theWord Module Download:
Download Exposition of Matthew 24

• What is theWord? How do I view theWord Modules?

Author:
Basil Copeland

theWord Version:
3.x - 4.x

Tab Name:
MT24

This is a new and original commentary on the eschatological discourse of Matthew 24. The eschatological perspective is amillennial, along the lines of Vos' two-age eschatology. The exposition is similar to the "Revised Preterist-Futurist" position (which I would restyle as "Alternating Preterist-Futurist) associated with D. A. Carson (and more recently, Craig Blomberg), though it differs in a couple of significant ways. See the commentary for details. Incidentally, the term "Revised Preterist-Futurist" to describe Carson's point of view was coined by David L. Turner in a 1989 article in Grace Theological Review that has been placed in open access at archive.org, so I've included a copy of it in the top level entry of the commentary. Even though I do not always agree with Turner's analysis, I think he has the overall relationship between preterism and futurism correct, and that the article is a useful commentary in itself on Matthew 24.

The following, from the introductory material, provides a bit more about the exposition presented here:

---------------------------------
Expositions of the eschatological discourse of Matthew 24 tend to fall in line with the various schools of interpretation for the book of Revelation. Preterists will tend to attribute the whole of the discourse to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, i.e. "already"; while futurists (e.g., Premillennialists) will tend to interpret it in light of various interpretations of "the Rapture" and view it as all (or mostly) "not yet. Others will often attribute part of the discourse to the destruction of Jerusalem, and part to the Pariousia (Second Coming), with debate often being over where to mark a transition between the two (e.g. whether at vv. 29-30, or whether the transition follows v. 35). While I offer a view that both the destruction of Jerusalem and the Parousia are in view as Jesus discusses these things, I suggest that the relationship between the two is more complex than a simple, single, transition point -- e.g. whether at vv. 29-30, or whether after v. 35. Rather, I believe that Jesus alternates, back and forth, between the two, throughout the discourse, at least until v. 35, when thereafter the destruction of Jerusalem is no longer in view.

It should help, then, to proffer an outline of the exposition offered here, to show this alternating pattern of discussion that can be discerned by carefully expounding the text. In the outline below, I use the tag "DoJ" to refer to portions of the text that I believe are revealing something about the destruction of Jerusalem, and "EoA" where I believe the text is referring to the "end of the age," i.e. the Parousia or Second Coming. When Jesus is referring to the destruction of Jerusalem, I take him to be answering the "when will these things be" part of the question in Mt 24:2; when referring to events culminating in the end of the age, I take him to be answering the "what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age" part of the question in Mt 24:2. With this notation, I would outline Matthew 24, in A-B A-B A-B fashion, as follows.

Preface:
The setting, and the questions asked -- 24.:1-3.

I. First Reply:
A. re "these things" -- DoJ -- 24:4-8.
B. re "the sign of your coming and of the EoA" -- Mt 24:9-14.

II. Second Reply:
A. re "these things" -- DoJ -- 24:15-22.
B. re "the sign of your coming and of the EoA -- Mt 24:23-31.

III. Third Reply:
A. re "these things" -- DoJ -- 24:32-34.
B. re "the sign of your coming and of the EoA -- 24:35-51.

Some of the transitions are sharper and clearer than others, but on the whole I think the soundest exposition is one which views Jesus as alternating back and forth between the two events evoked by the questions asked by the disciples in v. 3.