Review of Matthew 24–25 as Prophetic-Apocalyptic

(avg. read time: 9–18 mins.)

Today is a first for me. While I have done several book reviews on this Substack, this is the first time I have been requested to do a review. The book I am reviewing today is:

Ekeocha, Kennedy K. Matthew 24–25 as Prophetic-Apocalyptic: Structure, Function, and Eschatology. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2024.

Kennedy is a friend of mine that I met in Dr. Craig Keener’s Historical Jesus class when we were both PhD students at Asbury. We talked a few times about subjects that made it into his dissertation, of which this is the published version. He also defended the same semester I did, so that we ended up graduating together (he is in the center of this picture).

As for the book, this is a subject I have written on before, though obviously not as extensively as Kennedy (on the other versions in Mark and Luke, see here and here). And as I said, this is something I talked with Kennedy about a few times. I was thus interested in the project beyond it being the work of a friend of mine.

Overall, this is a careful, well-argued, and precise analysis on a passage that has drawn more controversy than even he can fully address. Kennedy has written a volume that anyone who writes any sort of in-depth engagement with the interpretation of Matt 24–25 after its publication ought to reference. It provides multiple extensive surveys of scholarship as well as meticulous statements of his own reasoning for why he sides with or against a view, or why he thinks scholarship has generally missed a point. If you want a volume on this text that also gives you a “lay of the land” while not simply being a history interpretation, this is the volume for you. If you want a volume that not only digs deep into the details of Matt 24–25, but also gives you a sense of how it fits with the rest of Matthew on multiple fronts, I think this book does a better job of that than just about any commentary you could read. Even where I disagree with Kennedy—and I will provide some examples below—I cannot deny that he has presented his overarching case well. For such reasons, I highly recommend this book. But, of course, that is not sufficient for how I typically do reviews here. So let’s get into the details.

Chapter 1 first introduces some of the issues in interpreting the Olivet Discourse in Matthew and provides an overview of different interpreters and understandings across history. By his own admission, Kennedy is not attempting a comprehensive review here, and that would be a book in itself. But what he does provide is quite helpful and nuanced, although I do have some quibbles with it. One, while I am not myself a historicist on Matt 24–25, I do not think it is accurate to say that when it comes to this text (as opposed to historicist interpretations of Revelation) that it “devolves into a form of preterism” (31). And I do wish that Kennedy had either a more robust response to this view included here or that he had just left it out altogether. The imbalance in how he interacts with the other views compared to the historicist view is quite pronounced. Two, I think his terminology is too imprecise when he reviews the preterist views. Having reviewed preterist, futurist, historicist, and idealist views for many years now, I am used to “hyper-preterism” being a label applied to the view that all biblical prophecy was fulfilled by 70 CE. As such, linking this term with views like N. T. Wright’s when he still expects the Second Coming (and other climactic events of biblical prophecy) but does not believe the Olivet Discourse is concerned with that event strikes me as missing the mark (24–25). (I think “hyper-preterism” or Hymenaenism is preferable to “full preterism” if the goal is to distinguish a heterodox view from one that is within the pale of orthodoxy, even if not a majority view.) Three, it would have helped if at least his footnotes in his review of scholarship could have been clearer in illustrating the differences between the different kinds of “preterist-futurist” interpretations by more extensively identifying what scholars represent which kind of interpretation.

But I still say that this is a good chapter to get a survey of the landscape of interpretation. I think Kennedy is also right to note how popular historical-critical assumptions, especially from redaction criticism, have had a negative impact on the interpretation of this text (10–19). So often, Matt 24 is treated as just a redacted version of Mark 13 and analyzed accordingly as a derivative text. He also shows how granting too much weight to these assumptions has led to hasty, unjustified conclusions about how Matthew supposedly modified specifically Mark’s text. Regardless of how exactly one thinks of the relationships between the Synoptics, I maintain that no simplistic theory that relies solely on text-based redaction can adequately account for the kinds and extents of variation among the versions of the Olivet Discourse among the Gospels.

Chapter 2 thus summarizes the problems and questions raised by the text and its history of interpretation. He aims to investigate the meaning and eschatology of Matt 24–25 while showing that prevailing interpretations have not accurately reflected the structure and meaning of the Olivet Discourse (35). To this end, he says,

I will demonstrate that the organizing principle of the Discourse reflects the alternation or interchange of materials within an inclusio and a ‘problem-solution’ structural framework. This structural schema includes ‘generalization’ and ‘particularization’—categories which will be further explicated at the appropriate juncture in this study. Analysis of the organizing principle or structure that is set forth will serve to flesh out the meaning and eschatology of the Discourse.

In connection with these, I will explore how the Discourse functions within Matthew’s Gospel, arguing that it complements Matthew’s overall Christological goal. Finally, I will carry out an exercise in inductive correlation, relating the eschatological schema reflected in the Discourse with what is taught in the NT in general. I will make the case that the views are in broad agreement despite apparent diversities. (36)

His methodology is thus an application of the inductive approach developed by those like David Bauer—our dean of the School of Biblical Interpretation—and Robert Traina, like others at Asbury have done (such as the works of my friends Suraj Singh and Kei Hiramatsu, the latter of which you can find here), combined with a discourse-grammatical approach.

Chapter 3 then sets the parameters of genre considerations for Matt 24–25. Of course, identifying the genre of Matthew as a whole—which Kennedy agrees with the consensus is that of an ancient Greco-Roman biography (52–53)—is only part of the hermeneutical task, as one must also deal with the conceptual framework of the text’s author, of which Kennedy succinctly states, “while Matthew’s Gospel approximates the biographic form, its content or message is largely apocalyptic; its biographic center is an apocalyptic figure” (54). This then leads into an extended engagement on controversies of what the adjective “apocalyptic” means, particularly in relation to the Gospel according to Matthew, which he applies especially to the eschatology presented therein. In the process, he helpfully works past an old and still often taught sharp contrast between prophetic and apocalyptic (66–68). But the overall most helpful part of this chapter is the last section on interpreting apocalyptic language. The considerations he highlights are rhetorical quality (hyperbole and symbols should be expected because apocalyptic teachers employ outstanding and evocative language that appeals to the imagination), distinguishing between the literal and metaphorical in light of the poetic tendencies of apocalyptic literature, the issue of prophetic perspective in terms of how near or far events are related to each other, apocalyptic dynamism or multivalence in its use of language, structure of apocalyptic discourse, intertextual links, and the various contexts of the discourse (including historical, rhetorical, literary, social, and religious/philosophical/theological). (I have noted similar issues here and more generally in other posts here, and Kennedy’s work is one I will be returning to if ever I get the chance to write the multi-volume work I have mentioned.)

Chapter 4 explores the structure of Matthew as a whole and the Olivet Discourse in particular. This is, again, an illuminating engagement with a good variety of scholars, and I think the basic structure he presents with its emphasis on Christology—1) the introductory movement concerning the introduction and testing of Jesus’s identity (1:1 – 4:16); 2) the revelatory movement of demonstrating Jesus’s identity in deed and proclamation (4:17–25:46); and 3) the vindicatory movement of vindicating Jesus’s identity in his passion and resurrection¹—is plausible (100). Of course, I would be curious about any future work he does on Matthew to see what smaller structures he sees of units and segments within these larger structural units of Matthew (there is only a brief outline in Appendix 3 [287]). He also examines the structure of the Olivet Discourse itself, delimiting the discourse proper to 24:3–25:46. Readers of both of our works will see that I have my disagreements here on the Olivet Discourse, but they are less about the delineations of structure than in the implications he draws from them.

Chapter 5 presents the meat of the book as by far the longest chapter, as it addresses the many interpretive issues that arise in Matt 24:3–25:46 and its context. I do not want to go too far into the weeds of addressing all the particulars of Kennedy’s arguments and those of interlocutors because I think Kennedy has done a fine job of that himself. He is careful, meticulous, and argues for his points and against others quite well and thoroughly. Particular highlights of this chapter are his analysis of the reference to the abomination of desolation in 24:15 and the various interpretations given to it (and I was already convinced of his view linking this to the slaughter in the temple that was the result of Jewish infighting as reported in Josephus, War 4, particularly 310–318 [168–70]), his analysis of the use of “tribulation” language in this discourse and the misunderstandings that have arisen among scholars about their association, and his examination of the identity of the brethren of Jesus in 25:31–46. For any disagreements I have, I would recommend this chapter not only for those particular sections, but more generally for how thoroughly Kennedy examines controversial details of this text while familiarizing his readers with the variety of scholarly views.

Where my disagreements come in are sometimes more about assumptions. For example, it is so widely granted that the use of the term παρουσία here simply means Jesus’s return or what is now called his Second Coming that it is often treated like a technical term that refers to it perforce. As I have noted in my analysis, I do not make that assumption. And thus, I think it opens up some illumination when that assumption is not simply granted. After all, if the disciples had such trouble with the idea that Jesus would be going in the first place by his death followed by his resurrection and ascension, why would they ask a question that is built on the assumption that the Second Coming described in the term of would happen and that this event would be in some fashion connected to the destruction of the temple (even if the events are only comparable in some way)? Kennedy does not address this point, probably because it is not something other scholars generally make a point of (this applies even when he responds to Wright on 178–80, as the points he responds to Wright on are not necessarily where I agree with him). I would like to see what he thinks of that idea and what I draw from it in my own analysis. For as thorough as Kennedy is in addressing other issues, I think he has glided too quickly over this one in granting the common assumption.

And for as much as I appreciate how precise Kennedy seeks to be, I am not as convinced as he is that the conjunctions can bear the weight of his claims of structural interchange indicating marked distinctions in events that he argues they bear. After all, we can be too precise in how we try to distinguish words. I am not convinced by the fundamental principle of discourse grammar that choice implies meaning in the sense that the choice of one peculiar combination of wordings (syntagmatic choice) as opposed to another that could be similar or that the choice of a particular linguistic item as opposed to another in the same class (paradigmatic choice) signifies some precise differentiation in meaning. One could say that choice implies meaning, but one still must consider the more fundamental matter: what drives choice? Both syntagmatic and paradigmatic choices at any given time are influenced or driven by fashions of contemporary linguistic convention. If conventions blur lines that functional linguistics and discourse analysis in particular treat as crucial to understanding, then to overemphasize such distinctions could be to misunderstand, if we ignore diachronic considerations in analyzing the conventions that shape syntagmatic and paradigmatic choices. I get that to engage in such a diachronic analysis for words as commonly used as conjunctions would have taken Kennedy’s analysis far afield, as he could not only have looked at the use of the terms in Matthew, but also in contemporary and earlier texts. In any case, he would have gone well past the word limit. But I think if I am going to agree in putting so much weight on differentiation in commonly used words, I would need to see such an analysis.

I am also not convinced by the treatment of “those days” in the phrase “immediately after the tribulation of those days” in 24:29 (193). It just seems an unnatural way for the demonstrative to work, as no other days have been referenced for the demonstrative phrase to refer back to than “those days” in 24:19 and 22, whereas by the time it is used to refer to a different set of days in 24:38, those “days” have already been referenced in 24:37. The only real reason I see to broaden what it could be referring to is because this view fits with the traditional interpretation. His second point does raise an interesting issue of whether the “tribulation of those days” includes the destruction of the temple or if it is a climactic event that is after those days serving as the capstone of judgment, but I think there is some confusion here about whether or not the text so adamantly militates against the views of those like Pitre, Wright, and me (194). At the same time, he himself makes a distinction between a use of “all these things” in 24:33 that refers to what leads up to the destruction of the temple and the use of “all these things” in 24:34 that includes the destruction of the temple (210). (Of course, I am not convinced that this reference to “all these things” can be set off from what has come so recently before in vv. 26–31 as addressing something else, but I have written on that more extensively in the aforementioned post on this text.) Furthermore, I do not take it for granted that the point of the analogy with Noah is that there will be a generally peaceful time right up to the occurrence of the parousia in question, but it is highlighting how people will be unprepared for it because of how they have gone about life as usual, in contrast to Noah and his family who were ready because of their faithfulness, and so they were left while others were taken.

I also have two other more minor quibbles. One, I do not think that the different interrogatives attached to when these things will happen and what will be the sign in 24:3 are a strong signal for distinction in events (114–18, 128–29). Considering the different grammatical referents, so that the issue of the sign is necessarily about “what” and the issue about the timing of these things is necessarily about “when,” I do not see how the differentiation of interrogatives is suggestive of such a separation in events. Two, I remain confused about the argument for “let the reader understand” being an instruction from Jesus and not a parenthetical aside from the narrator (159). I am not saying it is impossible that Jesus himself said this in the discourse, but I do not think Kennedy has adequately dispensed with the alternative simply by noting that the other uses of the term in Matthew are all in speech by Jesus, since those uses are not the participial form or instructions to one engaged in this activity. They are part of questions of “have you not read” directed to people in the story (12:3, 5; 19:4; 21:16, 42; 22:31), and they are always followed by either a summary of the text referenced or a quote thereof.

I will say, though, that if ever I get around to writing an article I have wanted to write for years—that is, in the event I am in long-term proximity to an academic library again—on what I call “split-reference” interpretations of the Olivet Discourse (or Matt 24 in particular) and the arguments made for them, Kennedy’s book, and especially this chapter, will need to be the source I interact with most thoroughly. And I want to make sure that I am clear that I encourage readers to read both of our views, especially since Kennedy has written more on this text than I have, and to check all of our references. I maintain that no view is without problems, even my own, but some problems or perceived inadequacies can be lived with. Kennedy has given the best representation of his view that I have read. There is much from this chapter I have not addressed here. Some of it I agree with, some of it I do not, but all of it I find worthwhile to read.

Chapter 6 then takes up the matter of the function of the Olivet Discourse (or, as he tends to say, the Eschatological Discourse) in Matthew as a whole. Again, he first surveys a wide variety of claims about its function, whether in terms of eschatology for the sake thereof, an ecclesiological function (including in terms of paraenesis/exhortation), a function of proclaiming salvation history, and a kind of function to explicate Christology. Kennedy affirms a form of the last view, as he shows how the text—including in its larger context—shows how Jesus himself is the universal Judge and King (252–58). This does not rule out an ethical function, but that is secondary as an implication of who Jesus is, as that identity thereby impinges on who his followers are and how they are to live in light of who he is. This is also one side of the larger presentation of Jesus as “Divine Royal” in that he is both Son of God and the Universal Judge-King. The whole climactic section of this chapter is something I recommend for anyone wanting a good summary of Matthew’s christological presentation. I hope it is something Kennedy will return to in future work to unpack this further in a more robust presentation, whether it is a commentary, a monograph on Matthew’s christological presentation, a book chapter, or an article (or multiple ones).

Chapter 7 is the concluding chapter, and thus it summarizes what has come before. But it also correlates the Olivet Discourse with other texts in the NT. I have already given my understanding of Mark and Luke’s versions of the discourse elsewhere, and unsurprisingly Kennedy and I do not completely agree here. I would also describe the relationship of Paul’s teaching in 1 Thess 4:13–17 with the discourse differently, but I agree that there is a relationship here and that Paul is applying the teaching of Jesus in this text (and that teaching is not only the discourse in question). I also would have been interested in seeing him appeal to 1 Cor 15 in his argument for Paul lacking any notion of a distinct future millennium prior to the new creation (272). He makes much the same points with the Petrine corpus, especially 2 Peter (for more on the latter work, see here and here). And I see more connections with Revelation than he does (see here for example), and his description of coming in judgment at certain points in Revelation before the Second Coming is like what I think of the Olivet Discourse.

With all that said, I want to reiterate my recommendation for Kennedy’s book. If this text from Matthew is one that you want to read at a deeper level, this is an essential volume for your library. And if Kennedy reads this, I do want to encourage him again in pursuit of his work. And I do sincerely want to read more from him, whether it is on the sort of work I have suggested or if it is something else like developing that Acts paper we talked about all those years ago (you can see the one I wrote for that class here).

1. Given my emphasis elsewhere, I would add his exaltation, or at least the declaration thereof.