularly Luke), but there are other points to review. First, the Beatitudes with which Jesus opens this sermon are informed by eschatological judgment at multiple points. After all, the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven (5:3, 10–12) or the earth (5:5) implies that not all will receive the eschatological dominion. Furthermore, this language ties in with what we have observed previously of Jesus’s opening call to repentance in light of the coming of the kingdom. Similar to this is the second element beyond what has been noted already: the language of “entering” the kingdom, which implies both a limitation to who enters and a review of who can enter (5:17–20; cf. 18:3–4; 21:28–32)
Third, the language of judgment is sometimes expressed in terms of being thrown out. The statement about what happens to salt when it loses its saltiness has precisely this imagery of implied judgment in Matt 5:13 of being thrown out and trampled underfoot, which is less intense in Luke’s more straightforward description that “people throw it out” (14:35). Related to this is the imagery not of being thrown out per se, but of being thrown into the fire, which is the fate for any “tree” that is cut down for not bearing good fruit (Matt 7:15–20).
Fourth, most explicitly, Jesus uses the language of judgment in reference to those who cause and maintain rifts with other brothers and sisters (5:21–22). For not only will a murderer be liable for judgment, but those who treat brothers and sisters with the intentions and in the ways that lead to murder will also be “liable to the judgment/court” (the same language is used for both). Because all of these expressions of anger can lead down that path, Jesus is not so much expressing more severe consequences for one expression as opposed to another, as he is making the same point three different ways, culminating with an explicit statement of ultimate condemnation of being subject/answerable to the fiery Gehenna. The solution by which to avoid this outcome is the same as that by which to avoid Gehenna in general: reconciliation. As noted previously, and as we will see again later, reconciliation with God should be reflected in reconciliation with others, as the latter expresses the former to another, even as loving one’s neighbor as oneself expresses the love of God with all one’s self to another. If we are truly God’s image-bearers, then we must do what is proper for reconciliation in reflection of how God has reconciled us. The cruciality of this point is made all the clearer through comparison with the traditional pious practice of sacrifice, as reconciliation with a brother or sister who has something against you via repentance is important enough to delay a sacrifice. Otherwise, only judgment remains (cf. Luke 12:57–59).
Fifth, Matt 6:1–18 features the language of reward at multiple junctures concerning almsgiving, prayer, and fasting. We have already seen at multiple points the connection of “reward” with the notion of the final judgment and the same connection holds true here. The distinction of piety for display and doing what is faithful to God simply to do what is right by God is that the former seeks immediate reward from those on the earth while the latter receives reward from the Father who is in heaven. Indeed, each of these statements contrasts a present tense verb for those who do their works to be seen by others with a future tense verb for those who the Father will reward. This fits with the notion that the reward is hidden at present because it is eschatological.
Another of the most explicit expressions of the notion of eschatological judgment is the reference to the “day of judgment” in Matt 12:36. In this teaching, which may have a connection with Jas 3:1–12, Jesus reminds his general audience that people will give an account for every careless word uttered, that words, being among the fruits one bears (12:33–35), will correlate with vindication or condemnation (12:37). Interestingly, there are two other cases in which Matthew uses the phrase ἡμέρα κρίσεως (10:5; 11:24) in texts that have parallels in Luke, but Luke lacks this precise terminology. In fact, no other Gospel author uses this phrase, although it does appear elsewhere in the NT (2 Pet 2:9; 3:7; 1 John 4:17).
Two parables that are unique to Matthew—the parable of the wheat and the weeds (13:24–30, 36–43) and the parable of the net (13:47–50)—also feature judgment imagery. In the former case, the wheat and weeds, representing the children of the kingdom and the children of the evil one, are allowed to mature together until the time of the harvest, at which time they will be separated by the reapers/angels. The result after the separation is that the weeds/children of the evil one will be thrown into the fire/Gehenna while the children of the kingdom will shine like the sun in the kingdom of the Father. Further support for this being a portrayal of final judgment comes from the fact that this imagery from v. 43 for the fate of the righteous is drawn from Dan 12:2–3 and the description there of two different outcomes of resurrection and the insightful ones being made to shine in their exaltation as a result of this judgment. Similarly, the parable of the net refers to the gathering of all and the subsequent separation of good and evil. In both parables, we see a combination of the fire imagery associated with Gehenna/hell and the weeping and gnashing of teeth elsewhere associated with being outside of the kingdom/in the darkness.
More implicit is the language of “binding” and “loosing” in 18:18. Prior to this, Jesus is speaking to his disciples about how to handle interpersonal offenses in the Church with a view to restoring the offender, but with a consequence of expulsion if the offender remains unrepentant. This is an extension of the teaching already noted from Matt 5:21–26, as well as a way to address problems identified therein to properly deal with offense with a view towards reconciliation so that anger does not fester. In connection with this teaching, Jesus says that whatever his disciples bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever they loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. As such, this is also related to his teaching on forgiveness, although its focus is different. It is also related to the role given to the twelve apostles in judgment, as we see, at least in the scope of the Church, the participation of the Church in judgment.
The most vivid illustration of Jesus’s teaching on forgiveness, especially as related to judgment, comes from Matt 18:23–35. I have written about this text elsewhere and I plan to explore it a bit further another time. For now, what needs to be noted is how it vividly exemplifies Jesus’s teaching about the need for reflecting forgiveness that has been received, and the dire consequences for what happens when one fails to be forgiving. As in Matt 5:25–26, the image of judgment is that of being put in debtor’s prison for an unpayable debt (18:34–35).
We have already noted how the distinct woes against the scribes and Pharisees in ch. 23 culminates in statements of judgment that are paralleled elsewhere (except that it is also notable that he refers to them as “children of Gehenna” in v. 15). The rest of the material that is more distinct to Matthew appears in the Olivet Discourse in chs. 24–25, the most extensive such rendition in any of the Gospels. I have already noted that each instance of the Olivet Discourse is instigated by Jesus’s declaration that the temple will be destroyed. I plan to write more on the various versions of this discourse, both here and, hopefully, in journals, on the times to which these teachings apply. But it is clear that at least part of ch. 24 refers to what will happen in the coming destruction of Jerusalem.
Beyond such general points, some other features of judgment should be noted from ch. 24. First, the coming time is compared with the time of Noah (24:37–39), the resonance of which, in terms of judgment, is rather obvious. Second, there are two images used of people being together, then one is taken, and the other is left in the coming day (24:40–41). A popular way of reading this in many churches is a reference to a “rapture.” However, this does not comport with how the imagery is used in the OT precedents that this text is built upon, nor with the immediate context. In the OT, when something or someone is “taken,” it generally refers to the capture or conquest of a city (or the people occupying it) as in Jer 6:11 and Zech 14:2, among many others. By contrast, Noah is said to be “left” in Gen 7:23 after the flood takes the others away (cf. Isa 4:3; 11:11, 16; 37:31; Jer 50:20; Zeph 3:12; Zech 9:7). Since it is precisely the case of Noah that provides the analogy for this time, this factor supports the interpretation that those who are “taken” receive the negative outcome of judgment while those who are “left” receive the positive outcome of judgment. Third, the analogy of the faithful and wicked servants in 24:45–51 also uses judgment imagery in the different outcomes they experience. For the faithful servant, his outcome resembles what we have seen from the parable of the talents and the parable of the minas. For the wicked servant, his being cut in half (literally, “dichotomized”) or cut off and put with the hypocrites where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth also resembles what we have seen elsewhere in terms of how Jesus portrays the state of condemnation.
Chapter 25 features three parables related to judgment, one of which we have already noted because it has a parallel (of sorts) in Luke. The first of these, the parable of the ten bridesmaids (25:1–13), is an extension of the point Jesus has already made at multiple points in this discourse on the importance of watchfulness. The negative consequence thus correlates with the wicked servant. But the language used to describe the outcome is more akin to what we saw in the previous entry, which included a teaching from Matt 7:21–23, wherein those who are left outside are told “I do not know you.”
The last of these parables is the parable of the sheep and the goats (25:31–46), if one can properly speak of this text as a parable. This is the most extensive and obvious portrayal of eschatological judgment in all of the Gospels. Those who are on the right of the Son of Man when he sits on his throne in judgment are said to “inherit the kingdom” (25:34), which we have seen previously in Matthew and in the story of Jesus and the rich man as language associated with the salvific verdict. In fact, we see the direct correlation here of “the kingdom” and “everlasting life” (25:46). Conversely, the description of the everlasting punishment (25:46) appears in terms of going into the everlasting fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels/messengers (25:41).