Wormwood said:
As you are probably aware, Matthew has a very specific focus in his gospel for the Jewish people to recognize Jesus as the Messiah.
I agree that Matthew’s Gospel is directed primarily to a Jewish audience, hence his Gospel is riddled with references to the Law and the Prophets. And Luke’s Gospel is directed primarily to a Gentile audience who were not as familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures and thus Luke often words his Gospel in such a way as to explain otherwise obscure references to the Law and the Prophets. The way Luke (21:20) explains the “abomination of desolation” spoken of by Matthew (24:15) is a perfect example of the more interpretive style that Luke adopts for a Gentile audience. Matthew’s Gospel requires a bit more familiarity with the Old Testament to even recognize the many Old Testament references, let alone be familiar with their context and meaning.
But be that as it may, I’m afraid I can’t agree that the context of Matthew 16:27-28 is the encounter Jesus had with the Pharisees and Sadducees in Magdala. That town lay on the northwest shore of the Sea of Galilee. After that encounter Jesus and the disciples left Magdala and traveled up and around the northern end of the Sea of Galilee and then climbed up into the Golan Heights to the base of Mt. Hermon to the city of Caesarea Philippi, 25 miles north of the Sea. That was a long day’s hike, maybe even two since they were climbing, and they may have stopped along the way. It was at Caesarea Philippi that Jesus asked the disciples who they thought he was which led to Peter’s confession. But then Matthew says, “from that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how he must go unto Jerusalem,” so that seems to indicate that there was at least some time lapse between the discussion that led to Peter’s confession and the next event, which was Jesus telling his disciples that if they would follow him they must deny themselves and take up their cross. For whosoever would save his life would lose it, and whosoever would lose his life for Jesus’ sake would find it. For what did it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his own soul?
For the Son of man would come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he would reward every man according to his works. Truly Jesus said to them, There were some standing there, which would not taste of death, till they had seen the Son of man coming in his kingdom.”
So the only context here really is the disciples taking up their cross and following Jesus, even to the death. This was the same thing Jesus told them in Matthew 24, that “Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you.” So again, the context of this coming of Jesus, with all his holy angels, and rewarding every man (whatever all that might mean), was contextually connected with lives and martyrdom of these disciples.
And look at how Mark records this teaching of Jesus:
“For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words
in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen
the kingdom of God come with power.”
The way Mark records this teaching also applies this event to that “adulterous and sinful generation.” And instead of expressing the event as “the coming of Jesus,” notice it is expressed as “the kingdom of God coming with power,” which again, was a reference to the display of God’s power in the execution of judgment and destruction of Israel, which Jesus said was the “sign” of his coming.
Now granted, from our perspective the 2nd Advent of Jesus would certainly be the single most earth-shaking event we might live to see, but the Cross and Jesus’ conquest over sin and death and the coming of God’s Kingdom would in my estimation be ranked right up there as equally earth-shaking. But to the Jews of the 1st century, the total destruction of the Jewish nation and the Holy City and God’s Temple and the removing of everything God had provided for the Law’s observance would certainly qualify in their eyes as earthly-shaking. Such a thing had never entered their minds, they were convinced that the Messiah would establish an earthly, geo-political kingdom centered in Jerusalem and they, the Jews, would rule with Messiah over all the Gentile nations. So the very idea that Israel and the Holy City and God’s Temple would all be destroyed, that everything God had provided for the observance of the Law would all be taken away, I think we could safely say that was an earth-shaking event in the eyes of these Jewish disciples.
Indeed, in teaching on this very subject, Paul quotes an Old Testament prophecy about that very thing in his letter to the Hebrews: “See that ye refuse not him that speaketh, for if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven: Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven. And this word, Yet once more, signifies the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear.” Hebrews 12:25-28
Paul was speaking here of God “shaking” heaven and earth (saleuo-to shake down, overthrow; to cast down from one’s secure and happy state) in order to remove the earthly things of the Old Covenant (the Kingdom of Israel) so that the heavenly things of the New Covenant (the Kingdom of God) might remain. And that is the kingdom we have received, one that cannot be moved because it does not consist of things that are made but of things that are eternal thus will “remain” (meno-to continue to be, not to perish, to last, endure).
Now Paul derived this teaching in part from the messianic prophecy of Haggai that has given us the beautiful title for Jesus, “the desire of all nations.” I know you’re familiar with that term. It comes from this prophecy:
“For thus saith the Lord of hosts; Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land; And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the Lord of hosts … The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith the Lord of hosts: and in this place will I give peace.” Haggai 2:6-9
So this was a messianic prophecy about the 1st coming of Jesus and the establishing of God’s unmovable, eternal Kingdom and the removing of the old earthly types and shadows. And the terminology the Scripture uses for this is God “shaking heaven and earth,” which is why I used the term “earth-shaking” to refer to this judgment and destruction of Israel, the “removing of things made.”
But to complete this look at “the coming of the Lord in glory with his angels,” allow me to quote this same conversation the way Luke words it for Gentiles not familiar with all this Old Testament prophecy and typology:
“If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily … For whosoever will be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father’s, and of the holy angels. But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they
see the kingdom of God.” Luke 9:23-27
Notice the way that Luke expresses “the coming of Jesus in glory with his holy angels” in a very different context as “seeing the kingdom of God.”
So if we look at the whole testimony of what Jesus said, in all three Gospels that record it, perhaps we can agree that the phrase “the coming of Jesus in glory with his holy angels” might not necessarily refer to his 2nd physical Advent. All three Gospels taken together speak of the
display of power and glory of the coming of Jesus and of God’s Kingdom that was demonstrated in the shaking of heaven and earth and removing of the old Covenant with its earthly types and shadows so that the New Covenant with its heavenly fulfillment, which had already been established, might alone remain, which is how the earthly destruction of Israel in the Roman/Jewish war appears from a more … shall we say .. “behind the scenes” spiritual perspective, which I know to literalists can be a real problem, but there it is.
Wormwood said:
So this statement on "coming with power" is probably not focused on any one specific event that the disciples would witness, but likely entails the transfiguration, resurrection which foreshadows the second coming.
Or perhaps it does focus on a specific event that the disciples would witness which Jesus said would be the “sign” of his coming and his kingdom. But we have much more to discuss so hopefully things will begin to shake out and fall into place … (pun intended).
Wormwood said:
Matthew 25 has a very different context. Here, Jesus is specifically answering questions about the destruction of the Temple, his coming, and the end of the age.
I think it’s the exact same context, the 1st coming of Jesus and the kingdom in power and glory that would triumph over his enemies and destroy that sinful generation and remove the old so that the new alone might remain.
Wormwood said:
I don't think Im in disagreement with you regarding Paul's warnings.
Im not exactly sure what you are saying here.... I think Paul was simply focused on the second coming and being prepared for that day...as it was the most cataclysmic event possible. This is why I don't think his letter referencing the Man of Sin has anything to do with any isolated rebellion in Jerusalem or the destruction of the Temple.
But the fact that Paul speaks of a rebellion and the Man of sin sitting in the Temple in Jerusalem makes it difficult to my mind to dismiss the connection with the Temple and Jerusalem and the rebellion that led not only to its destruction but also to the damnation and destruction of the Man of sin and “all them that perished: because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved (rejected the Gospel of Jesus and God’s salvation that would have saved them from God’s wrath). And for this cause God sent them strong delusion that they should believe a lie: the Jewish people actually believed that if they took up the sword against Rome that God would be with them and would deliver them and by the sword they would usher in the messianic kingdom of their dreams (Simon Zealotes was a Zealot before Pentecost and Jesus told him point blank those who live by the sword would die by the sword).
After the war and the complete and utter ruin of the Jewish state and destruction of everything that pertained to Old Covenant worship, the Rabbis discussed and debated about what had happened. How could they have been so wrong about God’s will? And they finally determined that either A. Israel had sinned, or B. God was unjust. They concluded, and I believe rightly so, that Israel had sinned.
The only question that remains is … what was Israel’s sin?
I know it is easy for us Christians to jump to the conclusion that Israel’s sin was crucifying Jesus. And certainly slaying the Lord and killing his disciples that were sent to share with them the Gospel topped off the cup of blood that their fathers had filled with the blood of the prophets. But very simply, Israel’s sin was breaking covenant with God, violating his commandments, which they did, time and time again throughout their history. And time and time again God had punished them to correct them and bring them back to Him, but even God said, “why should I punish you anymore? You will not take correction!”
So the day came when there was no more time. God’s wrath was poured out on a sinful nation and they were utterly destroyed. That destruction was not limited to the Jews who dwelt in the land. There were as many Jews living in the Diaspora as there were living in the ancient homeland. They tended to dwell together in communities even within the cities and towns and during the war many, many Jews were killed by rampaging local citizens who ran riot in the Jewish communities and burned and pillaged and murdered Jews. It was their fathers and brothers and sons in the Roman army that the Jews were warring against. It was true what the Scriptures said, if God had not shortened those days there wouldn’t have been any Jews left. It was for the sake of the Christian Jews that those days were shortened.
Wormwood said:
I didn't say the Law was made void, but the Old Covenant. Two different things.
Not really. The covenant between God and Israel was that Israel would keep God’s Law.
Wormwood said:
Personally, I don't believe the Law will ever be made void. Jesus did not make void the law, even by his death and resurrection. Rather, he fulfilled the Law.
I agree that Jesus fulfilled the Law, every jot and tittle, including all those jots and tittles about the judgment of Israel if they transgressed the Law and broke covenant with God.
But the Law was not simply a moral code for men to aspire to live up to (however the legalists think they honor the Law by making it so). It was a means of reconciliation and fellowship between God and man, at the time the
only means of reconciliation and fellowship. Everyone who was not under the Mosaic Covenant was a stranger to God and foreigners to God's Kingdom. I spoke of the Law being made void in the sense that it can no longer provide reconciliation and fellowship between God and man. God Himself made sure of that by “removing” everything that He had provided for the Law’s Observance. Not because there was anything wrong with the law, but because the law was by its very nature a temporary means of reconciliation and fellowship with God (witnessed by the Law itself in that both the sacrifices for sin and those for fellowship had to be offered over and over and over, rivers of blood, oceans of water, mountains of flesh and grain, and still more were required). But the Law foreshadowed the permanent means of reconciliation and fellowship that is now available through the New Covenant and the blood of Jesus.
But perhaps rather than me saying the Law was made void, even in that sense, it would be better to say that the Law itself was “transfigured,” raised up to a spiritual Law (which by the way the two witnesses spoken of in Revelation 11 are the Law and the Prophets, who, after they “finished their testimony,” appeared to have been destroyed by Rome when all that pertained to the Law was destroyed, but in fact they were raised up and “translated” to heaven, which is symbolic language for the Law and the Prophets being “filled full” with spiritual life and application.
Not sure why the Scriptures use such strange and often fantastic language to describe all this, but then again, we’re looking at earthly events. The mystical shapes and forms in which these earthly events appear “behind the scenes” or “in heaven,” as John saw them, are simply not the same form or shape they take in the earth. I mean, come on, a red dragon literally falling out of the sky?
Wormwood said:
The Law was not the problem. It was the covenant that was the problem. The Old Covenant was incapable of providing the redemption the people of Israel sought because of the fault in the people.
I’m afraid I can’t agree with that. There was no “problem” with the Covenant, or with the Law it was based on. The Law did what it was supposed to do, provide a temporary means of “sanctifying to the purifying of the flesh” a people that they might be a fit vessel through whom God would bring His Salvation. Jesus was born of Israel according to the flesh, and in order for God to have a people whose flesh was fit to bear the Son of God, the Law was given to Israel to provide atonement and cleanse them of their sin. But that atonement and cleansing only cleansed their flesh (ergo all the ritual baths and hand washing and abstaining from eating or touching unclean things), it did nothing to cleanse the heart which is where sin originates.
But the Law was never meant to be the solution for sin and was never capable of cleansing the heart. It was a temporary means of making Israel a clean vessel to bear the Son of God.
It is the New Covenant, and the Gospel it is based on, that provides cleansing of the heart, or as Paul calls it “the conscience,” which is sprinkled and cleansed with the blood of Jesus, so that we might be a fit vessel for the Spirit of God to dwell in so that we might be able to have a personal relationship with the Living God so that our obedience comes from the indwelling presence of God purifying and cleansing our heart, which is where sin originates.
I know I’m getting in deep here, but I think you’ve already tread this ground so this isn’t strange or new ideas to you, but perhaps you might see all these pieces fit together in a new way?
Wormwood said:
Thus, Jesus established a new covenant by his blood.
Agreed. And I’ll save comments on that for another post.
Wormwood said:
Therefore, when he died and was raised, the old covenant was officially void as the new was put into place. Because it was made void..it was fading form the scene. That's the picture in Hebrews. The old merely foreshadowed the new and had fulfilled its purpose. It was made void in the past and therefore was dissipating.
If that is true, that the Old Covenant between God and Israel that was based on their obedience to the Law, and God’s blessings or judgment based on their obedience, if that was made void at Calvary, on what basis then did God judge and destroy Israel 40 years later?
Wormwood said:
(I understand about the long posts...I also have difficulty keeping things short at times. Especially about very detailed and interesting matters such as this one. I really appreciate the dialogue though. Compelling. :) )
It doesn’t help that I am so limited on my time that I try to cram as much as I can into each post. I don’t know from one day to the next when I’ll be able to get back here … and I dearly love talking over these things with the Lord’s people …
so please excuse my long-winded ramblings ...
The Grace of God in Christ be with you,
Pilgrimer