We Are Made One

It's been a little while since I have written a new article. Lately, my efforts have been focused on Revelation 20 and the "millennium." I am also currently writing an article on the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and their cessation when "the perfect" came.

However, the issue of baptism in Full Preterism is still a heated issue right now, so I am finding it difficult to move on at this time (despite being very excited to share studies on Revelation 20 with my brethren!). I discussed this briefly in my first two articles (Baptism and the Preterist and A New Exodus and Salvation). If I had to guess, few will change their minds immediately, as is often the case. Nevertheless, this topic is something we are wise to address and discuss with one another. We should never be afraid to learn, and with learning we sometimes find ourselves corrected.

I make the effort to share my thoughts not because I wish to prove people wrong and give myself glory. I believe we should be sharpening one another, and we can't do that if we are afraid to share our thoughts. It is my hope that we can support and encourage each other through these discussions, pointing out the good points each person makes, as well as shedding light on that which we believe others have wrong.

If you have not read my first article on this topic, it should be noted that I am pro-baptism, something that is seemingly rare in the Full Preterist camp. The more I study this topic, and the more I come across the wide variety of anti-baptism arguments, the more sure I become of my position. Now, it is not to say that I find myself above correction, but I do feel very strongly about my position, and I feel I can benefit others by sharing my thoughts. So, with more details and elaboration than previously offered in my other articles, I'd like to tackle this topic once again.

The Great Commission

Prior to his ascension, Christ commissioned his apostles to go out into the nations and teach them to observe all he commanded. They were to baptize people in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit:

18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Matthew 28:18-20)

Mark's account words things a bit differently:

15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Mark 16:15-16)

In both passages we find the mention of baptism. In Matthew, it is related to discipleship, while in Mark, it is mentioned in connection to salvation. I believe both connections are relevant to one being in covenant with Jesus Christ (which I define as “salvation”). It is this baptism—one of water, as I posit—that the apostles were to teach the nations to observe.

An objection many use against this comes from John the Baptist's words:

“I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: (Matthew 3:11)

Many find this to be evidence that the baptism Jesus commissioned was to exclude water. I don't believe this is accurate, however. If this is telling us that Jesus would not be teaching a baptism with water, then we must believe it to be saying that he was teaching a baptism with fire and the Holy Spirit. Now, I'm not sure about you, but I find it unlikely that Jesus would command a baptism performed with an open flame. I believe he was well aware of the fact that fire burns!

Instead, John the Baptist was likely making his statement based on three points: 1) Jesus would certainly judge the wicked with fire (Matthew 3:12); 2) Jesus would also come as a refining, purifying fire (offering redemption); 3) The Holy Spirit is comparable to fire and water (Isaiah 4:2-5).

I find it unlikely that Matthew 3:12 is the sole definition of what John meant by “fire” (at least not in the sense of the baptism commanded by Christ). The “unquenchable fire” he refers to was not something that was universal. Just as the judgment that would come was not universal, neither would the baptism of the Holy Spirit be universal. This is one way we know the baptism of the Holy Spirit was a limited occurrence, confined to what we read in Acts 2:1-4 and 10:44-45. Peter later attributes what happened at Cornelius' house to being exactly what happened on the day of Pentecost (Acts 11:16). In this verse, Peter recalls Jesus' promise that they would be baptized with the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 1:5). The baptism of the Holy Spirit, as it is called, was limited to these two occurrences.

Therefore, since the baptism of the Holy Spirit was limited by the clear assertion of audience relevance (“...but YE shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost), and the judgment of “fire” was also limited, yet the command to be baptized is universal (Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:16), then it stands to reason that water wasn't being done away with as a method of baptism. Just as with John's baptism, there was a call to repentance before one partook of the commissioned baptism (Acts 2:38). John's baptism required water, and this method did not change when Christ commanded baptism.

The apostles did not forbid water just because someone received the Holy Spirit. If receiving the Holy Spirit was enough, then water baptism would not have been necessary, let alone commissioned by Christ. Note the following:

38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38)

Repentance preceded baptism, a baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” On the day of Pentecost, the apostles were not baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, as is done during water baptism, something we can observe to note the distinction between Christ's baptism, or believer's baptism, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Repentance was called for as part of John's baptism, as well (Matthew 3:2,11). Following one's repentance, they were immersed in the water. This is no different that what occurs in the book of Acts:

36And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. 39And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. (Acts 8:36-39)

John was baptizing people to turn them to the Messiah, for the kingdom of heaven was at hand, and the Messiah had come (Matthew 3:2). Those whom he immersed were required to have a penitent heart. Even still, it is Jesus who takes away sins, not water. Without Christ's death, John's baptism was only a symbol of what would come; it was necessary, but it was limited in what it was meant to accomplish. This would all change after Christ's death and resurrection.

Recently, I was told that Acts 19:1-6 is not an occurrence of re-baptism. This is not correct. Observe the passage:

1And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, 2He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. 3And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. 4Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues and prophesied. (Acts 19:1-6)

There are key elements here worthy of our observation: 1) There is a difference between John's baptism and Christ's baptism; 2) John's baptism was to turn people to faith in the Messiah (19:4), while Christ's baptism was for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16); 3) These twelve disciples were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, a “formula” found elsewhere in association with water baptism after Christ's ascension (Acts 2:38; 8:36-39; 10:47-48).

This is quite clearly a case of re-baptism, one that involved water, followed by the laying on of the apostle's hands to bestow the Holy Spirit.

Jesus had commanded the apostles to teach the nations to observe all he taught, and to baptize them in his name (Matthew 28:19-20). This baptism was done by immersing the believer in water (Acts 10:47-48). The baptism commanded by Christ was not the same as the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1-4; 10:44-45; 11:16-17). Therefore, we can deduce that the baptisms carried out by the apostles were done with water. These baptisms were now a symbol of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection, unlike John's baptism, which was for the purpose of turning people to the Messiah.

Becoming One In Christ

I believe the apostle Paul makes known to us, quite clearly, that baptism allows us to partake in Christ's death, not receive our own, personal, symbolic death. Baptism is linked solely to Christ and his work on the cross. We die Christ's death, as if we were there with him on the cross that very day. We share the tomb with Christ, the very same one he was in. We are raised as if it were the very moment he was raised. Romans 6 is where we can find such an explanation:

1What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 3Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in the newness of life. 5For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall also be in the likeness of his resurrection: 6Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. (Romans 6:1-6)

I simply have to laugh at those who believe baptism is a “work of man.” Everything about it is Christ's work. By dying with Christ, we are raised with Christ, walking in the newness of life. We are thus baptized into Christ's death, by which we receive the remission of sins through the shedding of his blood. Consider how this all works in harmony.

Baptism puts us into Christ's death (Romans 6:1-6).

Because of the shedding of his blood, there is remission of sins:

28For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (Matthew 26:28)

16For where a testament is, there must also be of necessity the death of the testator. 17For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth... 26For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. (Hebrews 9:16-17,26)

Therefore, by being placed into Christ's death, we receive the effects of the blood that he shed:

38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38)

16And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. (Acts 22:16)

We are, at this time, made to be of one body, the body of Christ:

13For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (1 Corinthians 12:13)

26For ye are all children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. (Galatians 3:26-27)

The body of Christ is the Church:

22And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, 23Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all. (Ephesians 1:22-23)

18And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the death; that in all things he might have the preeminence. (Colossians 1:18)

And the church is the bride of Christ:

23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. 25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. 28So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. (Ephesians 5:23-30)

The bride of Christ happens to be the heavenly city, new Jerusalem:

2And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband... 9And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. (Revelation 21:2,9)

The gates of this city are always open...:

25And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. (Revelation 21:25)

...except to those who haven't been washed by the blood of the Lamb:

27And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life. (Revelation 21:27)

Thus, when we are baptized, we have our sins remitted and we come into covenant with God, receiving the circumcision of the heart (cf. Jeremiah 4:1-4). This is the sign of the covenant, so to speak, just as physical circumcision had been used in the past (cf. Genesis 17:10-11; Exodus 12:48):

11In who also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. 13And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to the cross; (Colossians 2:11-14)

As Preterists, we recognize that coming into new Jerusalem is coming into covenant with Christ. The old heaven and old earth have been done away with, and the new creation has been established. Those of us who are baptized into Christ become part of this new creation (Romans 6:4; 2 Corinthians 5:17), for that which is old is put away. *(I encourage you to observe my brief notes on the passing of heaven and earth and how it is used in regards to the covenants: The Passing of Heaven and Earth.)

Conclusion

At this time, I am not convinced by my fellow Full Preterists that the purpose of baptism ceased at the parousia in A.D. 70. I find that they are focusing too much on this “transition period” idea, and not focusing enough on the new covenant itself, and the fact that there are people still “outside the gates” of this new covenant (Revelation 21:27). Therefore, I do not believe the requirements for entrance into this city (faith, repentance, and baptism) have ceased; not one, not any.

Truth be known, it will not be the Calvin-influenced faith-only advocates who convince me I am wrong. I know better than to be fooled again by the doctrines that I so incorrectly advocated for the first few years of my walk as a Christian. What I wish to see from my Full Preterist brethren, if they believe I am wrong and seek to prove it, is where scripture tells us the means of entrance into covenant with Christ was to change after the parousia. At this moment in time, this is at the top of my list of reasons to reject the cessationist position on baptism.

With loving regards to all,

Jason Watt





<iframe  src="http://www.preteristdoctrine.com/Baptism_webring.html" width="400" height="230" frameborder="0" 
marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no">
</iframe>

The Passing of Heaven and Earth

In my last article, I completed a brief study of Matthew 24. I ended that study at verse 35 with the intention of reserving a study of the passing of heaven and earth for a later time. However, I realized that there is no better time than now to tackle this topic, because it simply makes sense to begin a new study where the last one ended. Consider Jesus' words for a moment:

35Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. (Matthew 24:35)

Most read this verse without considering exactly what Jesus was really saying. Many who do take the time to analyze this verse conclude that Jesus was referring to the passing of the literal heaven and earth. Futurists of all forms maintain this belief. Sam Frost, an ex-Full Preterist, stated such a thing in his debate with Full Preterist Michael Miano.

If this pertains to the physical cosmos, we have some major problems. The purpose of this article is to establish the fact that the passing of heaven and earth in no way implies the passing of the cosmos. In other words, when you read Revelation 21:1 you are not reading of a newly created planet. And how many different beliefs do you think cling to the popular understanding of Revelation 21:1? Consider the Young Earth Creationists. These advocates believe the world wasn't created to exist forever, so what good do environmentalist movements do for a planet destined to be destroyed, and thus, recreated? Yes, they really believe this! I was one of them!

Dispensationalists (most of which are Young Earth Creationists) feel the same. Jesus' return is near, they claim, and he will recreate the world, for it is infected with man's sin. Because of this, what need is there for us to concern ourselves with education, let alone maintaining the planet's resources, they argue.

This may be a shock to most, but the Bible never even mentions the end of the world. It is unfortunate that the King James Version of the Bible uses the phrase “end of the world,” rather than “end of the age,” for many have been misled by such a mistranslation. A quick word study will reveal that the KJV's use of “world” is often better translated as “age.” Other times, “world” is used instead of “land,” which is also misleading.

Even those who know these facts need more evidence than a mere word study to disprove the Futurist doctrine of a dying cosmos. Because of this, I will be taking the time to analyze just what the passing of heaven and earth entails, beginning with the most fatal passage to all Futurist eschatologies.

The Passing of the Law and Prophets

It is largely ignored by all Futurist eschatologies just what Jesus was saying in Matthew 5:17-18 when he spoke of the passing of the law and prophets:

17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matthew 5:17-18)

This is mind-boggling information here. Jesus said he did not come to destroy the old covenant law, but instead came to fulfill it. He then said that until heaven and earth pass, nothing from the old covenant law could pass away. Everything had to be fulfilled first. Most Christians believe the old covenant passed away at the cross, but this is impossible lest they admit the passing of heaven and earth at this time. In fact, if even one law was abrogated, then heaven and earth had to have already passed! Do you see the dilemma this presents for those who believe in the future passing of literal heaven and earth? One the one hand, if they subscribe to the passing of the old covenant (“the law and prophets”; cf. Matthew 22:36-40) at the cross, they must admit the passing of literal heaven and earth at that time, which means the fulfillment of Revelation 21:1. This clearly contradicts every bit of their eschatology, of course, let alone the fact that we'd probably know if the world was destroyed and recreated at the cross, don't you think? On the other hand, if they maintain the yet future fulfillment of the passing of heaven and earth, then they must admit that the law is still binding today! (Some do, in fact.)

Truth be known, at the time the book of Hebrews was penned (A.D. 63/64), the old covenant had not yet passed away:

13In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. (Hebrews 8:13)

Notice that the old covenant was old, but had not yet vanished. It was merely ready to vanish. This is consistent with Jesus' words in Matthew 5, for as we've already noted, the old covenant could not vanish until everything was fulfilled. It would be at this time that heaven and earth would pass.

The Covenants

When we reach Revelation 21, we read of a new heaven and earth coming into existence:

1And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. (Revelation 21:1)

The Full Preterist position is that this refers to the cessation of the old covenant, and the fullness of the new. Full Preterists aren't simply applying this imagery any way we want to, either. There is a reason for this. Please consider the following:

15But I am the LORD thy God, that divided the sea, whose waves roared: the LORD of hosts is his name. 16And I have put my words in thy mouth, and I have covered thee in the shadow of mine hand, that I may plant the heavens, and lay the foundations of the earth, and say unto Zion, Thou art my people. (Isaiah 51:15-16)

The correlation here is the planting of the heavens and laying of the foundations of the earth with Israel being God's people. In other words, the heavens and earth God is referring to are symbolizing the covenant he made with Israel, for it is through the foundations of this heaven and earth that he called them his people. This was the old covenant he made with them after the exodus, for it was at this time that they became his people.

17For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. 18But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing and her people a joy. 19And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying. (Isaiah 65:17-19)

There are three key elements here: 1) A new heaven and new earth; 2) A Jerusalem God rejoices over; 3) No more weeping.

We know Revelation 21 is the fulfillment of Isaiah 65 given the exact same details:

2And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. 4And God shall wipe away all the tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. (Revelation 21:2-4)

So, in Isaiah 51, we read of heaven and earth as they pertain to God's covenant with Israel. In Isaiah 65, God declares that he will create a new heaven and earth, in which Jerusalem would be a joy. Finally, in Revelation 21, we read of Isaiah 65's fulfillment, for heaven and earth have been made anew (Revelation 21:1), and a new Jerusalem exists in which God finds joy in his people (21:2-3). We also have the element of no more weeping (21:4). Therefore, if heaven and earth pertain to God's covenant with Israel, and God declares that he will make a new heaven and earth (Isaiah 65:17), then we know he was implying the creation of a new covenant.

When we tie this into Matthew 5, the points speak for themselves. The fulfillment of the old covenant would signify its passing. Remember, not one jot or tittle could pass from the law until all had been fulfilled. Only when heaven and earth pass away can the law pass, which means if we maintain the passing of the law, we must also maintain the passing of heaven and earth. If we believe the passing of heaven and earth remains for the future, then we must admit the binding of the law today. Dispensationalists contradict themselves on these points.

Thus, since scripture defines heaven and earth in a covenantal manner, it is entirely logical to understand that Jesus was referring to the old covenant when he used the phrase. After all, if the fulfillment of the law and prophets would signify its passing, and heaven and earth wouldn't pass until the law passed, then it is only logical to realize that the passing of heaven and earth, and the passing of the law, are the same thing!

Further proof of this can be tied again to Isaiah. In Isaiah 65, we read:

25The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD. (Isaiah 65:25)

Futurists believe the “perfect world to come” consists of straw-eating lions and a sea-less planet (Revelation 21:1). I believe, however, that John saw “no more sea” because the terms of the new covenant of Christ did away with Jew and Gentile distinctions. This is why the “wolf and lamb shall feed together,” for it pertains to such differences having been done away with. The same goes for the lion feeding with the bullock, rather than feeding on the bullock.

If this argument is going to be made, it must be shown that the “sea” has a relationship with those who are not Jews. I believe Daniel 7 is key to understanding this. Daniel has a vision of four beasts which come from the sea (Daniel 7:2-3). There was a lion with eagle's wings (7:4), a bear with three ribs in its mouth (7:5), a leopard with four heads and four wings (7:6), and a fourth beast with ten horns (7:7). Again, all of these came from the sea. These beasts are kings, or kingdoms, rather (7:17). We know these to be Babylon (lion), Medo-Persia (bear), Greece (leopard), and Rome (ten-horned beast). This is evident when we analyze Daniel 7 and 8 in correlation to Daniel 2. Also, the fourth beast would be in power at the coming of the Son of man, and we know this was the Roman empire.

So, how does this connect to the “sea”? All four of these kingdoms are Gentile kingdoms! That is why the beasts that represent them come from the sea (compare this to Revelation 13). When John has the vision of Mystery Babylon, he sees her sitting upon many waters (Revelation 17:1). This harlot, Jerusalem, consisted of many tongues and nations (Acts 2:5), and the angel speaking to John tells him that the waters represent this very thing (Revelation 17:15).

If the “sea” and “waters” pertain to a multitude of nations and tongues, then it is no stretch to understand the “sea” of Revelation 21:1 to be the symbol of the Gentiles, especially in light of how Daniel's vision portrayed Gentile kingdoms rising from the sea. Recall that the wolf and lamb would feed together, implying there would no longer be anything that separates them. Per the new covenant, there is no longer any Jew and Gentile:

28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)

12For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. (Romans 10:12)

The correlations should be a bit more clear now. If in Christ there is no more differentiation between Jew and Gentile (Greek), and the terms of the new heaven and earth are as such, and John saw “no more sea,” which represents the Gentiles, then it should be clear that the new heaven and earth of Isaiah 65 and Revelation 21 is the fullness, or consummation, of the new covenant, in which there is no more Jew or Gentile! The old covenant had finally been done away with!

Conclusion

Jesus said the law and prophets would not pass until heaven and earth passed (Matthew 5:17-18). If the old covenant passed at the cross, then so too did heaven and earth, which means Revelation 21 was fulfilled. The Futurist paradigms are self-defeating! Since Futurists maintain the future passing of literal heaven and earth, they must admit to the binding of the law today. But how many admit this? None! They contradict themselves entirely.

The passing of the old heaven and earth was the passing of the old covenant. God spoke of a new heaven and earth (Isaiah 65:17), and in it would be a Jerusalem that brings joy (cf. Revelation 21:2-3). This is Christ's covenant, wherein lies no distinction between Jew and Gentile (cf. Isaiah 65:25), and a new Jerusalem, the bride of Christ, which is his body of believers.

Isn't fulfillment great?

Blessings,

Jason Watt

Understanding Matthew 24: The Coming of the Son of Man

As I mentioned in a previous article, Christians have a bad habit of placing “gaps” into the text. They do this so the scriptures will say what they need and want it to, rather than allow the text to speak for itself. Many Dispensationalists believe all of Matthew 24 is to be fulfilled in the future, while others believe only verses 1 and 2 pertain to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Other Premillennialists maintain everything up to verse 27 as pertaining to the first century, with everything from verse 27 to the end of the chapter reserved for the future. Some Partial Preterists, such as Sam Frost, maintain that verse 35 is where a gap should be placed, as “heaven and earth” have not passed away yet. Of course, he advocates a covenantal nature to Revelation 21:1. The problems with this position should be apparent.

This brings us to this article's focus, for I will be addressing Matthew 24:27-34. For this study, this will be the final article. Matthew 24:35 carries with it an entire study itself, and will be the topic of a future series of articles.

Without further ado, here is the passage:

27For as lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 28For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together. 29Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not giver her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 30And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. 32Now learn ye a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: 33So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. 34Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. (Matthew 24:27-34)

At this point, if you've read my previous three articles on Matthew 24, then you should know that Matthew 24 carries only a first century context. Yet, some Premillennialists don't like this, so they force a gap into the text to make this future. However, I'd like to point out verse 29. Notice that it reads, “Immediately after the tribulation of those days...” Which tribulation? The tribulation of verse 21. (I recommend reading my previous article to observe how this was fulfilled in the first century: http://fulfilledfocus.blogspot.com/2013/02/understanding-matthew-24-parallels-part_7.html.)

 Therefore, if the tribulation was in the first century, and the coming of the Son of man was to occur immediately after that tribulation, does this not mean the coming of the Son of man also occurred in the first century? Of course it does. Notice that no gaps were necessary to make the text say this. This is how we interpret the text correctly.

 This, of course, carries implications and stirs up questions. One question may be how Jesus “returned.” If it were a literal, physical “coming,” then where is he now? It's quite obvious that Jesus didn't return physically, which is what leads to the skepticism of the Full Preterist position. I simply challenge you to ask yourselves if you can find scripture in which Jesus or his apostles claim he would return physically. The most popular proof-text for a physical “coming” is:

9And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud receive him out of their sight. 10And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; 11Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. (Acts 1:9-11)

The logic is as follows: 1) Jesus was in a physical body when he ascended; 2) Per verse 11, Jesus will come “in like manner”; 3) This means Jesus will return in a physical body.

 There's a problem with point two, however, which leads to a problem with point three. First of all, how does “in like manner” default to “in exact manner”? Consider that most Christians believe the world will be burned up at the coming of the Lord (2 Peter 3:10). Did this occur when Jesus ascended? Of course not. Thus, if the world did not burn up upon his ascension, and one maintains that it will be burned up when he returns, then one must admit that Jesus' parousia is not in the exact manner of his ascension. And how about the fact that Jesus ascended with a cloud, yet Revelation depicts him on a horse at his parousia (Revelation 19:11)? (The text does use the cloud imagery in other places in regards to the parousia, just as Acts 1:9 depicts. However, this fact is what is vital to understanding the nature of Christ's parousia.)

What I believe we should be focusing on is why Jesus ascended in a cloud. I believe this is vital given the repetition of the cloud imagery in regards to Jesus' parousia, as well as the Old Testament usage pertaining to God's interaction with people. Jesus provides this cloud imagery during his Olivet Discourse:

30And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. (Matthew 24:30)

We find this repeated in Revelation:

7Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. (Revelation 1:7)

He was to come with clouds, which “every eye” would see. Notice that “every eye” is still confined to the first century Jews “which pierced him” (Acts 2:36). We have another cloud reference later in Revelation:

14And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle. (Revelation 14:14)

But what does this imagery represent? For this, we simply need to connect some dots. Notice in Matthew 24 that Jesus says he'd come “with power and great glory” (Matthew 24:30). He spoke of this “glory” earlier on:

27For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. 28Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. (Matthew 16:27-28)

 Jesus makes two big points here. First, he says he will “come in the glory of his Father...” Also, notice that Jesus said some of the people standing there at that very moment would still be alive at his parousia! Once again, we have, from Jesus' own mouth, proof that his “return” would be in the first century! How else could some of them standing there at that moment still be alive?

Christ coming “in the glory of his Father” was most certainly a declaration of deity, which the Jews thought to be blasphemy, for it entailed that Christ was indeed God. If Christ was to return in the glory of the Father, we must understand this as the Jews would have. Again, the use of clouds is one thing we need to understand. Secondly, when God “came down” in the Old Testament, what did it mean? These points are vital. For this, Psalm 18 is a great place to start:

6And when I was afflicted I called upon the Lord, and cried to my God: he heard my voice out of this holy temple, and my cry shall enter before him, even into his ears. 7Then the earth shook and quaked, and the foundations of the mountains were disturbed, and were shaken, because God was angry with them. 8There went up a smoke in his wrath, and fire burst into a flame at his presence: coals were kindled at it. 9And he bowed the heaven, and came down: and thick darkness was under his feet. 10And he mounted on cherubs and flew: he flew on the wings of winds. 11And he made darkness his secret place: round about him was his tabernacle, even dark water in the clouds of the air. 12At the brightness before him the clouds passed, hail and coals of fire. 13The Lord also thundered from heaven, and the Highest uttered his voice. 14And he sent forth his weapons, and scattered them; and multiplied lightnings, and routed them. 15And the springs of waters appeared, and the foundations of the world were exposed, at thy rebuke, O Lord, at the blasting of the breath of thy wrath. 16He sent from on high and took me, he drew me to himself out of many waters. 17He will deliver me from my mighty enemies, and from them that hate me; for they are stronger than I. 18They prevented me in the day of mine affliction: but the Lord was my stay against them. 19And he brought me out into a wide place: he will deliver me, because he has pleasure in me. (Psalm 18:6-19)

There are a lot of details here, but look again at verse 9, in which we read, “And he bowed the heaven, and came down...” Did God literally descend and defeat David's enemies, or is David giving us a detailed picture of his deliverance? I believe it is without support to suggest that God physically descended from heaven. Do I believe he intervened and delivered David? Without a doubt! But it cannot be supported that God physically descended. Also, upon his supposed descent the earth was shaken and the heavens bowed. He also flew on cherubs. So fierce was his descent that the weather seemed to effect the whole world. However, I argue that this is not without much exaggeration. Details like these are given to proclaim the glory of God, the very same glory Christ was to return in. Thus, when we read Christ was to come in the clouds of heaven, and the sun and moon were to be darkened, and the foundations of the mountains shaken, we are reading of Christ coming in the glory of the Father, in judgment, no less (Matthew 16:27-28; Revelation 20:12-13).

Consider this passage in Exodus:

8And I have come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them out of that land, and to bring them into a good and wide land, into a land flowing with milk and honey, into the place of the Chananites, and the Chettites, and Amorites, and Pherezites, and Gergesites, and Evites, and Jebusites. (Exodus 3:8)

Again, did God literally, physically come down to deliver them? Could it be that this is the way God's intervention is depicted? If God literally, physically came down to deliver them from the Egyptians, then the burden of scriptural proof falls on those making the claim.

In Isaiah 19, we read of the judgment to befall the Egyptians. The very first verse gives us cloud imagery:

1Behold, the Lord sits on a swift cloud, and shall come to Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall be moved at his presence, and their heart shall faint within them. (Isaiah 19:1)

When Christ declared that he would return in the glory of the Father, on the clouds of heaven, he was declaring judgment. Therefore, when we read of Christ returning in like manner of his ascension, I believe our focus should be on the details often overlooked, such as the fact that he was taken up on a cloud. I also believe the New Testament itself stresses the importance of the cloud imagery, which is why it is vital for us to understand what it is supposed to entail. As a result of such connections, we can understand Christ's return in like manner to tell us that his parousia would be one of judgment. If in the Old Testament God “came down” to judge a kingdom or nation, then when Christ “comes down” should we not draw the same conclusion? I firmly believe the Jews did, and they thought of such a thing as blasphemy, because they knew exactly what it implied.

At the coming of the Lord, the sun was to be darkened, and the moon, and even the stars were to fall from the heavens (Matthew 24:29). This imagery is drawn entirely from the Old Testament, in which God would be coming to judge a particular nation or kingdom. Consider how Isaiah uses this same imagery in regards to Babylon's destruction:

9Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it. 10For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine. 11And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible. 12I will make a man more precious than fine gold; even a man than the golden wedge of Ophir. 13Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger. (Isaiah 13:9-13)

Would you like to guess how many of these details actually happened? Search all you might, but the stars did not fail to shine, and the sun did not darken, neither the moon. The heavens also did not shake, nor was the earth removed from her place. All of this imagery is used to depict God's judgment of Babylon in the sixth century B.C. This also happens to be the exact same imagery Jesus uses of himself in regards to his parousia. And what happens at his parousia? Jerusalem is judged and destroyed, just like Babylon! Do you understand the connections now?

This kind of imagery doesn't only appear once or twice, either. Isaiah uses it again:

1Draw near, ye nations; and hearken, ye princes; let the earth hear, and they that are in it; the world, and the people that are therein. 2For the wrath of the Lord is upon all nations, and his anger upon the number of them, to destroy them, and give them up to slaughter. 3And their slain shall be cast forth, and the corpses; and the ill savour shall come up, and the mounts shall be made wet with their blood. 4And all the powers of the heavens shall melt, and the sky shall be rolled up like a scroll: and all the stars shall fall like leaves from a vine, and as leaves fall from a fig-tree. (Isaiah 34:1-5)

In just five short verses we read of immeasurable destruction. The wrath of the Lord was upon all the nations, and he sought to destroy them, for it was the day of the Lord (Isaiah 34:8). Now compare this to Christ's parousia:

10But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons out ye be to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? (2 Peter 3:10-12)

29Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: (Matthew 24:29)

All of this imagery depicts judgment. In each instance it is used in the Old Testament it is meant to define the judgment of a nation or kingdom. Therefore, I ask again, what is to suggest that it should be taken any differently in the New Testament? If the world didn't evaporate during the Old Testament judgments of a nation or kingdom, then how could the world be destroyed according to the very same details in the New Testament? It just doesn't make any sense! We need to let scripture interpret scripture, and in this case, nothing supports a physical return of Christ, nor the destruction of the world!

So, if the nature of the coming of the Lord is one in judgment, and Christ is to come in the glory of the Father, what part of his ascension should grab our attention? Remember, Christ was to return in like manner, meaning his ascension represented what the actual parousia would be like! In the Old Testament, did the coming of the Lord ever result in God physically coming to this planet? Not once can a physical descent be verified with scripture. It should be rather obvious that Jesus' parousia is not meant to be understood in the way Futurists interpret the text.

To conclude this study of Matthew 24, we must look at what Jesus called the “parable of the fig tree”:

32Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: 33So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. 34Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. (Matthew 24:32-34)

Dispensationalists point to this parable as proof of Israel's return as a nation in 1948 having been prophesied. This is not what the text says, though. Luke's account tells us it was a parable of not only the fig tree, but all trees (Luke 21:29). How can the Dispensationalists argue that this parable represents the re-establishment of the nation of Israel, yet neglect Luke's record of “all trees”? Wouldn't this have an effect on whether this parable represents only the nation of Israel? No doubt about it.

Let me tell you what this parable is saying without using a bunch of imagined references to Israel. Jesus said that the fig tree (and all trees) puts forth leaves as summer approaches. In other words, the sign of summer's imminence is when the trees bring forth leaves. Likewise, when they would see the signs Jesus listed in his discourse, they would know that the coming of the Son of man was near. It's amazingly simple, isn't it? This is all he was trying to say! Jesus ends this parable by reminding his disciples that their generation (not ours) would not pass away before all of those things occurred (compare this to Matthew 16:27-28).

I believe this study has been effective in proving a first century fulfillment of Matthew 24. The context of Matthew 21-23 leaves this fact unquestionable, and it carries over into Matthew 24. The coming of the Son of man, the parousia, would occur upon the temple's destruction. The disciples knew this, and that is why their questions (Matthew 24:3) were asked in response to Jesus' mention of the temple's destruction (Matthew 24:2). We are wise to remember audience, as well. Jesus was speaking to his disciples when he said they would see the abomination of desolation, and they would see false Christs and prophets arise, and they would see the Son of man coming on the clouds with glory. All of this proves a first century fulfillment.

This isn't easy for most Futurists to accept. The belief in a future, physical coming of Jesus Christ at the end of time is so widespread that it is hard for people to accept an alternative. However, as this article has shown, Jesus never said he'd return physically, neither did his apostles. Every connection we made between the Father's “coming” and the Son's “coming” reveals that Christ's parousia would be in judgment of the apostate Jews. This correlates perfectly with how the Father “came down” in times past, and since Jesus was to return in the glory of the Father (Matthew 16:27), the implications are clear!

I hope this study has been a blessing to you, as well as challenging. I always encourage people to test my views for themselves and to present any objections. The purpose of these articles is simply to share my thoughts with you and hope you consider them.

Until next time, stay blessed by the best.

Jason Watt

Understanding Matthew 24: The Abomination of Desolation

I ended the last article at Matthew 24:15 because of the how difficult Christians have made this topic. Naturally, many interpretations have resulted. There are even a few different interpretations among Preterists. Therefore, I found it best to dedicate this article to this very topic, and to do it in the simplest way I possibly can. In the end, I only hope sharing my thoughts will aid you in your own studies, and perhaps offer something—anything—that you may not have considered.

There is no doubt that the abomination of desolation (Matthew 24:15) is something Dispensationalists are anxious about. To them, a fourth temple will be constructed just prior to Christ's return (cf. Revelation 11:1-2). When the Antichrist makes a peace treaty with Israel (the beginning of the seven-year tribulation), he will break it at the halfway point (cf. Daniel 9:27). To make most (perhaps all?) of this future to us living today, a gap of nearly two thousand years (and counting) has been placed into the text. They claim that the things pertaining to Christ were fulfilled at his first coming (though I believe most maintain the yet future fulfillment of these things), and the rest, which they claim is about the Antichrist, is reserved for future fulfillment at the end of time.

Personally, I believe the Dispensational interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27 should bring shame to any who believe it. The entire interpretation is eisegetical, and the more extreme Dispensational view of the text makes everything Christ did on the cross vain.

With that said, I believe there are two interpretations worth observing. Originally, I decided to explain both of these views before moving on, but I now realize such a thing is best suited for a separate article in the future. I will only briefly mention them as to make a point. These two views are what I call the “Calvary Perspective” (or, “A.D. 30 Perspective,” alternatively) and the “A.D. 70 Perspective.” Per the former view, every “goal,” if you will, of Daniel 9:24 was fulfilled at the cross. In the latter view, the 70 weeks are taken figuratively, and were completed at Christ's parousia in A.D. 70. Personally, I subscribe to the Calvary Perspective, though I do consider the other position often. Advocates of the A.D. 70 Perspective understand that the events of the cross occurred during the 70^th week, but believe the 70^th week to have spanned from Christ's ministry to the parousia. At this point, I do not believe this is an accurate way to interpret the text.

There is, of course, yet another alternative, which maintains that Daniel 9 was fulfilled by the time of Antiochus Epiphanes IV. I do not believe this is accurate, either.

However, the Calvary and A.D. 70 Perspectives don't require invisible gaps to accommodate what the Dispensationalists believe to be an unplanned “Church age,” so regardless of which position one takes, both perspectives maintain a first century fulfillment, which is obviously more compatible with the text.

This is a problem for Dispensationalists, obviously.

According to the Dispensational view, this Antichrist figure becomes the primary target of God's wrath instead of Israel. As I've proven in previous two articles, this is simply incorrect! Israel was to be judged for rejecting their Messiah, and the abomination of desolation, and the tribulation, were proof of that! This was all part of the covenantal cursings that would fall upon Israel when they would not be faithful. To understand the Mosaic law of blessings and cursings, one need only read Deuteronomy 28-32. It's all there.

Yet, Dispensationalists claim the law was nullified at the cross. I am curious how this can be possible if covenantal cursings were still to befall Israel for the rejection of Jesus Christ. Jesus said:

17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matthew 5:17-18)

His words are pretty clear: he came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. If a single jot or tittle of the law passed away at the cross, so too did heaven and earth pass. This is a predicament for those who maintain the yet future fulfillment of Revelation 21, let alone the literal passing of a literal heaven and earth! Prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, the law was only ready to vanish away, meaning it had not yet done so (Hebrews 8:13). In other words, there were still things left unfulfilled. Notice that “heaven and earth” pass away after the destruction of the harlot (Jerusalem), which signified the fulfillment of the terms of the old covenant.

Therefore, if the old covenant has been done away with, as Dispensationalists claim, then the abomination of desolation and tribulation can't still be future to us. Logically, we must deduce that the fulfillment of Matthew 24:15 had to be at a time in which the Mosaic law, the old covenant, was still in effect. This, of course, provides further evidence of the contemporary relevance of the Olivet Discourse to Jesus' first century audience—his own generation (cf. Matthew 24:34).

Now, how does this all tie in to Daniel 9? I'd like to observe verses 26 and 27, and share my thoughts:

26And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one shall be destroyed, and there is no judgment in him: and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is coming: they shall be cut off with a flood, and to the end of the war which is rapidly completed he shall appoint the city to desolations. 27And one week shall establish the covenant with many: and in the midst of the week my sacrifice and drink-offering shall be taken away: and on the temple shall be the abomination of desolations; and at the end of time an end shall be put to the desolation. (Daniel 9:26-27)

According to the Dispensationalists, the 70^th week of this prophecy is what remains to be fulfilled (the seven-year tribulation). But notice that the “anointed one” (Christ) would be destroyed after the sixty-two weeks. Recall that seven weeks preceded the sixty-two (9:25). This means, if Christ is destroyed after the sixty-two weeks, and the seven weeks preceding this point bring a total of sixty-nine weeks, then the only thing after this is the 70^th week! In other words, the text can more easily read: “And after the sixty-ninth week, the anointed one shall be destroyed...,” or, “And in the seventieth week...”

Therefore, Christ's work on the cross occurred during the 70^th week. There's no way around this if one maintains any form of honesty when observing the text. However, people seem to think that the destruction of the city (Jerusalem) and the “prince that is coming” (Antichrist, as he is called by most) fall within that week. This is not necessarily the case. In fact, I don't believe the text says this at all!

Notice that verse 27 tells us that “one week” would establish the covenant with many. Dispensationalists believe this is the 70^th week, and that it pertains to the Antichrist, not Jesus Christ. But the 70^th week was mentioned in verse 26, which means that if this is another week in verse 27, we have a 71 weeks prophecy, not 70. Thus, these two verses are explaining the same week, the 70^th week! We must understand that these verses are written in an A-B-A-B pattern. Allow me to explain:

26A) And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one shall be destroyed, and there is no judgment in him:

26B) and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is coming: they shall be cut off with a flood, and to the end of the war which is rapidly completed he shall appoint the city to desolations.

Notice A is about Christ, and B is about the desolation. This continues:

27A) And one week shall establish the covenant with many: and in the midst of the week my sacrifice and drink-offering shall be taken away:

27B) and on the temple shall be the abomination of desolations; and at the end of time an end shall be put to the desolation.

Therefore, since these two verses are referring to the same week, I currently understand this to be the most logical way to view the text. Notice that the text doesn't tell us the desolation has to occur in the 70^th week, only that the anointed one shall destroy the city, and that during the 70^th week its destruction would be appointed (and it was, for Jesus cursed them constantly, and warned of this destruction). Also, since the city would be destroyed with a prince that was still to come (i.e., still future to the time of the 70^th week), it stands to reason that we don't need to maintain the desolation of Jerusalem as part of the 70^th week.

To tie this all together, we must realize, per what was discussed in my previous articles, that Matthew 24 has an inescapable first century context. Therefore, when Jesus referenced Daniel 9 in the Olivet Discourse, he gave Daniel's prophecy a first century context, as well. The destruction of Jerusalem was covenantal judgment, which means the covenant by which they were being judged would have to have been in effect. It was, until A.D. 70 (cf. Hebrews 8:13).

Continuing from Matthew 24:15, we read Jesus tell his disciples that those living in Judaea at this time should flee to the mountains (24:16). We can note the relevance to Daniel 9 once again when we consider that Daniel 9:24-27 was a prophecy for Daniel's people (Daniel 9:24), and that Jerusalem would be appointed to desolation (9:26-27).

When we read the parallel passage in Luke's account, we can obtain a greater insight into what would occur at the time of the abomination:

20And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. (Luke 21:20)

Note that Jerusalem would be surrounded with armies, which would bring desolation. We clearly have a direct reference to Daniel 9:26-27.

21Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. 22For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23But woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. 24And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. (Luke 21:21-24)

So, Jerusalem would be surrounded by armies, and tribulation, or distress, would be upon them. It's at this time that the city would be trodden down of the Gentiles. We yet again have another parallel to consider:

1And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. 2But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months. (Revelation 11:1-2)

Dispensationalists make this out to be a nearly two thousand-year event! The text, however, tells us it would only last forty-two months! At the same time, the “fullness of the Gentiles” Paul wrote of (Romans 11:25) would be completed, because there would be no need to invoke Jewish jealousy anymore, for God would have his spotless bride (cf. Revelation 21), and all Israel, the righteous remnant, would be part of that.

*Note: I will have much more to say on Romans 11:25 in the future. It is abused by Futurists and Full Preterists alike, and I believe neither are understanding it correctly.

So, we can conclude at this point that the appointed time of desolation would be the forty-two months when the Gentiles tread Jerusalem underfoot. According to Luke's account, it is after these forty-two months (the tribulation of Matthew 24:21) that the Son of man would appear (Christ's parousia). Likewise, Matthew's account tells us that this would occur “immediately” after the tribulation (Matthew 24:29; cf. 24:21). Therefore, if this tribulation was a first century event, and Christ's parousia (“coming”) was to be immediately after that, then his parousia was also a first century event! (More on this in the next article.)

To conclude, I'd like to make one last point. Daniel 12 records a time of tribulation such as had never been seen before, nor seen since (12:1). This would last for a time, times, and half a time (three and one half years, or forty-two months; cf. Revelation 11:1-2). At this time, Jerusalem would be destroyed. This is the scattering, or shattering, of the power of the holy people, at which time all these things would be finished (12:7). This has no other fulfillment than A.D. 70!

There are many gaps inserted into the text, and in various places. However, nothing in the text suggests this, and all the parallels we have observed between the previous articles and this one prove, beyond a doubt, that Matthew 24 can only pertain to the first century. Given its immediate relationship to the book of Revelation (John's Olivet Discourse, as I call it), we must also tie Revelation (all of Revelation) to the first century, as well.

In the next article, I will be picking up at Matthew 24:29, explaining the imagery, as well as drawing a few more parallels.

Blessings,

Jason Watt

Understanding Matthew 24: Parallels

In my previous article, I began an analysis of Matthew 24. It is important to understand the proper audience relevance of the text in order to interpret it correctly. As such, it should be noted that Matthew 24 cannot escape its contemporary audience. By analyzing aspects of Matthew 21-23, this was affirmed for us without question.

This article is going to focus on Matthew 24:4-14. Something that I love about John's gospel account is that it happens to be missing the Olivet Discourse! I believe this is because he penned the book of Revelation in place of the Olivet Discourse. In fact, the parallels are unmistakable. Many view Matthew 24 as something entirely different than the book of Revelation (I would say this is due to a lack of study on their part), but the parallels we will examine will prove otherwise. Therefore, the focus of this article will be acknowledging these parallels, and establishing a first century context for Revelation, as a result.

It should be noted that I will not be presenting every parallel. For a brief analysis such as this, it is too much effort to note every single parallel. Considering Revelation's chapters parallel themselves, pointing out some of these parallels in various places throughout Revelation will deliver the same results as an exhaustive study. I believe this will be enough to make my case.

On top of the parallels found in Revelation, I will also be showing the fulfillment of these signs in various places throughout the New Testament.

So, without further ado, let's study.

The Signs

After the disciples asked for the signs of the temple's destruction (i.e., Jesus' “coming” and the “end of the age”), Jesus answered them thoroughly:

4And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. 5For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. (Matthew 24:4-5)

Jesus also warned of false prophets and the iniquities that would abound:

11And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive man. 12And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. (Matthew 24:11-12)

The church in Thyatira was running into problems with false prophets (in this case, a prophetess):

20Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman, Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. (Revelation 2:20).

Revelation 13 paints a very detailed, symbolic picture of false Christ figures. The beasts of this prophecy were worshiped (13:4,8,12,14-18) and enforced their dominance by such means. Futurists would argue that the white horse of Revelation 6:2 represents such a thing, for Christ also descends on a white horse (Revelation 19:11). Thus, we have a contrast of false Christ vs. true Christ, and perhaps they are not incorrect to make such a comparison.

There are many references to false prophets in the New Testament, some of which likely proclaimed Christ-like powers. The book of Acts mentions Theudas (5:36), as well as Judas of Galilee (5:37). People were warned to stay away from this crowd (5:38). Truly, their means of deception were great, and they posed a serious threat to the faith of many. One must not neglect Simon of Acts 8, who used sorcery to deceive people into believing he was of God (verses 9-11). I believe he was a false Christ.

Peter warned of such people (2 Peter 2:1-3), as did Paul when he spoke of the deceitful Judaizers (2 Corinthians 11). One of these Jewish false prophets happened to be a sorcerer. His name was Barjesus (Acts 13:6). Hymenaeus and Philetus were also on the list of false teachers, because they had claimed the resurrection had already occurred (2 Timothy 2:16-18). This is, of course, different than the Full Preterist position, for the parousia had not yet occurred at that time. Therefore, these two false teachers were deceiving many, and wrecking their faith, by preaching an incorrect time of the resurrection.

These warnings can also be found in Acts 20:29-30; 1 Timothy 4; 2 Timothy 3:13; 1 John 4:1; and 2 John 7. Truth be told, false prophets and false Christs were very much present in the first century, just like Jesus said they would be.

Jesus also warned of wars, affliction, and betrayal:

6And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. (Matthew 24:6)

7For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom... (Matthew 24:7a)

9They shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. 10And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. (Matthew 24:9-10)

If I didn't know any better, I'd say this sounds an awful lot like the red horse of Revelation:

3And when he had opened the second seal, I heard the second beast say, Come and see. 4And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword. (Revelation 6:3-4)

The release of the red horse signifies wars and betrayal, just as we find in the words of Jesus. Wars seem to have been commonplace during this time. As Gary DeMar notes in his book, Last Days Madness, the Annuls of Tacitus addresses the periods of tumult in Germany, Africa, Thrace, Gaul, among the Parthians, in Britain, and Armenia (DeMar, p. 79). First century historian, Flavius Josephus, had no need to write full accounts of this multitude of wars, because so many Greek and Roman authors had already done so (The Wars of the Jews, 4:9:2).

Famine is a result of war, and with all the wars that were occurring during the first century it is no surprise that Jesus told his disciples about these famines:

7...and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. (Matthew 24:7b)

I believe the black horse and pale horse of Revelation fit the bill:

5And when he had opened the third seal, I heard the third beast say, Come and see. And I beheld, and lo a black horse; and he that sat upon him had a pair of balances in his hand. 6And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine. 7And when he had opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth beast say, Come and see. 8And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with the sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth. (Revelation 6:5-8)

Premillennial end times junkies seem to think that every earthquake that causes some kind of damage are somehow signs of the end. Jesus said these things would come to pass, but the end would not be yet (Matthew 24:6). Thus, earthquakes were simply minor signs, if you will. Jesus was claiming that they'd occur (they occur everyday), but he was not telling his disciples to see them as a sign of an imminent end of the age. The Bible does record three occurrences of earthquakes, two of which were pretty severe (Matthew 27:54; 28:2; Acts 16:26).

The famines are a bigger deal. Again, given the amount of turmoil during the first century, the famines were a natural result. Acts 11:27-29 is one such reference to these famines (cf. 1 Corinthians 16:1-5; Romans 15:25-28). I recommend reading what historians Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, and Eusebius have to say about the severity of these famines.

The last aspect of our analysis is the completion of the great commission:

14And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto the nations; and then shall the end come.

Jesus later commissioned his disciples to fulfill this:

19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the [age]. Amen. (Matthew 28:19-20)

Paul claimed that this was fulfilled, meaning the “end” was near during his lifetime:

23If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister; (Colossians 1:23)

Conclusion

The parallels between Matthew 24 and Revelation are not hard to pick out. As observed in the previous article (http://fulfilledfocus.blogspot.com/2013/02/understanding-matthew-24-setting-context.html), even Matthew 21-23 can be observed in the text of Revelation. Couple that with the contemporary fulfillment of these signs throughout multiple New Testament books, and we have for ourselves further evidence for the first century context of not only Matthew 24 (cf. Luke 21; Mark 13), but also Revelation. These parallels will continue to be connected in later articles. I pray this has been beneficial to you.

Blessings in Christ,

Jason Watt