Panel Discussion

Eschatology as a Preterist Reading of Matthew 24

So let's just continue our relaxed conversation about eschatology. And I'm glad, John, that you joined us because you are going to be the question asker, I guess. You and Jonathan, we're gonna be the question askers and that's beneficial to having this conversation.

So before anybody jumps in, before you start asking any questions, I thought that I would kind of start where I was or where I am now. I know Jonathan, I heard Jonathan make the comment about centralizing or basing our eschatology maybe on one part of it or one verse.

And I kind of resemble that remark in a way because when I began to look at Matthew chapter 24, and which I would like for us to do, if we don't do anything else, Dan and Jeff, I think it would be beneficial in at least this conversation to give us some direction and kind of stay in one place to kind of look at Matthew 24, starting at the beginning.

But I began to look at Matthew 24 and you know how you have a lot of evangelists that will make the comment or make the claim. They'll say, Jesus is either liar, lunatic or Lord. And you need to decide which side of the fence that you're on.

You need to make sure that you're on the right side of the fence in that decision. And I think the same thing is similar in this discussion. I look at Matthew 24 and not just verse 34, but you start in verse 33.

And he says, I'm speaking to you, I'm to you, I'm speaking to you. And he repeats you several times. And it just, to me makes it so clear who his audience is. And then he goes to Matthew 24, 34, all of these things must take place before this generation passes.

And so if he is speaking to that generation and he's referring to all those things that he just spoke about, then he's either a liar, lunatic or Lord. And it happened within that timeframe of the first century.

And then everything else, Revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel, everything else has got to fall into place of interpreting the New Testament prophecy in light of the new and understanding it in light of Jesus' conversation in Matthew chapter 24.

Does that make sense?

Yeah, so this would be more of a preterist conversation in my opinion, versus post-millennialism. Which I don't know where, am I the only post-millennial partial preterist or I don't know where everybody's stand.

You post, okay. And so to me, this is

I do kind of understand where Rush Duney is coming from with his idealism, but for the most part, I understand the partial preterist position to be accurate.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, so Rush Duney kind of, like I'm a post-millennial, but I'm not a theonomist. So yeah, I'm a weird basket up here, man. And, but yeah, so I would say that I'm heavy when it comes to preterism. And this right here just seems to be a preterist text.

I mean, the discourse starts in Matthew 21. So that's the context is Matthew 21 on a 25. And so like, if you want the big picture of it, but if there's any kind of little questions within that, I mean, I'm willing to throw my hat in the ring and answer the questions.

I have a question.

What's a theonomist?

A theonomist is someone who wants to bring over the Mosaic law. I'll call it the Mosaic law, but so theonomist, so thee, theist, God, onomist is law. So some would say you're either a theonomist, which is you're for God's law, or you're an autonomous, which is for man's law.

I like to call myself a Christonomist. I believe that we look at the law in light of the work of Christ, what Christ has done. And so I hold to the three uses of the law whenever I handle the law. Which I don't wanna, because I'm just gonna be doing a message on it in about four to five weeks.

I don't wanna give away a whole lot of my message. Hopefully y 'all watch it. And, but that's just the gist of it. So when I read my Bible and it says, and I'm dealing with the Mosaic law, or I'm dealing with law and gospel distinction, I'm looking at it in light of the fulfillment of Christ and what he has said.

Because like you got Matthew chapter five, where it says that he didn't come to abolish the law. Then you got Ephesians chapter two, where it says that Christ abolished the law. And so we have to figure out, well, what part are these two speaking of?

I've always looked at Christ as a fulfillment of the law.

Yeah, so that would be my stance. As a post-mill, I believe that. So, well, I'm also, you know, I hosted a Baptist covenant theology and I'm sure if he's Presbyterian, he hosts covenant theology. He would agree with me here that Adam was given the covenant of works and Adam failed to keep the covenant of works.

But he, if, scare quotes, he would have kept that covenant, he would have earned eternal life for himself and for his posterity. The Jews were given the law, but the Galatians chapter three says that the law was added to the covenant because of transgressions.

So the Jews were given the law and it was to live in the land, keep this law and live in the land. So as a post-mill, I see this as Jesus leaves his throne, he becomes a man, he takes on flesh, the hypostatic union, truly God, truly man, and he lives the life I could not live and he dies the death that I should die.

And living this life, he kept the covenant, the covenant of works. The covenant of grace is the covenant of works fulfilled. He kept the covenant of works and by doing so, he earned eternal life for all those who believe in him.

If you put your faith in Christ, you have right now, present tense, eternal life. He kept the law, he kept the covenant that Adam could not keep. And that's where the law, the law promises were earthly land promises.

He kept the law and in doing so, not only did he earn the land, but he earned the entire world. The meek shall inherit the earth. Okay, now that's post-mill right there, baby.

I think I understand. I thought there's some other questions I'd have involved in that that don't have anything to do with eschatology. So I'll table those until another time. Is that fair?

Yeah.

Yeah, man.

That's fantastic. Did you have any discrepancies with coming from a different perspective?

Well, I suppose I've always considered man's, the final state that a Christian would find herself in was God's original plan. And ultimately I look at the relationship God had with Adam in the garden is, I mean, obviously it was one that wasn't perfect.

Because Adam failed.

I mean, obviously there was room for man's mistakes. Whereas our final condition being justified in Christ, being identified with this in Christ, where there is no mistake, where there is no sin, where there is no shade of turning is God's original intention from the beginning.

And so that when I hear of the law, I think of a lot of like what Paul talks about in Romans. I've always looked, and in Galatians we look at the law as a means to point people to the cross always as a means to taking people to Christ.

In other words, without a law, there's no power in sin. There's no condemnation in sin if there's no law, if there's no transgression.

Does that make sense?

There's not something to break. Then it goes fast as you want to down the highway if there's no law to break. As soon as there's a law comes up, there's a limit. Then there's transgression, there's an area of transgression.

That's why Paul says that we don't get rid of the law, rather the law is established because he wouldn't have known sin if it hadn't been for the law. I'm flaking on you as far as which scripture that is.

I want to say it's in Romans 6, where it says that we establish it. And I'm not saying that you establish the law as a means of earning anything, but rather without the law, then we can't ever point somebody to the cross because there would be no error.

There'd be no reason for it. You wouldn't be able to point men to their need of a savior, in other words.

Yeah, so have you ever heard of the... There's two things. There's the three distinctions of the law, and then there's the three uses of the law.

I don't think I have.

So the three distinctions of the law would be moral, civil, and ceremonial, okay?

Well, I have heard of that. The civil law, the ceremonial law, and the moral law, yeah.

So if you could picture a spout, like just, I'm trying to figure out this camera angle. So if you could picture a spout, and the spout is the moral law, and as the law comes out of the spout, it separates into two.

One is civil, and one is ceremonial. The Ten Commandments, the Decalogue, is broken down in civil and ceremonial. The first four point to our duty to God. This is ceremonial. And the last six points to our duty to neighbor.

And Jesus kept this law. He loved his father with all of his heart, with all of his mind, with all of his strength. And in doing so, he kept the ceremonial law. He loved his neighbor with all of his heart, all right?

But even though he loved God, he still became the ceremonial sacrifice, the lamb that was slaughtered before the foundation of the world. John says, look, behold, the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.

So he became that sacrifice. As the high priest, he made that sacrifice. And even though he loved his neighbor with all of his heart, he stood in our stead and took our punishment. Now, with that in mind, you go to the three uses of the law.

So depending if you're Reformed, Baptist, I don't know how the Presbyterians would organize it, but I would do it a little different than the Lutherans. So the first use and the second use can be interchangeable.

So I would say the first use of the law is, let me see if I can find it here. Yeah, so the first use of the law, I would call it gospel. It's from Adam to Christ. I use the law to show people's deadness and sin and to bring them to Christ by preaching the gospel.

The second use of the law is more civil. It's kind of like if you put a bridle around a horse, you're able to ride this horse and steer him in the direction that you wanna go. The second use of the law in this way is used to restrain man from evil.

We look at the law, we look at God's law, we see that God says it's not good to murder, and we say, okay, it's not good to murder, we're not gonna murder. So it kind of restrains us from evil. And the third use of the law is what I was highlighting a minute ago, and it's about obedience.

But in this, we use Christ as a flashlight. And so when we use him as a flashlight, the law becomes useful for Christian living. We look at the law in light of what Christ has already done, and we apply basically general equity.

Does that make sense?

Yeah, I'm gonna say yes.

There's a lot there, like there's like 10 sermons right there.

At least.

Jeff, are you close to, I know Jeff Durbin has been preaching a lot on this. Is what you described close to where Jeff Durbin is?

I think Jeff would be more of a Bonson theonomist than me. So I'm all about general equity. I am not about establishing the Mosaic law in America or anywhere else. And it's not that I don't love God's law, but I know that if the Mosaic law was established when I was 10, for our country to enforce, I would not be here tonight talking with you.

I would have been put to death. All right, and I think if we're honest, we all probably would have been put to death.

Oh, yeah.

And that means our kids are gonna be put to death if we establish the law.

Yeah, well, the reason why I ask is because I use the term general equity, and when I listen to his sermons on it, that's the description that he gives and the explanation that he gives.

Well, the form of 1689, and I say this with all due respect, I love Jeff. He is more 20th century, or I think it's what it's called when it comes to 1689. I am a 1689 Federalist. And so his view of the covenant theology would line up very well with Presbyterianism, with just baptism kind of stamped on it, like a little Band-Aid added to it.

And the 1689 version of covenant theology is totally different, and it's probably the only one that can meet up with Presbyterianism in an alley and have a good fight, you know?

Mm-hmm, you got it right.

And just for clarification, when you say 1689, you're talking about deriving from the 1689 London Baptist Confession.

Yeah, so like the framers of the 1689, the original framers, they had a covenant theology because the first London Baptist was a good confession, but they had not worked out their covenant theology. Mm-hmm.

And so, which the 1689 should have been printed in 1677, but there was a lot of persecution at the time. But in this, they actually worked through their covenant theology. And if you ask me, it's really good, man.

And I can't wait to teach on it in a couple of weeks.

Awesome.

Well, if you don't mind, if I could get us back on track, but I mean, I'd love to continue on that subject as well. But back on Matthew 24, to me, I think it's a good place to start. It's where I started.

And you were talking about preterists versus being post-meal. And for me, I had to become a preterist before post-meal, or at least it kind of bled together and came in at the same time. So, how do you feel about walking through Matthew 24?

And we don't have to, I don't know, that would take a really long time if we

Yeah, it would take a long time if he was to go through and cross-reference everything.

Right.

I'm happy, I'm sure other people that are here that are preterists would happy to answer some questions. If you have some specific questions, or I can give you like just a quick rundown. I mean, I don't know, I don't wanna steal anyone's time or anything like that.

Let me start off, and John, you can throw in some of your questions as well. If you start at the beginning of Matthew 24, I've got this question before. So, looking at verse three, of course, the context is Jesus and his disciples.

Jesus is speaking with his disciples and addressing them, and they're asking him questions. Verse three says, and as he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately saying, tell us, when will these things be?

And what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age? Now, what was presented to me was, yeah, but they're asking him three different questions. Yeah, but they're asking him three different questions.

Like, they couldn't wrap their mind around the fact that once you get to 33 and 34, he's including all three questions. How would you answer somebody who is still trying to look at the fulfillment of some of these questions in the future and the distinction that there's three different questions and show them that Jesus actually addresses all three questions here in Matthew 24?

Well, personally, I would go to Matthew 23. And here you have the seven or eight woes depending on your translation. Right here in verse, let me see. Let's just start at 33. It says, you serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape from being sentenced to hell?

Therefore, I send you prophets and wise men and scribes and some whom you will kill and crucify and some you will fall in the synagogues and persecute from town to town so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth.

From the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zachariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. And right here, truly, truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation, this generation being the near demonstrative.

The generation here is the Greek word, Gania. Verse 37, O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who were sent to it. And again, this is alluring to some stories, some parables told in Matthew 21.

How often I would have gathered your children together as a hen gathered her brood under her wings and you were not willing. Right here, see, your house is left to you desolate. When something is desolate, you figure this out in Daniel 9, it means that the city is surrounded and the temple is destroyed.

For I tell you that you will not see me again until you say, blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. So that's the context. Jesus leaves the temple and he points out these great buildings and then his disciples asked him no questions.

They asked him these questions because he said to them, your house is left to you desolate. Speaking of the temple. So Jesus leaves the temple and as he's going away, when his disciples came and pointed out to him the buildings of the temple, meaning you mean all this is gonna be destroyed?

You're saying that this is gonna be desolate? But he answered them, you see all these things, do you not? Truly I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another and they won't be thrown down.

And now when you get to those questions, it says, and as he sat on the Mount of Olives, his disciples came to him privately saying, tell us when will these things be? Okay, so that's one question. What will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?

Now, do you find it weird that they're asking him what will be the sign of your coming when he's standing right there before them? He's already there. Why are they asking him about a coming? Because they're not, this coming to them is not him coming in their presence.

He's already there. This is a triumphant coming and judgment. Your house is going to be left to you desolate. This is a judgment language. This is not him physically coming, he's physically standing before them.

Like a lot of people, they don't see that. He's in their presence. Are you following me? Like he's in their presence. Like if you were over here at my house and we're talking in the sound of nowhere, I'd say, so when are you coming?

Yeah, one of the things, I'll admit I've never, I've probably never dug into these few verses quite this hard. One of the things that I see in verse 39 of 23.

39 of 23?

Mm-hmm, where I tell you, you'll never see me again until you say, blessed is he who comes in the name.

Of the Lord.

Do you suppose they're asking a question, assuming that he's going to be leaving? You dig what I'm saying there? Well, I'm telling them, Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city who kills the prophets, stones those who were sent to her.

How often I wanted to gather your children together as hands gather her chicks under her wings, yet you are not willing. See your houses left desolate, for I tell you, you will never see me again until you say, which to him say, you'll never see me again.

If I were to say, you're not going to see me again, obviously I'll have to be in front of you to make that statement, to tell that to you. And then it would, to me, the assumption would be to everyone who heard that, I'm going to go.

Yeah.

And then he says, I'll tell you, you'll never see me again until you say, blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Do you suppose that maybe some of the language used in verse or chapter 24, when he says, when they ask what will be a sign of your coming, you think that that's in any way related to what he's already said to them prior to the end of 23?

Well, personally, right here, his indictment has been to the Pharisees. This is a personal indictment to the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the scribes. Start back in chapter 21, or even right here, it says, woe to you, scribes, Pharisees, you hypocrites.

So he's not generally talking to his disciples. And so what I believe here, where he talks about blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, is that this is speaking salvificly. If you do not call upon the name of the Lord, you will never see Christ.

For all who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. So I think this is speaking of it, unless, because even these hypocrites, these Pharisees and scribes, if they were to call upon the name of the Lord, they would be saved.

Jesus would save them from the wrath of God. Because I think it's in chapter 21, they did say like the crowd screamed, Hosanna, blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. So I don't think it's necessarily pointing back to that triumphant entrance, as much as I do as this being salvific.

The only way anyone can be saved from this coming wrath is if they call upon him as Lord. And which I could show you in Joel and Isaiah chapter 13, Joel chapter two and Isaiah chapter 13. If y 'all wanted to go there, how this lines up with them calling on him as Lord.

Then I'd look for you to chime in with, if you have anything.

I'm processing.

Yes, I believe that it is three questions, but I think the three questions are, they're not speaking about three different events. I think it's speaking about the same thing. So when will these things be is talking about the destruction of the temple and what will be the sign of your coming is him coming in judgment to destroy the temple and the end of the age.

Hebrews chapter nine makes it clear that the temple, the temple is, the then standing temple was symbolic for the present age. We can go there if y 'all want to. The temple that was standing, it says that it is symbolic for the present age.

No more temple, that age has ended. And so, and all that took place in one event. So it is three questions, but it's speaking about the one event whenever he is going to come and destroy the temple. And again, if y 'all want to go to these cross references, I'm happy to do it.

We got Isaiah 13.

I was still looking at the end of 39 because my Bible cross references it back to Psalm 18 or Psalm 118.

Psalm, okay.

And I was trying to, I was trying to get my mind wrapped around because I want to catch it in context and I don't have a whole lot of computing capacity between my ears. So I was trying to make sure before I brought it up that it cracked right with Matthew because for me, if I'm not careful, if I start going back and forth and I can take something out of context, especially if I'm looking for it in the wrong light, and I don't want to do that.

Amen.

I trust that y 'all hold me accountable when I do that. So he's lamenting over Jerusalem. And then he says, for I tell you, you'll never see me again until you say, blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.

And my Bible takes me to Psalm 118, verse 26 is where he's according to the composers of this Bible or the footnotes of this Bible. So I go back to Psalm 118 and it's a Thanksgiving or Thanksgiving for victory Psalm.

It's the one that starts out, I'll give thanks to the Lord for he is good and faithful and loving and endures forever. And 26 explicitly is the one that it says where Jesus quoting from, which says blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord for the house of the Lord.

We bless you, the Lord. And then 27 says, the Lord is God and has given us, give us by the festival sacrifice for you are my God and I will give you thanks. So to your credit to me, and I just skimmed it.

I didn't read it all just to find out how it fit. But in theory, I can understand where one can say, blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord can be a salvific in that sense with this Psalm. But it tracks funny because he's lamenting and this Psalm is a Thanksgiving Psalm.

Yeah.

You see what I'm saying?

Yeah.

And I would also add that not all cross references, like, you know, cross references are good, but they can be not so good too.

That's why I was, I was trying, I was hesitant to even say it because without spending time, I mean, it's just five minutes is all I was looking at it. I don't know that I would have brought that up, but I didn't know if one of the cross surfaces you was going to make was going to have some Psalms in it.

I just think it is interesting that when you brought up, blessed is he who asks the Lord to save him and blessed is he who calls the name of the Lord being salivifically. And then, and my Bible having that in bold typically means this is a prophecy fulfilled or it is a call from an Old Testament scripture.

I'll usually look for that where I can find that at.

Yeah.

Yeah, so I'm not saying that it's not from Psalm 118. I haven't really dug into Psalm 118. I mean, my, I have it in here too. And I'm sure that there's some, some gleaming to do. So my point of reference would be to, to only be pointing to judgment passages or passages that is concerning this day.

Like I believe Joel chapter two, that's quoted from the Apostle Peter and Acts chapter two.

Yeah.

And at the very end of it, well, I mean, I know that y 'all know this, the Psalm and it shall come to pass afterwards. I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh. Your sons and daughters shall prophesy.

Your old men shall dream dreams and your young men shall see visions. Even on the males and female servants in those days, I will pour out my spirit and I will show wonders in the heavens and the earth, blood and fire and columns of smoke.

The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before that great and awesome day of the Lord comes. And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Now that's where Acts stops the quotation, but here's the rest of the verse. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, there shall be those who escape as the Lord has said. And among the survivors, those whom the Lord calls.

So this is speaking about a coming judgment. When he's quoting this, it's speaking about a coming judgment that is coming upon Jerusalem. And whenever we get over further and Matthew, I'll explain to you the sun, moon and stars being darkened.

Okay.

And Matthew 24, excuse me, 24, 29. And after those days, the sun will be dark and the moon will not give us light and the stars will fall from heaven. That has to do with this Joel chapter two, two. Very clearly explained, it's not what you think.

I'm sorry if I'm not explaining this adequately.

No, no, no, you're fine. Like I said, I try to think before I talk. I don't always do that, but I try to.

I really think that was good insight and good question from you, John. And I think that was a good explanation. At least somebody who's dissenting can say, I see where you're coming from. Uh, Dan, you just jump in there anytime.

Excuse me one second, I gotta grab something.

Okay.

It actually makes a lot of sense that this would be coming from Psalm 118. Psalm 113 through Psalm 118 are the Psalms of ascent where Psalms are sung by the people of Israel while they're going up to those three main days in the Old Testament.

Booths and, man, my brain is escaping me. All of those three feast days pointed to the time of atonement that was fulfilled in Christ. So when you look at, when he says Jerusalem, Jerusalem who killed the prophets and stoned those sent to her, you see the history of Israel as a people who were rejecting the message of the prophets, you know, trusting Messiah that's to come, trusting Messiah that's to come.

And then here he says from Psalm 118, blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. You know, you won't see me again until that happens. So what you find is you find something that is salvific in nature, but it's kind of seated in a time of judgment.

So there's a people who are being judged for their unbelief of the message of the gospel that was given to them at their time, which is why Jesus later on in verse 24, verse two says, do you not see all these things?

I tell you, truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down. He's talking about the destruction of the temple, that Old Testament system that was rejected.

Well, the gospel that was preached through that Old Testament system was rejected by the Jews. And yet there was salvation that came because Christ was coming to shed his own blood on the cross for the sins of men.

So all of this was happening at one time. There was a people who rejected the old covenant message. And then there was a people who were being saved by trusting in what that old covenant actually pointed to, which was Christ and his death upon the cross, his resurrection, his atonement for sins.

Does that kind of make sense?

Yes, I understand where you're coming from.

Okay.

If you want to, John, if you have any more questions, anytime you have a question, just jump right in there, ask a question. If there's any more references from Jeff that you wanted to give us.

I mean, I'm trying, I think we've actually explained verse three.

Okay.

I mean, to the best of our ability, I mean.

Right. That's fine.

I was cross-referencing, when you said Joel was cross-referencing, was cross-referencing. Verse 29 back to Joel of chapter 24?

Well, so I wasn't saying that it was cross-referencing. I was just pointing to a time that we can understand that the house was left to them desolate. So Joel is speaking about a time of judgment and when the house is taken down and the blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord of how at that moment was the time where they could call upon the name of the Lord.

And at that moment, the Lord saved whom he called. Does that make sense?

Yeah, that makes sense.

Yeah.

There was another one back to Isaiah and I was trying to read and see, but again, I don't think that it pies well. I'm not actually certain.

Isaiah what?

13.

Yeah, Isaiah 13 speaks, I don't have it there, but it's speaking about the judgment upon, well, it's the oracle to Babylon.

That's right.

For taking Israel company. Now, I really don't wanna answer that question until we get into verse 29 of Matthew 24.