By Angus Harley

It has been necessary in the previous articles to unpeel and critique the various theological layers of postmillennial-preterism (PP). For it is impossible, quite frankly, to understand where this viewpoint is coming from without knowing the complicated theological framework in which it operates. It is, from one perspective, exegetically sound, in that it captures the contemporaneity factor of Matthew 24. Yet, it overstresses this element, and thereby falls into the same millennial trap of other millennial views that stress the ‘when’ of the coming of Jesus, drawing our attention to a Jewish-centric model, and that make tenuous connections to a millennial order and to the book of Revelation.

Having laid this theological foundation, we can now move onto Matthew itself, for it is, of course, required we anchor Matthew 24-25 in its context in Matthew’s Gospel. This article will look at the transitional nature of the kingdom-Gospel in Matthew.

THE TRANSITIONAL NATURE OF MATTHEW’S KINGDOM-GOSPEL

To interpret any Gospel is to understand its transitional nature. For God was tearing the kingdom from the Jews (21:43). This reminds us of various OT passages that refer to ancient Israel’s past, when it was split in two, or the kingdom was torn from a king (e.g., 1 Sam.15:28; 1 Kg.11:11-13). The Jews were famously a “ “kingdom of priests and a holy nation” ” (Exo.19:6). Except, Israel of the OT had for centuries disobeyed Yahweh and his covenant (the Old Covenant). The Latter Prophets of the OT predicted that there would be, therefore, a New Covenant and a new ‘Israel’ of God, one who would know Yahweh intimately, have his law in their hearts, and who would all have their sins forgiven, completely unlike the Old Covenant and its ‘Israel’ and ‘Law’, Jeremiah said (Jer.31:31-34). So, by Jesus’ day, Israel had already been locked into a state of permanent spiritual exile from God for centuries, within the land of Israel, urgently requiring the entrance of the New Covenant, its Christ, and its Good News.

The Kingdom-Gospel in an Old Covenant/OT Setting

On notice

By the arrival of, first, John the Baptist (3:1-12), then the One he prophesied about, Jesus (3:12-17), old Israel, living as it was within an Old Covenant setting, was immediately put on notice. The kingdom was on the move from an earthly, Jewish, Old Covenant, setting to a completely New Covenant one, a Christ-kingdom one. Matthew’s Gospel is a giant record of how the kingdom-Gospel is laid down, the New Covenant message set forth, and the Old Covenant is laid aside. It was now time for Israel to repent of its disobedience to God, and the moment for it to accept the Good News of the Christ-kingdom, the kingdom of heaven.

Latter Prophets’ literalism

The Jews in general anticipated the coming Messiah. Yet, their understanding of that Messiah and his role was governed entirely by, what was essentially, an external view of religion reflective of the Old Covenant model. The Jews looked particularly to the Latter Prophets of the Old Testament and to their theology of restoration in the land. So, the Jews were anticipating a this-world kingdom emanating from Jerusalem where the Davidic son will reign, and in which the new temple of Ezekiel will be built; they also looked forward to Israel and its twelve tribes reconstituted throughout the land of Israel (Eze.40ff.). In this way, to the Jews, the New Covenant to come was a super-spiritual version of the similar, external, in-this-world, material and physical, Old Covenant.

These prophecies were at first understood as to be fulfilled by Israel’s return from exile in Babylon, for it would usher in the Messianic age. Of course, as time passed, this did not turn out to be so. For that reason, the Latter Prophets began to take on, to the Jews, a different prophetic hue, one that remained in expectation of fulfillment. For they saw that any literal details of the Latter Prophets that were fulfilled, such as the return from Babylon, the building of a real temple, now had a far, far greater prophetic meaning than they first understood. As a consequence, up unto Jesus’ day, Israel speculated about what the Latter Prophets were ‘really’ teaching, and did not understand that by these prophecies coming to a dead-end in terms of literalism, God was preparing them for a completely spiritual kingdom not tied to this world, to the land of Israel, to a ‘bricks-n-mortar’ temple, or to a ‘kingdom of priests and holy nation’ that was fleshly, this-world, in nature.

Consequences of this transition

Surreal effect

It is for that reason that all the Gospels emanate with a kind of surreal effect that presents the redemptive story of Jesus Christ and his kingdom-Gospel of the New Covenant within an archaic, spiritually exilic, setting that was driven by the Old Testament and the Old Covenant itself.

You see this effect in many dramatic ways, in Matthew. For, the clean-unclean rules of Moses’ law utterly forbade touching anyone, or anything, unclean; and if one did do so, one had to immediately, there-and-then, go into quarantine, and, also, immediately follow very pedantic steps to be ‘cleansed’ so as to be restored to the community (see Lev.11-15; Deut.14).Yet, Jesus violated these rules constantly by hanging out with lepers (26:6), touching the dead (9:25), knowingly being touched by the unclean (9:20-22). Strikingly, Jesus never once went into quarantine, ignoring it completely to bring healing. Or there is the other outstanding example, in Matthew, of Jesus’ sabbath behavior. In Matthew 12:1-8, we read of Jesus permitting his disciples to pluck grain on the sabbath. Many have tried to explain that such an act of mercy was permissible on the sabbath. However, this misses the point of the passage. The literal rules concerning sabbath in Moses’ Law do not make provision for mercy, first of all, and, secondly, they expressly forbid working on the sabbath. To the point that, back in the day, Jews were censured for just the attempt to gather food on the sabbath (Exo.16:21-30), and a man was killed for gathering sticks on the sabbath (Num.15:32-36). Jesus was allowing his disciples to flagrantly violate the literal sabbath commandments. This leads him to cite the examples of the priests in the temple who also violate sabbath law, and that of David and his men who, on the sabbath, gathered food from the temple, of all places. We can cite example after example of the same surreal, in-between ‘worlds’, theme in Matthew.

Constant misunderstanding

Due to the transitional nature of Jesus’ actions, teaching, and kingdom-Gospel, he was very often misinterpreted and misunderstood, according to Matthew. The most obvious example of this is the Pharisees and scribes’ utter inability to understand the Gospel and Jesus’ actions. No chapter more clearly portrays the Jews’ misunderstanding of who the Christ is than Matthew 27. They saw him as a flagrant offender of Moses’ Law, and a false Messiah with a false kingdom. To cap it off, he discarded the traditions of the elders (15:1-20).

His disciples were similarly blinded by OT literalism that focused on a messiah who would ‘make Israel great again’ within the land. Israel would be the center of the world, its enemies having been subdued and defeated, so that the Gentiles would come to bow the knee before the Davidic messiah in Jerusalem, and also worship Yahweh in his temple. Contrary to this ‘human’ Davidic son and messiah, Jesus walked on water and stilled the storm. His disciples reacted by asking, “ “What kind of a man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey Him?” ” (8:27). Or, Jesus would relay a strong warning about the Pharisees, only for his disciples to completely misunderstand his meaning (16:5-12). Infamously, there is Peter, the leading apostle, rebuking Jesus for saying that he will be killed by the Jews and then raised from the dead. Jesus sees through this to Satan, who has mesmerized Peter with false teaching (16:21-23). After Jesus’ death, his disciples mourned his passing and did not comprehend that he would rise again; it needed angels to inform them, and then he had to appear to them (28:1-10). There is another consequence of the transitional nature of Matthew, but due to its significant value, it requires its own space.

Matthew’s/Jesus’ use of the OT and Old Covenant

To Matthew, the entire OT and its content is one giant prophetic record of the Christ. Indeed, the Jewish, Old Covenant setting of the Gospel of Matthew is like a stage in which Jesus’ enacts his New Covenant, kingdom-Gospel drama.

Old Covenant props

In Matthew, the Old Covenant setting of Israel’s religion is used by Jesus as so many ‘props’ for his kingdom ‘drama’. We saw that in regard to Matthew 12:1-8 and Jesus’ use of the OT, especially its temple theme. The temple is considered a place where the rules get broken, in that passage. That they can be broken demonstrates that he is “greater than the temple”. Moreover, he is greater than the sabbath, as its Lord. The temple exists, in Jesus’ narrative, not to impose the literal Mosaic order of tabernacle/temple/priestly rules, but to magnify the Messianic mercy. Similarly, the sabbath day is used to draw the Jews’ attention to the Son of Man’s authority to, like David, violate the rules to bring in mercy for his followers. Another example is Jesus’ healing the leper (8:1-4). Jesus once more violates the clear Mosaic order concerning lepers and the clean-unclean commandments. However, he then, with superior authority, commands the man to go to the priest to “ “present the offering that Moses commanded” ”. Why? To keep the Mosaic Law? No: “ “as a testimony to them” ”. A testimony to the priest and his order, to the religious leaders, a testimony concerning the superior authority of the Son of Man. In that way, this miracle functioned in exactly the same manner as Jesus’ healing of the blind man on the sabbath in the temple (John 9). For both miracles indicated that the Son of Man was superior to the Mosaic Law, violating it, using it, to demonstrate his authority and Messianic mercy.

Fulfilled Law and Prophets

Jesus thought the OT Scripture served a similar purpose to the Mosaic Law itself: to magnify the authority and mercy of the Christ. Thus, Jesus himself said that he came to fulfill the “Law and the Prophets” (5:17). Contrary to popular opinion, “Law”, here, does not indicate the Mosaic Law but the Pentateuch (7:12; 11:13; 22:40; Luke 16:16; John 1:45; Acts 13:15; 24:14; 28:23; Rom.3:21; see Luke 24:44). Jesus himself was teaching that the entire OT Scripture is fulfilled in him.

Matthew himself draws our attention to events and persons that ‘fulfill’ (Gk., pleroo) the OT Scriptures in a way that magnifies the Christ-event. Thus, the ‘fulfill’ verses are directly applied to Jesus and to the events surrounding him (1:22; 2:15, 17, 23; 3:15; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 13:35; 21:4; 26:54, 56; 27:9). Even if there are, perhaps, elements of prophetic literalism in some of these ‘fulfill’ passages, it clearly is not in all of them. For Matthew is teaching us that the OT was like a giant prophetic shadow of the Christ to come.

Mosaic Law deepened?

This interpretation of Jesus’ use of the Old Covenant and of the Mosaic Law is severely disputed by most. For it is claimed that Jesus’ authority as the Messiah deepened and enrichened the Mosaic Law, bringing it to reach a form of Messianic ‘maturity’. Jesus therefore ‘fulfilled’ the Mosaic Law (5:17-48; 19:19; 22:37-39), we are told.

Matthew does not imply this, however. The term ‘fulfill’ is never used specifically to identify the Mosaic Law or its commandments. Indeed, if anything, ‘fulfill’ marks out the Latter Prophets (1:22; 2:15, 17, 23; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 13:35; 21:4; 26:56; 27:9). To repeat what was said before, “the Law and Prophets” indicates the OT Scriptures, not the Old Covenant itself and its Mosaic regime. The Old Covenant and its Law is being cast off, not upheld; and the Latter Prophets are, properly speaking, Matthew’s prophetic measurement of the Christ-event. This is because, as we said before, the literalism and earthliness of the Old Covenant was in itself prohibitive to a proper appreciation of the purely spiritual nature of the New, Messianic, kingdom.

Nor does Matthew 5:17-48; 19:19; 22:37-39 confirm that the Mosaic Law is enrichened. It is incomprehensible that it is argued by some that in 5:17-48 Jesus is said to uphold the Mosaic Law, for he expressly and explicitly states that Moses’ commandment about divorce has been overturned for a different interpretation of divorce (vv31-32). The Old Covenant commandments, even apart from the interpretive grid of the tradition of elders, were this-world, fleshly, and external, in nature. Moses’ command not to commit adultery (Exo.20:14) was typically interpreted in a this-world manner to reflect an actual physical sexual-affair. Jesus, however, turns that teaching on its head and advances that adultery is, properly speaking, located in the heart first and foremost (5:27-28).

In Matthew 19:16-22, Jesus cites the Old Covenant commandments not to commit adultery, to steal, to bear false witness, but to love one’s neighbor, and honor one’s parents. In a time of transition, those commandments are not interpreted by him as to their natural Old Covenant import. For if they were, Jesus would have mentioned to the young ruler that he had violated them in some fleshly way. The Old Covenant form of obedience was tied exclusively to the flesh and its proper order- thus those bizarre commandments about life in Israel, dietary rules, and the clean-unclean laws. Instead, Jesus, according to his heavenly ethic, marks out how the young ruler covets his wealth and is unwilling to give it away to the poor, so as to follow the Messiah. In that way, the Mosaic Law is utilized to point away from itself to a deeper, more extensive view of sin, and to its solution in following the Messiah.

As to keeping the two greatest commandments (22:37-39), these are never taught by Jesus to be advancing the Mosaic Law in itself. Rather, they are considered as the focus of Jesus’ New Covenant ethic. To go back to Matthew 5:17-20, the Law and the Prophets themselves, the OT Scriptures, prophetically advocated a greater love to come in the Messiah. The OT Scripture is being read in a prophetic, New Covenant, Messianic manner. Those commandments to love found throughout the OT are now seen in their true, Messianic, context. The Old Covenant context and it Mosaic Law are no longer of use. Nor is that the Old laws are reinvigorated, enrichened, or repurposed; for the New Covenant and its law are, indeed, ‘new’, for the Old Testament Scripture and its many commandments were never an end in themselves, as they all anticipated the Messianic kingdom and its love.

And because some readers wills struggle with this reading, let me illustrate the difference. The book of Hebrews does not teach that the New Covenant is the Old enrichened and deepened. Why, then, would we think that the Mosaic Law, which was the specific covenant rule of Israel, would be enrichened by Jesus’ teaching? In Hebrews, the sacrificial system of the Old was a shadow of the New. The New sacrificial system does not ‘deepen’ and ‘enrichen’ the Old, shadowy sacrificial system. Similarly, Jesus’ heavenly sabbath does not deepen and enrichen the sabbath of Israel. Etc., etc..

Reflection

PP, to be fair, does not deny that the kingdom is torn from the Jews to be given to the Gentiles. And some forms of PP are very positive in referring to the spiritual nature of this new form of the kingdom of God and its heavenly nature. However, we can see already a major difference of opinion. PP’s view of Matthew 24 enlists the idea that Jesus is completing redemption via the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. Yet, Matthew’s Gospel does not run along such Jewish, Old Covenant, lines of thought. Yes, Jesus is operating in an Old Covenant setting, but his singular aim is to draw attention to the New Covenant nature of his heavenly Gospel, and that the Old era with its spiritual exile is finally over. The Messianic era was now at hand. Christ’s aim was not, therefore, to bring punishments for the Old Covenant past, but to bring salvation for the present, in the form of his kingdom-Gospel. Those Jews who rejected it would be swept away, along with their coveted external, this-world, Old Covenant-like model, and their view of the Messiah that was likewise external and this-world in nature. Thus, the Scriptures of the OT are not enlisted by Jesus or Matthew to convey that God’s Old Covenant wrath must be supplanted by New Covenant mercy; instead, the OT is cited and alluded to convey that the Messianic era and its mercy was present, but so was its judgment, both in immediate and future terms.

This is a good point to pause this particular article. I will continue the Matthean background to Matthew 24-25 in the next article, focusing on the theme of the kingdom of heaven.