In Romans 1:17 one finds four statements:
1. For therein is – in the Gospel – the righteousness of God revealed – continually being revealed
2. From faith to faith – it is totally sourced in faith
3. As it is written – it was written in (Hab. 2:4) and it still stands written today
4. The just shall live by faith – righteous ones live by faith

The difficulty Luther had and so many today have is – what is the phrase “the righteousness of God” referring to. There are basically 3 options:
1. Who God is – His righteous attribute. God is absolutely just and righteous in character.
2. What God does – His righteous action. God desires to make that which is wrong right. Some good examples are seen in (Psalm 143) where David is being pursued by Absalom. He appeals to God’s righteous character as well as His willingness to make that which is wrong right. We also see in (Isa. 59:14-16) that God looked everyone and saw no one “so my “God” own arm brought salvation.” God intervened in eternity past with the plan of the incarnation of Himself – God willingly robed Himself in the flesh and died for sin.
3. What God gives – His righteous gift credited to sinners who exercise faith.
So which of these 3 options is Paul talking about here?

A look at (Rom. 2:22-25) clears things up. “Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of (in) Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe…being justified freely by His grace. (v. 22 & 24)” In those two verses Paul is dealing with what God gives – His righteousness credited to the believing sinners account. But he doesn’t stop there for he writes (v. 25) “whom God hath set forth (purposed) to be a propitiation through faith in His (Christ) blood.” There he is speaking of what God does – His righteous action. God purposed the death of Christ. God had a plan. God Himself intervened on behalf of mankind. But he doesn’t stop there for he writes (v. 25b) “to declare His righteousness” – all that Christ did was ultimately for the glory of God – to declared – to display the righteousness of God. So that covers who God is – His righteous attribute.

Therefore I would submit that Paul is talking about all the above in the statement “the righteousness of God.” He is righteous and hold humanity to that standard. God also knows that humanity cannot attain to that standard – it is impossible – so He intervenes out of a righteous desire to help. The incarnation, death, burial, and resurrection of Christ makes it possible that one exercises personal faith in that truth and the righteousness of God is credited to His account – out of sheer mercy and grace!!

Thanks be to God for His unspeakable gift.

The Regions of Galatia

         In an attempt to identify who the Galatians are one must determine where these churches were.  In Paul’s letter to the Galatians he identifies them as being in Galatia (Galatians 1:2) and also identifies as the ethnic group being Galatians (Galatians 3:1).  The term Galatia and its roots are defined by F.F. Bruce:

The Greek word Galatai is a variant form of Keltai or Keltoi, ‘Celts’.  When we first meet the Celts, they are residents in Central Europe, in the Danube basin…from Danube basin they migrated in a westerly direction into Switzerland, South Germany and North Italy, and then into Gaul and Britain; they also migrated in a south-easterly direction and settled in North-Central Asia Minor, giving their name to their new homeland as they also did to Gaul (Greek Galatia).[4]

In about 278 B.C. the King of Bithynia gave these people invitation into Asia Minor via Hellespont.  Approximately 40 years later the King of Pergamum, after a series of battles, confined them to fixed boundaries – the former Phrygia.  In 190 B.C. the Galatians had a weak coalition with the Seleucids which caught the attention of the Romans. 

         The Galatians were allowed to retain their independence on their pledge to not fight against the Romans.[5]  The Galatians did not lose sight of the benefits and wisdom of being on good terms with the Romans.  By 36 B.C. Mark Antony had given to Galatia Pamphylia, Pisidia, and Lycaonia (12 B.C.).[6]  The significance at this point should be noted in favor of the South Galatian theory that these are regions Luke says Paul and Barnabas visited on their first missionary journey (Acts 13:13; 14:6).  As it has been noted, the regions of Galatia originally were situated in the area that would be considered North Galatia.  By New Testament times “Provincia Galatia stretched (east to west) from Pontus on the Black Sea to Pamphylia on the Mediterranean”[7] and from Bithynia and Paphlagonia to the north; Cappadocia and Lycaonia to the south.[8] Theoretically Paul’s “churches of Galatia” could have been situated anywhere within these limits.  At this point enough is said (there will be more reference to geography in this work) about the region of Galatia.

The Assumption of the North Galatia Theory

         As mentioned above the choice of audience when one reads “to the churches of Galatia” is either the people in the northern region of Galatia or those in the southern region of Galatia.  The north Galatia theory holds that Paul visited the geographic area of Galatia in the north and established churches there.  This would have had to take place “on Paul’s second missionary journey after he left the southern Galatia region and before he came to Troas (Acts 16:6-8).”[9]  That is not the only visit however; another is mentioned in Acts 18:23.  The northern Galatia theory went unchallenged until the eighteenth century.[10]  This position was held even in the patristic day.  D. Edmund Hiebert gives some pertinent information:

In the second century (AD 137) Lycaonia Galatica was detached and untied with Cilicia and Isaurica to form an enlarged province of Cilicia, and late in the third century (297) the remainder of South Galatia with some adjoin territories became a new province of Pisidia, with Pisidian Antioch as its capital and Iconium as its second city.  The province of Galatia was thus reduced to North Galatia, and when the church fathers, in their study of our epistle, read of ‘the churches of Galatia’, they understood Galatia without more ado in the sense familiar in their day.[11] 

If the argument hinges on this however, it ignores how quickly things changed in the time in which the letter was written. 

         In analyzing the northern Galatia hypothesis, Bruce notes that Jerome said that “the Galatians were thus called because of the whiteness of their skin”[12] as though their name was derived from Greek gala which is milk.  Several in the early church wrote that the Galatians in the north were “unteachable”[13] and even Jerome said “no wonder the Galatians were called foolish and slow of understanding”.[14]  Paul did call them that very thing – “You foolish Galatians…(Gal. 3:1)”; but to say that the unteachable and foolish people were limited to only the northern region of Galatia misses the point of the universality of foolishness and lack of teachability on the part of people in general.

         In keeping with many of his predecessors John Calvin held to a north Galatia view.  Confusingly though, he held that the letter was written before the Jerusalem council of Acts 15 and even identified Galatians 2 with Acts 11:30 (the famine visits).[15] This work will attempt to reconcile Acts and Galatians, but to hold what Calvin did; the student is left to speculate when Paul and Barnabas evangelized the north.  Lightfoot in his monumental commentary on Galatians held to the northern view.  He did recognize the vagueness in the phrase “churches of Galatia” but “rejected the view that they were churches of Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe in favor of…Ancyra, Pessinus and Tavium.”[16]  His argument is rather simple in that Acts does not say specifically “Galatian churches” with regard to Paul and Barnabas first missionary journey.  He preferred the “Galatic region” of Acts 16:6 and 18:23.  The heaviest of influence on Lightfoot however, seems to be that of an extra-biblical source that said “the fickleness of the Gaul’s makes the recipients Galatians in the northern region”.[17]  That is simply too much impact on the determining factor from an extra-biblical source which is unusual for a scholar such as Lightfoot. 

The Assumption of the South Galatian Theory

        This theory took flight on the wings of Sir William Ramsey in about 1890[18]  and is the one that holds up best in light of Scripture.  There is no mention of churches being established in the northern region of Galatia.  The writer agrees that there is no mention in Scripture specifically stating there were churches established in Galatia per se historically, however the best fit (without forcing any presuppositions into Scripture) are those cities mentioned in Acts 13 and 14 – Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and Anticoch.  These are cities in the southern region of Galatia and are the cities Paul and Barnabas visited on their first missionary journey according to Scripture.  As one can see in the map below, the cities mentioned in Acts 13 and 14 are located in the southern part of Galatia.  The northern region of Galatia is bordered by Bithynia.

Many of the arguments on both sides (north and south) are speculative.  Those that hold today to the northern hypothesis, even in light of much modern scholarship in favor of the southern, still hold that the northern hypothesis is “the most probable”[21].  One of the arguments from modern scholarship, which is rather convincing, is that of “main roads”.  In his commentary on Galatians, Ronald Fung makes two helpful suggestions regarding “the roads” consideration.  First, “what is known of the geographical situation at the time (is that) none of the main roads in Asia Minor even passed through Northern Galatia, so that had Paul wanted to go to preach the gospel there he would not have set out from Lystra (Acts 16:1, 6).”[22]  Throughout Paul’s journey’s he seems to prefer for the most part, to stay on the main roads and evangelize cities which would have the greatest impact (port cities; high commerce etc.).  Fung goes on to mention secondly, that “it is obvious from Acts that Paul consistently concentrated his efforts on the main roads and centers of communication in the Roman Empire.”[23]  It was not until the end of the third century that the northern region of Galatia began to develop more than the southern region. 

Reconciling Acts and Galatians

         There would be little debate over what is the outstanding problem of reconciling Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians.  The problem is how Galatians 2:1-10 relates to Luke’s historical account of Acts.  Stanley Toussaint asks the big question: Which of Paul’s visits to Jerusalem recorded in Acts is discussed in Galatians two?[24]  To reconcile the Acts records and Galatians 2 there are only two possibilities.  Galatians two can only be referring to Paul’s second visit (famine visit) or his third visit (Jerusalem council) to Jerusalem.

         How many visits does Acts record of Paul to Jerusalem?  According to the record of Luke, Paul went to Jerusalem five times after his conversion on his way to Damascus (Acts 9:1-6).  After his conversion Paul continued on to Damascus.  He was met by Ananias there, was baptized, and “he preached Christ in the synagogues (9:20)” there.  Then there appears to be a lapse of a period of time between Acts 9:22 and 23; “and after that many days were fulfilled”.  This seems to coincide with Galatians 1:18 where Paul writes that he “went away to Arabia for three years and then went back to Damascus” and then went back to Jerusalem.  This is his first visit to Jerusalem.  The writer then concludes that Acts 9:26-30 corresponds clearly with Galatians 1:18-20.  The second trip was the famine visit which Luke records in Acts 11:27-30 and 12:25.  The third visit to Jerusalem recorded by Luke is the trip for the Jerusalem Council recorded in Acts 15:1-30.  The fourth visit followed the second missionary journey which Barnabas did not accompany him (Acts 18:22) – “and after he landed at Caesarea, he went up and greeted the church and (then) went down to Antioch.”  Some may disagree that this is a visit to Jerusalem, however “the going up and going down refer to going to and leaving Jerusalem’s higher elevation.”[25]  The fifth and final visit to Jerusalem by Paul is the one that brought about his imprisonment (Acts 21:15-23:35). 

The Jerusalem Council and Galatians Two

          The view that Galatians two is referring to the Jerusalem Council cannot be easily dismissed.   Many competent scholars[26] and godly men have held and do still hold to this view.  One of the strongest argument in favor are “the issues which are discussed are the same in both passages…the question revolves around the necessity of circumcision and the keeping of the Mosaic Law.”[27]  Also, Jerusalem and Antioch are considered in both passages.  Galatians 2:4 mentions “false brethren” which can fit well with the “some men that came down” of Acts 15:1.  According to Toussaint, some even argue from the similarities of Galatians and Romans that the two were written at the same time.  The lack of space allotted in this work, although there are other arguments in favor of this view, these few will suffice.

         There are several suggestions in favor of Galatians 2 being the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15; there are also many objections.  First and foremost the absence of the official pronouncement of the church council would be quite curious to say the least.  S. Lewis Johnson says well that “although Paul’s reliance on the council’s decision would subject himself to human authority, Acts 15:30-16:5 indicates Paul did use the decrees of the council…in the face of opposition from the Judaizers.”[28]  It should be noted that adherents to the Acts 15 and Galatians 2 view respond saying that Paul does not mention the famine visit in Galatians.  This is a good point, however, if Galatians 2 refers to the council and 1:18-20 refers to Paul’s first visit, then Paul purposely leaves out his second visit to Jerusalem.  The omission objection is answered by saying that Paul did not see any apostles in the famine visit and he only saw elders. 

This is an assumption that is difficult to prove…in Acts 8:1 during a time of persecution, all were scattered except the apostles.  In fact, Acts 12:17 strongly implies James and the brethren were in Jerusalem at the time of the persecution and Peter certainly was.  How then do we account for the lack of mention of apostles in Acts 11:30?  It was simply a matter of responsibility…the work of distributing funds was not that of the apostles (Acts 6:2-4)…Acts 11:30 does not say Paul saw no apostles…to say, therefore, that Paul omits any reference to the famine visit in Galatians tends to make his defense in Galatians 1:17-2:10 rather inaccurate.[29]

The Famine Visit and Galatians Two

         In Galatians it appears that Paul is stating in chronological order his contacts with Jerusalem.  He begins with his first trip after his conversion.  Naturally the famine visit, his second trip to Jerusalem would follow in Galatians 2.  Textually one can see that Barnabas went with his (2:1).  This would have been either the second or fourth trip.  With textual consideration one also can note that he went to Jerusalem by revelation (2:2).  This revelation appears to fit very comfortably with Agabus revelation recorded in Acts 11:27-30.  The council trip would seem to be by invitation rather than revelation. 

It must be acknowledged, however, that Paul also could have gone to Jerusalem by revelation but Luke does not mention this fact.  In Acts 9:29-30, Luke states Paul fled from Jerusalem because his opponents were seeking his life.  Nothing is said of revelation.  However, Paul in Acts 22:17-21 testifies that he left Jerusalem because of a vision.  It is therefore possible for Luke to have omitted any reference to a special revelation in Acts 15.  Nevertheless the prominence given to revelation in both Acts 11:27-28 and Galatians 2:2 argue for their identification.[30]

It would then seem that if he were called to Jerusalem by revelation in Acts 15 that there would have been some mention of this by Luke as he does it on other occasions.

         Two other things to be noted with the southern Galatia view presupposed.  First, in rebuttal to those that hold Galatians 4:13, “but you know that it was because of a bodily illness that I preached the gospel to you the first time”, indicates a two trips to Galatia before he wrote the letter.  Paul is simply restating (retracing) his first journey.  Fung would agree, “they could be identified as…the initial visit on the first missionary journey when Paul moved eastward from Pisidian Antioch to Derbe…even a strict interpretation…does not require the conclusion that Galatians was written after the visit of Acts 16:6.”[31]  Secondly it would seem natural to assume that the timing aspect Paul notes in Galatians would be from the time of his conversion.  This would have been the great turning point in his life, that not only Paul, but all who have been born again would measure things.  This assumption makes the timing no problem in the letter.           

Conclusion

         In summary it seems best to say the chronological order that would be found in Galatians and substantiated by Luke in Acts would be: (1) Paul and Barnabas are dispatched by the Antioch church to Jerusalem to bring relief during the famine; (2) from this trip the two return to Antioch where; (3) they are sent out by that church on their first missionary journey; (4) where they make their way through the southern region of Galatia and establish churches; (5) somewhere on the way back to or in Antioch they receive word that Judaizers are working false doctrine in the churches of Galatia; (6) Paul immediately responds by writing to the church in Galatia.          

         The silence in the book of Act’s regarding any cities in the north Galatia region is rather compelling.  When viewed alongside Luke’s mention of churches in south Galatia it becomes difficult to explain anything other than “the churches of Galatia (Gal. 1:2)” being churches in the southern region of Galatia.  Holding to this view, which Scripture supports, one would then naturally advocate for a date of the writing of the Epistle to the Galatians as being closest to 48 or early 49 AD[32] and that it is Paul’s first epistle.  This, along with what has been mentioned above, and not even a hint of the conclusion reached at the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15, the writer takes the position that the recipients of the letter were the churches of South Galatia – the churches in Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe. 

Preterism Defined

         Preterism is derived for the Latin for “past”.  In the present context this view says that most if not all prophecy has been fulfilled.  Preterist Kenneth Gentry would concur with this: “the word preterist is based on the Latin word praeteritus, which means ‘gone by’…it holds that the tribulation prophecies occur in the first century, thus, in our past.”[3]  Preterist R.C. Sproul would agree with Gentry and ads concerning the timing that it is not just any time in the past but a specific event – the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.[4] 

         Today two forms of preterism, although there are others; contend with each other for primary placement.  The first is partial or moderate preterism which is the most popular.  Scholar and futurist, Dr. Randall Price explains that “partial or moderate preterism…argue that most prophecy (such as the events of the tribulation) was fulfilled in A.D. 70…some prophetic texts teaching the second coming of Christ and the bodily resurrection still have future fulfillment”.[5]  Partial preterism[6] holds that there are two second comings of Christ.  One occurred in A.D. 70 as a judgment on Israel and the second will occur universally in “the ultimate coming of the Lord”[7].  

         The other form of preterism is the extreme version.  These adherents say that partial preterists should not hold to that name.  The reason being is that they hold to the position that some prophecy has yet to be fulfilled.  The extreme preterist holds that all prophecy has already been fulfilled.  Randall Price defines further saying that “full preterism sees no future climax or consummation of history by maintains that believers have been spiritually resurrected and the creation spiritually restored so that the church presently exists in the eternal state…”[8]  One can see an extreme spiritualizing of Scripture as well as replacement theology in this position.  With this position and for the most part the partial position the church is somewhat left hanging.  Extreme Preterist Ed Stevens recognizes the difficulty – “how could it be that some of the apostles…lived through the events of A.D. 70 without recognizing the significance of it and saying something about it?”[9]  He goes on to admit that “this is the single most significant factor shaping the history of eschatological study.”[10]

         With regards to the history of preterism, due to space constraints in this paper, a brief remark shall suffice.  Preterist adherents trace their roots back to the first century church but much of this can only be seen in very murky waters.  In modern times “it appears that the Reformed and Reconstructionist Greg Bahnsen is the source and inspiration for the rise and partial preterism.”[11]  Regardless of the history, rather partial or extreme, preterism is a dangerous perspective that unfortunately is impacting, in this writers view, in a negative way at the blessed hope and expectancy of the Lord’s return.  Preterism has been defined and a brief historical overview given, now the focus will narrow to the thesis.

Preterism’s Foundational Argument Concerning the Olivet Discourse

         Jesus said in Matthew 24:34 “Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled”.  Preterists assert that Christ was warning people who were living then.  Sproul quotes J. Stuart Russell who states that “99 persons in every 100 would immediately understand Jesus to mean that the events he was predicting would fall within the limits of the lifetime of the existing generation”.[12] This speaks to why this verse is foundational in the Olivet Discourse.  The preterist view needs this verse to mean that Jesus was speaking to the very people who would see all the events He previously mentioned come to pass.  Further Sproul says,

The importance of this consideration is its relationship to our understanding of the disputed time-frame reference in the Olivet Discourse (Matt 24:34) regarding the passing of a generation.  If Jesus had in mind a time-frame of roughly forty years, it could also be said that during this time-frame some of his disciples would not taster death.  If the Olivet Discourse refers primarily to events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem and it the word generation refers to a forty year period, then it is possible, if not probable, that Jesus’ reference to his coming in Matthew 16:28 refers to the same events…[13] 

The “this generation” being the present generation Jesus is speaking to is foundational to the preterist argument.  Most preterist agree that to interpret generation as anything other than the present generation would be foreign to other places in the New Testament.

         Much of the refutation of this foundational argument of the preterist view of the Olivet Discourse will come later.  However it should be noted that the term “generation” can have extended meaning.  In fact J. Stuart Russell (preterist) as quoted by Sproul “makes a crucial admission; one that makes it all the more difficult to prove his point…he admits that genea is capable of variant shades of meaning…”[14]  Lexicographers Arndt and Gingrich note that the word “generation” (genea) can mean either clan, race, or nation, and this is supported elsewhere in Scripture (Luke 16:8).[15]  The preterist presupposition must force, what most likely is a faulty conclusion on the term “generation”.

The Context and Purpose of the Discourse According to Preterist

         The Preterist will take the three questions[16] that were asked to Christ; (1) what will be the sign of your coming?; (2) when will these things take place?; (3) what will be the sign of your coming?; and answer all the three with one/the same answer.  Futurist J. Randall Price says, “preterist interpret Jesus’ answer to the disciples as having a single temporal reference – the end of theis generation…which they understand to have terminated in A.D. 70”.[17]  It is helpful to note who asks the questions.  It is the disciples and they seem to have a two-fold concern (noted in the footnote 16), what is the future of Jerusalem and what is the end of the age going to look like.

         Concerning the purpose of the Olivet Discourse as it is viewed by the preterist, it is a condemnation on Israel and the temple by Christ.  This also takes the discussion back to the foundational verse concerning “this generation”.  Again Price says the purpose according to the preterist “is exclusively as a judgment text in which Jesus’ denunciations of the temple finds their final fulfillment in the destruction of the temple by the Roman’s in A.D. 70”.[18]  Although most would agree with this to a certain extent it is important to note what prompted the discourse.  Was Jesus driven by thoughts of God’s vengeance (did He just snap)?  The discourse was prompted by the questions asked Him by the disciples.  Jesus Christ is simply answering three specific questions.  Jesus had already unveiled His death and a new program[19] that will come in the time period between His death and return.  This program is still ongoing.  It is also important to note that the Olivet Discourse continues with the promise given to Abraham in Genesis 12 and following.  It predicts an outcome of victory[20] for Israel along with its restoration and not annihilation or replacement as the preterist would lead to believe. 

According to the Preterist the Church is in Matthew 24 and 25

         The key to determining whether the church is referenced in the Olivet Discourse is by determining the context in which the discourse was delivered.[21]  This will be done below.  One of the major questions that needs to be answered in the Olivet Discourse is, who do the disciples represent – Israel or the church?  Sproul says that the biblical teaching concerning the end of the age refers to the end of the Jewish age and the present age.  He goes on to say, “fundamental to preterism is the contention that the phrase ‘end of the age’ refers specifically to the end of the Jewish age and the beginning of the church (gentile) age”.[22] What is most troubling though concerning about the statement by Sproul above is, “if the preterist were consistent, he would be forced to say that the promise of protection and the command of the Great Commission only stand true until A.D. 70”.[23]

         Neither the context of Matthew’s entire Gospel nor the context in chapter 24 and 25 can sustain a view that the church is present.  It can be noted at this point that since the church is not in the Olivet Discourse the rapture is not in the teaching.  The lamentation of Christ over Jerusalem (Matthew 23:37-39) does not allow for the presence of the church.  The disciples attention on the temple as the national place of worship (24:1) allows for a strict Jewish context.  They did not have an understanding of the church, to them (Matthew 16) was an introduction of some sort of new program.  The understanding of the hearers concerning the gospel of the kingdom was Christ presenting Himself as King.  In order for the church to be present at any point of the discourse the context would have to change abruptly[24].  There are many other things that could be said and some will be dealt with below.  For now suffice it to say that the church is not in the Olivet Discourse.

Dispensational/Futurist Response

         It has been said by many that context must be the interpreter’s guide in the Bible.  Within the context of any theological discussion the Bible must be sought for the proper answers.  In the present response of preterism and their view of the Olivet Discourse the broad context helps significantly in critique.  In the broad context of Matthew there are three phases of the kingdom.  The kingdom is offered first.  In Matthew 1 the reader is given a genealogical record that shows that Christ has the legitimate right and authority to be the King of the Kingdom.  Further in Matthew 2 the reader is confronted, just in case the geneology and virgin birth is missed, with foreign Babylonian dignitaries that march into Jerusalem with their entourage asking “where is He that has been born who is the King of the Jews?”  In case that is missed as well “the voice of God crying in the wilderness – repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” shouts from the pages as the reader hears the words echo through the street and country side of Judea.  Then the King appears at John’s baptism.  He purpose for being there was to fulfill all righteousness.  John and Jesus both hear the Trinitarian approval of the King.  After the assigning of the miracles of Christ to the devil the kingdom is set aside, this is the second of the three phases of the kingdom in Matthew.  The preferred term of the writer is “prophetically postponed”.[25]  Mike Stallard says regarding context and hermeneutics,

…one such issue is the relationship of the tribulation period (with its focus on the Jewish remnant) to the present age as revealed in the kingdom parables of Matthew 13.  This is especially noteworthy to dispensationalists since the Olivet Discourse deals specifically with that time frame.  It is important particularly…so much of the argumentation comes back time and again to the relationship between the kingdom parables in Matthew 13 (especially the tares) and Matthew 24 and 25.[26]

A significant aspect of Matthew is (11:20) after the announcement, the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom, and the miracles Christ the King offered is rejected.  “Then began He to upbraid”, He began to withdraw from the people.  It is on the heels of this that the kingdom is set aside (Matthew 13).  Then the third phase of the kingdom in Matthew is the kingdom prophesied.  The Olivet Discourse is the third major discourse recorded in Matthew and in it the reader sees the Messiah’s official prediction of His return and acceptance.

         When considering the broad context of Matthew observation of the theological argument of the kingdom must be determined.  Briefly it is announced as “at hand”, 3:2, 4:17; the characteristics are given in great detail, 5-7; the King Messiah ministry is authenticated, 8-10; the commission of the disciples, 10:5-17 (preaching the gospel of the kingdom to Israel); blasphemy committed by religious leaders/representatives, 11-12; kingdom prophetically postponed, 13; Jesus begins to draw is inner circle closer, 14-22; Christ prophesies the coming future tribulation and kingdom, 24-25.

         After the above brief treatment of the broad context on Matthew, the narrow and immediate context of Matthew 24 and 25 will be dealt with.  As footnoted above, the gospel is written by a Jewish believer who was a disciple of Christ during His earthly ministry.  The gospel is written to present Christ, the One they killed, as the Messiah they had awaited, that had been prophesied in the Old Testament.  The gospel presents the proffer of a legitimate King and a legitimate kingdom that had been rejected.  It is a call to repentance – a radical transformation of Israel.  In that broader understanding of the gospel account, one must also understand the unconditional covenants made with Israel.  The kingdom will come to pass one day.  It was offered and rejected; prophetically postponed.  However it will be inaugurated one day; it has yet to be inaugurated.  Jesus comes to the place of His earthly ministry where He must die.  Before this takes place He teaches a wonderful truth[27] known as the Olivet Discourse.  In his monumental work on the gospel of Matthew, Thomas Figart says, the Olivet Discourse must be “approached in accordance with the purpose of the entire gospel of Matthew and specifically with regard to the place it occupied in the culmination of the ministry of Christ”[28].

         The key to Matthew 24 and 25 is what precedes in 23:37-39.  John Walvoord calls this a scathing denunciation on the religious leaders who were representatives of the people.  It was the “hypocrisy and false religion which characterized the Scribes and Pharisees, closing with His lament over Jerusalem, where the prophets of God through the centuries had been rejected and martyred.”[29]  On the heels of the denunciation Christ gives His explanation of coming Tribulation in response to the questions of the disciples.

A Dispensational/Futurist Survey of Matthew 24 and 25

The first half of the Tribulation

         At the end of chapter 23, Jesus made a compassionate lament over the city of Jerusalem, and at the same time pronounced the coming judgment on Israel (not the church).  They leave the temple and for some reason the disciples want to show Him the temple.  Jesus tells them very clearly that the whole facility will be demolished.  This took place in A.D. 70.  There are no questions about the church only nationalistic Israel.  Even in Acts 1:6 they are still thinking about a kingdom exclusive to Israel not anything about the church – the new program.  He spoke to His disciples as Jews who believed in Him as their Messiah King (response to the preaching 3:2, 4:17; John 1:41 some believed on the person).  “It is unthinkable to include the church in the answer Christ gave them.”[30] 

         It is the view of this writer that the future tribulation period is seen in 24:4-26.  This can be paralleled with Daniel’s seventieth week (Dan. 9:27).  The first half of the tribulation is seen in 24:4-8.  There are physical characteristics that can be paralleled with Revelation 6:1-17 – the first six seals.  The characteristics are deceit, 24:4-5; war, 24:6; famine, 24:7; earthquakes and pestilences, 24:7; Martyrdom, 24:9; anarchy due to heavenly catastrophe, Rev. 6:12-17.   It is the “then” (tote, temporal particle, also v. 10) that indicates a change of time in the view of the writer.  Not only a change of time but also seems to indicate an increase and change in intensity.  Also, verse 8 clearly says that the first half is “the beginning of sorrows”. 

The Second Half of the Tribulation – Great Tribulation

         The second half of the tribulation is seen in 24:9-14.  There are four characteristics observed by the writer of these three and half years.  (1) false messiah’s and prophets, 24:11; (2) a cold love among Jewish people, betray each other, and turn on the saved Jews, 24:10-12; (3) anti-semiticism unlike ever before; they will be hated by every gentile under the sun; (4) unparalleled preaching of the gospel of the kingdom, 24:14; Rev. 7:14.  With regards to the last item, it should be noted that John and the disciples preached the same gospel but with no bloodshed; there is bloodshed now.

         In Matthew 24:15-28, the apostle covers the second half of the tribulation in greater detail.  Jesus quotes Daniel 9:27 and 12:11 about the “abomination of desolation”.  This ties the discourse to Daniels seventieth week.  The one will be represented in the temple by an image.  It is a literal image (shall see, v. 15).  Once the image is set up in the temple the saved Jews flee from the image; Matthew 24:16-26.  A parallel can be made with Revelation 12 here.  They[31] flee from Jerusalem[32].  The reader should note that 24:22 time will run out; “days should be shortened”.  At His coming at the close of the tribulation (Daniel’s 70 weeks, the 7 years) Christ is saying the time will be terminated.[33]

Sign’s Of Christ Second Advent

The coming of Christ Himself is seen in 24:27-29 as the brightness of the heavens (24:30).  Then Christ ends the argument (v. 29) saying “immediately after the tribulation”.  Then finally, Christ assures His disciples that Israel will be re-gathered (they have not yet!) and restored (into covenant relationship).  It is clear that he is not speaking of the rapture of the church since he sends angels, but He himself comes to meet the Bride, the church in the air.[34]  Possibly Isaiah 45:4 and 66:8 could be in view here.  Matthew 24:31 ends the argument after Christ gives the signs of His second coming (vv. 29-30).  The context says (v. 31) is Israel going back to verse 15.  This is not the rapture.  The Old Testament clearly said that Israel will be gathered after the second coming of Christ – Deuteronomy 30:3, Isaiah 11:10-12.  This is a gathering of saved Jews from the four corners of the earth.  It must also be noted that 24:32-51 must be viewed as parenthetical; as illustrative.  The parable of the fig tree with leaves illustrates the coming is near – “so shall also the coming of the Son of man be” (v. 39). 

The Parable of Matthew 25

         Jesus teaches two parables in 25:1-30 which are to teach about the separation of unsaved from saved Jews at the second coming of Christ living at the close of the tribulation period.  Then another parable of the sheep and the goats in 25:31-46 which is the judgment of living gentiles at the close of the tribulation.  This is not national judgments but rather individuals.  This is not the Great White Throne[35] judgment for chronologically it follows the Second Advent and Israel’s judgment.

Conclusion

         It is not the position to judge motives of individuals who hold to an eschatological view that differs from that of the writer.  However there are implications to an incorrect view of the Olivet Discourse.  A view that holds the tribulation has already taken place spiritualizes many passages outside of Matthew 24.  The church cannot be seen in the Olivet Discourse for it disagrees with the context and purpose of the gospel of Matthew.  Preterism teaches that though the information in the Lord’s lecture on the future of Israel was prophetic when he gave it, the prophecy has already been fulfilled.  All agree that the discourse is prophetic, however the writer does not see anywhere in the biblical text that directs the interpreter using literal normative hermeneutic to conclude the prophecy has been fulfilled.  Nor is there anything in the tangible world.  In fact the happenings of the world point toward a culmination somewhere in the future.  Preterist argue their point from Matthew 24:34 and say that “this generation” refers to the present audience at the time of the discourse.  However, “once preterists have argued this point, they are in trouble because there are several events in Matthew 24 that clearly have not happened. Thus they are forced to spiritualize those events. All forms of preterism, some more than others, have to rely on figurative interpretation”.[36]  Preterism falters hermeneutically in that it fails to hold to a consistent literal interpretation of the Olivet Discourse.

Romans 11:25-27: For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.  And so all Israel shall be saved; as it is written there shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob, for this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

BY SCOTT HEDGE

The fact is well established that the Jews at the time of Christ were anticipating a literal fulfillment of an Old Testament theocratic kingdom.

The Kingdom Concept in the Old Testament

Obviously there are a variety of interpretations and explanations as to the nature of the kingdom program of God.  Various views include:[1]

• Synonymous with the eternal state, or heaven, the place one goes when they die.  This position holds that there is no earthly relation.
• Spiritual kingdom – non-material – in which God rules over the hearts of men.  This is related (according to this view) to the present age and unrelated to the earth.
• Earthly alone with no spiritual realities – a political and social structure to achieved by the efforts of men
• A reconstitution of the nation Israel as a political independent nation
• A manifestation in the earthly realm of the universal sovereignty of God in which he rules in the affairs of men – both a spiritual and material concept

So obviously these “variety” of interpretations one can see that the concept cannot be discovered by the writings of mere men.  The kingdom over which God rules has two aspects – eternal & temporal.

• God has always possessed absolute authority and sovereignty and rules as a king – Ps. 10:16; 29:10; 74:12; Jer. 10:10; Lam. 5:19
• The scope of God’s sovereignty is unlimited – 1 Chron. 29:11-12; Ps. 103:19; Dan. 4:17, 25, 32
• This sovereignty is sometimes exercised through individuals – Isa. 10:5-6; Jer. 25:8-12; Ezra 1:1; (even nature Ps. 148:8) – some of the individuals recognize it and some are ignorant of it
• There is the direct intervention in the affairs of men – Ex. 7:3-5

Lewis Sperry Chafer[2] rightly includes in this discussion the challenge of the kingdom by Lucifer (later Satan) – Ez. 28 & Isa. 14.  The five “I will’s” of Lucifer:

1. I will ascend into heaven – where the redeemed abide (2 Cor. 12:1-4)
2. I will exalt my throne above the Stars of God – angelic beings
3. I will sit also upon the Mount of the Congregation – the divine government on earth (Isa. 2:1-4)
4.  I will ascend above the heights of the clouds – relation to the divine presence and glory which belongs to God alone
5. I will be like the Most High – speaks of motives and methods. “In spite of a universal impression that Satan wants to be unlike God…(it can be seen) his purpose is to be like God.”[3]

It is the opinion of the writer that the original sin was an act of rebellion; one must ask against what?  It is clearly seen that it was and still is an act of rebellion against the sovereignty and authority of God – Lucifer wanted that for himself.  “Because of this sin, which brought about the fall of Satan, a kingdom over which Satan rules, was formed in opposition, to the kingdom over which God rules.”[4] See 2 Cor. 4:4, Eph. 2:2, Matt. 4:8-9.

Matt. 25:34 “Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.”  Evidently the earth which was the center of Satanic authority becomes the place God chooses to demonstrate his ultimate authority.  In light of the splendor of creation, earth and its smallness is destined to be the theater to display the mighty works of God. 

God ruled-centered Kingdom

From the beginning there has been one progressive program that has developed and continues to develop – a final consummation to come (1 Cor. 15:24).  One can see God is clearly sovereign as demonstrated in the creation account (Gen. 1:1).  However proceeding the fall and the consequent flood of a people left to regulate themselves, God established a national program – Israel.  This is not merely a religious program but also a political superiority over the descendants of Abraham (Gen. 12, 15, 17).  God, in the strictest sense of the phrase, constituted Himself “King of Israel” and consequently the government of that nation became a theocracy.[5]

Many premillennialists (the writer does not concur) designate the eternal kingdom as the kingdom of God and the earthly program the kingdom of heaven.  These distinctions simply are not necessary.  In fact it is not supported in Scripture.[6]  In fact in the gospel accounts the two terms are used interchangeably[7] with the term kingdom of heaven used exclusively by Matthew.  The writer believes this is the case as it is understood that Matthew writes to Jewish people; a people who were highly sensitive to the name of God.  For that reason Matthew refrained from the use of the term.  Pentecost posits a preferable view in handling the issue – “refer to the eternal aspects as the eternal kingdom and the development of that kingdom in time as the theocratic kingdom.”[8]  The developing kingdom can be traced through Scripture. 

ü  In the garden Adam given authority to rule in this (Gen. 1:26).  Charles Feinberg agrees saying that “the kingdom of God was actually realized in the garden of Eden.  There God ruled and reigned supreme, with all His subjects giving Him the proper obedience that is befitting a King.”[9]  When disobedience came, God announced a new creation (Gen. 3:15).  So now the redemptive program runs along the same course of the development of the kingdom program.  Eve was mistaken in her assumption that Cain would be the fulfillment of that promise.  God appointed Seth instead (Gen. 4:25).

ü  Dispensation of human government (Gen. 9:1-7) indicates how God was administering (9:2 also see Rom. 13:1-4).  That which was given to Noah as an administering of the theocratic kingdom ended at Babel (Gen. 10:8-10, 11:1-9).

ü  Not long after God called Abraham in what is known as the dispensation of promise/patriarchal.  The purpose of God with Abraham centers in promises concerning a land, seed, and a blessing – all of which are eternal.  The promise or covenant is unconditional as well.  Genesis records Abraham, then enlarged to Isaac, then enlarged to Jacob and then Judah (Gen. 49:10, Num. 24:17-19, Deut. 18:18).  We see that all these promises will culminate in Christ, but in the mean time God used Moses and Joshua; then Judges (Jud. 2:16, 18, 8:22-23; Acts 13:20).

ü  Then kings come on the scene.  “The monarchal form of government was God’s ideal for the theocratic kingdom.”[10]  Promised to Abraham (Gen. 17:5-7); Jacob (35:11); as seen above with Judah, the authority of the kingdom would eventually reside in a King.  Saul was the first of the kings (one whom the people wanted) but he was rejected by God (1 Sam. 13:11-14).  The man God chose was David (1 Sam. 16:1-13).  It was with David, God established an eternal throne – an unconditional covenant (2 Sam. 7:16).  Not fulfilled in David but in one to be realized from Davidic line. 

ü  The prophets after the establishment of the Davidic covenant (throne and kingdom) identified the glorious kingdom manifest through the same (Jer. 33; Amos 9).  Interesting Ezekiel traces the departure, of what was the symbol of the presence of God in the temple, of the Shekinah Glory of God – (Ezek. 8:4, 9:3, 10:4, 10:18, 11:22, 23) – that marked the close of the theocratic kingdom for Israel.[11]

ü  At this point “the times of the Gentiles” begin with Israel going into captivity in 586 B.C.  Almost every prophet[12] refers to the FUTURE theocratic kingdom.  It begins as a trickle and now is a steady torrential waterfall on the horizon.  The kingdom to come is theocratic (Matt. 1:22-23; heavenly in character (Isa. 11); in Jerusalem and world-wide (Zech 14); established by Christ second coming (Zech. 2:10-13; Mal. 3:1-4).

It can be seen clearly that the kingdom offered by Christ and preached by John the Baptist was much anticipated.

Jesus in his first advent to Israel “proffered” (offered before established) the David Kingdom promised in 2 Sam. 7:12-17.  This was not a sham offer, just like salvation is not a sham offer since so many reject the offer.

On a hot September afternoon a young man and some friends are working on a project for school.  They are filming this young man riding on an ATV when suddenly he loses control of the vehicle and is flung unexpectedly to the pavement.  He died there instantaneously.  Just two days prior he wrote of his conversion experience and heartfelt passion for Jesus Christ.  His plans were to attend college and discover where and how God would have him to serve His church.  This young man was beginning to be a leader in his youth group and had already touched several lives, including that of this writer’s son.  An all American boy, an over-achiever in study and athletics, born-again, a bright future ahead of him, loving parents and sister; taken in advance of his “prime”.  Why?  The problem of evil and the existence of God is one of the great tensions of all time.   Reconciling the existence of evil with a perfect Creator and Governor of the universe is possible.

         A subject of concern and debate as far back as Job is the so-called “problem of evil”.  Most Christians treat the subject like an old mangy dog; they know the problem is there they just do not want the neighbors to know.  The hope is that it will just go away.  In his book When Bad Things Happen to Good People, Rabbi Harold Kushner defined the problem pointedly saying “The misfortunes of good people are not only a problem to the people who suffer and to their families, they are a problem to everyone who wants to believe in a just and fair and livable world.”[1]  The difficult questions must be asked and answers to them must be sought.  Theologian and scholar, D.A. Carson asks the questions: “If God is both omnipotent and perfectly good, how can He permit evil?  If He is willing but not able to check the suffering, then He is not omnipotent?  If He is able but not willing, He is not perfectly good?  The implication is that the very existence of evil calls into question the existence of God.”[2]  God does exist and therefore is omnipotent; evil exists and God did not prevent its existence.  Unfortunately in the search for reconciliation between the tensions at hand, many in contemporary thought, including Kushner, assume the problem to be a weakening of God.  This charge is absolutely unsubstantiated in Scripture.

Choose This Day the God You Will Serve

         Just look around; suffering, frustration, war, confusion, death, terrorism, starvation, religious battles and on and on.  Can an omnipotent, omniscient, and all compassionate God truly exist?  All the “evidence” appears, in mankind’s finite and sin tainted understanding, to point to the contrary.  This false reasoning narrows the search for the God one will serve to a “compassionate deity” or a “power hungry deity”.  This power hungry god is simply a controlling deity who created but cares nothing for his creation.  The tension here is man, made in the image of God and created to worship Him, cannot feasibly comprehend such a concept.  Dependence on emotion and experience undoubtedly leads to “choosing” the compassionate deity.

         The choice of the compassionate only deity is not without compromise.  This choice is made because the omnipotent deity and the all compassionate deity are not properly balanced in the process of sorting the details.  A compassionate god is there to sympathize with the sufferer.  He desires to see the problem disappear but is not able.  Using this line of faulty reasoning can only lead to the assumption that God has lost his omnipotence due to the presence of evil and suffering.  He still cares and loves His child but He just cannot make the problem go away.  The struggle that presents itself with the “choice” option is not realistic and is contrary to the beautiful balance of Scripture.

         Beyond the incorrect concept of choosing, mentioned above, there is the deceived option of denying evil or even reproaching God for its presence.  Concerning theodicy and this next option, Jacob Cooper wrote at the turn of the 20^th century:

Shutting our eyes to the fact of its presence, reproaching our Creator with forming a system of government under which such a fact is possible; or, what is much the same, charging a scheme of revealed religion with evils which it admits, tries to account for, and to obviate, are foolish in the extreme…The relation of the creature to the Creator certainly is not changed by the complaint, Why hast thou made me thus? or denial that there is any Maker or intelligent Ruler of the universe. Our desires, or our beliefs, or our obstinate resistance, cannot change the fact that we are in some relation to this Power; and that we have to work out our destiny subject to the conditions of our environment…The individual moral agent is somehow connected with a system, and this superintended by a personal Lawgiver, or an imminent force which possesses all the attributes of personality, acting according to fixed laws of reward and punishment. These execute themselves as surely as the laws which regulate the powers and materials constituting the physical universe. There is evidently a government of some kind working out results as surely in the one system as the other, no matter whether personal or impersonal.[3]

The outright denial of the reality and presence of evil is the equivalent of one sticking their head in the sand.  One need only to glance in the mirror, turn on the news report, or journey to the nearest Wal-Mart to discover the fact of evil.  That said, the alternative here is to blame God.  However to blame God one must determine what they are blaming Him for.  Is it the assumption that he created evil, that He allows evil, or that He would really like to stop it but cannot?  This should be dealt with now.

Divine Sovereignty and Man’s Free Will

         Evil happened on God’s watch.  “The eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding (keeping watch over) the evil and the good” (Proverbs 15:3, KJV).  According to The Theological Word Book of the Old Testament, the original word translated “beholding” conveys the idea “of being fully aware of a situation in order to gain some advantage…Yahweh is alert to what happens on earth in order that he may properly judge it inhabitants.”[4]  If God was not aware and fully conscious of everything that happens He would topple from His throne of sovereignty.  That is not feasible considering what John witnessed which is recorded in Revelation 4:2; “a throne that was set in heaven”.  The throne was already there; ekeito in the imperfect seems to indicate it already took place. This indicates an eternal throne.  Most have tried to reason their way to an explanation of some sort, especially when they are suffering.  Some of the confusion is lifted by Lewis Chafer when he said “if everything in religion were level to the comprehension of reason, there would be no room for faith.  It is better to believe humbly, than to reason presumptuously…which leads to the denial of the immutability of the divine counsels, or of the freedom of the human will; which makes man a machine, and God the author of sin.”[5]  The student of Scripture, with these presuppositions can reasonably say that God planned for the entrance of sin.

         Did God create evil?  This question arises when one considers the relationship between God and evil in the world.  A careful examination of Scripture does not seem to indicate the God created evil but rather allowed for it in creation.  There are however, “several passages[6] that affirm that God did cause (or intend) evil events to come about and evil deeds to be done…(however) it is very clear that Scripture nowhere shows God as directly doing anything evil.”[7]  God made allowances in His creation account.  The biblical account of Genesis 1:31 records God’s assessment of creation as being “very good”.  This can be found in contrast to the new heaven and the new earth of Revelation 21:1.  “God is not the responsible originator of sin.  He did not create it.  His sovereign plan, however, did render the entrance of sin as a certainty.”[8]  Norman Geisler helps with this tension:  “It should be noted that evil is a privation of a good thing. Evil does not exist in its own right; rather it exists as an ontological parasite, so it may be considered a byproduct of a good thing. Hence, God can create only good things and cause only good actions and still know evil as a byproduct of a good act.”[9]

         It would then be reasonable to assume that God’s rendering of sin and evil was brought about through the evil deeds of the willing actions of moral creatures.  Originally this took place in the exalted cherubim Lucifer who said “in (his) heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation…I will be like the Most High.”[10]  The assessment of God is that in Lucifer was “found iniquity” and “thou hast sinned” because “thine heart was lifted up” (pride).[11]  Scripture clearly indicates that Lucifer exercised his own will and sinned.  This was brought in the form of temptation to the Garden of Eden and presented to the first man and woman.  God, who created them, gave them the single responsibility to not eat of the fruit of a specific tree.  This command was met with willful rebellion (Gen. 3).  This in turn plunged the human race in the depths and depravity of sin (Rom. 5:12).  “God created man with a free will…he had the ability to sin and the ability not to sin.  He freely chose to sin out of concupiscence.”[12]  As one tries to understand God’s relationship to evil, the removal of man’s responsibility must not be an option.  God is not to be blamed for evil nor does He take pleasure in it; however, He does use willful agents, in which He puts structure to the evil choices of those agents.

         Evil is at work under the control of God.  It is a dreadful thought to think that God is not in full control of evil.  God always has been in full control of His creation, therefore “it is not an infringement on human agency that the Creator has the right and power to restrain the evil actions of His creatures…sometimes God frustrates the will of rulers by making their plans fail…but there are times when God does not use this right because He intends for human evil to run its course.”  One then could say, on the authority of Scripture, that evil is fully subservient to God.  Two passages of Scripture speak to this truth pointedly: “I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I the Lord, do all these things (Isa. 45:7)”; then “who can speak and have it happen if the Lord has not decreed it?  Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come? (Lam. 3:37-38).”  Contrary to what the reader may want to force of their own position, these passages cannot be minimized.

         Caution must be used when attempting to reconcile divine sovereignty and the human will.  Scripture teaches both.  In fact there is a beautiful balance.  It is possible to hold to the complete sovereignty of God and not sacrifice the free will of man.  Using the example of the Garden of Eden account in Genesis 3, Matthew Graham alleviates some of this tension:  

God does not know this particular evil as merely a possible evil but as an actual evil because He is the primary efficient cause of the action. It is not the case that God is the efficient cause and Adam is the instrumental cause of Adam’s sin. Both Adam and God are the efficient causes of Adam’s eating of the apple. Adam is not the instrument of God’s sinful action. Rather God is the efficient cause of Adams good free action, which results in the sin of Adam.[13]

One could also consider Joseph’s conclusion to the evil act of his brother’s years prior.  He said as recorded in Genesis 50:20: “God meant it (the evil action) for good but you meant it for evil.”  The same action appears to have two agents involved.  It is also noted that each agent had a different role in the act.  Scholars use the term “dual agency” to describe the above.

The Purpose of God

         The primary and overwhelming purpose of God is doxological.  The sine qua non of dispensationalism includes that everything is for the glory of God.  This would naturally include the entrance of evil in the past and presence of evil in the world today.  It is the doxological purpose of God that brings comfort to the heart of the one who has entered into a relationship with God through Jesus Christ.  In spite of evil and suffering one can know and trust that God is sovereign and he is working good and evil together to bring about His purposes; primarily His glory, secondarily man kind’s redemption.  The purpose of redeeming man ultimately is for His glory.  God intended as well as allowed evil for His glory.[14]  The presence of evil and man’s involvement makes necessary God’s plan of redemption. 

         In the 9^th century B.C. there was a city that was infested with evil.  The people were a murderous society.  All that took place was contrary to anything that was good.  It was during this time that God called a man by the name of Jonah to proclaim a message from heaven.  The message was simple; if you repent then I will forgive you and bring healing.  Jonah did not want the Ninevites to repent or even have the opportunity because he hated them and he knew that God would do exactly what He said He would do.  The promise was that God would show His compassion on a population of heathen.  The message was preached, the people did repent, and God was glorified.  To understand simply that God could not have received the glory for this occasion had He not allowed evil’s influence shadows the heart with comfort.  The same can be seen in the midst of suffering even for a believer.  Even suffering for a saint seems to be for God’s doxological and redemptive purposes.  “And they cried with a loud voice, saying, how long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?”[15]  The time in which God does avenge and judge, due to the presence of evil, He will receive the ultimate glory.  The Apostle Paul reminds the pastor Timothy[16] that their redemption was not because of anything they had done, but exclusively for the purpose and grace that God gave to them in Christ Jesus.  The plan and purpose of this was before the world began which means even before the entrance of evil into the world.  With the understanding that God’s ultimate purpose is His own glory, one then can conclude that the allowance of evil in the world brings God the ultimate glory.  The finite mind should, after wrestling with these truths, echo the words of Paul who said “Oh the depths of riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God, how unsearchable are his judgments and his ways past finding out!” (Rom. 11:33). 

         God commanded Adam not to eat of the fruit, yet if Adam had not sinned there would be no need for a redeemer who had been decreed in the ages before Adam (Rev. 13:8).  In the same vein, God told Saul if he was obedient he would be given an eternal throne; yet Genesis 49:10 said that throne would go through the tribe of Judah not Benjamin of whom was Saul.  Satan himself admits he cannot do anything without it first being signed off at the throne of God (Job 1-2).  In the last two millennia there have been martyrs of whom could have prevented the murderous act if only they would have recanted their position in and on Jesus Christ.   Encouraging words from Chafer: 

Sin is in the universe by the permission of God who hates it perfectly and who, being sovereign, had power to keep it from manifestation, had He chosen to do so. That He did not hinder the manifestation of sin, demonstrates that He, being what He is, must have a purpose in view other than the averting of sin. Here as nowhere else in the affairs of the universe, the end justifies the means.[17]

That purpose is God’s own glory.  Just in the last decade this can be seen even in natural disasters, or as insurance companies call it, “acts of God”.  Hurricane Katrina hit the city of New Orleans; people killed, homes destroyed, and families disjointed.  As time moves forward, one can see the many acts in which God Himself receives the glory.  God can control the elements, just as Jesus Christ calmed the sea by His word.  Yet He chose not to in the case of this hurricane.  Why?  His purpose was otherwise.  A tsunami hit the coast of Indonesia killing thousands.  Until that point missionaries were not allowed in the country.  Afterwards missionaries report freedom to move about with many people coming to salvation.  God is glorified.  Terrorists attack this country using commercial jets and churches fill at alarming rates. 

“In short, God is even now using evil for His own good purposes…God’s ultimate purpose is to glorify Himself…one good is greater than another when it is more conducive to the glory of God…Scripture does not give an exhaustive explanation for all evil but it does show God has used some evils to advance his purpose…to include: displaying grace and justice; redemption; shock value to unbelievers; vindication of God.”[18] 

God has a purpose and a reason for everything He does or allows.  Everything that happens, although unexplainable, reflect the wisdom of God.

Evil and its Coming Annihilation

         To the pastor of the church at Crete in the first century, Paul writes: “looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ.”[19]  This was a body of believers enduring suffering.  The solution was to wait in anticipation of the imminent return of Christ.  To another church Paul wrote: “to you who are troubled, rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels…taking vengeance…to be glorified.”[20]  Richard Bauckham writes:

Revelation maintains the typical apocalyptic tension of imminence and delay, now sharpened and characterized in a peculiarly Christian manner. The imminent expectation focuses on the parousia of the already victorious Christ: and the book ends with the promise, ‘I am coming soon’, and the church’s urgent response, ‘Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!’ (22:20). But the manner of the victory which Christ has already won – a sacrificial offering to ransom sinners from every nation (5:9) – gives fresh meaning to the delay, which now becomes the time of the church’s universal mission, characterized by suffering witness in discipleship to the crucified Christ. In this way, it should be noticed, the apocalyptic theodicy problem of innocent suffering gains a fresh perspective. Innocent suffering still cries out for eschatological righteousness (6:10;18:1–19:3). But on the other hand, God delays the parousia not simply in spite of his people’s sufferings, but actually so that his people may suffer that positive, creative suffering which comes to the followers of the cross of Christ.[21]

         The story of Job is considered a tragedy.  That is the natural conclusion to a man who in God’s eyes was righteous, yet lost everything; his family, his home, his health, his friends.  The story begins with the tragic account of something no one would ever want to go through.  Yet the story ends in great triumph.  The Revelation tells the same story of God’s present creation.  Though suffering at present, a perfect creation will one day be ushered in; a new heaven and a new earth without the possibility of evil or sin ever entering in.  God is absolutely sovereign.  Nothing happens that He has not determined, even if His methodology is not clear.  God also created man whose actions are free as well as man being responsible for them.  This conclusion satisfies few but is one derived from the biblical data given.  To God none of it is a mystery.  One day He will undoubtedly unravel it all.  The child of God will one day know that all things really did work together for good (Rom. 8:28).  In the mean time rest in Him and seek to glorify Him.

The first supposed difference in (Matt. 28:1) which says “now after the Sabbath” and (Luke 24:1) “but on the first day of the week”.  A brief understanding of the audiences helps with this.  Matthew presents Christ as King who offers a legitimate Kingdom to the Jews and his audience is mainly Jews.  Luke on the other hand presents Christ as Son of Man (the differences can be seen in the genealogies where Matthew goes to Abraham Luke goes back to Adam).  Luke writes to the Greeks.  By Jewish reckoning the day ended at sunset on Saturday and the new day began at the same time.  Saturday then by our reckoning was actually the beginning of Sunday on their calendar.  Matthew records the earthquake and Luke leaves this out.  Matthew also says that an angel rolled the stone away and Luke simply states the fact that the stone had been rolled away.  There is no discrepancy here, Matthew is simply giving more information.  Matthew mentions the guards and Luke doesn’t mention them.  This may have significance to the Jewish reader where the Gentile/Greek wouldn’t have mattered.

Matthew states that the women saw the angel sitting outside on the stone. Luke records their entrance into the tomb but places two angels standing next to them (24:3-4).  The variation can be explained easily and Ed Glasscock does just that saying – “the women arrived at the tomb, saw that the stone had been rolled aside, and an angel sitting on the stone greeted them with the news of the resurrection.  Stunned in disbelief, some of the women stepped into the tomb at the invitation of the angel on the stone (Matt 28:6)…other angels standing within the tomb asked why seek the living among the dead (Luke 24:3-7).”

By juxtaposing (especially in narrative literature) the accounts we can see the event (using all the narratives) as one dramatic account – the open tomb, the angels proclaiming the message, the women that were stunned (we all would be), some ran away should be noted, some went in the tomb.  All four gospels essentially agree in reporting the facts of the resurrection.  However the diversity of details in each of the accounts SUPPLEMENT each other rather than CONTRADICT.

Ephesians 6:10-13

Daniel as a young man probably a teenager, had etched biblical principles on his heart  that when the time came  and the Babylonians snatched him out of his home town  and drug him off to a pagan foreign land  he was able to STAND  and having done all to stand.  When he looked death in the face  he trusted God and his word  and continued to praise the one true God.  There came a time  just after he had received the vision from God  concerning the 70 weeks of Israel  that Daniel became so burdened  he fasted and prayed  EARNESTLY – he was doing battle.  The Scripture says  Daniel was mourning for 3 weeks  which indicates that was the length of his fasting and praying.

That is a long time. I don’t know about you but I have trouble at times  praying for one minute  without being distracted.

The Bible says  an angel appeared to Daniel and tells Daniel that he was dispatched 3 weeks ago at the time Daniel set his heart to pray.

What took so long?  He was doing battle with the prince of the kingdom of Persia.

It took Michael the archangel to come and help him in this battle and he also announces that after he tells Daniel what he has been sent to tell him he is going right back to battle. This time it is with the prince of Persia AND Grecia.

The devil and his troops are real beings this is not a fiction story – this is totally true.  Paul says even the devil can transform himself into a minister of light.  In other words don’t look for the devil in the dark alleys or the crack houses or the pornographic shops or in the ABC store.  You see he would rather you stir up division in the church than you become a drug addict.  No wonder the Bible says nothing upsets God more than someone spilling  out PUTRID discord in the church.

I outline the text the following:

I. The Strength to be Received

Finally my brethren be strong in the Lord and the power of His might.  That tells the believer who is walking with the Lord that he is called into action.  These are military type commands.  Receive the strength that Jesus gives us.  Then he says put on the whole armor of God.  PUT ON the provisions that God has given.  Why?  That you might be able to stand.  The ability comes from God who doesn’t call us to fight but rather STAND.

II. The Strategy of the Devil

Against the WILES of the Lord.  He is cunning, deceiving, and crafti.  He is a real personality not a fiction book character.  And God’s church is under attack by a well organized army that Paul describes as principalities, powers, rulers of darkness, and spiritual wickedness.  These are the ones we wrestle with and NOT flesh and blood.  The next time a brother or sister gets under your skin just remember we don’t wrestle with flesh and blood.  Even governments are satanically controlled.

III. Self Control must be Exercised

Wherefore take unto you the full armor of God that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day and having done all to stand.

This isn’t an offensive assignment but rather defensive.  Put on all the God provided and given armor and keep it on.  That takes discipline. And always remember God doesn’t call us to victory He has already won, He simply says STAND.  In other words hold your position.  Don’t give the devil your testimony, your family, or your church – STAND!

John 15:1-8

The upper room meeting is now behind the disciples.  The Lord has taught them a great lesson in humility in washing the feet of His disciples.  The Lord’s Supper is instituted and Judas has been revealed as a traitor.  Now the Lord takes the remaining 11 on a walk toward the cross – Jerusalem.  In just a few hours they will all abandon Him; they would have never thought it.  So He gives them (and all of us) a terrific lesson in the necessity and the promises of abiding in Him.  Our union with Christ is essential.  He initiated the union and we should respond in obedience.

1. Pruning – vv. 1-3

Christ is the “true vine” indicating that He is fulfilling what God originally intended for Israel.  Isaiah 5 God says that He expected obedience from Israel but they gave only “wild grapes”.  God wanted Israel to be fruitful and to be a light to the nations.  He has put Israel’s program on hold and has chose to vehicle His message through the church.  Oh how the church lets the Lord down – may God revive His church!

From time to time “branches” are removed.  But in (v. 2) Jesus keys in on the importance of God pruning the believer in order to produce “more” and “much” fruit.  The method of this pruning (v. 3) is through the Word of God.  The Word of God exposes sin; inspires holiness; promotes growth.  As Jesus applied the Word to the disciples they underwent a constant pruning process.  We must, as Christians, stay in God’s Word.

1. Production – vv. 4-6

The Lord calls for a mutual abiding.  The branch does not produce fruit.  The vine produces the fruit in the branch.  However the branch must abide in the vine – and when it does fruit is certain.  There is no guarantee for quantity or quality – just fruit (v. 5).

The penalty the Lord speaks of (v. 6) is somewhat solemn.  He does not seem to be thinking along salvific lines.  It seems that the greatest judgment of God for the believer would be to let him alone.  Just let him have his own way.  It would be just like (figuratively) throwing us in the fire.  I couldn’t imagine facing my Jesus with a destroyed, burned up, testimony.  Unfruitfulness however, is a good indicator (most of the time) that one has not been genuinely born again.  Oh the carnality in the church today.

1. Proof – vv. 7-8

How is the connection maintained?  Isaiah 5 we are giving a clue – it is obedience – that would seem to be the main ingredient although it surely doesn’t exhaust the list.  I will give two proofs that one is abiding in Christ.

1. The believer desires the will of God (v. 7).  An orange isn’t going to bear apples.  The genuine believer in Christ will bear godly fruit – according to the will of God.
2. God is glorified in our fruitfulness – (v. 8).  It is God generating the fruit after all.  Jesus said “by their fruit you will know them.  At this point in the text – in just a few hours – the disciples will be asleep in the garden; Peter will go slashing with a sword and cursing and denying Christ; the rest tuck tail and run away.  Why did they do this?  The Word of God wasn’t abiding in them.  Why do we do the same stuff?  The Word is not abiding in us. 

Abiding = Abounding!

The Church and the New Covenant