Matthew Archives - Page 4 of 4 - Resurrectio et Vita

August 14, 2007

Matthew’s imagery in the Old

Matthew’s imagery in the Olivet Discourse clearly resembles the imagery of the Old Testament. In II Samuel 12:11-12 we read:

He rode on a cherub and flew; he was seen on the wings of the wind. He made darkness around him his canopy, thick clouds, a gathering of water. (ESV)

David’s song of deliverance picks up on a similar theme later used by the Jewish writer St. Matthew when speaking about the coming of the Lord in the clouds. The nature of David’s vision was a spiritual reality that God had rescued him amidst the hands of his enemies. Matthew uses this in chapter 24:30 to refer to the coming of the Son of Man to gather his elect. He accomplishes this, not physically, but by the proclamation of the gospel through the trumpet call of the gospel. Matthew echoes a reality grounded in Old Testament imagery to detail events in the first century.

August 9, 2007

Coming in the clouds of glory

Matthew 24 speaks of a spiritual coming in judgment. I have written about this in many posts, but yet continue to see misapplications of this text elsewhere. Allow me to rephrase my thesis. According to Matthew 24:30: “…they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” Preceding verse 30 are a plethora of earthly events to take place prior to the coming of Christ in judgment. A proper understanding of Old Testament literature in the New Testament proves that the Olivet Discourse refers to a past event, not a future one. The Son of Man coming in glory pictures a) The greatness of our Lord who is clothed with splendor and majesty (Psalm 104:1) and b) Judgment and Vindication as promised to the unfaithful Jews (Matthew 23).¹

Footnotes

For further reference see N.T. Wright’s Millenial Myth, pg. 42; thanks to David Yates for some helpful references. [↩ back]

February 27, 2007

Matthew 6:6 and Private Prayers

My pastor has started a series through the Lord’s Prayer. In his introductory sermon he stressed two aspects of the text:
a) Prayer is expected, not optional.
b) Prayer should be genuine.
These are clear implications in the text. Prayer becomes a necessary dimension of spiritual growth. In the words of Dean Richard Lobs, “it is the most unnatural thing we will ever do in this world.” In Psalm 50:21 we find that God lacks nothing. This entails that we depend on every element of life to come from His sovereign providence.
In verse 6 we read:

But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

This is a strange element indeed. Here in this text God makes a direct contrast with the hypocrites. This should not be seen as a proof-text for individualism. Rather, the contrast here is with the self-exalting prayer of the hypocrites. If one were to imitate the Pharisees, he would fall into the same sin, even he did not intend to do so. The Puritan Matthew Henry expounds:

Instead of praying in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, enter into thy closet, into some place of privacy and retirement. Isaac went into the field (Gen. 24:63), Christ to a mountain, Peter to a housetop. No place amiss in point of ceremony, if it do but answer the end. Note, Secret prayer is to be performed in retirement, that we may be unobserved, and so may avoid ostentation; undisturbed, and so may avoid distraction; unheard, and so may use greater freedom.

My particular practice has been to find a Catholic or Anglican church in the area. There is always an open chapel. That may be a perfect place to pray in secret, furthermore, far away from the paragons of self-exaltation. For this one thing I know, no hypocrite or Pharisee will look for a generally empty chapel to pray.

November 9, 2005

A Case for Preterism and a Critique of Dispensationalism, Hoekema and a host of other eschatological discussions Part 3

Let us continue our analysis by describing Hoekema’s thoughts on some very crucial issues concerning Preterism. Secondly, we will conclude with the Partial-Preterist usage of the “anti-christ” contra the common Amillenial usage thereof.

Describe Hoekema’s distinction between Imminence and Impending.

The concept of “imminence” is usually associated with Dispensationalism. This position believes that no predicted events need to occur before Christ comes again (Second Coming). The concept of ‘imminence” as applied to the dispensational view of the rapture, indicates that He (Christ) can come at any moment. Dispensationalism affirms that apart from the commonly accepted signs of Matthew 24, there are no prophetic signs preceding the Second Coming. However, as Hoekema affirms, to hold to this idea is to say too much. He argues that instead of saying that the Parousia is “imminent,” let us say that it is “impending” (p.136). This means that it is certain to come, but we do not know exactly when it will come.

Gary Demar’s view on the antichrist in contrast to Hoekema.

Dr. Hoekema affirms John’s usage of antichrist in at least two ways:
1) That he is a rival christ and 2) an opponent of Christ. John is deeply concerned in expressing the idea of many antichrists. So as Hoekema notes, John’s central idea is not on a singular figure, but rather on antichrists. Nevertheless, “it would not be correct to say that John had no room in his thinking for a future personal antichrist, since he still looks for an antichrist who is coming” (158).

Gary Demar sees John’s understanding of the antichrist differently than Hoekema. According to Mr. Demar, John “does not have a particular individual in mind, but rather individuals who taught that Jesus Christ is not who the Bible says he is” (267). These false teachers (II Peter 2) deny the very nature of Christ by denying his incarnation, resurrection and His return. Hence, when the Bible speaks of the antichrist it is not in any way referring to a possible single manifestation of the Antichrist, as Hoekema suggests. Once again, Hoekema has gone beyond the text and applied a faulty hermeneutic.

Part II

November 4, 2005

A Case for Preterism and a Critique of Dispensationalism, Hoekema and a host of other eschatological discussions Part 2

The Signs of the times were to be seen and experienced by no other recipients than the first century generation. This is clear for at least five reasons: 1) It is noteworthy that Jesus is speaking to a real group of people with real questions. This means that Jesus sought to address their primary concerns and not any other group’s concern. 2) The language itself confirms this: “Do YOU see all these things? (24:2),” I tell YOU the truth (24:2),” “Tell US (24:3),” “Watch out that no one deceives YOU (24:4),” “ YOU will hear of wars and rumors of wars…(24:6).” It would be non-sensical to address an imaginary audience when Jesus is specifically addressing his disciples. 3) There is local language being used as opposed to vague or universal language. Jesus refers to those in Judea and further, to the still pending ceremonial observance of the Sabbath (24:20 – The ceremonial nature of the Sabbath was abolished with the end of the Jewish Age). 4) Virtually every sign spoken of Jesus is written in the corridors of history through the historian Josephus, Tacitus, and many others adding greater reliability to the text. 5) Many of the signs are already at work during the New Testament period, particularly in the book of Acts where Peter mentions famine (Acts 11:27-29) and false prophets (Acts 13:6). This indicates that the first century audience did not have to wait to see some of those signs, which were already at work.

For these reasons and others, it is incumbent upon the Biblical interpreter to alter their current presuppositions of the text and embrace Preterism, as expressed in the Olivet Discourse. In this fashion, not only will one answer objections as those proposed by Russell, but also be assured of the truthfulness and reliability of the words of our Great God and Savior Jesus Christ.

Part I

October 19, 2005

A Case for Preterism and a Critique of Dispensationalism, Hoekema and a host of other eschatological discussions Part 1

In a significant manner, Gary Demar’s book Last Days Madness has brought sanity to the historical nature of predicted eschatology. The famous atheist Bertrand Russell once wrote: “I am concerned with Christ as he appears in the Gospels, taking the Gospel narratives as it stands, and there one does find some things that do not seem to be very wise. For one thing, He certainly thought that His Second coming would occur in clouds of glory before the death of all the people who were living at that time.” Russell and many others have felt the immensity of Jesus’ comments in the Olivet Discourse. Due to their presuppositions, this led to the ardent denial of the truthfulness and reliability of Christ’s words.

There is a sense in which all of eschatology has implications. That is, it affects our lives in a variety of ways. Dr. Gary North writes about the eschatology of economics. Professor George Grant has dealt marvelously with the eschatology of education. So at the beginning we acknowledge that one’s understanding of the future affects one’s understanding of the now. Unfortunately, most Christians have never developed or thought through the implications of their own eschatology due to 1) A simplistic knowledge of Scripture, 2) An anti-holistic world view (meaning a fragmented view of life), and 3) Lack of consistency in one’s own spiritual life. All of us are indeed guilty of these flaws; nevertheless we are called to put on a new set of glasses by which we can view the world.

The Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24) offers us a host of signs connected to the coming of the Son of Man on the clouds. In verses 4-34 Jesus elaborates on the questions of his disciples. He is compassionate towards them and heavily feels the profundity of their inquiry. Jesus’ language as in many other places is clear and direct. He uses imagery that is common to his Jewish audience and carefully articulates the coming events or the signs of the times. Gary Demar boldly accuses those who would interpret these passages as futuristic. As a brilliant researcher and historian, he traces the pitiful displays of exegetical incompetence in literally hundreds of prophetic writers throughout the centuries. As he argues, much of these mistakes arise from a “purposeful” or “flawed” attempt to read the Bible in light of what Professor Greg Bahnsen has called “newspaper exegesis.” In a subtle fashion, however, this writer believes that Demar has also dismantled Hoekema and others’ attempt to futurize the impending judgment on Jerusalem. The most common mistake in Hoekema’s treatment of the Olivet Discourse is his refusal to see the specific fulfillment of divine wrath upon Jerusalem (though Hoekema does acknowledge some elements of fulfillment in AD 70). In pages 116 and 117 in the Bible and the Future he writes, “this generation cannot be restricted to the Jews living at the time Jesus is saying these words.” This, he argues, from Matthew 23:35-36 implying that since the “blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah” indicate past and present sins, hence “this generation” cannot be restricted to the first century Jews. Notice however, that Jesus has been building a cumulative case against the Jews. In other words, He is bringing together the disobedience of their fathers and their present denial of the Messiah. This reaches a powerful and climactic moment when in the end of Matthew 23 he declares “your house has been left unto you desolate” (Matthew 23:37). Jesus gives a historical argument that leaves the Jews of his day speechless and utterly guilty. Now divine wrath must be manifested and the chosen generation to receive his full wrath is “this generation” (Mat.23: 36). The vindication of God is as certain as the permanence of the temple has been for Jews for centuries. Their house is left desolate; it is naked and hopeless. This is the context in which Jesus answers the questions of his disciples. In the Olivet Discourse, Bertrand Russell’s skepticism is refuted and Jesus’ future vindication confirmed.

January 28, 2005

Sinclair Ferguson on the Peter “Saying” in Matthew 16:18

The significance of the “Peter Saying” and what Jesus says to Him.
This Peter saying is significant in the post-apostolic years. It has been controversial — the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome vs. the bishops of other cities. In the very primitive word, the Peter saying was simply a saying that was fulfilled in the Acts of Apostles. Look at Acts, and you will see this saying fulfilled.
Tertullian 155-220AD: These words have nothing to do with anyone else but Peter. He is trying to stop the argument of apostolic succession. They refer to Peter, personally. They focus on Peter as an individual believer, at most as a representative of believers but not as an individual to be succeeded. Peter as the first of a series is already current in the church.

Origen: He believed in the spiritual meaning of the text, and said that it applies to the those who share the same role. As to the letter, it describes Peter’s role in the church in the spirit.

Cyprian 200-258AD: He argues that the words refer to Peter as a representative of the disciples not in distinction from them. He is not an isolated individual, but as one from the rest of the apostles. He says that these words imply a particular Petrine authority but sees that authority as being expressed in Peter not as an exclusive member but inclusive member. Thus, Peter’s authority guarantees the authority that belongs to all the apostles. Thus, the authority of the bishop of Rome must be shared with the other bishops.

Augustine late 4th and 5th : Later in life, he believed that the “rock ” is Jesus himself.

Luther: Jesus is saying that Peter is the rock-man because he recognized the true rock. Luther is both having his cake and eating it too.

Calvin: …whose exegetical skills are better than Luther’s, sees an implied contrast between this motley lot, and what the Lord is going to build (the church). Basically, he was saying that on a modest lot such as Peter, he would build his church. From this little confession, will come a great Church. It has in view the faith of all Christians shared in common with Peter and his Redemptive Historical preeminence…

Harmony of the Gospels 2, p186. On the one hand Peter’s confessed faith is in view here, but we cannot deny the Redemptive Historical context here as well.