What do you think?
Rate this book
Reading Matthew, Trusting Jesus: Christian Tradition and First-Century Fulfillment within Matthew 24-25
After pronouncing judgment on the temple in Jerusalem, Jesus answers three questions from his disciples on the Mount of Olives: "Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of your coming, and of the end of the age?" Contemporary scholars have characterized Jesus' answers to these three questions in the Olivet Discourse in Matthew's Gospel as a mix between first-century fulfillment and future, "end-of-the-world" fulfillment.
In Reading Matthew, Trusting Jesus, Jonathan E. Sedlak provides a detailed survey of how influential figures across church
history-from the earliest patristic sources until now-have interpreted Matthew 24, discovering that many affirmed first-century fulfillment, and some ruled out any delay in fulfillment beyond the first century.
Sedlak's study of the Olivet Discourse in Matthew also examines the rhetorical unity of Jesus' answers, showing that the discourse's literary features also exclude any delay or transition between periods of fulfillment.
"Both liberal and conservative Christians have misread the Discourse as a prophecy of the end of all things. This is not a minor issue. If Jesus expected the end of the world, He was mistaken, and that mistake has significant implications for the reliability of Jesus and/or of the Gospels. . . . Jonathan Sedlak's study demonstrates in great detail that there has been a persistent preterist element in classic Christian eschatology"
Peter J. Leithart, President of Theopolis Institute, author of Creator (IVP), Revelation (T&T Clark)
In Reading Matthew, Trusting Jesus, Jonathan E. Sedlak provides a detailed survey of how influential figures across church
history-from the earliest patristic sources until now-have interpreted Matthew 24, discovering that many affirmed first-century fulfillment, and some ruled out any delay in fulfillment beyond the first century.
Sedlak's study of the Olivet Discourse in Matthew also examines the rhetorical unity of Jesus' answers, showing that the discourse's literary features also exclude any delay or transition between periods of fulfillment.
"Both liberal and conservative Christians have misread the Discourse as a prophecy of the end of all things. This is not a minor issue. If Jesus expected the end of the world, He was mistaken, and that mistake has significant implications for the reliability of Jesus and/or of the Gospels. . . . Jonathan Sedlak's study demonstrates in great detail that there has been a persistent preterist element in classic Christian eschatology"
Peter J. Leithart, President of Theopolis Institute, author of Creator (IVP), Revelation (T&T Clark)
538 pages, Paperback
Published March 11, 2024
3 people are currently reading
13 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
May 26, 2024
Toward the end of Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus pronounces soon-coming judgment upon Jerusalem’s temple while standing within its precincts. Immediately afterward, Jesus leaves the temple and crosses over to the Mount of Olives. There, on the Mount of Olives, the disciples of Jesus ask him a series of questions: “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of your coming, and of the end of the age?” Immediately following these questions, Jesus provides answers to each question. This section containing Jesus’ answers is what Christians today commonly label “The Olivet Discourse.”
With this background in mind, this academic monograph presents an interesting historical and theological case for the following:
1. In the late 300’s to mid-400’s CE, a noticeable methodology emerged among highly influential Church Fathers. Four are particularly instructive: St Hilary of Poitiers, St Jerome of Stridon, St John Chrysostom, and the anonymous “Pseudo-Chrysostom”. The methodology they each present in their commentaries pertains to the sequence in which Jesus answers his disciple’s questions: Jesus is clearly asked one question, followed by another, and so on. As a result of their influence, many Church Fathers, East and West, over the first millennium follow in their footsteps.
2. In chapter one, the views of fifteen Church Fathers are covered, and many more are brought in across various footnotes. Across the fifteen surveyed closely, they each comment on the Olivet Discourse as though Jesus answered his disciples’ questions in the order he was asked. That is to say, Jesus answered the first question first, followed by answering the next question, and so forth.
3. The author also presents a clear case that within the Olivet Discourse these Church fathers recognize first-century fulfillment with the discourse in relation to Jesus’ answer to the first question he was asked. In response to the first question (“When will these things be?”) many Church fathers take for granted that Jesus began by describing events that were near to his disciples—events which would occur very soon, even within that generation leading up to Jerusalem’s destruction in 70 CE. However, in response to the questions that followed (“...what will be the sign of your coming, and of the end of the age?”), the majority of these Church Fathers transition into futuristic conjecture beyond the first century, and even beyond the generations in which each Church Father was living.
4. In chapter three, dozens of scholars between the 13th and 19th centuries are surveyed in a quest to learn where their take on futuristic-transition takes place within Matt 24. In this chapter it becomes clear that the patristic methology highlighted in chapter one is being parroted by later fathers and scholars. Also, some commentaries on this chapter have never been translated into English before (Bucer, Bullinger, and Cajetan), and one is now updated in modern English for the first time (Wycliffe).
5. In chapter four, the views of thirty-two New Testament scholars are surveyed, continuing with commentaries from the 19th to early 21st century. (The official commentaries end in detail at 2017, but two 2023 commentaries are mentioned in footnotes.) Out of these contemporary scholars, a case is made that many highly influential New Testament exegetes over the last two centuries, each of whom represent a diverse array of denominational backgrounds, have either explicitly or implicitly adopted aspects of the methodology proposed by earlier Church Fathers.
6. Chapter four also attempts to illustrate that each of these modern scholars generate new methodologies of their own in order to explain the transition they all assume must have taken place between Jesus’ answers about first century fulfillment and his answers about futuristic fulfillment.
7. This monograph is not only unique for its historical survey of pinpointed exegesis across Matt 24-25, but also because it establishes a reasonable case that Matthew’s version of the Olivet Discourse is the only version among the Synoptics that is most clearly designed to correct such traditional assumptions and methodologies. Not only is Matthew’s Gospel as a whole uniquely crafted so that each of its discourses are not easily misunderstood in their first century historical references, but its fifth discourse, which contains the Olivet Discourse, is structured neatly so that the methodology proposed by early Church Fathers is manifestly questionable.
8. Consequently, to the degree that contemporary biblical scholars adopt aspects of that common patristic methodology, they also overlook and misunderstand what ‘Matthew’ has clarified for his readers by design.
With this background in mind, this academic monograph presents an interesting historical and theological case for the following:
1. In the late 300’s to mid-400’s CE, a noticeable methodology emerged among highly influential Church Fathers. Four are particularly instructive: St Hilary of Poitiers, St Jerome of Stridon, St John Chrysostom, and the anonymous “Pseudo-Chrysostom”. The methodology they each present in their commentaries pertains to the sequence in which Jesus answers his disciple’s questions: Jesus is clearly asked one question, followed by another, and so on. As a result of their influence, many Church Fathers, East and West, over the first millennium follow in their footsteps.
2. In chapter one, the views of fifteen Church Fathers are covered, and many more are brought in across various footnotes. Across the fifteen surveyed closely, they each comment on the Olivet Discourse as though Jesus answered his disciples’ questions in the order he was asked. That is to say, Jesus answered the first question first, followed by answering the next question, and so forth.
3. The author also presents a clear case that within the Olivet Discourse these Church fathers recognize first-century fulfillment with the discourse in relation to Jesus’ answer to the first question he was asked. In response to the first question (“When will these things be?”) many Church fathers take for granted that Jesus began by describing events that were near to his disciples—events which would occur very soon, even within that generation leading up to Jerusalem’s destruction in 70 CE. However, in response to the questions that followed (“...what will be the sign of your coming, and of the end of the age?”), the majority of these Church Fathers transition into futuristic conjecture beyond the first century, and even beyond the generations in which each Church Father was living.
4. In chapter three, dozens of scholars between the 13th and 19th centuries are surveyed in a quest to learn where their take on futuristic-transition takes place within Matt 24. In this chapter it becomes clear that the patristic methology highlighted in chapter one is being parroted by later fathers and scholars. Also, some commentaries on this chapter have never been translated into English before (Bucer, Bullinger, and Cajetan), and one is now updated in modern English for the first time (Wycliffe).
5. In chapter four, the views of thirty-two New Testament scholars are surveyed, continuing with commentaries from the 19th to early 21st century. (The official commentaries end in detail at 2017, but two 2023 commentaries are mentioned in footnotes.) Out of these contemporary scholars, a case is made that many highly influential New Testament exegetes over the last two centuries, each of whom represent a diverse array of denominational backgrounds, have either explicitly or implicitly adopted aspects of the methodology proposed by earlier Church Fathers.
6. Chapter four also attempts to illustrate that each of these modern scholars generate new methodologies of their own in order to explain the transition they all assume must have taken place between Jesus’ answers about first century fulfillment and his answers about futuristic fulfillment.
7. This monograph is not only unique for its historical survey of pinpointed exegesis across Matt 24-25, but also because it establishes a reasonable case that Matthew’s version of the Olivet Discourse is the only version among the Synoptics that is most clearly designed to correct such traditional assumptions and methodologies. Not only is Matthew’s Gospel as a whole uniquely crafted so that each of its discourses are not easily misunderstood in their first century historical references, but its fifth discourse, which contains the Olivet Discourse, is structured neatly so that the methodology proposed by early Church Fathers is manifestly questionable.
8. Consequently, to the degree that contemporary biblical scholars adopt aspects of that common patristic methodology, they also overlook and misunderstand what ‘Matthew’ has clarified for his readers by design.
March 30, 2024
If you are a Matthean scholar or are interested in Matthean studies at an academic/scholarly level, you should buy, read, and respond to this book. Beginning with the patristic era (including Hilary of Poitiers, Jerome, John Chrysostom, and the Opus Imperfectum), and working all the way up to our own time, the author presents over 80 scholars and their views of the Olivet Discourse in Matthew, highlighting which parts of the discourse each scholar recognized as having first century fulfillment, which parts were thought to have distant-future fulfillment, and where in the discourse each scholar thought the transition was made from one time frame to the other. Gaining access to a compendium of 80+ scholars and their views from over 1,700 years of Matthean Olivet Discourse studies is worth the price of the book, and a reader need not adopt the author’s preterism in order to benefit from his work. The author provides extensive footnotes through which he engages scores of scholars and exhibits an unusual depth of familiarity with the subject matter. This book doesn’t stand a chance of being appreciated by aficionados of popular eschatology, but I think its significance will be recognized by scholars. Going forward, it might well become the book every Olivet Discourse scholar must answer.
December 25, 2024
This is the best defense of a preterist reading of the Olivet Discourse on the market.
The footnotes were just solid gold.
The portion of the book that was the least interesting to me was the consideration of the theologians from 12-1900. Outside of this section, I found the other sections very engaging and informative.
Chapter 2 on the literary structure of Matthew was just phenomenal.
The footnotes were just solid gold.
The portion of the book that was the least interesting to me was the consideration of the theologians from 12-1900. Outside of this section, I found the other sections very engaging and informative.
Chapter 2 on the literary structure of Matthew was just phenomenal.
October 17, 2024
Interviews with Gary Demar and the author, Jonathan E. Sedlak, on this book:
https://garydemar.libsyn.com/size/5/?...
https://garydemar.libsyn.com/size/5/?...
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews