Ryan E. Meyer. “This Generation” in Matthew 24:34 and the New Exodus

Dr. Ryan E. Meyer makes a distinct contribution to Matthew studies while advancing Kenneth Guenter’s thesis that the “this generation” in Matthew is a Mosaic caricature of God’s chosen people Israel (Deut 30–32). Guenter’s thesis is found in “‘This Generation’ in the Trilogy of Matthew 24:34–35,” Bibliotheca Sacra 175 (April–June 2018): 174–94. After situating the question in the quandary of apparent contradiction in which subsequent “generations” of Christians feel they must rescue Jesus, Meyer makes his move to develop the meaning of the word γενεά. Where Guenter dabbles in the data, Meyer dives deep.One of the greatest strengths of this study is in the exhaustive word study work through the biblical and extrabiblical usage of γενεά root in the second chapter. In this way, Meyer confirms Guenter’s argument that Jesus’s threefold promise of covenant loyalty to ethnic Israel is intended as comfort to his first-century listeners. In short, the data seems to indicate a more significant association of γενεά with a qualitative sense than an exclusively temporal sense. This supports Guenter and Meyer’s contention that Jesus is speaking pejoratively about God’s covenant partner. This will lead expositors to appreciate the depth of God’s steadfast love and faithfulness to the seed of Abraham. Thus, building on Guenter, Meyer moves to establish his own sense of Matt 24:34 by situating it in a New Exodus motif in the third chapter.Meyer’s next step, in the fourth and fifth chapters, is to develop the New Exodus theme within Matthew, in Jeremiah and the broader postexilic prophetic canon. Meyer shows how the Mosaic sermon in Deut 30–32 pervades Jer 7–8 considering the pending exile and the hope of restoration in Jer 30–33. Even the postexilic prophets like Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi are shown to be in the background of Jesus’s Olivet Discourse. Meyer sets Jesus among the great prophets of old who process Moses’s original sermon about God’s wayward child that continues to rebel until they are collectively given a new heart.Throughout his work he also provides a light engagement with historical theology on this point. In a systematic work of this nature, a greater weight is given to exegetical and intratextuality cues. Yet Meyer does acknowledge that his designation of this motif is a kind of scriptural typology (p. 65). This author was happy to see his engagement with Jonathan Edwards’s Notes on Scripture in which Edwards views the first century Jewish War as a type of a future grander eschatological desolation referred to in Dan 12 (p. 150).Meyer does not engage with hermeneutic questions directly; however, there are occasions when he tends to be dismissive of certain amillennial claims when he says that “it is anachronistic for us to assume that the disciples specifically ask about events that we now know occurred in the first century Jewish War when the disciples had no way of separating that coming judgment from everything included in ταῦτα πάντα” (p. 137). Two other texts that have traditionally been considered as necessary for the interpretation of Matt 24:34 are not dealt with substantively. These difficult texts are Matt 10:23 and 16:28, which seem to indicate a temporal meaning of the word generation in 23:36 and 24:34.Furthermore, Meyer might improve his thesis by citing Umberto Eco’s “Model Reader” as a key aspect of his methodology in his introduction rather than in a footnote in the third chapter. Since the “Ideal Reader” takes a significant role in Meyer’s work, it would be good to situate the hypothetical reader as Matthew’s recipient. This criticism also applies to Meyer’s marginal acknowledgment of Guenter’s thesis as the opportunity to advance the conversation.Meyer also situates the new exodus within the narrative arc of redemptive history; however, he might have provided more on the eschatological implications of this interpretation. For example, how does the restoration of the OT covenant people of God serve to advance the overall restoration of creation in relation to the gentiles? In a narrow research project, it would not have been possible; however, in his conclusion he may have been able to point to how this new insight could be developed by others who come after him. At the very least, to anticipate the questions and provide the limits for his project would have been helpful.Overall, Meyer’s research will advance the conversation about this notoriously difficult passage. This volume should be considered by future scholars who write commentary on Matthew since it serves to advance intertextuality and the use of the Old Testament by the New Testament. Because of the rigor of the word study, Meyer’s work will not likely be picked up by pastors who are preaching through Matthew; however, its thesis is worthy of a popular edition for pastors or in a four views volume on the Olivet Discourse for seminarians.