Category Archives: Matthew

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

January 15, 2013

Posted under

Eschatology, Matthew

Generation in Matthew 24:34

Every book of the Bible has difficult passages to interpret. Matthew is no exception. From the Sermon on the Mount, to the parables in chapter 13, to divorce in Chapter 19 (and 5), to eschatology in chapters 23-25 Matthew is demanding exegetically and pastorally.  I am finishing up my study of Matthew 19 and getting ready for the home stretch. Of course, eschatology comes the forefront in chapters 23-25, though it has been there from the beginning of Matthew. So this brings me to my study of the word generation in Matthew 24:34, which has been used by dispensational scholars to claim that Matthew 24 is not about the fall of Jerusalem, but is about Christ’s second coming.  Here is the fruit of my study of that word. 


Is it possible for the word “generation” in Matthew 24:34 to mean anything other than the generation that was living at the time of Christ?  Many pastors and New Testament scholars read Matthew 24 as a reference to the end of the world. All the references in Matthew 24:4-34 are assumed to refer to Christ’s second coming. However, verse 34 puts a wrench in this particular timeline.  Does the Bible give us the freedom to interpret the passage this way?
            To answer this question I have put down every passage in Matthew that uses the word generation.  Does Matthew ever use the word generation to mean anything other than the current generation? Here are the uses of generation in Matthew:
(Mat 1:17)  So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations.
(Mat 11:16)  “But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling to their playmates,
(Mat 12:39)  But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.
(Mat 12:41)  The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generationand condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.
(Mat 12:42)  The queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with this generationand condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something greater than Solomon is here.
(Mat 12:45)  Then it goes and brings with it seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and dwell there, and the last state of that person is worse than the first. So also will it be with this evil generation.”
(Mat 16:4)  An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” So he left them and departed.
(Mat 17:17)  And Jesus answered, “O faithless and twisted generation, how long am I to be with you? How long am I to bear with you? Bring him here to me.”
(Mat 23:36)  Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
(Mat 24:34)  Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.
Here are four reasons why generation in Matthew 24:34 means the people standing in front of Jesus and not the Jewish race as a whole or some future generation thousands of years away. 

First, every time generation is used in Matthew (expect 1:17) it is in the context of judgment.  Christ is clear that this generation will be judged. They will be judged for asking for a sign. They will be judged for refusing Jesus and John. They will be judged for being faithless.  If 24:34 is a promise that Israel will never pass away it is at odds with almost every other use of generation in Matthew.

Second,  Matthew 16:4 gives a specific time frame for this generation.  They will get a sign; the resurrection.  At least in 16:4, it is not referring to some future generation thousands of years away. It is referring to the generation who will see the resurrection. 

Third, generation always refers to a particular group of people at a particular time. Even in 1:17 it is talking about generations of men. It never refers to the Jewish race as a whole. The idea that generation in Matthew 24:34 means the Jewish race is without biblical and linguistic support.

Fourth, Matthew 23 is a clear condemnation of the current generation that rejected Christ and his teaching. Matthew 23:36 is a reference to the people standing right in front of Jesus. The unfaithful Jews of that day will be judged. They are whitewashed tombs. The reference to Jerusalem in 23:37 makes this even clearer.  It is hard to see how in 24:36 in the exact same context Jesus uses the exact same phrase, yet now it means the Jewish race will never perish. 
Standard

Posted by

Posted on

October 3, 2012

Posted under

Matthew, The Church

And the Gates of Hell Shall not Prevail Against Her

Matthew 16:18b and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 
          
The promise here is a simple one, but one that should give us great courage. Death, sin, Satan, and all the powers of darkness will not overcome God’s people. Why? This is Jesus’ Church. He will overcome all and so his people will overcome all. The human heart is so easily gripped by fear that Christ must constantly remind us that he is in charge. He is the one with authority.  We are weak and the powers of Hell so mighty. The forces of darkness rally against us. We rarely hold positions of power and authority in the world. Governments clamp down on us and burn Bibles. Churches are destroyed and Christians killed around the world. Hollywood actively opposes the Christian faith with billions of dollars with of movies and TV shows every year. Christianity is bad mouthed by the media. Wolves are within the fold. Wolves are outside the fold. Yet somehow the Church marches on. Somehow civilizations fall, yet we do not. Somehow Rome, France, Spain, England, and now America fade into the sunset, but the Church marches on. She preaches and prays and worships and gives alms. She meets in huts and store fronts and houses and cathedrals.  She tells her people to turn the other cheek and to live peaceably with all men and to lead a quiet and peaceful life and to deny yourself. Yet she conquers all. Nations like Russia try to stamp her out and fail miserably. Jesus cannot lose. Hell doesn’t have a chance.  I think this is why Christians like to read and write stories about underdogs. For example, we love Lord of the Rings. A small Hobbit with hairy feet saves the world. I am reading a story now to the boys about an assistant pig keeper who is fighting against the forces of evil.  Christians feel these types of stories are true to the real story, the story of Christ the carpenter’s son and all his losers who conquer the world. 
(Excerpt from my sermon this past Sunday.)
Standard

Posted by

Posted on

September 20, 2012

Posted under

Matthew, Roman Catholicism

Why Peter Wasn’t the First Pope

            I am about to preach on Matthew 16:13-20. This is Peter’s great confession of Christ and Christ’s famous words that he will build his church upon this rock.  There are numerous questions that cluster around this passage. But one that often comes up is does the passage teach that Peter is the first Pope?  I think the rock in Matthew 16:18 could be Peter. It could also be Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Messiah. R.T. France in New International Commentary on the New Testament says that the rock is Peter. Robert Reymond in his A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith also says it is possible that the rock is Peter. But neither man believes this proves the pope or the papacy. In other words, the exegesis of Matthew 16:18 does not determine whether or not Peter was the first pope. The entire NT must be taken into account. Just because Peter is given a place of privilege in Matthew 16:18 does not mean that Jesus was establishing the papacy.
            I am not exactly sure how the Roman Catholics developed their doctrine of the papacy. I know there is a lot debate about the historical details. I am also sure that the doctrine in 2012 is different than what it was in 1012.  I will focus on the doctrine as it is taught today. Robert Reymond gives a summary of the doctrine on pages 813-814 of his systematic theology: the rock in Matthew 16:18 must refer to Peter only; Peter’s apostolic authority could be, indeed must be, passed on to his successors, but the authority of the other apostles could not be passed on; Peter’s authority was to extend to his successors for the entire age until Christ returns; the power of the papacy was limited exclusively and forever to the bishop over the city of Rome. He also mentions on p. 815 that the papacy is supposed to guarantee the purity and continuity of the gospel and is supposed to be infallible.
            My main concern in this short post is does the New Testament teach that Peter was the first pope or does the NT present a doctrine of the papacy. Here are the reasons I believe the doctrine of the papacy and Peter as the first pope are unbiblical.
1.      Peter does not see himself as a pope or even a pope like figure. In his sermons and actions in Acts and in his letters there is no indication that he sees himself as having superiority to other apostles. Note especially I Peter 5:1 where he says he is a fellow elder.

2.      No other New Testament writer sees him as a pope or a pope like figure.  In Matthew 18:1 the disciples are trying to figure out who is the greatest in the Kingdom. This is a strange argument if in Matthew 16 Jesus declared Peter the first pope. Luke spends a good bit of time on Peter in Acts, but he fades from view after chapter 15. In Acts 15, Peter speaks, but so do Paul and Barnabas, and it appears that James presides over the meeting and makes the decisive speech. In Galatians 2:9 James, Peter, and John are all listed as pillars of the church. Nowhere in the NT do writers give Peter authority above the other apostles. In fact, after Acts 15 Peter is only mentioned by Paul who rebukes him.


3.      Peter is clearly portrayed as a sinner and maybe the chief of sinners in the New Testament. At the very least this casts doubt on papal infallibility. There are at least four major sins by him mentioned in the New Testament. His rebuke of Jesus in Matthew 16:22-23. His making Jesus equal to Elijah and Moses at the Transfiguration in Matthew 17:4. His denial of Jesus mentioned in Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, and John 18. It is interesting that all four Gospels record his denial. Finally, he is rebuked by Paul in Galatians for refusing table fellowship to Gentiles. This last one is especially striking since it is clear that Paul was right and Peter was wrong.

4.      In Acts 8:14 Peter and John are sent by the church at Jerusalem to investigate what God was doing in Samaria. Again who sends a pope anywhere? Isn’t it the pope who should be sending?

5.      In Acts 11:1-2 Peter is questioned by “the apostles and brethren in Judea.” Again this is odd if he was a pope like figure who was supposed to represent Christ on earth.

6.      There is no New Testament doctrine of succession. We do not see Peter passing on or being told to pass on his special status to anyone else. In fact the main examples we have of laying on of hands does not involve Peter at all. (Acts 13:3, 19:6, I Timothy 5:22, II Timothy 1:6; Acts 8:17 is the exception.) There is no NT doctrine of apostolic succession from Peter to someone else.

7.      The Roman Catholic Church does not just claim that Peter is the first pope, but that the pope must rule from Rome. Peter and Rome are supposed to be absolutely linked and both have primacy. If this is true why does Paul never refer to Peter as having anything to do with Rome? This is strange considering that Rome plays an increasingly important role in the NT, but Peter does not.  Paul wrote his final letter, II Timothy, from Rome and makes no mention of Peter at all. How can this be if Peter was the main bishop over Rome and was supposed to be the head of the visible church? In fact in II Timothy 4:9-16 Paul mentions that everyone has abandoned him while he is imprisoned in Rome. Where is Peter in all this?

8.      Matthew, Mark, and Luke all record that Peter had a mother-in-law, which means he also had a wife (Matthew 8:14, Mark 1:30, and Luke 4:38).  This fact does not destroy the idea of a pope, but it certainly destroys the idea that the pope must be celibate.

            The cumulative New Testament evidence is against Peter being first pope or even anything like a pope figure. He had an important task as the leader of the apostles and as the one who first preached Jesus in Acts. He has a privileged position in the New Testament and especially in the Gospels. But those facts do not prove anything like the Roman Catholic papacy. 
Standard

Posted by

Posted on

August 14, 2012

Posted under

John Calvin, Matthew

What are Birthdays For?

The ancient custom of observing a birthday every year as an occasion of joy cannot in itself be disapproved; for that day, as often as it returns, reminds each of us to give thanks to God, who brought us into this world, and has permitted us, in his kindness, to spend many years in it; next, to bring to our recollection how improperly and uselessly the time which God granted to us has been permitted to pass away; and, lastly, that we ought to commit ourselves to the protection of the same God for the remainder of our life. (John Calvin on Herod’s birthday party in Matthew 14:1-12)

Not sure Hallmark would put this on a birthday card, especially Calvin’s second point about wasting so much time. 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

August 9, 2012

Posted under

John Calvin, Matthew

What is Better than the Whole World?

“The first of these two parables are intended to instruct believers to prefer the Kingdom of Heaven to the whole world, and therefore to deny themselves and all the desires of the flesh, that nothing may prevent them from obtaining so valuable a possession.” (John Calvin on the Parable of the Treasure, Matthew 13:44)