Eschatological Notes on Matthew 24-25

This Sunday I will finish preaching through Matthew 24-25. Although, I’ve studied this passage many times; working through it again has really “firmed” up some conclusions for me. Below are some notes on what I’ve learned.

• The entire context has to be taken into consideration. Jesus is passing out judgment on the nation for their disbelief. He continues that judgment in Matthew 24.
• The disciples ask two questions in 24:3 (it looks like 3, but the Greek reveals it to be 2). Jesus answers these questions. No more, no less. When will the temple be destroyed and what will be the sign of your coming?
• The disciples seem to think that both events (the destruction of the temple and the close of the age) will happen at the same time.
• In Matthew 24:4-14, Jesus explains to his disciples that global and political upheaval will characterize the time until the destruction of the temple. When we read about the 1st c. world we see these things happen.
• These “signs” of 24:4-14 are not meant to determine the return of Christ, but to prepare his disciples not to be alarmed or deceived because the end is still not yet.
• The word to the church is the same: do not be alarmed or deceived because all these things will characterize the last days (the time since Christ’s resurrection and ascension).
• In Matthew 24:15-28, Jesus speaks directly to the destruction of the temple, which came to fulfillment in 70AD.
• I believe 24:15-28 has as double-fulfillment; a time in which the church will face intense persecution. But again, we must not assume that persecution is not happening now because persecution has always existed against God’s people. Rather, the church must not be deceived, the end is still not yet. The power of deception is such that even the church could be led astray if possible.
• Jesus speaks directly of his return in Matthew 24:29-35. The only discernible sign of his return is the return itself (24:30). Therefore, speculation and obsession about the “end-times” should not characterize the people of God.
• The language of 24:29-31 is the language of the OT. His return will be undeniable. His return is singular, powerful, and visible.
• The events surrounding 24:4-28 did come to fulfillment in the generation of the disciples (24:34). The people of God can take comfort in the fact that Jesus’ words will not pass away.
• The primary message of Jesus is do not be deceived because the end is not yet. He has told us beforehand.
• While Jesus spends the first part of the discourse on the theology of the end; the last part (which is significantly more) is spent on how to live in light of his return. David Turner is correct to say that, “Eschatological correctness is ultimately a matter of ethics, not speculation.”
• Jesus has told us what we are to know (don’t be deceived); but now he tells us what we don’t know (when he will return). As Jesus rests in the Father’s sovereign plan, so should we (24:36).
• As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man (24:37-42). In Noah’s day judgment came suddenly. In Noah’s day, the righteous were left and the wicked were taken away. When Jesus comes he will do so suddenly and in judgment. At the end of the age the righteous will be left to inherit a new heavens and earth, while the wicked will be removed.
• Jesus uses five consecutive parables to explain his return. The first admonishes his people that since they know he will return to stay awake and not busy themselves with other things (24:43-44). The second warns against worldliness while the Master is away (24:45-51).
• The third parable of the 10 virgins warns against being unprepared for his return and against laziness (25:1-13). Each person is responsible to prepare to meet the Lord. Unpreparedness will result in being excluded from the marriage feast (cf., Matt 22:1-14).
• The final two parables explain what believers are to do until Christ comes again. First, believers are to use the resources and gifts God has given to them (25:14-30). Failure to use these resource is a direct failure to know the Master. The final parable explains how love and care for Jesus’ people is a direct reflection on whether we know him or not (25:31-46). Our actions toward his people carry eternal significance. Kevin DeYoung rightly states, “if we are too embarrassed, too lazy, or too cowardly to support fellow Christians at our doorstep who depend on our assistance and are suffering for the sake of the gospel, we will go to hell.”

It continues to amaze me how much uproar there is when eschatology is discussed among believers. And yet, if we really listen to the Bible, it’s quite simple. Don’t be alarmed, don’t be frightened, and don’t be deceived; but be awake, sober-minded, and persevere in holiness.

And now, little children, abide in him, so that when he appears we may have confidence and not shrink from him in shame at his coming. If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that everyone who practices righteousness has been born of him. See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him. Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure. 1 John 2:28-3:3

Kingdom Through Covenant Interview with Steve Wellum

The three most influential professors for me while I was at seminary were Steve Wellum, Peter Gentry, and Tom Schreiner.  Wellum and Gentry have a new book due out soon entitled, Kingdom Through Covenant.  They are coining their position: Progressive Covenantalism.  Matthew Claridge at Credo Magazine has an interview with Steve Wellum.  Read the whole thing here.  Below are a few excerpts that I found helpful.  Part two of the interview is with Peter Gentry tomorrow.

On the uniqueness and contribution of their book:

Let me suggest two ways KTC is distinct. First, it argues that central and foundational to reading the Bible on its own terms is getting right the unfolding nature of the biblical covenants and their interrelationship to each other as they culminate in the coming of Christ and the new covenant. In our view, biblical theology is not simply about unpacking biblical themes across the canon and doing it in a variety of ways. Rather, biblical theology is a hermeneutical discipline which seeks to understand God’s unfolding plan the way the Bible itself unfolds that plan. To be “biblical” in our interpretation and application of Scripture entails that we “put together” the pieces of Scripture the way the Bible does. It is our conviction that properly placing the biblical covenants in their own redemptive-historical context—seeing how they are interrelated and how they unfold the biblical story—is central to this task since it is central to how the Bible unpacks the whole counsel of God. Not all books on biblical or systematic theology do this.

Second, KTC is distinct from other works in that it offers in more detail than previous works, a true via media between dispensationalism and its varieties and covenant theology. Even though we are certainly not the first to articulate such a mediating position, KTC probably does it in the most comprehensive way to date, even though much more work has to be done in the future.

On the Abrahamic Covenant:

As we began to think through how dispensationalism and covenant theology “put together” the biblical covenants, it was fascinating to see that both appeal to the unconditional nature of the Abrahamic covenant yet for different reasons. On the one hand, dispensational theology appeals to the “unconditional” promise of land given to Abraham, which they believe, is only fulfilled non-typologically to ethnic, national Israel in the future millennial age. Regardless of the lack of discussion in the NT on the land promise, they argue that given the unconditional nature of the Abrahamic covenant, the land promise must still be fulfilled in the future precisely because it is an unconditional promise. When covenant theology disagrees with dispensationalism on this point by viewing the land as typological of the new creation and ultimately brought to fulfillment in Christ who ushers in the new creation, dispensational theology charges covenant theology with reading the NT back on the OT without sufficiently doing justice to the unconditional OT promise.

On the other hand, covenant theology appeals to the genealogical principle of the Abrahamic covenant—“to you and your children”—as unchanged throughout redemptive history, and it is on this basis that they make their covenantal argument for infant baptism. In a similar fashion to dispensationalism, regardless of the carry over between circumcision and baptism in the NT, and regardless of the fact that there is not one example of infant baptism practiced in the NT, covenant theology argues on the basis of the unconditional nature of the Abrahamic covenant that one must not read the NT back on the OT at this point. Even though dispensationalism and covenant theology differ at certain points, they both appeal to the Abrahamic covenant to make their points and follow the same hermeneutic. For us, this not only illustrates how important it is to understand properly the biblical covenants, but it also reminds us that one must not treat the Abrahamic covenant in an isolated fashion from the entire canon and particularly its fulfillment in Christ and the new covenant.

On concerns with dispensationalism and covenant theology:

We believe the error is ultimately found in Christology. That may seem strange so let me explain. As one works through the biblical covenants, all of the covenants and their mediators find their fulfillment in Christ. In Christ he is the last Adam, Abraham’s true seed, the true Israel who obeys completely, and David’s greater Son who does what no Davidic king ever did. In this way, all the promises to “Israel” as the “son” of God and typological pattern of Christ are fulfilled. Israel, in her role, loses nothing but finds her fulfillment perfectly in Christ. Dispensational theology often fails to recognize this point and thus does not see how Israel as a nation is the type which points forward to Christ as the antitype, and that the church now in relationship to Christ receives all the promises of God in and through her covenant head. In this way, dispensational theology fragments Israel and church because she does not unite them properly in Christ.

Covenant theology, in our view, grasps the Israel to Christ relationship better, but then does not see properly how the genealogical principle is transformed as Christ, the new covenant head, brings all the previous covenant mediators to their end, and stands as the head of his believing people. She does not also see that the covenant communities are also different, due to the difference between the old and new covenants. In this way, covenant theology moves from Israel to the church too fast, without first seeing how the covenants find their consummation in Christ, the true Israel, and thus the newness and greatness of what Jesus has won as our new covenant head, including the difference in the nature and structure of the covenant communities. In the end, we believe that the root problem of both systems is that they do not sufficiently trace out how the biblical covenants unfold, how all the types and patterns of the OT are fulfilled in Christ, and thus the better nature of the covenant our Lord Jesus has inaugurated.

Jesus, Thank You

The mystery of the cross I cannot comprehend
The agonies of Calvary
You the perfect Holy One, crushed Your Son
Who drank the bitter cup reserved for me

Your blood has washed away my sin
Jesus, thank You
The Father’s wrath completely satisfied
Jesus, thank You
Once Your enemy, now seated at Your table
Jesus, thank You

By Your perfect sacrifice I’ve been brought near
Your enemy You’ve made Your friend
Pouring out the riches of Your glorious grace
Your mercy and Your kindness know no end

Lover of my soul I want to live for You

Calvin on Eschatology

In light of all the end-times hysteria; Calvin has some good counsel with his comments on Matthew 24:36.

We know how fickle our minds are, and how much we are tickled by a vain curiosity to know more than is proper.  Christ likewise perceived that the disciples were pushing forward with excessive haste to enjoy triumph.  He therefore wishes the day of his coming to be the object of such expectation and desire, that non shall dare to inquire when it will happen.  In short, he wishes his disciples so to walk in the light of faith, that while they are uncertain as to the time, they may patiently wait for the revelation of him.  We ought therefore to be on our guard, lest our anxiety about the time be carried farther than the Lord allows; for the chief part of our wisdom is confining ourselves soberly within the limits of God’s Word.

Peter Naylor on Ezekiel

CVBBS is offering Peter Naylor’s fine commentary on Ezekiel for only $15.  This is a great deal considering it retails for $50.  Check it out here.

Why Don’t We Care About Our Sin?

I don’t care enough about my sin, because I don’t care enough about the gospel.

HT: Ligonier

Christ-Centered Theology and Ministry

The Monday before T4G started, Russell Moore hosted a panel discussion on Christ-Centered Theology and Ministry.  The participants were: Carl Trueman, Jefferson Bethke, J. D. Greear, Josh Harris, Russell Moore, Matt Pinson.

A wide range of views were represented and helpful discussions took place about the dangers of being gospel-centered, religion vs Jesus, Calvinism, Arminianism, baptism, and multi-site churches.  I would highly recommend you listen or watch.  Listen to it here.  Watch it here.