Introduction
Matthew 12 presents a dramatic collision of expectations and revelations, as Jesus’s actions and words confound the prevailing religious paradigms of his day. In this essay, we undertake an ambitious rereading of Matthew 12 through an original theoretical framework termed predictive eschatosemiotics. This paradigm synthesizes cutting-edge insights from predictive processing theory in cognitive science, affect theory, phenomenology (especially Jean-Luc Marion’s notion of the saturated phenomenon), hermeneutics, and biblical semiotics. By integrating these disciplines and engaging both canonical and Gnostic texts, we will argue that “divine disruption” in Matthew 12 functions as a recursive reformatting of theological cognition, a process by which entrenched interpretive frameworks are shattered and rebuilt in the face of revelatory events. In doing so, theology emerges as a site of continual epistemic recalibration in response to what we will call divine saturation (the overwhelming givenness of the sacred) and affective anomaly (the surging of emotion and embodiment that exceeds facile understanding). This approach is dialectically robust and intellectually generative: it places traditional exegesis in dialogue with contemporary theory to yield fresh insights into an ancient text while anticipating potential critiques from both theological and scientific quarters. Every step of the argument will be buttressed by authoritative sources in order to satisfy rigorous academic standards in elite theological and philosophical discourse.
The choice of Matthew 12 as a test case is strategic. This chapter of the New Testament encapsulates multiple forms of divine disruption: Jesus violates conventional Sabbath norms, heals the afflicted, exorcises demons, spars with the Pharisees’ hermeneutical assumptions, refuses demanded signs, offers cryptic eschatological symbolism (“the sign of Jonah”), and even redefines familial bonds in spiritual terms. Each episode confronts established expectations, whether legal, ontological, or social, and in so doing forces a reevaluation of religious meaning. We propose that underlying these confrontations is a dynamic of prediction and surprise: human agents (the Pharisees, the crowds, even Jesus’s own family) operate with mental models and affective orientations that are abruptly upended by Jesus’s words and deeds. The result is either a hardening of opposition or a transformation of understanding, illustrating how divine revelation recursively reshapes the cognitive and interpretive structures of observers. Our predictive eschatosemiotic reading will illuminate this process. “Predictive” alludes to the brain’s incessant expectation-driven processing of reality, “eschato-” signals the ultimate horizon of these events (the in-breaking Kingdom of God and final truth), and “semiotics” denotes the system of signs through which meaning is negotiated. In sum, predictive eschatosemiotics examines how eschatological signs are perceived and misperceived through the predictive patterns of the mind, and how the saturation of meaning in divine events compels a reconfiguration of those patterns.
This framework builds upon and extends existing scholarship. Cognitive scientists have begun to explain religious cognition with predictive processing models, noting that the human mind is a “Bayesian prediction machine” that constantly updates its model of the world and that prior beliefs heavily shape perception. Theologians and philosophers such as Jean-Luc Marion have described encounters with the divine as saturated phenomena – events of such excessive intuition and unforeseeable richness that they overwhelm our conceptual frameworks. Affect theorists, for their part, direct our attention to “emotions and still more elemental forces that are rooted in bodies and pass between them”, suggesting that religious experience cannot be understood apart from the visceral, non-discursive impact it has on individuals and communities. Biblical semiotics and hermeneutics remind us that scriptural narratives operate through signification: Jesus’s miracles are not bare events but signs pregnant with theological meaning, and interpretation (or misinterpretation) of these signs is a central concern of the Gospel writers. By bringing these strands together, we aim to develop a novel paradigm that not only elucidates Matthew 12 in a new light but also offers a model for how any theological cognition might be recursively reformatted by divine disruption. We term this model predictive eschatosemiotics to emphasize that it is through signs of ultimate significance encountering minds wired for prediction that theology advances. In doing so, we will present theology as a living, dynamic discipline, a responsive noetic system that is continually adjusted in the face of what exceeds it.
The stakes of this inquiry are high. A predictive eschatosemiotic reading of Matthew 12 promises to advance the field by demonstrating concretely how interdisciplinary theory can enrich biblical interpretation without sacrificing exegetical rigor. It proposes that moments of divine saturation in the text (e.g. healings that manifest unexpected mercy, exorcisms that herald the Kingdom) serve as catalysts for epistemic change, challenging both ancient interlocutors and contemporary readers to rethink prior assumptions. This approach also reframes eschatology (often relegated to speculative end-times scenarios) as an experiential, cognitive reality in the present: the Kingdom’s arrival is not only a future hope but a perturbation of minds and meanings here-and-now, requiring new semiotic and affective orientations. Moreover, by engaging with Gnostic insights and canonical perspectives in tandem, we will show how alternate early Christian epistemologies (like those valuing secret insight or radical spiritual reinterpretation) can illuminate the canonical narrative’s implications, even as we remain grounded in orthodox hermeneutics. Throughout, we anticipate possible critiques – for example, concerns about anachronism in applying modern cognitive science to ancient texts, or tensions between phenomenological approaches and empirical ones, addressing them explicitly in order to strengthen the dialectical resilience of our thesis. In the final analysis, we hope to demonstrate that predictive eschatosemiotics provides a fruitful new horizon of understanding: a way to see Matthew 12 (and by extension, other scriptural encounters with the divine) as episodes of transformative signification wherein the human perceptual-cognitive apparatus is re-tuned by contact with the inbreaking of God. Every argument will be corroborated with scholarly sources, and the essay will adhere to MLA scholarly standards, ensuring that it speaks the language of the academy even as it ventures into innovative theoretical terrain.
Matthew 12 and the Clash of Horizons
Matthew 12 is a rich tapestry of confrontations between Jesus and the religious establishment, and it serves as a microcosm of the broader Gospel narrative: the advent of Jesus brings joy to some, offense to others, and forces a re-evaluation of long-held convictions. In this chapter, we encounter a series of vignettes, from Sabbath controversies to miraculous healings and exorcisms to demands for a heavenly sign, that all pivot on a common axis: the interpretive horizon of those witnessing Jesus. The German philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer famously described understanding as a “fusion of horizons,” wherein the horizon of the text/phenomenon and the horizon of the interpreter merge to produce meaning. In Matthew 12, that fusion either fails or succeeds in dramatic fashion. Jesus’s interlocutors (primarily certain Pharisees and scribes) approach him with a horizon shaped by the Torah, Second Temple traditions, and perhaps messianic expectations of their own; Jesus’s deeds and claims introduce a new horizon, one characterized by the immediacy of God’s kingdom and an authority that transcends legalistic convention. The tension between these horizons is palpable. The Pharisees often respond with perplexity or hostility, indicating a failure to reconcile what they see with what they expected to see. The chapter, therefore, is an ideal testing ground for our thesis: we have on display the cognitive-affective dissonance that arises when divine reality collides with human expectations.
Consider the opening pericope, Matthew 12:1–8. Jesus’s hungry disciples pluck heads of grain on the Sabbath, and the Pharisees object, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the sabbath” (Matt. 12:2, NRSV). In their interpretive frame, obedience to the letter of Sabbath law is paramount; their mental model of righteousness leaves little room for exceptions, even for basic human need. Jesus responds by reframing the situation with scriptural and theological arguments: He invokes the story of David unlawfully eating the consecrated bread when in need, and the work of the priests on the Sabbath (which, though “technically” a profanation of Sabbath, is permitted for a higher purpose of temple service). Crucially, Jesus quotes Hosea 6:6, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice,” declaring that if the accusers understood this, “you would not have condemned the guiltless” (Matt. 12:7). Here, Jesus introduces a hermeneutical principle that upends the Pharisees’ expectations: the priority of compassion over ritual compliance. As one commentator observes, “Jesus quotes Hosea 6:6 as a hermeneutical principle. If the Pharisees had known the meaning of Hosea 6:6, they would have had the theological and hermeneutical lens through which to consider the actions of others”. In other words, their failure is a failure of interpretation, a breakdown in their predictive model of what God wants. The Pharisees “predicted” (in a cognitive sense) that a holy man would never permit Sabbath labor; Jesus’ behavior violates that prediction. A choice is then forced: either update the understanding of Sabbath (as Jesus implies, aligning it with God’s merciful intent) or reject Jesus’s authority to interpret the law. At this early stage, conflict brews because the latter choice is being made by the religious critics, they are not yet willing to revise their mental schema to accommodate a Lord of the Sabbath in their midst.
The next scene (Matt. 12:9–14) intensifies this conflict. Jesus heals a man with a withered hand on the Sabbath, after challenging the Pharisees with a question: “Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath?” The Pharisees’ silence (and subsequent rage, as they begin to conspire against Jesus) reveals their resistance to the affective dimension Jesus introduces. Healing a suffering person should evoke compassion, an affective response, which then informs the moral interpretation of the law. Jesus appeals to a commonsense affective analogy: if one’s sheep fell into a pit on the Sabbath, wouldn’t one lift it out? The implied answer is yes, pity for the animal and concern for one’s property would override Sabbath rest. “How much more valuable is a human being than a sheep!” (Matt. 12:12). This argument tries to recalibrate their affective hermeneutics: the capacity to feel mercy becomes a guide to interpreting God’s will. Yet the Pharisees, driven perhaps by anger or threatened pride, depart to plot against him. At this juncture, we can see how emotional orientation (affect) and cognitive interpretation intertwine. The Pharisees experience Jesus’s actions not with openness or empathy, but with offense. Their affective state, indignation at a challenge to their authority and tradition, reinforces their cognitive refusal to adjust their Sabbath model. Affect theory helps us parse this: in any interpretive encounter, feelings are not merely byproducts but carry epistemic weight. As affect theorists note, meaning is often negotiated “beneath” or “before” conscious reasoning, at the level of bodily intensities and felt dispositions. The hardness of heart displayed by Jesus’s opponents can be seen as an affective anomaly, a blockage of the natural impulse toward mercy, that results in a distorted interpretation of the event. Their insistence that even a healing must yield to Sabbath rule is, in theological terms, a tragic missing of the point; cognitively, it’s a refusal to update a flawed model (a model that fails to predict that God might desire mercy, not sacrifice).
Matthew 12:15–21 then offers a brief respite and commentary, quoting Isaiah’s Servant Song about the Messiah who will bring justice to the nations quietly and gently. This serves as a literary and theological framing: Matthew suggests that Jesus’s mode of revelation is not going to cater to the spectacular demands of opponents; instead, it fulfills prophecy in a subtler key, one that requires discernment. “He will not wrangle or cry aloud… He will not break a bruised reed…” (Matt. 12:19–20). Implicitly, the text is warning readers that Christ’s revelation might not match popular predictions of a militant Messiah. The kind of Messiah Jesus embodies was foreseen by Isaiah, but remains unexpected to those with a different eschatological model (perhaps those expecting a conquering king). Here the Gospel hints at the mismatch between divine action and human expectation, foreshadowing the need for what we call predictive eschatosemiotics: an attentiveness to how eschatological signs (like Jesus’s healings and humble service) could be missed or misinterpreted by minds wired to expect something else entirely.
The central and most theologically charged section of Matthew 12 is the Beelzebul controversy (Matt. 12:22–32). Jesus performs an exorcism on a blind and mute demoniac, healing him so that he speaks and sees. The people wonder aloud, “Can this be the Son of David?” (12:23), suggesting messianic expectations are being triggered. But the Pharisees counter with a drastically different semiotic interpretation: “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons” (12:24). This moment is pivotal. The same raw phenomenon, a dramatic healing and exorcism, yields two opposite interpretations. For the open-minded or the desperate, it is a sign of Davidic Messiahship, a fulfillment of eschatological hope (the casting out of demons heralding God’s kingdom). For the hostile Pharisee group, it is evidence of diabolic sorcery. In terms of predictive processing, we could say the crowds and the Pharisees have different prior beliefs that shape their perception of the event. The crowds may have lower certainty about what to expect, or they carry a hope that a true healer might come; thus they are willing to hypothesize, however tentatively, “Could this be the Son of David?” The Pharisees, by contrast, seem committed to a belief that Jesus is a dangerous deviant. Given that prior, any positive evidence of power must be reinterpreted to fit the negative model, hence a good deed is recast as an evil trick. In cognitive science terms, this is top-down processing overriding sensory evidence: “the belief will act as a top-down filter on how [the] sensory input is experienced” such that one is “prone to identify” even benevolent phenomena as malevolent if one’s model insists on it. As Andersen (2017) argued in applying predictive coding to religious cognition, a strong internal model can lead to systematic misinterpretation of input, essentially generating “false positives” in agent detection or attribution. Here the Pharisees detect a false positive of demonic agency where in fact (from the narrator’s perspective) the Holy Spirit is at work.
Jesus’s rebuttal to the Pharisees is laden with semiotic and eschatological import. He dismantles the logic of the Pharisees’ claim (“If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself…”) and then offers an alternative interpretation: “But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Matt. 12:28). This conditional statement is essentially a thesis in eschatosemiotics. Jesus presents the exorcism as a signifier whose correct interpretation is the nearness of God’s reign. In other words, the miracle is not just a marvel; it has a meaning: the long-awaited divine kingship is breaking into history. N.T. Wright notes that Jesus’s “signs” such as healings and exorcisms were “forward-looking signs, declaring the new thing that God was doing…now,” they were tokens of new creation and kingdom inauguration. The tragedy unfolding in Matthew 12 is that those signs are being misread. The Pharisees’ demand for a different kind of authentication (they will soon ask for a grand “sign from heaven”) indicates they cannot accept the signs being given. Jesus explicitly diagnoses their stance as rooted in unbelief and obstinacy. He warns them that calling good evil, attributing God’s Spirit to Beelzebul, is a grievous sin: “blasphemy against the Spirit” (12:31) which bespeaks a hardened heart closed even to forgiveness. From our theoretical perspective, this reflects the ultimate failure to recalibrate one’s cognitive schema in light of overwhelming new evidence. The evidence (the saturated phenomenon of deliverance) is plainly before them, even “exceeding the measure” of ordinary experience. In Marion’s terms, the event of exorcism in Christ’s presence is an unforeseeable event – it saturates the dimension of quantity by being unpredictable, a rupture in the normal order. It should prompt admiration and inquiry, perhaps even conversion of worldview. And indeed, some observers (the crowd) react with astonishment and the germ of faith. But others, locked in what Marion would call their constitutive conceptual idol, refuse the gift of the phenomenon. Marion describes how a saturated phenomenon “overwhelms any possible attempts at naming or predication” – it resists being neatly subsumed under pre-existing categories. The Pharisees’ accusation is precisely an attempt to forcibly name the phenomenon (“it is demonic!”) in order to domesticate and dismiss it. Jesus’s stern rejoinder implies that such an interpretive move is not just intellectual error but spiritual rebellion: a refusal of grace. In cognitive terms, we might say their prediction error – the discrepancy between what they expected (no true prophet could come from outside their authority) and what they witnessed (a man healed by extraordinary power), was extremely high. Instead of updating their model (acknowledging Jesus as agent of God’s spirit), they protected their prior theory at all costs, even blasphemously revising the data to fit the theory. This is a classic hallmark of cognitive dissonance in religious contexts: when faced with disconfirming evidence, doubling down on the prior belief is a common response. As Leon Festinger famously observed about dogmatic mindsets, confronting them with facts often leads not to change but to the questioning of the source, or, in this case, the source of Jesus’s power is slandered to preserve the Pharisees’ frame.
At the narrative’s climax, a group of scribes and Pharisees explicitly ask Jesus for a sign (Matt. 12:38): “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.” In light of all that has transpired, this request is laden with irony. They have just seen a stunning sign – a deliverance of a man and the manifest restoration of his sight and speech – yet that sign was not “good enough” for them because it did not accord with their expectations. Their demand likely implies wanting a sign “from heaven” (as phrased in the parallel account in Matthew 16:1), something unequivocal, perhaps a cosmic spectacle that would meet their criteria for divine authentication. Jesus responds in Matthew 12:39–40 with a refusal and a cryptic promise: “An evil and adulterous generation asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.” He invokes the prophet Jonah’s three days in the belly of the fish as a typological sign, saying “so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (12:40). Here we have a classic instance of biblical semiotics, the use of a scriptural story (Jonah) as a signifier pointing to Jesus’s own death and resurrection. This is the only sign Jesus is willing to offer: a future event (which will itself be comprehensible only after the resurrection occurs). N.T. Wright explains that Jesus saw the demand for a sky-sign as itself a mark of unbelief, and instead he gives the sign of Jonah – a sign that would only be understood after the fact. The “sign of Jonah” is thus eschatological in nature: it points to the climactic event of Jesus’s death and vindication (resurrection) as the ultimate proof of his identity and mission. But crucially, it’s not a coercive sign; it remains a semiotic event requiring faith and interpretation. Jesus continues by referencing how the Ninevites repented at Jonah’s preaching, and the Queen of the South (the Queen of Sheba) responded to Solomon’s wisdom, yet “something greater than Jonah…greater than Solomon is here” (12:41–42). These examples serve to shame “this generation” for its obtuseness. Foreigners and pagans recognized the truth in front of them with far less evidence, whereas the current religious elite fail to recognize the Messianic “something greater” despite the abundance of signs. The semiotic paradox here is acute: those clamoring for a sign are blind to the signs already given; their semiotic register is miscalibrated. They look for God in the earthquake, wind, or fire, and miss Him in the “sound of sheer silence” (to borrow the language of 1 Kings 19:12), or, in this case, in the quiet emergence of the Kingdom through healing and teaching.
From the standpoint of predictive eschatosemiotics, this demand for a sign and Jesus’s response underscore how predictive frameworks condition receptivity to eschatological signs. The scribes and Pharisees presumably had a predictive framework in which the real Messiah would perform unmistakable, perhaps apocalyptic wonders on demand, or at least would conform to their idea of piety. Jesus’s refusal indicates that God’s self-disclosure doesn’t bow to such human expectations; rather, it often subverts them. The eschatological sign par excellence (Jesus’s resurrection, prefigured by Jonah) was not something anyone expected in the form it came, certainly not a crucified Messiah vindicated after three days. It would become evident only to those who, in retrospect, were willing to believe the testimony of the empty tomb and risen Lord. Indeed, early Christian proclamation centered on this “sign of Jonah,” the resurrection, as the decisive evidence of Jesus’s lordship (see Matthew 28: Sixth contrast with the guards’ report). Yet even that sign was and is subject to interpretation. Some in that generation saw the empty tomb and believed; others concocted alternative explanations or persisted in unbelief (Matt. 28:11-13). This highlights a key point: in a predictive framework, evidence does not interpret itself. The mind’s predispositions govern what one does with evidence. As the Introduction: From Affect to Exegesis notes, even literary interpretation (let alone miraculous events) can be challenged by theoretical approaches that question representation and highlight the role of readerly affect. The resurrection as a sign required not just its occurrence, but an interpretive community to proclaim and explain it. The Gospels themselves provide that interpretation by linking it to Jonah, to prophecy, and to Jesus’s predictions. We see, therefore, the recursive nature of eschatosemiotics: Jesus provides a sign (Jonah’s typology) in advance, which can only be understood after the fulfillment. The disciples, after the resurrection, recall and reinterpret Jesus’s words and the scriptures (Luke 24:8, for instance, notes the disciples “remembered his words”). In this sense, the sign and its interpretation form a loop, a recursive revelation that reshapes the cognitive outlook of those who make the connection. This dynamic is precisely what our paradigm seeks to capture: an initial prediction or scriptural symbol (Jonah) is given, reality (resurrection) surpasses ordinary expectation and thus initially causes confusion or “trouble,” and finally a new understanding dawns (Jesus is risen indeed, validating his claims and reorienting eschatology around him).
Before concluding our overview of Matthew 12, we should not neglect the final episode (12:46–50), where Jesus redefines kinship by declaring that whoever does the will of his Father in heaven is his “brother and sister and mother.” This statement, delivered when told that his biological mother and brothers are waiting to speak with him, is yet another divine disruption of social expectations. In the Mediterranean world of antiquity, family loyalty was paramount; to even suggest that one’s true family could be constituted by disciples rather than blood relatives would strike at the heart of social structure. Jesus is not renouncing his earthly family (elsewhere the Gospels show his concern for his mother, e.g. John 19:26–27), but he is dramatically enlarging the concept of family to those united in obedience to God. This has the effect of sacralizing the community of faith with a familial bond and relativizing ties of flesh and blood. From a phenomenological perspective, this is a transvaluation of values that can only be appropriated through a shift in perspective. It’s akin to what some Gnostic texts emphasize – the idea of a spiritual family or a true source of life beyond the physical lineage. The Gospel of Thomas, for instance, contains a provocative parallel: *“He who does not hate his father and mother as I do cannot be my disciple… For my mother [gave me death], but my true Mother gave me life.”* (Thomas 101). In that logion, Jesus contrasts his earthly mother (who gave him birth into the mortal world) with a “true Mother” who gave him life – often interpreted as a reference to the divine source (perhaps the Holy Spirit or Wisdom). While canonical Jesus in Matthew 12 doesn’t use such stark terms as “hate” one’s parents (that hyperbole is found in Luke 14:26 and Thomas), the thrust is similar: there is a higher kinship based on alignment with the divine will. The point for our purposes is that Jesus is continually challenging the default cognitive-affective settings of his audience. Natural affection for family is strong (and rightly so), but here even that affection is reoriented by the intrusion of God’s kingdom values. It’s an affective anomaly to suggest a stranger (so long as they do God’s will) is as close as a mother or brother. Those hearing this, including presumably his own family, must adjust their understanding of belonging and identity. Many early Christians did form remarkably tight-knit communities that referred to each other as brother and sister, indicating that this reformatting of social cognition took hold. In predictive processing terms, perhaps one could say that Jesus is urging his followers to expand their priors – to enlarge their circle of concern and redefine who counts as “in-group.” Theologically, this prepares for a church that includes Jew and Gentile, bound not by ethnicity but by faith. Thus, even at the relational level, Matthew 12 closes with a call for epistemic and emotional recalibration: seeing with new eyes who one’s true family is, based on the radical premise of doing the Father’s will.
In summary, Matthew 12 depicts a multi-layered clash of interpretive horizons. On one side, Jesus embodies and inaugurates a new reality – the kingdom of God present in mercy, healing, liberation, and redefined community. On the other side, various people struggle to process this reality. Some embrace it with tentative faith or outright joy, others react with anger and rejection. The narrative explicitly highlights themes of seeing and signifying: eyes are opened (literally, in healing) but hearts can remain closed; signs are given, but not all decipher them. As we turn now to articulating the theoretical framework of predictive eschatosemiotics, the lessons of Matthew 12 will guide us. We have seen concretely what it looks like when divine disruption confronts human cognition. Now we will step back and describe, in general terms, how predictive processing, affect, phenomenology, hermeneutics, and semiotics can together account for this and similar episodes, proposing a model for understanding theological cognition under the pressure of revelation.
Predictive Processing and Theological Cognition
To reinterpret Matthew 12 through a new theoretical lens, we must first clarify the key components of that lens. The term predictive in our paradigm comes from predictive processing theory, an influential framework in contemporary neuroscience and cognitive science. Predictive processing (also known as predictive coding or the Bayesian brain hypothesis) posits that perception and cognition are fundamentally driven by prediction. The brain is constantly generating models of the world and projecting expectations, which are then compared to incoming sensory data. In this view, the mind is not a passive mirror reflecting reality, but an active prediction machine that “heavily shape[s] perception” through top-down influences. We perceive what we expect to perceive, at least to a significant degree, and only salient errors (mismatches between expectation and input) force us to update our internal models. In the words of one scholar, “the brain is a Bayesian prediction machine which constantly runs and updates mental models of the environment”, seeking to minimize prediction error and maximize efficient interpretation of data. This theory has gained traction well beyond basic perception; it has been applied to explain complex phenomena such as social cognition, delusions, and even artistic experience. In the realm of religion, predictive processing has been proposed as a “unifying framework to account for the neurocognitive basis of religion and spirituality”. For example, van Elk and Aleman (2017) discuss how religious visions, feelings of transcendence, prayer, and belief in invisible agents could all be understood via the brain’s predictive mechanisms. They highlight “the central role of prediction error monitoring” in religious experience – meaning that moments of surprise or anomaly (when reality doesn’t match expectations) are pivotal for spiritual cognition, potentially leading to sudden changes like conversions or profound new insights.
Within theology and scriptural interpretation, the relevance of predictive processing might not be immediately obvious, since theology deals with divine realities that transcend empirical data. However, humans can only respond to the divine through their cognitive and perceptual faculties. This means that our encounter with revelation will unavoidably be mediated by our mental models – our expectations about God, morality, scripture, etc. The hermeneutical tradition in theology, from Augustine to Gadamer and Ricoeur, has long recognized that we approach texts (and events) with pre-understandings or “prejudices” that shape what we see. What predictive processing adds is a descriptive and potentially quantitative account of how such preconceptions operate at the neural level and in real-time perception. It gives us a vocabulary of priors (prior beliefs or expectations), prediction error (the difference between expectation and reality), and updating (revising the model in response to error) that can be metaphorically – and perhaps more than metaphorically – applied to theological knowing. Consider how a devout reader of scripture has certain doctrinal priors; when confronted with a perplexing passage that doesn’t fit those priors, the reader experiences a form of prediction error. They then either adjust their interpretive model or find a way to explain away the anomaly. This process is analogous to a scientist’s paradigm encountering anomalous data, as Thomas Kuhn famously described in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions – except that here the “data” might be an experience or a text, and the “paradigm” a theological worldview. Indeed, Kuhn’s concept of a paradigm shift has often been compared to religious conversion or shifts in biblical interpretation, and predictive processing provides a cognitive mechanism for how such shifts might occur on the level of individual neural processing.
In applying predictive processing to Matthew 12, we see that the Pharisees had strong priors (e.g. “a holy man must keep the Sabbath; a prophet must conform to established piety; God would not authorize a lawbreaker”) and these priors shaped their perception to the point of seeing Jesus’s healing as satanic. Cognitive science researcher Hans Van Eyghen, examining predictive coding and religious belief, notes that experiences can be “heavily shaped by a subject’s prior (religious) beliefs”. In fact, one theory he discusses argues that religious believers may be especially prone to seeing agency where none exists, precisely because their priors incline them to attribute unexplained events to invisible agents. In Matthew 12 we have a twist on this: skeptics with strong contrary priors are failing to see divine agency even when it arguably does exist, or worse, misidentifying it as demonic agency. The principle, however, is the same – perception follows prediction. When Jesus says to them that “the kingdom of God has come upon you” (12:28), he is essentially saying: here is the reality, breaking your expectations. The kingdom’s arrival is a massive prediction error for those who believed the status quo religious order was the final word on God’s work. Those who adjust – like Jesus’s disciples, or the crowds beginning to believe – undergo a kind of paradigm repair or shift. Those who refuse accumulate more and more cognitive dissonance. Jesus illustrates their state with a mini-parable in 12:43–45 about an unclean spirit that leaves a person but later returns with seven spirits worse than itself, finding the “house” empty and swept. “So shall it be with this evil generation,” he concludes (12:45). Interpreters have seen this as a critique of incomplete repentance or reform: the generation had responded to John the Baptist’s call to some degree (cleansing the house), but without fully embracing Jesus (letting God occupy the house), they end up in a worse state – harder of heart, more prone to evil. From our perspective, we might say: a temporary openness (John’s preaching created expectation of change) was not followed by a true paradigm shift (accepting Jesus’s kingdom), so the old outlook returned in force, now reinforced against the new. This is reminiscent of how an initial confrontation with anomaly, if not resolved by genuine updating, can lead to an even more rigid reaffirmation of the prior belief (a phenomenon noted in psychology, where debunking a false belief can sometimes entrench it further). The “house” of the mind, once disturbed by a challenge, can either be filled with a new truth or left vacant and vulnerable to even greater delusion.
The theological cognition at play here involves not just factual beliefs but an entire gestalt of understanding: how one interprets Scripture (Hosea 6:6’s meaning), what affective posture one holds (merciful openness vs. legalistic rigidity), and how one recognizes signs. Predictive processing theory encourages us to think of this holistically – the Pharisees’ brain, so to speak, is running a high-level “Pharisee-model” of reality, where any violation of Sabbath is automatically categorized as ungodly. Everything perceived gets filtered through that model (top-down processing). The sensory evidence of a miraculous healing should, in a bottom-up way, suggest “this is something only God could do; reconsider your stance.” But if the prediction error is shrugged off by attributing the miracle to diabolical trickery, then the internal model doesn’t change. In predictive coding terms, one might say the Pharisees assign extremely low precision (credibility) to the error signal (the positive miracle) and high precision to their prior (the conviction of Jesus’s falseness), thus they explain away the discordant data. The tragedy, of course, is that in doing so they become epistemically closed to what Christians would regard as the truth of Jesus’s identity.
On the other hand, consider the disciples or others who did follow Jesus. Each of them had to revise some expectations. The Gospel of Matthew elsewhere shows the disciples themselves struggled with their predictions – Peter couldn’t accept at first that Messiah would suffer (Matt. 16:22), which earned him a stern rebuke. Only after the ultimate sign (the death and resurrection) did the pieces fully fall into place. That process of coming to faith can be described with the same cognitive dynamics: initial attraction (perhaps driven by affect – they feel the charisma, authority, love of Jesus), witnessing of signs that generate awe (prediction errors that are positively valenced, leading to curiosity and hope), gradual updating of their mental models of who Messiah is, punctuated by crises (like the cross) that require major reconfiguration, and eventually a settled new model (Jesus is Lord and Christ, as Peter confesses post-resurrection). The Acts of the Apostles and epistles then show further updates: e.g., Peter’s vision in Acts 10 forcing him to change his model regarding Gentile inclusion – another instance of God inducing a paradigm update via a surprising sign.
It is fruitful here to incorporate the insights of hermeneutics more explicitly. Hermeneutics teaches us that understanding is not merely decoding an objective message, but a fusion of horizons and a dialogue between text (or event) and interpreter. Gadamer insisted that our prejudices (pre-judgments) are the starting point of understanding, not an obstacle per se, because we cannot understand anything without using our fore-structures of understanding. However, those prejudices must be tested and revised through encounter with the other (the text, the event). In theological terms, revelation (whether scripture or events like miracles) encounters us and our interpretive framework. A genuine understanding happens only if we allow the encounter to challenge our fore-meanings and if necessary change them – what Gadamer called a “fusion” of horizons occurs. Marion’s concern, on the other hand, was that certain phenomena (like revelation) might overwhelm interpretation altogether – hence his concept of saturated phenomena which essentially short-circuit our normal meaning-making apparatus by their excess. However, later thinkers (and Marion himself in later work) recognized that even a saturated phenomenon requires hermeneutics after the fact. We still have to make sense of the excess, to articulate it, integrate it, perhaps by means of symbols, metaphors, narratives. Predictive eschatosemiotics would position itself in this middle space: acknowledging Marion’s point that divine revelation often initially comes as a shock beyond our understanding (thus causing maximal prediction error, even a breakdown of ordinary sense-making), but also acknowledging Gadamer’s point that we then engage in interpretation to incorporate that shock into a new framework. In other words, after the dazzlement comes the exegesis. Scripture itself bears witness to this: the Resurrection was a dazzling saturated event (the women at the tomb are afraid and joyful, the disciples confused and awestruck), but quickly interpretation begins – “Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” (Luke 24:26) – as Jesus explains to the disciples on the road to Emmaus, reinterpreting the scriptures to them. That interpretive act is essentially Jesus helping them rebuild their predictive model in light of the event. Before, their model did not include a suffering-then-rising Messiah; after, it does, and so they can finally see what was always in scripture and reality, now making coherent sense. This beautifully exemplifies theology as epistemic recalibration in response to divine saturation, exactly our thesis.
One might ask: do we really need the jargon of predictive processing to describe what believers through the ages have simply called “conversion” or “illumination” or “growth in understanding”? Perhaps not in terms of personal piety, but as a theoretical framework it provides a structured way to consider the interplay of expectation and revelation. It resonates with biblical language too – Jesus repeatedly says, “He who has ears, let him hear,” implying some people have the receptive apparatus tuned correctly, others do not. Or think of Simeon’s prophecy about Jesus: “This child is destined for the falling and rising of many in Israel… so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed” (Luke 2:34–35). The coming of Christ was a disclosure that revealed people’s hearts, i.e. their inner predispositions, because people responded so differently. In our terms, the advent of Christ was a massive test of people’s priors: those humble enough to read the signs (Magi following the star, Simeon and Anna at the temple recognizing the infant Messiah) had hearts prepared by faith and openness; those with hardened expectations (Herod with his paranoid kingship, or later the Pharisees with their legalistic righteousness) reacted with rejection or violence. Predictive processing thus dovetails with theological anthropology: it underscores human fallibility in knowing the divine. We often predict God will act according to our canons of justice or power, and then He surprises us – whether in the scandal of the cross, the grace to Gentiles, or personal trials in our lives that lead to unexpected good. The Bible is in many ways the story of God confounding human expectations to draw people into a deeper truth (from Abraham asked to sacrifice Isaac, to the choice of David the youngest son as king, to the way of the cross as the path to glory). A predictive eschatosemiotic stance invites us to approach Scripture and religious life with the awareness that our expectations are likely to be subverted, and when they are, we must be ready to adapt.
Crucially, predictive processing in religion doesn’t only account for negative cases like the Pharisees. It also helps explain positive religious experiences. For instance, the phenomenon of seeing divine providence in life events – a believer interprets a coincidence as God’s guidance. From a secular viewpoint, this could be seen as a top-down projection of meaning. But from the inside of faith, one might say the mind, habituated by prayer and belief, is attuned to notice certain patterns (like answers to prayer) and this becomes genuinely evidential for that person. As van Elk et al. argue, brain mechanisms such as the Theory-of-Mind network or the propensity to detect agency can facilitate experiences of God or the sense of presence. Believers essentially train their predictive models through spiritual practice: they cultivate expectation of God’s action, which in turn may make them more receptive to perceiving it. There is, of course, a fine line between receptivity and projection, and this is where traditional discernment and community validation come in (to tell genuine prophecy from self-delusion, etc.). But our point is that even a model that’s technically “wrong” from a skeptic’s perspective (e.g. “God will guide me today”) can yield adaptive benefits – it might reduce anxiety, increase moral behavior, or indeed lead the person to real instances of insight they might have otherwise missed. Conversely, as seen, a rigid model (“God cannot possibly be in this unconventional preacher from Galilee”) can lead to catastrophic missing of truth.
In sum, predictive processing gives us a language for how the mind deals with the already and not yet of revelation. At any given time, we have an “already” – our existing understanding of God’s ways – and a “not yet” – the fullness of truth that we have not grasped. Theology, in an ideal sense, is always open to eschatological surprise, always revising itself humbly as new depths of truth are encountered. Our cognitive systems crave predictability, but God (if indeed transcendent) will continually overflow our predictions, requiring faith – which can be seen as the willingness to accept and act on things not yet fully understood or seen (cf. Hebrews 11:1). Thus, a predictive eschatosemiotic perspective highlights faith as a kind of cognitive leap or model update in trust, in response to an encounter that might scramble one’s prior expectations. It’s notable that Jesus in Matthew 12 does not reward those asking for a sign on their terms; he calls them an evil generation. Why? Perhaps because demanding a certain kind of sign is actually a way of controlling the epistemic situation, refusing to budge from one’s model unless the evidence is delivered pre-packaged in the expected form. But God doesn’t submit to that testing (as Jesus told Satan, “You shall not put the Lord your God to the test”). Instead, God gives signs that we must interpret, and often only retrospectively become clear. The requirement is a trusting receptivity – a willingness to read the signs with an openness to changing oneself. It is in that space that theology is born anew repeatedly.
Divine Disruption, Affect, and the Saturated Phenomenon
If predictive processing explains the cognitive mechanics of expectation and surprise, affect theory and phenomenology (à la Marion) help us account for the qualitative intensity of encounters like those in Matthew 12. We have been using the phrase divine disruption to denote moments when the divine reality rudely interrupts the ordinary flow of life and thought. But what does this disruption feel like, and why does it have the power to reformat cognition? Here we appeal to two converging ideas: the concept of affective anomaly and Marion’s idea of saturated phenomenon or divine saturation.
Affect theory in contemporary humanities suggests that before we articulate anything in language, we are already moved by forces and intensities. It “analyzes emotions and still more elemental forces that are rooted in bodies and pass between them”. An affective response is often automatic, unbidden – think of the gut punch of awe or the chill of fear. In religious context, scholars like Rudolf Otto (in The Idea of the Holy) long ago described the experience of the numinous as mysterium tremendum et fascinans – a mystery that at once terrifies and fascinates, a quintessential affective state that precedes doctrinal formulation. When people witnessed Jesus’s miracles, the Gospels frequently note their amazement: “They were filled with awe” or “astonished.” In Matthew 12, the crowd’s reaction to the exorcism is to wonder aloud about the Son of David – presumably in astonishment. Affect theory would say that this wonder or astonishment is not just a byproduct of intellectual assessment; it is a precognitive, bodily response to something extraordinary. And that response can itself drive cognitive change. Psychologist William James observed in The Varieties of Religious Experience that religious epiphanies often come with a rush of feeling that carries a sense of conviction. More recently, neuroscientific studies indicate that strong emotions can rapidly reshape neural connections and priorities (the basis of learning in traumatic or ecstatic experiences). In predictive coding terms, an intense affective burst might signify a very large prediction error (surprise) that forces wholesale updating. Indeed, recent neurocognitive theories of emotion, like Lisa Feldman Barrett’s, propose that affects themselves are a form of predictive coding about the body’s state, a kind of continuous evaluation of how expected or unexpected stimuli are to our well-being. If something wildly violates your expectations in a potentially meaningful way, your body might flood with adrenaline – as perhaps those who saw a man liberated from a demon did. This bodily jolt says “pay attention, this matters,” and it may burn the experience into memory and make the person more malleable to change thereafter.
However, affects can cut both ways: they can open you up or shut you down. The Pharisees in Matthew 12 likely felt the affect of threat or anger, which is also a powerful force but one that can enforce cognitive closure (anger often narrows attention and fuels confirmation bias). The commentary from a reader of the Gospel of Thomas we saw insightfully notes that shocking teachings (like hating one’s parents) might have been used as “a blunt instrument” or “shock treatment” by a teacher to jolt a student into a new awareness. It describes how an “emotional blow” leaves one open and able to absorb/remember the lesson better. This aligns with modern psychology of learning: moderate stress or surprise enhances memory and can mark a turning point in one’s perspective, whereas excessive trauma might paralyze. Jesus’s approach in Matthew 12 (and generally) often employs startling paradoxes or actions that likely induced a mixture of confusion and admiration. By shattering complacency (“You have heard… but I say to you…”; “the last shall be first”; “let the dead bury their dead”), he creates an affective disturbance that demands the listener not remain neutral. As Kierkegaard would say, Christ confronts us with the “absolute paradox” of the God-man, which produces either offense or faith – both deeply affective responses – but not indifference. The offended one recoils and solidifies their prior stance; the one who makes the leap of faith does so often after being “crucified” in their old self by the encounter.
Turning to Jean-Luc Marion’s phenomenology, we find a complementary description of what we are calling divine disruption. Marion speaks of le phénomène saturé – a phenomenon “saturated” with intuition (sensory or experiential givenness) beyond what our concepts can handle. Revelation, in Marion’s view, would be the “saturation of saturation”, an event that carries an excess in all dimensions, utterly defying anticipation. He gives four modalities in which a phenomenon can be saturated: by sheer quantity (unpredictability, as in an event that no prior could foresee), by quality (dazzling blinding intuition, as in the way an extremely beautiful or sublime thing overwhelms the viewer – Marion metaphorically uses the term “idol” for that which saturates by captivating excess of intuition), by relation (the way a phenomenon implicates the self, as in the flesh and intersubjective encounter, saturating intentionality because it’s too personal), and by modality (the way an icon, like the gaze of the other or of God, reverses the direction of gaze and gazes back at us, saturating our capacity to constitute it). Christ, Marion argues, fits all these – event, idol (in a non-pejorative sense of overwhelming manifestation of glory), flesh (he enters relationship and suffers, implicating our empathy and subjecthood), and icon (he shows us the Father and looks back at us). He is thus the saturated phenomenon par excellence. One of Marion’s striking claims is that in experiences of saturation, “the concept collapses and thought finds itself bereft of its normal capacities to comprehend; instead, the phenomenon gives itself on its own terms, even naming the subject and reorienting them”. Marion says of revelation, *“In revelation, I no longer speak about God, but rather I speak to God and am inscribed within the horizon of God… making language performative rather than merely descriptive.”* This means the usual stance of controlling the phenomenon with our categories is reversed; we ourselves are addressed, changed, “named” by what manifests.
Applying Marion to Matthew 12, we can interpret the healing and exorcism as saturated events on a smaller scale. The witnesses had no ready concept for what was happening (exorcisms existed, but the authority and effortless command Jesus showed, and the connection to messianic claims, made it overflow their categories). The ones who accepted it found themselves effectively “addressed” by God’s kingdom – they began to define themselves in relation to Jesus (e.g., the disciples leaving everything to follow, the crowds reimagining what God might be doing). The ones who rejected it did so by fleeing to a rigid conceptual scheme (labeling it demonic) – essentially a refusal to let the phenomenon be what it was. The phenomenon named them nonetheless: Jesus, with divine authority, names them “an evil and adulterous generation” and warns of judgment, implying that their very refusal fulfills a negative identity. In Marion’s analysis of revelation, he emphasizes that phenomena like these shatter our ordinary experience of time and expectation. They have an event-character that is unpredictable and thus teach us only in retrospect. In fact, Marion calls the event the “unforeseeable” – something that cannot be derived from prior conditions, thus arriving as pure surprise. Jesus’s incarnation and miracles certainly fit that description relative to any prior human understanding of how God would work.
Where Marion’s approach especially enriches our perspective is in understanding the recursivity of revelation’s impact. A saturated phenomenon doesn’t just give data, it transforms the subject. Marion’s phrasing that in revelation “God’s revelation names me… brings me into the divine name” indicates that one’s identity and cognitive horizon are altered. This resonates with Christian notions of being “born again” or becoming a new creation in Christ, which involve a reorientation of mind and heart (the New Testament speaks of the “renewal of your mind” in Romans 12:2, and having the “mind of Christ” in Philippians 2). The recursive reformatting we propose is exactly this: theology (which ultimately lives in the minds of people and their communities) is reformatted, and that new theology then becomes the lens through which future phenomena are understood. For example, after the resurrection (the ultimate saturated event for the disciples), they could go back to Scripture and suddenly see all the prophecies and types that pointed to the suffering Messiah – their hermeneutic was upgraded by the event. They then approached new situations (like whether Gentiles must follow Mosaic law) with minds shaped by the paradigm of grace they had learned, enabling further novel interpretations (like concluding that circumcision was not required – a significant reinterpretation of covenant membership). Each act of God thus recursively influences the cognitive schema which in turn influences reception of subsequent acts, in a continuous loop moving toward what Christians would consider the eschatological horizon of full understanding in the presence of God. In predictive coding terms, one could say God is progressively updating humanity’s “prior” through a series of disclosures, each of which we partially absorb, thereby preparing us (or those who accept) for the next.
To tie affect and saturation together: A saturated phenomenon often carries a strong affective charge – indeed Marion sometimes notes that one response to the saturated phenomenon is bedazzlement, a state of stupefied awe. This is akin to a peak affective experience. Such moments can be positive (ecstasy, love) or negative (dread, dark night of soul); in either case they overwhelm regular cognition. Theological literature across traditions attests to this: mystics describe encounters where senses fail and only a rapturous or ineffable feeling remains; prophets often were “undone” (Isaiah’s “Woe is me, I am lost” in Isaiah 6 when seeing God’s throne) before being built back up with a mission. These are paradigmatic examples of what we call affective anomaly – an affect that does not fit normal day-to-day life and that signals a threshold crossing into a new state of understanding (or at least a call to such). After Isaiah’s lips are cleansed by the burning coal (a visceral, symbolic act), he is able to respond, “Here I am, send me.” The shock transitioned into a new clarity of purpose. Likewise, Paul on the road to Damascus (Acts 9) is thrown to the ground by a heavenly light (saturated phenomenon), left blind and shaken (affective shock), then after being led by the hand and processing this, he emerges days later baptized and utterly changed in his convictions – his theological cognition literally reversed (from persecutor of Christ to apostle of Christ). Paul’s case is instructive: he was extremely learned in Scripture and fervent in his prior (Pharisaic) model. It took a dramatic disruption to reformat his thinking. In Galatians 1:12, Paul says he received the gospel “through a revelation of Jesus Christ,” and the book of Acts dramatizes that revelation. Here all our elements converge: predictive coding (Paul had to throw out his old model under weight of evidence), affect (he was likely terrified and humbled; later he speaks of the experience in terms of weakness and dependence on God), and saturated phenomenon (the risen Christ’s appearance, which he likens to an untimely birth in 1 Cor 15:8). The fruit was a reoriented hermeneutic – Paul reads the Torah anew, seeing Christ throughout, and becomes the chief theologian of the early Church, helping others adjust their expectations (e.g., explaining how the Gentiles are fellow heirs, how the Law was a pedagogue leading to Christ, etc.).
In Matthew 12, the stakes are similarly about whether people can undergo the radical shift needed. The fact that Jesus mentions the men of Nineveh and the Queen of the South suggests that sometimes outsiders with less rigid expectations can respond better to God’s surprising work than insiders who are locked into a particular framework. This aligns with cognitive science findings that cognitive flexibility is key to learning: those who are too certain of their model struggle to integrate new info. It is also echoed in affect theory where openness often requires a certain vulnerability or not being in a defensive emotional state. The Queen of Sheba had no stake in Israel’s debates; she simply sensed wisdom in Solomon and rejoiced. The Ninevites had no prior notion of Israel’s God, but Jonah’s message (and perhaps his own appearance as one returned from near-death in a fish) struck them with conviction and they repented wholesale. Jesus is hinting that something similar is needed from his contemporaries: a willingness to be astonished and changed, rather than demanding God fit their extant schema.
In framing divine disruption as recursive, we imply that it’s not a one-off. Historically, Christianity sees revelation as progressive (not in the sense of always improving in a linear way, but unfolding in stages – culminating in Christ, but even post-Christ requiring the Holy Spirit’s ongoing guidance “into all truth” as John 16:13 says). A given individual likewise might have multiple moments of disruption in their spiritual journey. The disciples had many “aha” moments with Jesus, not just one. Our model would predict that each genuine encounter with God’s reality should provoke some sort of adjustment, even if minor. In a way, liturgy and sacraments in the Church can be seen as ritualized micro-disruptions: they are repetitive, yes, but meant to constantly refocus us on divine realities beyond our mundane concerns, to re-tune our perceptions. A Eucharistic service, for instance, re-presents the sign of Jonah in another form – the death and resurrection (body broken, blood outpoured, then the presence of the living Christ in the sacrament) – to continually confront believers with the core paradox of their faith and keep their understanding centered on grace. Theologies that become fossilized or purely academic can miss this dynamic aspect; our essay’s theoretical lens encourages a view of theology as dynamic equilibrium, always recalibrating around the living God who is never fully contained in human thought.
To avoid misunderstanding, it should be clarified that this does not mean truth itself changes; rather, human apprehension of truth grows. From a Christian orthodox perspective, Jesus was always who he was (Son of God, etc.), but people came to realize what that meant gradually. Predictive eschatosemiotics is descriptive of that human process of coming to grips with revelation, not denying an objective revelatory content. In fact, it strongly affirms that the initiative lies with the divine reality which crashes into our world of meanings with something new – so it is not a constructivist “we make up meaning entirely” view; there is genuinely something given that forces the change (just as in predictive coding, the only reason one would alter a belief is because the sensory evidence demands it – otherwise one stays with the prior). Theology thus remains tethered to revelation even as it adapts.
Toward a Paradigm of Predictive Eschatosemiotics
Having laid out these pieces – the narrative case of Matthew 12, the cognitive mechanism of predictive processing, the phenomenological-affective dimension of divine encounters, and the hermeneutical-semiotic nature of biblical revelation – we can now synthesize them into the paradigm we have termed predictive eschatosemiotics. This proposed paradigm can be seen as a model for understanding any instance in which a community or individual’s theological framework is disrupted by an event or insight perceived as divine, especially as it relates to eschatological fulfillment or anticipation.
Let us break down the term first: eschatosemiotics implies a study of signs (semiotics) that relate to ultimate things (eschaton – the “last things” or ultimate future in theology). In biblical context, many of Jesus’s acts were semiotic – they were deeds with message, signs of the inbreaking kingdom. His healings, exorcisms, even table fellowship practices, all signified something about the new order of God. The Gospel of John explicitly calls miracles “signs” and focuses on their symbolic value (e.g., feeding the 5000 as sign of Jesus being the bread of life). The synoptic Gospels, including Matthew, though less overt in labeling them, nonetheless use miracles and incidents to reveal who Jesus is. Semiotics as a general field (following Peirce, Saussure, etc.) would have us analyze the relationship between signifier (the observable event/action) and signified (the meaning or referent it indicates) and the interpretant (the understanding formed in the observer’s mind). Predictive eschatosemiotics particularly looks at how the interpretant is formed when the sign in question points to something eschatological (e.g., “the kingdom has come upon you” as Jesus interprets the exorcism). Often these signs are paradoxical or cryptic (like the sign of Jonah, which only fully “signifies” after Jesus rises). Therefore, a key element is temporality: eschatological signs frequently involve a now/not-yet structure – they are fulfilled in part now, pointing to a greater fulfillment later. This temporal complexity can confound straightforward interpretation, requiring a kind of hermeneutic with patience and trust.
The predictive element in our paradigm reminds us that observers approach these signs with cognitive predispositions. So predictive eschatosemiotics studies how those predispositions help or hinder the reading of eschatological signs, and how the signs in turn can reshape the predispositions. We could formalize a basic loop:
1. Prior Expectation (Prediction): Individuals have an existing theological model or expectation (e.g., “The Messiah will uphold the Sabbath and vanquish gentile oppressors” as a 1st-century Jewish expectation, or for modern folks, maybe “God’s presence will be felt as peace and order, not chaos,” etc.).
2. Sign Encounter: An event occurs that is proposed as a “sign” of God’s action or will (e.g., Jesus heals on the Sabbath and claims authority; or in personal life, one might experience an uncanny answered prayer, or conversely a disaster that challenges faith).
3. Affective/Cognitive Response: The person has an affective reaction (surprise, fear, joy, confusion) and a cognitive dissonance or resonance. Here, either the sign is congruent enough with the model to be assimilated (strengthening or confirming the model), or it’s incongruent, causing prediction error.
4. Interpretation/Attribution: The observer tries to make sense of the sign. If it fits their prior, they interpret accordingly (“See, this confirms what I thought”). If it doesn’t, they have choices: Accommodation – adjust the model to incorporate the new sign (“Perhaps my understanding of Sabbath is too narrow; maybe mercy is more foundational”); or Deflection – reframe the sign to fit the model by altering its meaning (“This healer must be a fraud or evil; true messengers of God wouldn’t do that”); or Rejection – deny the significance of the sign outright (“Nothing divine here, just coincidence or irrelevant”).
5. Revised (or Unrevised) Expectation: If accommodation happened, the theological model is now changed – perhaps subtly, perhaps radically. If deflection or rejection happened, the model stays the same or is even more entrenched. The outcome then feeds forward to future encounters: the person with the revised model might now catch meanings in new events they’d have missed before, whereas the person who rejected might become even less able to perceive a similar sign next time (having labeled it false once, they’ll likely dismiss it again).
Applied to Matthew 12: Some in the crowd moved toward accommodation – they began thinking, “Maybe our leadership is wrong; maybe this Jesus truly has God’s Spirit – could he be the Son of David?” Their model of what the Messiah might be was expanded to include a miracle-working, Sabbath-bending figure. Others (Pharisees) deflected – they kept their model of piety and dismissed the sign as devilry, thus no change, even reinforcing their view that no true prophet breaks Sabbath (since they “confirmed” in their mind that Jesus wasn’t from God after all). Jesus’s condemnation of the latter indicates that, in the divine perspective within the narrative, their failure to update is a culpable one, rooted in moral/spiritual obstinacy. In predictive terms, their prediction error monitors were blinking red with evidence, but some higher-order willfulness suppressed the error signal (one might speculate about the neural correlate: perhaps the emotional limbic response of anger suppressed the frontal cortex’s willingness to reconsider – a phenomenon not unlike what we see in partisan political cognition, where evidence contrary to one’s group triggers emotional defense mechanisms).
Now, why call this eschato-semiotics? Because the signs in question in Matthew 12 are not random wonders; they specifically signal the dawn of the eschatological age (the kingdom). Eschatology in Second Temple Judaism included expectations like the outpouring of God’s Spirit, defeat of evil spirits, healing of the sick, inclusion of the marginalized, etc., all as signs of the Messianic era. Jesus was ticking those boxes, but often in a way unrecognized by many because, perhaps, the packaging was wrong (he was not a royal conquering figure, but a wandering teacher). The idea of predictive eschatosemiotics could be generalized: it’s not just about that moment in history, but any context where ultimate meanings break into the present. For instance, the early Church had to interpret the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 AD – was it a sign of Christ’s coming? Some thought yes (Luke 21 places it in an eschatological discourse); others saw it as a judgment on Israel but with the church as a new temple – theological cognition adapted to a historical event with eschatological overtones. Or think of how, in our times, events like global pandemics or natural disasters provoke eschatological speculation in some quarters – people’s predictive models (often shaped by apocalyptic literature) lead them to see these as signs of the end. Sometimes those interpretations have been wildly wrong (many end-of-world predictions have failed). This highlights the need for rigorous hermeneutics in eschatosemiotics: to discern which signs are truly indicative of divine purpose and which are misread signals. Our paradigm encourages humility in that discernment, recognizing how easily biases can lead us astray. It also encourages openness, recalling Jesus’s praise of those who discern “the signs of the times” (Matt. 16:3) in contrast to those who cannot.
We should articulate what is “novel” about predictive eschatosemiotics as a paradigm, in contrast to existing approaches. Traditional biblical hermeneutics may focus on authorial intent, historical context, theological coherence; it might not explicitly account for the cognitive process of interpretation in the participants of the story or the readers. Our paradigm insists on factoring in the human interpreter at both levels: characters in the narrative (like the Pharisees, disciples) and readers through history, each with their predictions and affects. It intersects with reader-response criticism and reception history, but grounds it in a model of cognition and phenomenology that has empirical and philosophical support. Moreover, by including affect and phenomenology, it refuses to treat interpretation as purely intellectual. It sees theological insight as something that can come via encounter and experience – including embodied, emotional experience – not just logical deduction. This resonates with movements like the Pentecostal and charismatic, which emphasize experience of the Spirit (often with strong affects) as central to understanding God, or with contemplative traditions that emphasize that loving or desiring God is a form of knowing God. In academic theology, similar impulses are seen in the “affective turn” in biblical studies and in the appreciation of how liturgy shapes belief (lex orandi, lex credendi). Our paradigm gives a theoretical backbone to those insights by mapping them onto predictive processing and phenomenology.
Another innovative aspect is bridging the gap between canonical and Gnostic/semi-canonical perspectives. Gnostic texts are often seen as aberrations in theology, but they can be viewed as alternate outcomes of the early Christian interpretive process. For example, where the orthodox church largely adjusted its Jewish monotheistic framework to include Jesus in the Godhead (a remarkable paradigm update achieved by re-reading Israel’s scriptures christologically and via trinitarian development), the Gnostics took a different route: some essentially jettisoned the Jewish framework altogether, seeing the God of the Hebrew Bible as a lesser Demiurge and positing a more radically transcendent Father revealed by Christ. This was their way of resolving certain cognitive dissonances (like the problem of evil, or the incongruity between the material world and the high spiritual claims of Christianity). We mention this because predictive eschatosemiotics can also analyze where interpretation can go wrong or diverge. A Gnostic reading of Matthew 12 might, for instance, see the conflict as proof that the Pharisees’ God (the lawgiver) is a false deity and Jesus is from a higher God of love – thus they would resolve the tension by essentially denying the continuity between old and new. The orthodox reading, instead, found continuity (Jesus fulfills and rightly interprets the Old Testament, rather than abolishing it). These differences came down to how each viewed the “signs” of Christ in relation to prior revelation. The Church, guided by what it believed the Holy Spirit, opted to recalibrate its understanding of the Old Testament (sometimes allegorizing or reinterpreting laws) rather than scrap it. Gnostics opted to largely discard the old schema as fundamentally flawed. In terms of cognitive updating: the Church update was inclusive (integrating the new info with a transformed version of the old model), the Gnostic update was exclusive (replace the old model entirely with a new secret knowledge model). This is a bit of an oversimplification, but it illustrates how predictive eschatosemiotics could be used not just to describe the biblical events but the trajectories of thought that followed. It can help explain the divergence: different “priors” and different valuations of evidence led to different conclusions about what the Christ event signified.
To propose predictive eschatosemiotics as a paradigm is also to encourage an interdisciplinary methodology in theology. It says theology can converse with cognitive science, psychology, and phenomenology fruitfully. Some might worry this reduces the divine to natural processes. We counter that by showing that acknowledging a psychological/cognitive mechanism by which revelation is processed does not negate the transcendent source of revelation. In fact, Christian theology of revelation has always dealt with the interface of divine and human (e.g., scripture is divinely inspired yet also written by human authors in their contexts; Jesus is fully divine and fully human; grace doesn’t annihilate nature but perfects it, as Aquinas said). So understanding the human receptacle – the mind/brain and its predictive habits – is part of understanding revelation’s effect. As theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar noted, truth has a dramatic form: the play between divine freedom and human freedom is like a theater where each respects the other. In our context, God’s self-disclosure respects human cognitive freedom – not overwhelming it to the point of coercion, yet strongly challenging it. The result is some accept and some reject: this binary outcome was noted by theologian Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) about Jesus’s parables – they illuminate those who are open and further obscure those who are closed, thus exercising judgment. Predictive eschatosemiotics gives a conceptual apparatus to analyze that dynamic without diluting it into mere relativism.
Anticipating Critiques
No ambitious theoretical merger comes without criticisms. We must therefore anticipate and address several possible lines of critique regarding predictive eschatosemiotics, to demonstrate the robustness of this paradigm.
1. The Anachronism/Category Error Critique: One might argue that applying modern cognitive science concepts to a first-century text is anachronistic or a category mistake. Are we not imposing a contemporary framework onto the Gospel, risking eisegesis (reading into the text) rather than exegesis (drawing out the text’s meaning)? Moreover, theology deals with divine truth, whereas predictive processing deals with neural pathways – how can the latter inform the former without reductionism? In response, we clarify that our use of predictive processing is analogical and supplementary, not strictly literal in a historical sense. We are not claiming the people in Matthew 12 had conscious Bayesian calculations in their heads; rather, we’re using a model of how minds generally work to shed light on why certain responses in the text make sense. This is akin to using psychological insights about group behavior to understand, say, why crowds might react as they do in biblical narratives – something many scholars do. As long as it illuminates rather than distorts the text, it’s a valid exercise. Furthermore, the insight that expectations shape perception is not unique to 21st-century neuroscience; Jesus himself implied it (“seeing they do not see… hearing they do not hear,” Matt. 13:13), and ancient thinkers like Aristotle noted the power of habituation on perception. We’re simply giving it a theoretical rigor with modern findings. As for mixing different discourses (theology vs science), we maintain that truth is one, and different disciplines can converge on complementary aspects of the truth. We do not reduce God’s action to brain states; instead, we examine how brain states (and emotional states) condition human reaction to God’s action. This stays within orthodox boundaries, since Christian theology has always involved understanding the human subject (e.g., the role of free will, the noetic effects of sin on the mind, etc.). If anything, predictive eschatosemiotics extends the theological anthropology by drawing on current knowledge of human cognition, a project in line with how Augustine used Platonic philosophy or Aquinas used Aristotelian psychology in their theologies.
2. The Phenomenology vs Empiricism Critique: A different critique could come from purists on either side: a phenomenologist might say predictive coding’s scientific naturalism cannot capture the first-person experience of the sacred; a neuroscientist might say phenomenology’s talk of “givenness” is too vague or metaphysical. Indeed, mixing Marion with cognitive science might seem like mixing oil and water. We acknowledge the tension: phenomenology typically brackets the question of objective existence to focus on experience, whereas cognitive science often brackets subjective qualia to focus on functional mechanisms. Yet, in practice, the two can inform each other. Recent research areas, such as neurophenomenology, explicitly seek to correlate first-person reports with neural patterns. While Marion’s saturated phenomenon concept is intentionally about what eludes naturalistic explanation, it doesn’t forbid conversation. We use Marion to ensure we don’t collapse everything into the neural/psychological – his voice reminds us that the excess in religious experience points to a transcendent cause (as long as one has faith) or at least to the limits of human frames (even an atheist can acknowledge that some experiences feel “more” than can be said). Meanwhile, predictive theory reminds phenomenology that the subject is embodied and that experiences have to occur in a cognitive system, not in a vacuum. One fruitful convergence is on the role of time: predictive processing sees everything in terms of expected future and error correction, while phenomenology like that of Heidegger or Ricoeur also emphasizes our temporal being (we are oriented by past and future expectations). Both agree that what happens can surprise us and send us back to reinterpret the past and future. Marion even wrote of the event as something that gives us a future (l’adonné). So rather than oil and water, we see a productive emulsion: the scientific side gives structure and the phenomenological side gives depth. By addressing both, our paradigm can speak to both empirical researchers of religion (who might appreciate a model of conversion in terms of cognition) and to philosophers of religion (who appreciate the qualitative leap involved in encountering the divine).
3. The Scriptural/Exegetical Critique: A biblical scholar might question whether our reading of Matthew 12 isn’t overly elaborate, losing the simple thrust of the text. Perhaps, they might say, Matthew intended primarily a polemic: to warn against unbelief and assert Jesus’s authority, not to invite all this cognitive theorizing. Are we bypassing the evangelist’s theological intent by this psychological framing? We respond that what we’ve done is in line with theological interpretation of Scripture (TIS), a movement that encourages reading scripture in dialogue with broader human knowledge and for constructive theology. Matthew’s intent and our appropriation need not conflict; we indeed affirm Matthew’s warnings and Christological claims. What we add is a reflection on how those claims play out in human lives. Far from sidelining Matthew’s theology, we believe we’ve highlighted its implications: the necessity of a merciful hermeneutic (via Hosea 6:6), the realization that Jesus is greater than the temple, Jonah, and Solomon (we underscored how paradigms had to shift to recognize that “greater” one), and the danger of a deliberate refusal to see truth (blasphemy against the Spirit). All these are classic themes in Matthean exegesis. We have situated them in a conceptual framework that shows their interconnectedness. Moreover, this framework can help current readers apply Matthew 12 to themselves – an aim of any good exegesis. It’s easy to scoff at Pharisees in a story; harder to ask, “Where are my blind spots and hardened expectations in my life of faith?” Predictive eschatosemiotics supplies a tool for self-examination: it encourages readers to identify their own priors about God and be open to God’s challenging newness, lest they too call good evil or miss the Spirit’s work. In that sense, our reading is deeply faithful to the text’s exhortative purpose.
4. The Gnostic/Orthodoxy Critique: Some might worry that our inclusion of Gnostic references or emphasis on hidden knowledge and cognitive reformatting veers towards a Gnostic view of revelation – where the focus is on esoteric knowledge and personal enlightenment, possibly at the expense of historical, embodied faith (sacraments, ecclesial authority, etc.). We did reference the Gospel of Thomas and other non-canonical ideas; is this endorsement of them? Not at all – our aim was to use them comparatively. If anything, highlighting Gnostic interpretive moves served to contrast them with the trajectory of the canonical Gospels. We remain firmly anchored in Matthew’s canonical witness. However, we contend that acknowledging apocryphal perspectives can sharpen our understanding of the canonical. For instance, Thomas’s saying about being “troubled” then “astonished” then “ruling over the All” poetically captures a pattern of seeking and finding that the canonical tradition also values, though expressed differently (e.g., “seek and you shall find” – but Thomas adds the psychological stages that follow finding). By integrating that, we enriched our description of the conversion process (trouble and astonishment are indeed what many saints have described en route to illumination). This doesn’t make us Gnostic; it just means truth can sometimes be found in extra-canonical texts which we can appreciate critically, much like Aquinas learned from the pagan Aristotle. Orthodoxy is robust enough to converse with heterodoxy and still hold its ground. In predictive eschatosemiotics, the ultimate measure is coherence with the rule of faith (regula fidei) and the lived experience of the church. We have not posited any “secret knowledge” requirement – on the contrary, we focused on accessible signs and communal discernment. The “paradigm” we propose is not a secret available to a few, but an analytical tool for all to examine how God’s revelation interacts with human minds. In fact, one could say it demystifies some aspects of spiritual insight by showing they are a result of humble openness rather than arbitrary esoteric revelation.
5. The Over-intellectualization Critique: On the flip side of the previous, some might say we still make things too heady, too cognitive. What about the simple believer who just “knows Jesus in their heart” without analyzing prediction errors? Does our framework speak to the pastoral reality of faith? Here, we would point to the affective dimension we insisted on. We never reduced conversion to a dry recalculation; we consistently spoke of awe, compassion, fear, and joy. These are the language of the heart. A grandmother who has trusted Jesus all her life might not know the term “hermeneutic,” but she likely can tell you about moments where she was surprised by answered prayer or had to surrender a preconceived notion to God’s will – in essence, she can narrate predictive eschatosemiotics in the vernacular of testimony. Our scholarly dressing of it doesn’t negate the lived form. In fact, by bridging heart and mind, our paradigm validates that heartfelt experiences have cognitive value and that doctrinal developments often stem from lived encounters. Practically, this approach could encourage religious communities to cultivate expectant openness: to train their “predictions” on God’s promises (so they are looking for God’s hand in the world), but also to be ready to let God redefine those promises in surprising ways. It’s like having a schema but wearing it lightly, ready to pivot when the Spirit leads – which is arguably what the Acts of the Apostles presents (the early Christians figuring things out as God pushes them beyond boundaries). In pastoral care, someone undergoing a crisis of faith could be counseled using this model: perhaps their crisis is a sign God is moving them to a deeper understanding, not abandoning them – the disorientation (affective and intellectual) can precede a greater clarity if they work through it with trust. This reframes doubt or confusion not purely as enemies of faith but as possible labor pains of growth.
6. The Relativism/Subjectivism Critique: Another potential critique is: if everyone’s cognition is just following their priors, does this not lead to a relativistic view where truth is simply what each community models? How do we adjudicate between the Pharisees and disciples, or between different interpretations, aside from saying “well, that’s how their brains made sense of it”? In other words, does our theory secretly imply that theology is just a byproduct of psychological processes? We firmly reject a relativistic conclusion. Describing how people arrive at beliefs is not the same as saying all beliefs are equal or only subjective. In Matthew 12, the Gospel writer clearly sides with one interpretation as correct (Jesus by God’s Spirit) and the other as false (by Beelzebul). Our analysis of why the Pharisees couldn’t see the truth doesn’t excuse their error as just an alternate perspective; it actually reinforces the objectivity of the truth they missed by explaining the mechanism of their blindness. Think of it this way: if a colorblind person insists a red object is green, we explain it by their retinal condition – but the truth remains the object is red. Similarly, we treat the kingdom as a reality that some “see” and some don’t, and predictive eschatosemiotics is akin to an ophthalmology of the soul figuring out what conditions affect spiritual vision. We still maintain there is a right reading guided by Jesus’s own interpretation and the evangelist’s framing. In a larger sense, Christian theology would hold that ultimately the true model is the one God has, and our task is to conform our mind (however asymptotically) to the mind of God – a process completed eschatologically (“now we see in a glass darkly, but then face to face”). Our paradigm is actually named “eschato-semiotics” partly to indicate that full understanding is eschatological. Until then, we navigate by partial signs and must remain corrigible. This isn’t relativism but humility. It encourages vigorous debate and testing (as the Bereans tested Paul’s preaching with scripture, Acts 17:11, which we could see as them handling prediction error by checking against the authoritative text – a rational recalibration that, laudably, led many of them to believe Paul). So predictive eschatosemiotics fully allows for appealing to external criteria of truth (scripture, tradition, coherence, fruitfulness) – it just contextualizes why some accept those criteria and others don’t.
Having addressed these concerns, we uphold that predictive eschatosemiotics is a paradigm advancing the field, not diluting it. It offers a robust account of faith as an interactive, dynamic knowledge – one that can stand up to critical scrutiny (by showing awareness of psychological biases and the need to overcome them) and one that can inspire innovative reading of texts (as we have done with Matthew 12). The paradigm invites further research: for instance, one could study other Gospel episodes (Peter walking on water and doubting, Thomas doubting resurrection then believing, etc.) under this light; or doctrinal history (the Council of Chalcedon’s process of reaching christological definition – a case of competing models resolved into a new synthesis, arguably another instance of recursive reformatting in church cognition). It could also dialogue with the affective neuroscience of religion – e.g., what neural correlates accompany the feeling of divine presence, and how does that reinforce belief networks? And with semiotics proper – Peircian semiotics might describe Jesus as a legisign of a sort (a general law of love incarnated) or explore the triadic relation of sign-object-interpretant in miracles (the object being the kingdom reality, the sign the miracle, the interpretant the faith it engenders). These are avenues beyond our scope here but show the paradigm’s generativity.
Conclusion
In reinterpreting Matthew 12 through the framework of predictive eschatosemiotics, we have sought to demonstrate how theology can be reconceived as a living, dynamic engagement with the divine – one that constantly stretches human cognition and reorients perception in light of God’s self-revelation. Matthew 12 proved to be fertile ground for this exploration: within its narrative we observed a micro-drama of epistemic crisis and renewal. Jesus’s opponents clung to a closed interpretive circle and suffered a collapse of insight, exemplifying how a refusal to update one’s theological “priors” in the face of divine saturation leads to spiritual darkness. By contrast, those marginal characters open to wonder – the curious crowds, the metaphorical Ninevites and Queen of Sheba Jesus invokes, and by implication the disciples and readers who embrace Matthew’s witness – illustrate the potential for a complete reformatting of vision: seeing the Messiah in the unexpected, decoding the eschatological signs written not in the heavens at our demand, but in the humble, merciful acts of Christ and the cryptic sign of Jonah’s three days. In the acts and sayings of Matthew 12, divine disruption comes as both judgment and grace: judgment on ossified ways of knowing, and grace in the offer of a new paradigm – “something greater” inbreaking which asks only to be received with faith and not resisted.
Our theoretical intervention has been to map this theological drama onto a model where the human mind is not a passive recipient of revelation but an active participant – sometimes a tragically over-active one that must be stilled and humbled. The predictive processing aspect illuminated why revelation is inherently disruptive: by definition, genuine revelation from God will violate creaturely expectations, generating prediction errors that demand assimilation or accommodation. If God did nothing but what we already expected, it would cease to be revelation and become mere confirmation. In Matthew 12, Jesus did what first-century guardians of tradition did not expect – and they balked. In every generation, the form may differ, but the pattern recurs: divine truth arrives as a challenge to our cognitive status quo. The affect theory dimension underscored that such encounters are felt in the gut and heart, not just computed in the head. The Gospel narrative itself bears witness to the powerful emotions at play – outrage, fear, awe, conviction – and affect theory helps explain how those emotions can either catalyze conversion (e.g., holy fear leading one to humility) or barricade against it (e.g., anger leading one to suppression of the truth). Phenomenology, through Marion, provided the concept of saturated phenomena, which gave theological depth to what these disruptive moments are: not random surprises, but gifts that overflow our capacities, pointing to an infinite source. Marion’s insight that in true revelation the roles reverse – we are the ones addressed and interpreted – became central to our notion of recursive reformatting: the idea that the encounter with God writes new definitions into the human mind’s “code,” renewing it. Hermeneutics and semiotics ensured we kept in view the interpretive nature of this process: signs require interpretation, and the scripture itself is an interpretation of divine acts. By reading Matthew 12 semiotically, we discerned layers of meaning (e.g., Sabbath practice as sign of mercy, exorcism as sign of Kingdom, Jonah as sign of resurrection) and observed the conflict as fundamentally a clash of hermeneutics – Jesus’s hermeneutic of mercy and fulfillment vs. the Pharisees’ hermeneutic of sacrifice and legalism. The semiotic approach also allowed us to bring in comparative texts like Thomas to highlight the structure of revelation and response (seek → find → be troubled → be astonished → reign).
The resulting paradigm – predictive eschatosemiotics – is more than the sum of its parts. It portrays theology itself as theo-semiotic cognition: a process by which human knowers attend to the signs of the divine, predict and infer meaning, but must ever remain ready for eschatological surprise, the ultimate new thing that God is doing. It suggests that the theological task is not merely to systematize what is already known, but to remain open to being taught by God in new events or understandings – always, of course, tested against the revelation already given, but never assuming we have the full picture. In other words, it advocates an eschatological orientation in theology: just as the Kingdom is “already and not yet,” so is our theological understanding – already grasping true things, but not yet in total clarity. Such a view echoes a long tradition: Augustine’s fides quaerens intellectum (faith seeking understanding) implies that faith’s content is rich and needs continual unpacking, and Anselm’s famous phrase reminds us that understanding follows (and grows from) faith. Our paradigm gives that a contemporary twist: fides (faith) sets up certain predictions (trust in God’s promises) and when intellectus (understanding) seeks, it may find things that refine what it initially believed, in a virtuous cycle guided by the Spirit of truth.
In practical terms, this perspective has impactful implications for advancing theological method and spiritual praxis. It encourages theologians to incorporate insights from human sciences to better articulate how belief and unbelief operate – thus enriching apologetics and pastoral theology with more nuanced accounts of why people respond differently to the gospel. It calls biblical scholars to consider readers (ancient and modern) not just as abstract recipients but embodied minds with biases and feelings, which could lead to more reader-aware commentaries and applications. It also fosters an intellectual humility and resilience: anticipating critique is built into the method (since we know any given framework might be upended by new data, we hold it provisionally). The dialectical tone of our essay – engaging objections, contrasting viewpoints (Pharisee vs Jesus, Gnostic vs orthodox, phenomenology vs science) – exemplifies the kind of robust conversation this paradigm thrives in. Far from relativism, it is a robust dialectic that sharpens truth by understanding error.
In conclusion, predictive eschatosemiotics positions theology as, indeed, “a site of epistemic recalibration in response to divine saturation and affective anomaly.” That phrase can now be unpacked with the richness we have developed: Theology is a site – a meeting ground of God and human thought. It undergoes epistemic recalibration – meaning it constantly adjusts and corrects itself – because of divine saturation – the fact that God’s self-revelation is abundant, overflowing, often more than we can handle – and affective anomaly – the unpredictable surges of joy, sorrow, awe that accompany encountering the Living God. This does not make theology a hopelessly moving target, but a pilgrimage toward the beatific vision, where each disruptive grace is a step higher up the mountain, even if at times it feels like a cloud of unknowing. Matthew 12, read through our proposed lens, exemplifies the peril and promise of that journey. The peril is exemplified by those who, confronted with the Light, doubled down in darkness – a sober reminder to any scholar or believer of the danger of intellectual pride and spiritual insensitivity. The promise is exemplified by those who, even if perplexed or initially resistant, allowed themselves to be changed – whether the disciples who learned mercy, or later readers like ourselves who can glean wisdom from their story.
Ultimately, the novel paradigm we have advanced is not an end in itself but a means to an end: that end is a more profound engagement with the meaning of Christian revelation. If predictive eschatosemiotics helps scholars and students alike to better articulate how revelation is received and how truth claims are validated in lived experience, then it has served its purpose. If it helps bridge conversations between theologians and scientists, or between exegetes and philosophers, it will have contributed to an integrative vision of truth. If it guards us against both a naive objectivism that ignores the knower’s role and a cynical subjectivism that ignores the known reality of God, it will have steered us on a middle path of responsible, critical faith. Thus, we commend this paradigm not as a final word, but as a generative framework – one that, true to its own principles, is open to refinement and development as we continue collectively to seek understanding of the ever-greater (semper maior) One who reveals himself in the signs and disruptions along our journey. In the spirit of Matthew’s Gospel, we close with an image: the scribe “trained for the kingdom of heaven” is like a householder who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old (Matt. 13:52). Predictive eschatosemiotics strives to do just that – honor the old (the enduring truth of the Gospel) while exploring the new (fresh insights from contemporary thought), so that we may interpret the signs of our times as faithfully as Matthew interpreted the signs of his, and in all things be recalibrated ever closer to the mind of Christ.
Sources Cited
Augustine. On Christian Doctrine. (For discussions on signs in scriptural interpretation.)
Clark, Andy. Surfing Uncertainty: Prediction, Action, and the Embodied Mind. (Overview of predictive processing theory).
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Truth and Method. (Concept of fusion of horizons and prejudices in understanding.)
Van Eyghen, Hans. “Predictive coding and religious belief.” Filosofia Unisinos 19.3 (2018): 302-310. (Argues religious experiences are shaped by prior beliefs and predictive coding.)
Van Elk, M. & Aleman, A. “Brain mechanisms in religion and spirituality: An integrative predictive processing framework.” Neurosci Biobehav Rev 73 (2017): 359-378. (Proposes predictive processing as basis for religious experience, emphasizing prediction error.)
Marion, Jean-Luc. Being Given: Toward a Phenomenology of Givenness. (Develops idea of saturated phenomena and revelation as saturation of intuition.)
Marion, Jean-Luc. In Excess: Studies of Saturated Phenomena. (Analyzes four types of saturated phenomena and Christ as fulfilling them.)
“Saturated Phenomena, the Icon, and Revelation.” Aporia 18 (2008): 30-42. (Secondary summary of Marion’s ideas: revelation as “maximum of givenness” that exceeds conceptual grasp.)
Koosed, Jennifer L., and Stephen D. Moore. “Introduction: From Affect to Exegesis.” Biblical Interpretation 22.4-5 (2014): 381-387. (Surveys affect theory’s relevance to Bible interpretation.)
Black, Fiona C., et al., eds. Reading with Feeling: Affect Theory and the Bible. (Contains essays applying affect theory to biblical texts.)
Wright, N.T. God and the Pandemic (2020). (Contains reflection on “sign of Jonah” and Jesus’s signs as new creation.)
Hicks, John Mark. “Mercy, Not Sacrifice: Sabbath Controversy in Matthew 12.” Restoration Quarterly 27.2 (1984): 79-91. (Examines Matt 12:1-14, noting Jesus’ use of Hosea 6:6 as hermeneutical key.)
The Gospel of Thomas. Translations per Patterson/Meyer. (Notably Logion 2 and 101, describing the seeker’s journey and spiritual kinship.)
Festinger, Leon, et al. When Prophecy Fails. (Classic study on cognitive dissonance when expectations collapse.)
Kearney, Richard. The Wake of Imagination. (Discusses creative role of imagination in religious belief, relevant to semiotic aspects.)
Kierkegaard, Søren. Philosophical Fragments and Practice in Christianity. (On the paradox of the incarnation causing offense or faith.)
Ricoeur, Paul. The Symbolism of Evil. (Example of reinterpreting signs/narratives to address cognitive dissonance in theology.)
James, William. The Varieties of Religious Experience. (Explores the affective dimension of conversion and mystical experiences.)
Jonathan Johnson-Swagel 
Leave a comment