The Virgin Mary: The Original Wonder Woman

2 Samuel 7:1-11, 16 Canticle 3 or Canticle 15 or Psalm 89:1-4, 19-26 Romans 16: 25-27
Luke 1: 26-38

    

        The Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, is perhaps the most well known and influential woman in the history of the world. She has been celebrated in painting, sculpture, music, and poetry and continues to be an inspiration to both men and women all over the world. One rather notorious Bishop, however, has suggested that the comic book heroine Wonder Woman is a better role model for young women than the celebrated mother of Jesus.

        He argues, Wonder Woman is an icon of female empowerment and liberation that inspires young girls with self-confidence while “The clear message of Mary” he says “was that both the body and the sexuality of a woman were evil. The ideal woman was not a flesh and blood woman, she was portrayed as sweet, passive, docile, compliant, obedient, virginal, and unreal, hardly the qualities that would empower younger females today to break out of their stereotypical expectations.”

        In response to the Bishop’s controversial remarks, one Christian author, Frederica Matthews Green, wrote, “As a believer…I prefer a relationship with the Virgin Mary, whom I consider my own Mother in Christ and an historical figure. Plus, she doesn't advocate the Wonder Woman hot pants outfit - which fits only imaginary women!”

She does insist however, “Wonder Woman and the Virgin Mary don't have to be rivals. The legends and traditions surrounding both them speak to a feminine battle against treachery and evil.”

        The image of the Virgin Mary that emerges out of the Gospel of Luke is of an intelligent, deeply thoughtful, and courageous young woman with a passion for justice and a powerful faith in God.  Perhaps the Bishop is right about one thing, our picture of the Virgin Mary has indeed been sanitized. One need only read the Magnificat, the song of praise attributed to her in Luke’s Gospel, to see that the shrinking flower on the Christmas cards doesn’t quite do her justice. She sings,

He has cast down the mighty from their thrones, *

    and has lifted up the lowly.

He has filled the hungry with good things, *

    and the rich he has sent away empty.

These words are more revolutionary than docile! The words of her song are so inflammatory that during the 1980’s the government of Guatemala banned their public reading as a subversive act!

        I don’t see Mary’s Obedience and submission as the negative thing the Bishop suggest that it is. Mary’s obedience is in fact extremely courageous. She is more like a soldier who accepts a highly dangerous mission that requires tremendous sacrifice and fortitude. Carrying a child to term is of course always an act of great courage that should be commended, but carrying this particular child was especially dangerous.

This was not a culture friendly to unwed mothers. She faced rejection, banishment, and even death, the loss of her betrothal, her family, and people. Moreover the powers and principalities trembled with terror at the child her womb. King Herod sent out his troops to seek and destroy the child leaving death and destruction in their wake. Mary and her son just barely escaped his wrath.

       Mary’s self-sacrificial obedience is the place where she bears most clear family resemblance to her son. In a world consumed by self-interest, Mary inspires us to go against the grain and to open our lives to something greater than ourselves. This kind of humility and service is in fact the only true path to liberation.

        We now turn to the claim that Mary’s story teaches us that the bodies of women and sexuality are evil. This cannot possibly be farther from the truth! What greater affirmation of the human body and the bodies of women in particular can there be than this story in which the mighty God—the Word through whom all things were made and who sustains all creation—takes on flesh and comes to dwell in the womb of a woman? Far from denigrating women this bestows on them great honor, for the body of woman has been the temple of the most high God, the ark of the new covenant, and the gateway of divine grace into the world.

       If God is indeed the creator of all things and if he did indeed affirm the goodness of his creation by becoming incarnate to sanctify and redeem it, as Mary’s story tells us, than it is just silly to say that God is anti-sex. The whole thing was his idea to begin with. He invented it!

      If not because he thought sex something too impure to be involved in, why did God choose to be born of a virgin? I agree with Joseph Ratzinger—also known as Pope Benedict—there is no biological necessity for the Virgin Birth as if Jesus was the natural son of God and Mary carrying DNA from each. I think that confuses the incarnation. Jesus isn’t like Hercules, half man and half god. He is one hundred percent God and Man.  I suppose it is even possible that Jesus could have become incarnate as a result of a normal marriage, but his birth to a virgin serves as a divine sign.

       A clue to what is signified by this sign is provided in the Angel Gabriel’s answer to Mary’s question, “How can this be?” He tells her, “nothing will be impossible for God.” Mary’s virginal conception in the consummation of what God has done throughout the Old Testament and with her cousin Elizabeth in bringing life out of the barren and aged. Just as in the beginning, God brought creation from nothing, so he can bring new creation from the virgin.

         If God affirms the goodness of creation in becoming flesh and being born of a woman, he reveals the depth of our falleness by being born of a virgin. Human life in its sinfulness had become barren and fruitless, but God can bring life even from death.  

        The theologian Karl Barth writes, “The Virgin birth at the opening and the empty tomb at the close of Jesus’ life bear witness that this life is a fact marked off from all the rest of human life.” In being born of a virgin, God shows us that he is doing something new and unprecedented in Jesus. He is a new Adam. Just as sin entered the world through the first Adam, life and salvation has entered the world through this new Adam.

         If Jesus is the new Adam, the Early Church Fathers suggest that the Virgin Mary is the New Eve. The first Eve doubted God’s goodness and believed the lie of the serpent, and therefore brought death to the world. The second Eve believed God, obeyed him, and brought life to the world through her son. St. Irenaeus (d. 202) wrote the following, “The knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. The knot of which Eve tied by her unbelief, the Virgin Mary opened by her belief.”

In her total abandonment to the will of God, Mary is an example to all of us and the greatest heroine of the Christian faith. Her greatness consist precisely in the fact that she always points away from herself to her Son Jesus Christ. Her greatest power is in being a vessel for the love of God in Christ, a power we too possess albeit in a different way.

          So what about Wonder Woman? I’ll admit I am a fan. I agree with the Bishop that she is a great role model not only for young girls but even grown men like myself. Her heroism comes not from the ways she is different from the Blessed Virgin Mary, however, but rather in the ways she is like her.

          My friend and fellow comic book enthusiast, Father Jonathan Mitchican—who many of you met when he was here to preach at my ordination—wrote a blog post last week called “Wonder Woman and the Power of Truth.” In it he suggest that Wonder Woman is an icon of Christian discipleship. This is what he writes,

“Wonder Woman is able to be a great hero because she has encountered and accepted the reality of her own flaws and sins. Though fashioned out of clay by a god, she is all too aware of her own imperfection and her inability to do good by her own power alone. She relies on the gods to give her grace and strength. She finds her heroism in repenting of the darkest and most uncharitable parts of herself and instead sacrificing herself for the sake of others. Unlike Superman, who is sometimes misconstrued as a Christ figure because of his god-like power, Wonder Woman realizes that despite her amazing abilities she has no real power but that which she has received by grace, not merely for her own wellbeing but for the sake of the world. Wonder Woman only ever understands herself when she is finally able to look away from herself and towards the needs of others. Would that all of us, male and female, young and old, could follow the same path towards holiness.”

Animal Pain and Hope Beyond Death

 

Pope Francis has recently made comments suggesting that there is hope for animals beyond death. I thought I would share a paper I wrote for an apologetics class examining what C.S. Lewis and other Christian thinkers write about animal pain and hope beyond death.

Why does God permit suffering? It is a question theologians have grappled with for centuries. A possible suggestion is that suffering is punishment for sin. Another possibility is that God permits us to suffer in order to bring about certain virtues in us, such as resilience and empathy. Such suggestions might contribute something to the understanding of human suffering, but the problem of pain is not a uniquely human problem. What about animals? What can we say, for instance, about a fawn who burns to death in a forest fire? What possible justification could God have for allowing such suffering? Animals cannot be held morally accountable in the same way that humans can, so it cannot be punishment for sin. Nor do animals have the self-consciousness or the sophistication necessary to learn or grow as a result of their suffering. At least in human suffering there is consolation in the hope of a redeemed life beyond the pains of this life. What, if anything, can be said of life after death for animals? Do the animals have any share in the life of the age to come? C.S. Lewis warns that to even ask the question puts one at risk of being dismissed as an “old maid” who is overly preoccupied with her pets. Lewis, however, believes animal immortality to be a legitimate question for theological investigation. He is not alone.  Joseph Hamilton wrote, “Some of the ablest apologists for the Christian religion, have in many instances mooted, and in others confidently advocated, the future life of animals.” In his book, The Problem of Pain, Lewis devotes an entire chapter to exploring the problem of animal pain and the question of whether there is life beyond death for the beast.

Lewis begins his chapter by stating the dilemma outlined above, “So far as we know beasts are incapable either of sin or virtue: therefore they can neither deserve pain or be improved by it.”[1] Lewis claims that through revelation, God has given us some means of coming to terms with the meaning of our own suffering, but he has provided us with a similar glimpse into the ultimate meaning of animal pain. Because of what we understand of the meaning of human suffering, and because of what we know about the goodness of God, we can be confident that animal pain is not a result of cruelty or capriciousness on the part of God. Lewis is correct to point out that, because God has not seen fit to reveal it to us, anything that we say about God’s ultimate intention and purpose for creating animal life and the role that suffering might play in those purposes is speculative. However, reason can provide us with at least a partial glimpse into the meaning of animal pain. We know from our common experience of pain with the animals, that pain is necessary for survival and that it is in that sense a gift. Pain teaches us our limits and shows us what is good and what is bad, what will contribute to our flourishing and what will diminish it. Austin Farrer writes, “Animal existence is beset by goods and evils, things needing to be shunned and things asking to be embraced. But animal action is the shunning of the one, and the embracing of the other; and while the animal survives, it is successful rather than the reverse ... Living is its own justification, its own good.[2]” He continues, “the God of nature gives his animal creatures pains out of love for them, to save their lives ... Again, out of love for them, God moves his creatures to shun their pains and mend their harms, so far as their sense or capacity allows.[3]” The preservation and perpetuation of the species is a natural good, and pain is a necessary part of that process. This of course does not account for the totality of animal suffering, much of which seems needless and meaningless to us. The same can be said for human suffering. We can acknowledge a biological purpose for pain, but there is more to be said.

The question arises: What exactly is it that animals suffer? Do they have the same awareness of their suffering that we as human beings have? Lewis states that we cannot know for sure what animals experience. We can only speculate. Moreover, there are varying levels of sentience in the animal kingdom.  The earth-worm is in a much different category than the gorilla. The gorilla is much closer to us than the earthworm, and has a much higher level of sentience with a more sophisticated nervous system.  Lewis makes a distinction between sentience and consciousness, however. Consciousness is more than a mere awareness of experiences, but implies that the creature has a sense of self that persists beneath and alongside the succession of events that it experiences. Animals, Lewis claims, have sentience but not consciousness. He suggests, “But at least a great deal of what appears to be animal suffering need not be suffering in any real sense. It may be we who have invented the ‘sufferers’ by the ‘pathetic fallacy’ of reading into the beast a self for which there is no real evidence.”[4] Lewis’ contention here, however, is challenged by some recent developments in the science of consciousness. An international group of prominent scientists has recently signed The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness in which they claim that certain sophisticated animals; including all species of mammals, birds, and even octopi, experience conscious awareness similar to that of human beings. "The absence of a neo-cortex does not appear to preclude an organism from experiencing affective states," they write, "Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors.”[5] If it can be said that animals have a consciousness similar to our own, it must also be said that their own experience of suffering is at least in some sense like our own.

Lewis also raises the question of how disease and pain entered the animal world. He begins by rejecting the idea of many older theologians that animal, disease, suffering and death could be traced back to the original sin of human beings. He writes, “This now is impossible, for we have good reason to believe that animals existed long before men.”[6]  Keith Miller elaborates,

Creation itself provides overwhelming testimony against a pre-Fall creation without death or pain. Death and pain are more than part of creation; they are woven into its very fabric. Reproduction, the care and protection of offspring, defense, escape from predators, and the pursuit of prey are defining forces that shape the biology and behavior of animal species. Furthermore, the long history of life on Earth clearly demonstrates the existence of death and pain before the advent of humanity. The fossil record documents that the same ecological relationships and organism interactions (e.g., carnivory, parasitism, scavenging, decomposition, disease) we observe today were fundamental aspects of biologic communities throughout Earth history. Hundreds of millions of years of Earth history saw not only the death of individuals, but also the extinction of species and whole taxonomic groups. The view that death and pain in the human creation began with the Fall simply cannot be reconciled with the preserved record of life on Earth.[7]

If the origin of animal pain cannot be attributed to human rebellion, are we then forced to conclude that God himself is the originator of this suffering? Lewis suggest that look further back than the fall of humanity to a prior angelic fall. Lewis writes that it has been widely held throughout the history of the Church that, “…some older and mightier being long since became apostate and is now the emperor of darkness and (significantly) the Lord of this world.”[8] In the biblical story there is an evil personality at work in creation prior to humanity’s fall and is the source of our temptation and deception. Lewis continues, “It seems to me, therefore, a reasonable supposition, that some mighty created power had already been at work for ill on the material universe, or the solar system, or, at least, the planet Earth, before ever man came on the scene: and that when man fell, someone had, indeed, tempted him.[9]” Lewis speculates that this evil power, Satan, may have corrupted animal life and the rest of creation long before the appearance of human beings. Others, while accepting that there is overwhelming scientific evidence for an old earth and death prior to the appearance of human beings, feel uncomfortable with Lewis’ separation of natural evil from the curse brought about by human sin. William Dembski, for instance, proposes that the consequences of the fall extended both forward and backward in time. God foreknew human sin and preemptively brought about its consequences in creation. He writes,

For redemption to effectively deliver humanity from evil therefore requires humanity to be clear as to precisely what it has consented to in rebelling against God and embracing evil. To achieve this clarity humanity must experience the full brunt of the evil that it has set in motion, and this requires that the creation itself fully manifest the consequences of humanity’s rebellion against God.[10]

Dembski’s view is at least as speculative as Lewis’s view, and is perhaps even more novel. While preserving human responsibility for natural evil, it introduces other problems. If God preemptively brought forth creation marred in response to the future sin of human beings, in what sense can it be said to have been created “good?” Lewis at least preserves the idea of a creation originally good. If Lewis denies human responsibility for the origin of animal pain, he does have a place for humanity in its redemption. He writes,

If this hypothesis is worth considering, it is also worth considering whether man, at his first coming into the world, had not already a redemptive function to perform. Man, even now, can do wonders to animals: my cat and dog live together in my house and seem to like it. It may have been one of man’s functions to restore peace to the animal world, and if he had nit joined the enemy he might have succeeded in doing so to an extent now hardly imaginable.

          Finally Lewis addresses the question of justice and whether or not animals will share in the age to come. Whatever the cause of animal suffering, God has permitted it, what will he ultimately do to set things right? The difficulty, for Lewis, in conceiving of a continued existence for animals on the other side of death is connected with what was said earlier about his contention that animals, while sentient, do not have consciousness or a sense of self—a soul—in  the way that human beings do. What is it that would persist in the resurrection? If what many modern scientists are saying is true, that animals do most likely have consciousness, than there is less difficulty than Lewis supposes. Lewis’ proposal, however, remains compelling. He suggests that just as human beings are understood in their relation to God—being ‘in Christ’—so also animals may be understood in relation to human beings, being somehow ‘in’ their human masters. The tame animal is the animal most occupying its purpose in God’s creation, Animals were created to find their sense of self, the fulfillment of their identity, in human beings. Lewis writes, “If a good sheepdog seems ‘almost human’ that is because a good shepherd has made it so,”[11] He continues, “And in this way it seems to me possible that certain animals may have an immortality, not in themselves, but in the immortality of their masters. And the difficulty about personal identity in a creature barely personal disappears when the creature is thus kept in its proper context.”[12] What Lewis admits is a rather qualified vision of animal immortality in which individual animals find continued existence in and through their relationship to human beings, but this is not the only sense in which Lewis imagines animal life in the age to come. There may be a sense in which the beasts have a kind of corporate immortality in which the essence of “lionness”, for instance, continues in a perfected form.

          The ultimate solution to the problem of both human pain and animal pain will be found in the day of Christ’s return and the coming of the new heavens and the new earth. The letter to the Romans teaches us:

For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. (Romans 8:20-24)

The scriptures suggest that our final redemption will include the redemption of all of creation, which presumably will include animals. Until that time, the meaning of animal suffering remains a mystery to us. George Macdonald, a great influence on Lewis, speaks of the redemption of animals being connected to the realization of our identity as “pure sons of God” in a way that parallels Lewis’ argument. He speaks of a time when the meaning and purpose—the soul—of animal life will no longer be a mystery to us and we will share with these lower creatures in the redemption of God,

The ways of God go down into microscopic depths as well as up to telescopic heights…So with the mind; the ways of God go into the depths yet unrevealed to us. He knows His horses and dogs as we cannot know them, because we are not yet pure sons of God. When through our sonship, as Paul teaches, the redemption of these lower brothers and sisters shall have come, then we shall understand each other better.

Perhaps no one else speaks with such unqualified hope for a cosmic redemption that will include both humans animals together as John Wesley,

May it not answer another end; namely, furnish us with a full answer to a plausible objection against the justice of God, in suffering numberless creatures that never had sinned to be so severely punished? They could not sin, for they were not moral agents. Yet how severely do they suffer! -- yea, many of them, beasts of burden in particular, almost the whole time of their abode on earth; So that they can have no retribution here below. But the objection vanishes away, if we consider that something better remains after death for these poor creatures also; that these, likewise, shall one day be delivered from this bondage of corruption, and shall then receive an ample amends for all their present sufferings.

Although the suffering in this world is great, God has overcome the world and promised us that sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared to the glory that is to come. God is not indifferent to our pain, he sees us. His eye is also on the sparrow.

---

[1] C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (Macmillian Publishing Company, New York, 1986) 129.

[2] Austin Farrer, Love Almighty and Ills Unlimited (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, 1961), 91–3.

[3] Ibid., 74, 92.

[4] Lewis, 133.

[5] http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf

[6] Lewis, 133.

[7] KeithMiller, Death and Pain in theCreated Order, Part 2 (http://biologos.org/blog/death-and-pain-in-the-created-order-part-2)

[8] Lewis, 134.

[9] Ibid.

[10] William Dembski, “Christian Theodicy in Light of Genesis and Modern Science,”19,29.

[11] Ibid, 139

[12] Ibid, 140

Was Jesus Wrong?

 








Mark 13:24-37

Do you remember the excitement and media sensation surrounding May 21, 2011? That was the date that popular radio preacher, Harold Camping, predicted the apocalypse would begin with the rapture of all faithful Christians into heaven.  For many of you the day probably passed unnoticed despite the many billboards and tracks proclaiming the date all over the world. Harold Camping’s radio ministry, Family Radio, spent nearly 5 million dollars getting the word out. Needless to say the world did not end!

Camping was far from the first person to set a date for the end of the world, only to be shown up when the day passed uneventfully. William Miller started a national movement even larger than Camping’s when he announced that Jesus would return on October 22, 1844. The aftermath of Miller’s failed prediction is often referred to as “The Great Disappointment.”

Despite the repeated failure of such predictions to materialize, zealous believers continue to set dates for the last day. The reaction of mainstream Christians is usually to remind such enthusiasts of Jesus’ words from today’s Gospel, “But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”

Based on this same Gospel passage, however, atheist and skeptics such as Bertrand Russell and more recently Bart Ehrman have sought to discredit Jesus as a false prophet along the lines of Harold Camping and William Miller. They point to Jesus’ words, “Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place” as an indication that Jesus predicted the end of the world and his own return in glory within the lifetime of those present. Even the great apologist, C.S. Lewis, was troubled by this passage. He wrote, “It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible.”

What should we make of Jesus’ words here? In order to answer that question, we need to look at the larger context of Jesus’ remark. If we back up to the beginning of the chapter, we find Jesus and his disciples visiting the great temple in Jerusalem. As his disciples are marveling at the magnificent construction of the Temple, Jesus makes a startling claim, “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.” The Temple is going to be destroyed in an act of judgment upon the nation of Israel and the corrupt religious establishment. Jesus had earlier prophetically enacted this coming Judgment on his arrival in Jerusalem when he drove the money changers out of the Temple.

The Temple was a gigantic and impressive construction. To speak of its destruction would be unimaginable. Think of how you would have reacted if years before the events of 9/11 2001 someone would have told you that the two towers would come crashing to the ground. Even that comparison doesn’t quite get at it though, because the Temple was more than just an imposing physical landmark, it was the political and religious heart of the Jewish people. It was like the White house, the Vatican, and Westminster Abbey all rolled into one.

Later in the evening, when Jesus and his disciples are taking their rest on the Mount of Olives overlooking the Temple, his disciples ask him, “When will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?” He begins to warn them of a great time of tribulation in the future. The Gospel will go out to all the nations but they will be greatly persecuted by their own people, put on trial, and even flogged in the synagogue. It will be a time of great trial not only for them, but the world in general. There will be wars, famines, and earthquakes, even great portents in the sky. During this time of distress many false prophets will rise up claiming to be Christ, but they are not to believe them.

Far from being a spurious or false prophecy, Jesus’ prediction actually turned out to be remarkably accurate! Within the lifetime of that very generation, the Gospel would indeed go out to the nations, and Jesus’ followers would indeed be greatly persecuted by the Jewish leaders. Moreover, forty years in the future, a great war would break out in Jerusalem and the Temple would be destroyed by Roman armies.

In his account of the Jewish War, the Jewish historian Josephus tells us many details that line up with Jesus’ words with remarkable accuracy. During that time there were strange portents in the sky and earthquakes. Many prophets and would-be saviors rose up claiming to be the Christ.  When the Romans seized Jerusalem to stamp out the zealots, food was scarce.  In one particularly graphic detail, Josephus tells us of a woman who killed and roasted her own child! The Roman historian Tacitus also speaks of the tumults of the time. The Empire was plagued by wars and rumors of wars. He writes, “Besides the manifold misfortunes that befell mankind, there were prodigies in the sky and on the earth, warnings given by thunderbolts, and prophecies of the future both joyful and gloomy.”

 I believe Jesus’ words here are meant to refer to these events which were shortly to come to pass. “What about the language of the moon being darkened, the stars falling from the sky, and the Son of man coming in the clouds,” you may ask, “Certainly this suggest that Jesus was speaking about the end of the world and his return?”

It is my  opinion that this is metaphorical language being used to describe great social, religious, and political upheaval. The Prophet Isaiah used similar language of the sky being rolled up like a scroll and stars falling from the sky in prophesying the fall of Babylon.  If such language is appropriate in that situation, surely it is appropriate to describe the devastation of Jerusalem.

Likewise, Bible scholar N.T. Wright says, “When Jewish writers spoke of the sun and moon being darkened; when they spoke of angels gathering people from the four winds of heaven; when, in particular, they spoke of a Son of Man who would come on the clouds of heaven - in each of these cases they were using language in this metaphorical way….The 'coming of the son of man' is thus good first-century metaphorical language for two things: the defeat of the enemies of the true people of god, and the vindication of the true people themselves. Thus, the form that this vindication will take, as envisaged within Mark 13 and its parallels, will be precisely the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple."

We shouldn’t underestimate how significant these events would be to Jesus and his hearers. The destruction of the Temple was a milestone in salvation history. It marked the end of an age. It directly caused the passing away of the Jewish priesthood and its sacrifices, and led to the scattering of Israel as a nation. It was a devastating judgment on the nation that their God would allow such a thing to take place. Nothing would be the same again. For Christians this was a powerful confirmation that law and sacrifices of the old covenant were fulfilled and Israel was being judged and reconstituted around Jesus, who would replace the Temple as the heart of the faith. 

When Jesus promised that all these things would come to pass within that generation, this is what he meant. If Jesus’ words of warning are about events that happened in 70 A.D., do they have anything but historical significance for us living generations after that time?

I think Jesus’ prophecy is still very relevant for Christians today, but its relevance does not come through skipping over or ignoring its original context. This text answers the question, “What time is it in salvation history?” As the Church, we are the ones on whom the end of the age has come. The long promised Kingdom of God has been inaugurated with power, and Jesus is being proclaimed to all the world as Lord. Does this mean that the age to come promised by the scriptures has already arrived?

The answer that the Church gives to that question is Yes and No. Yes, the age to come has already broken into the world through the resurrection of Christ, but no, the Kingdom of God and the age to come has not arrived in its fullness. We wait for its consummation when Christ will return again in glory. The Church has traditionally read this Gospel passage as being not only about the destruction of Jerusalem, but also that last day when Christ will return.

It is my opinion that this text can be understood to have a double fulfillment. Bible scholars sometimes use the term “prophetic foreshortening” to describes this phenomenon.  Picture it this way: if you were to look at a mountain range from a distance, two peaks at considerable distance from one another might look like a single mountain. In the same way, prophecy can often appear to merge two events or two fulfillments into a single prophecy. This principle is often used in reference to Old Testament Prophecies that have a fulfillment in their own day, but also point forward to Christ. I believe the same principle can hold here.

  Although the literal meaning of this text deals with the events surrounding destruction of Jerusalem, there is another sense to this passage as well. God’s coming in judgment upon the Temple points us forward to the promised return of Christ when he will judge the world. As A.J. Gordon said, “Prophecy has no sooner become history, than history becomes prophecy.” We eagerly await the fulfillment of what has already begun in Christ, the passing away of the old, and the dawn of a new creation. We know that Christ and the age to come are even now at the gates. What I say to you I say to all: Keep awake!