Covenant Relationship: Continuity and Form

Lately, the idea of weddings has been coming up often in my personal study. First, it appeared while I was reading the closing chapters of Revelation and the wedding supper of the Lamb. More recently, it came up again while reading Matthew chapter 22. With my curiosity now piqued, I decided to explore this topic further.

The Sadducees’ Marriage Question

The first question that came to mind arose from Matthew 22:23–32. The Sadducees—who did not believe in the resurrection—asked Jesus a question about a hypothetical situation. A woman had been married to seven brothers, one after another, because each husband died. They asked Jesus: after the resurrection, whose wife would she be?¹

So what was Jesus really doing in His answer (vv. 29–32)?
- Was He only answering the Sadducees directly?
- Was He commenting on earthly relationships?
- Or was He explaining what relationships will be like after the resurrection?

A Direct Challenge, Not a Casual Answer

The main point of Jesus’ answer becomes clear when we recognize that He is directly challenging and correcting a false belief. This passage begins with a rebuke, not a gentle explanation. Jesus says:

“You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God.”²

That sentence tells us what is happening. This is not a calm discussion about heaven. It is a covenant courtroom moment, consistent with the wider judgment-and-transition setting of Matthew 21–25, where Jesus confronts failed covenant leadership and announces the passing of the old order.

Why the Sadducees?

The Sadducees denied the resurrection completely.³ They accepted primarily the Torah—the first five books of the Old Testament—and rejected much of the Prophets and Writings. Their question was not sincere. It was designed to mock the idea of resurrection by reducing it to a legal problem, drawing on the levirate marriage law in Deuteronomy 25:5–10.⁴

Once this background is understood, Jesus’ strategy becomes clear:

·        He refuses their basic assumption.

·        He corrects their categories of thought.

·        He defeats them using their own Scriptures by citing Exodus rather than Daniel.⁵

Because of this, Jesus’ answer is first and foremost a direct challenge meant to expose Sadducean unbelief.

Is Jesus Commenting on Earthly Relationships?

Yes—but only in a secondary and corrective sense. Jesus says:

“In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.”⁶

It is important to be clear about what Jesus is not saying. He is not saying that relationships disappear. He is not saying that people lose their identity. He is not saying that love, recognition, or continuity come to an end.

What Jesus is saying is that marriage, like temple, sacrifice, and priesthood, is a covenant institution tied to mortal life—necessary within a death-marked order, but not carried forward unchanged into resurrection life. These are death-bound realities. Resurrection life does not continue structures that exist only to manage death.

Marriage exists because people die.
Resurrection exists because death is defeated.

This understanding completely breaks the Sadducees’ argument. However, it also raises another question.

Is Jesus Describing Future Resurrection Relationships?

The best answer is: He does so only indirectly, and very carefully. Notice what Jesus does not do:

·        He does not describe what relationships will be like.

·        He does not explain emotional bonds.

·        He does not speculate about recognition or continuity.

Jesus avoids these topics because they are not part of the debate. When He says people will be “like angels,” He does not mean they become sexless, non-relational, or ethereal beings. He means they are immortal. Luke 20:36 makes this explicit when it says they “cannot die anymore.”⁷

In short, people no longer marry because death is no longer a threat. Jesus is answering the Sadducees’ legal logic, not constructing a full doctrine of eternity.

The Real Focus: Covenant Life, Not Marriage

The center of Jesus’ answer is not verse 30, but verses 31–32. Jesus says:

“I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”⁸

This is the theological climax of the passage. God’s covenant relationship does not end at death. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob still live to God. Resurrection is not argued from abstract philosophy, but from God’s covenant faithfulness.

The Sadducees attempted to turn resurrection into a legal absurdity. Jesus reframes it as covenant continuity.

Speculation about future relationships is not the point, and Jesus intentionally leaves it undeveloped. His answer exposes the Sadducees’ failure to understand Scripture, the power of God, and covenant life itself. God is faithful—even beyond death.
______________________

What About Marriage Instituted by God in Eden?

At this point, a natural question arises: how does the relationship of the first man and woman—Adam and Eve—fit into Jesus’ answer to the Sadducees?

In short, Adam and Eve show that marriage belongs to a death-managed stage of human history, not to resurrected life, even though marriage was created by God and called “very good.”⁹

1. Adam and Eve Before Death Entered the Story

In Genesis 1–2, marriage appears before sin and death enter the world. Genesis 2:24 says, “The two shall become one flesh.” Because of this, one might ask: if marriage existed before the Fall, why would it not exist after the resurrection?

This is a fair question—and it closely mirrors the logic the Sadducees were pressing, even if unintentionally. Jesus’ answer helps resolve it.

A Key Distinction

Marriage was created in a world that was capable of death, even though death had not yet occurred. Adam and Eve were not glorified, not confirmed in immortality, and still able to fall.

Resurrection life, by contrast, is permanent and irreversible. Those who are raised “cannot die anymore,” and they are raised imperishable.¹⁰

2. Marriage Was Provisional Even in Eden

Even in Eden, marriage served forward-looking purposes. God commanded Adam and Eve to “be fruitful and multiply.”¹¹ This involved filling the earth and extending God’s image through future generations. These purposes already assume time, succession, and unfinished creation. Marriage was good, but it was not final.

Jesus’ answer to the Sadducees does not deny creation; it clarifies where creation was headed.

3. Adam and Eve Compared to Resurrection Humanity

Though He does not spell it out, here is an important contrast one can assume from this answer and the teaching of Jesus:

Adam and Eve	Resurrection Humanity
Created good but mutable	Raised imperishable
Able to die	Cannot die anymore
Commanded to multiply	No need for succession
Marriage fills the earth	Full number of the redeemed complete
Innocent but unglorified	Glorified and confirmed

Marriage belongs to creation in progress, not creation completed—good within the “already,” but not the final form of life in the “not yet” brought to fulfillment through resurrection.

4. Jesus’ Answer Reframed with Adam and Eve in View

When Jesus says, “In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage,” He is not contradicting Eden. He is saying that resurrection does not return humanity to Genesis 2; it carries humanity beyond it.

Adam and Eve point forward. The resurrection arrives.

5. Revelation Confirms the Direction of the Story

Revelation does not picture a restored Eden that simply preserves earlier covenant forms. Instead, just as Babylon represents the collapse of Jerusalem and the old covenant order, the Bride represents the completed people of God—no longer mediated by provisional institutions, but united directly to the Lamb. Instead, it reveals:

·        a new creation

·        a single, corporate bride

·        one covenant union between Christ and His people¹²

Adam and Eve were the first sign. The Bride of the Lamb is the final reality.

Paul makes this explicit when he writes, “This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.”¹³ Marriage was always meant to point beyond itself.

6. Why This Strengthens Jesus’ Reply to the Sadducees

The Sadducees assumed resurrection would freeze creation at one moment in history and extend it indefinitely. Jesus assumes something very different:

·        creation moves forward

·        covenant forms mature

·        God brings provisional goods to completion

Adam and Eve do not weaken Jesus’ answer—they confirm it.

Marriage belongs to God’s good but unfinished creation. Resurrection life belongs to creation completed, where covenant relationship remains, but the temporary form of marriage gives way to its final fulfillment in union with Christ.

Matthew 22, then, belongs to the same covenant movement already traced in Matthew 21–25. Jesus is not answering an abstract question about the afterlife, but exposing the failure of old-order thinking to grasp resurrection life. Just as the temple, sacrifices, and priesthood were not carried forward unchanged, marriage itself is shown to be a provisional covenant form—good within its time, but not permanent. Revelation does not contradict this teaching; it completes it. What Matthew announces in debate form, Revelation reveals in symbolic fulfillment: the old order passes away, and the people of God are gathered into a single, resurrected covenant union with Christ.

This leads us naturally to Revelation 19 and the marriage described there.
____________________

Covenant Continuity and Covenant Form

From the Marriage Debate to the Bride of the Lamb

In Matthew 22, the Sadducees attempted to disprove the resurrection by using marriage. They imagined a woman who had been married seven times and ask whose wife she would be after the resurrection. Their question assumed that resurrection must simply extend present life unchanged. Jesus rejected this assumption and explained that resurrection life is real, but governed by different realities than mortal life.¹⁴

Jesus said that in the resurrection people do not marry, but are “like the angels in heaven.”¹⁵ By this statement He is not denying relationship, but mortality. Marriage belongs to a world where people die; resurrection belongs to a world where death has been overcome.

Jesus then proved the resurrection by appealing to covenant identity: “I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”¹⁶ God’s covenant relationship persists beyond death. What changes is not covenant life, but covenant form.

Revelation 19–21 carries this same logic forward. God’s people are portrayed as a bride, and Christ as the bridegroom.¹⁷ The image is corporate, not individual. The “marriage of the Lamb” is the fulfillment toward which earthly marriage always pointed.¹⁸

Earthly marriage was never the final goal. It was a sign. When resurrection life arrives, the sign gives way to the reality. God dwells with His people, and relationship remains—but now shaped by eternal life rather than mortality.¹⁹

Matthew 22 and Revelation 19–21 teach the same truth from different angles. God’s covenant faithfulness does not end, but death-bound covenant structures do. Marriage, like temple and sacrifice, belongs to a passing order. In the resurrection, those forms give way to full life with God, shared by all His people forever.²⁰

The resurrection does not undo God’s good creation; it completes it. Marriage, like temple and sacrifice, belonged to a world marked by death and served a real purpose within that world. Jesus’ answer to the Sadducees does not deny covenant relationship, but reveals that covenant life does not depend on death-bound forms. What began in Eden as a sign of shared life finds its fulfillment not in the extension of earthly marriage, but in the resurrection life of God’s people gathered to Christ. The Bride of the Lamb is not the loss of relationship, but its consummation—life with God, and with one another, no longer shaped by mortality, but by the power of an unending covenant.

Endnotes:

1.        Matt. 22:23–28.

2.       Matt. 22:29.

3.       Acts 23:8.

4.       Deut. 25:5–10.

5.       Matt. 22:31–32; Exod. 3:6.

6.       Matt. 22:30.

7.       Luke 20:36.

8.       Matt. 22:32.

9.       Gen. 1:31; 2:24.

10.    Luke 20:36; 1 Cor. 15:42–54.

11.     Gen. 1:28.

12.    Rev. 19:7; 21:2.

13.     Eph. 5:32.

14.    Matt. 22:23–30.

15.     Matt. 22:30.

16.    Matt. 22:31–32.

17.     Rev. 19:7–9; 21:2.

18.    Rev. 19:7.

19.    Rev. 21:3–4.

20.   Rev. 21:22–27.

 

East, West, and the Early Church: What Christians Believed About the End Times (and Why It Changed)

Many people are told that the early Church Fathers believed in a pre-tribulation rapture and a detailed end-times timeline. This post takes a calm look at what the Fathers actually wrote, and then explains why Eastern and Western Christianity developed end-times beliefs differently. The goal is simple: read the sources fairly, and follow the history where it leads.

________________________________________

Many popular prophecy teachers claim two things: (1) the early Church Fathers all believed in a future thousand-year kingdom, and (2) they also held something like the modern pre-tribulation rapture. These claims may sound convincing, but they do not hold up when the historical evidence is examined carefully.

To understand what the early church actually believed, it helps to start even earlier—with the Jewish world that Christianity was born into—and then to see how Christian thinking developed differently in the Eastern and Western churches.

1. Second Temple Jewish Expectations: Fulfillment Without Waiting

Second Temple Judaism (about 500 BC to AD 70) included many groups. They did not agree on everything, but they shared important hopes about the future. They believed that when God acted, He would act fully and finally.

They expected:

• Israel’s enemies to be defeated

• God’s people to be proven right

• The wicked to be judged

• The dead to be raised

• God’s kingdom to come on earth¹

Different groups (Pharisees, Essenes, Zealots, and others like those at Qumran) had different details. But they all assumed one key idea: God would not start His work and then stop for thousands of years. They did not expect history to be split into long gaps. Even when they spoke about “this age” and “the age to come,” they expected a big, complete change, not a long delay.²

2. Early Christianity: Fulfillment Re-Explained, Not Rejected

Early Christians changed how Jewish hopes were understood, but they did not throw them away. The Church taught that:

• God’s kingdom began with Jesus

• Sin and death were defeated through the cross and resurrection

• New life had already entered history

• The final completion was still coming, but was certain³

This is often called the “already / not yet” view: God’s promises have already begun, but they are not finished yet. The Church did not explain the delay by pushing promises far into the future. Instead, it explained them through Jesus Himself. Both Eastern and Western Christians began with this view—but they developed it differently over time.

3. What the Early Church Fathers Actually Taught

Justin Martyr (c. AD 100–165)

Justin Martyr believed that Jesus would return visibly in the future and that a thousand-year reign would follow. This view is often called chiliasm or historic premillennialism. In Dialogue with Trypho, Justin writes that “there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem.” At the same time, he admits that not all Christians agreed with him.¹

What matters most is what Justin does not say. He never describes Jesus coming secretly to remove the Church before a time of suffering. He also does not divide Jesus’ return into multiple stages. For Justin, resurrection, judgment, and the kingdom all happen together in public view.²

Irenaeus of Lyons (c. AD 120–202)

Irenaeus also believed in a future Antichrist, a time of great suffering, the visible return of Christ, and a kingdom that follows. In Against Heresies, he clearly teaches that the Church will be persecuted by the Antichrist before Christ returns.³

Sometimes Irenaeus speaks of believers being “caught up,” but in every case this happens after suffering, when Christ appears. He expects the Church to endure hardship, be proven faithful, and then be raised—not to escape trouble beforehand.⁴

Irenaeus also makes no distinction between Israel and the Church as separate groups with different future plans. This lack of separation is very different from dispensational or modern rapture teaching.⁵

Tertullian (c. AD 155–220)

Tertullian believed in a future resurrection, final judgment, and a kingdom on earth. He argued against interpretations that turned these hopes into mere symbols.⁶ His belief in a future reign of Christ appears most clearly in Against Marcion.⁷

Like Justin and Irenaeus, Tertullian describes Christ’s return as a single, dramatic event. He never teaches a secret rapture or a removal of believers before suffering. There is no evidence that he believed in a pre-tribulation rapture.⁸

4. Historical Assessment: What This Proves (and What It Does Not)

It is true that some early Church Fathers believed in a future thousand-year reign. However, it is wrong to say they believed what modern dispensational teachers believe today. The early Fathers consistently expected:

• A future time of suffering that includes the Church

• A visible, public return of Christ

• The resurrection of believers at that return

• Judgment and the beginning of Christ’s kingdom

The idea that these events are split into separate stages—especially a secret rapture before suffering—does not appear in early Christian writings. Historians widely agree that this system developed much later, especially in the nineteenth century.⁹

5. A Note on Selective Appeals to the Church Fathers

Some contemporary prophecy teachers appeal to isolated phrases from Irenaeus and other early or later patristic writings to argue that the early Church taught a pre-tribulation rapture. These appeals often center on words such as “taken” or “caught up.” However, when such passages are read in their full literary and historical contexts, they consistently refer either to the resurrection at Christ’s visible return or to divine protection amid persecution—not to a secret removal of the Church prior to tribulation.¹⁰

In particular, these interpretations overlook Irenaeus’ explicit teaching that the Church will confront the Antichrist before Christ’s appearing, a position incompatible with pre-tribulation rapture theology.¹¹ Appeals to later texts such as Pseudo-Ephraem likewise fail to establish early support for dispensationalism, since these writings originate centuries after the apostolic era and do not articulate a coherent pre-tribulation framework.¹² As numerous scholars have noted, such arguments depend on anachronistic readings that import modern theological categories into second- and third-century sources.¹³

6. Proto-Amillennialism: Definition and Scope

At this point, it becomes clear that early Christianity was not “one-view only.” While some writers were chiliastic, others began to read the end-times material differently—especially in the East. Before looking at those Fathers, it helps to define proto-amillennialism.

Proto-amillennialism does not describe a fully developed system like Augustine’s later amillennialism. Instead, it refers to an early way of reading Scripture that rejects a literal future earthly millennium and emphasizes Christ’s current reign and symbolic language in prophecy.

Proto-amillennialism includes several key ideas:

1. Revelation 20 is not read literally

   The “thousand years” is understood symbolically, not as a future political kingdom on earth.¹⁴

2. Christ reigns now

   Jesus is already ruling through His resurrection and ascension, especially through the Church. End-times teaching centers on Christ, not timelines.¹⁵

3. Rejection of earthly rewards

   Proto-amillennial writers criticize the idea of physical pleasures or political rule as the goal of God’s kingdom.¹⁶

4. Symbolic reading of prophecy

   Apocalyptic language is meant to teach faith and hope, not provide a calendar of future events.¹⁷

5. No separation between Israel and the Church

   God’s people are understood as one covenant community centered on Christ.¹⁸

Proto-amillennialism is therefore a way of interpreting Scripture, not a finished doctrine. It appears early in Christian history and prepares the way for Augustine’s later work.¹⁹

7. Early Church Fathers with Proto-Amillennial Views (and Why This Matters for East vs. West)

One key reason modern “rapture-history” claims fail is that they often ignore how strongly Eastern theology moved toward symbolic, present-kingdom readings long before Augustine in the West.

Origen of Alexandria (c. AD 185–254)

Origen is the clearest early critic of literal millennialism. While he believed in resurrection and judgment, he strongly rejected the idea that Revelation teaches a future earthly kingdom. He criticized Christians who expected physical rewards or land restoration, saying these misunderstand God’s promises.²⁰

For Origen, God’s kingdom is already active through Christ and grows in believers and in the Church. Apocalyptic language is meant to teach and shape character, not predict future schedules.²¹

Clement of Alexandria (c. AD 150–215)

Clement did not write much about end-times, but his theology leaves no room for a literal millennium. Influenced by philosophy, he viewed salvation as moral and spiritual growth, not participation in a future political kingdom.²²

He interpreted prophecy symbolically and never taught a literal thousand-year reign.²³

Dionysius of Alexandria (c. AD 190–265)

Dionysius openly rejected literal millennial views linked to Papias. He argued that such views misunderstood apocalyptic writing.²⁴

He affirmed Scripture but rejected reading Revelation as a detailed future timeline.²⁵ His work shows that millennialism was already being challenged in the third century.

Eusebius of Caesarea (c. AD 260–339)

Eusebius, a church historian, clearly rejected Papias’ millennial ideas and saw them as misunderstandings of symbolic language.²⁶

He believed Christ’s kingdom was already active through the Church and did not expect a future earthly reign centered in Jerusalem.²⁷

Athanasius of Alexandria (c. AD 296–373)

By Athanasius’ time, millennialism had largely disappeared in the East. His focus was on Christ’s victory over death, resurrection, and final judgment. He never mentions a future millennium.²⁸

For Athanasius, Christ already reigns, Satan is already defeated, and believers share in that victory through union with Christ.²⁹

Transitional Significance

These Fathers show that non-millennial views developed early and naturally. Proto-amillennialism did not arise from politics or convenience, but from careful reading of Scripture and reflection on Christ’s resurrection and reign.³⁰ By the fourth century, literal millennialism was no longer dominant, preparing the way for Augustine’s later synthesis.

8. Revelation 20, Recapitulation, and the “Strong Man”

Proto-amillennial readers understand Revelation 20 as a repetition of earlier visions, not a new time period after Revelation 19. The “thousand years” describes Christ’s current reign, begun through His resurrection.³¹

Revelation often repeats the same story using different images. Early interpreters sensed this pattern even without naming it.³² Later we would come to call this way of reading and teaching recapitulation.

Within this framework, the binding of Satan means he is limited, not destroyed. He cannot stop the gospel from spreading, even though evil continues.³³ This fits Jesus’ own teaching about binding the “strong man” (Mark 3:27; Matthew 12:29)—a picture of overpowering Satan in order to rescue people from his control.

The reign of the saints refers to believers sharing in Christ’s victory now, especially those who suffered for Him. The “first resurrection” is understood spiritually, not as a physical resurrection before others.³⁴ By the fourth century, this way of reading Revelation was widely accepted.³⁵

9. East and West: Why Theology Developed Differently

So far we have seen that early Christian eschatology was diverse and that the East moved early toward symbolic readings of Revelation. This helps explain why later systems developed differently.

The Eastern Church: Meaning Over Timelines

The Eastern Church focused less on when the end would happen and more on what Jesus’ victory means right now. Key features of the Eastern approach include:

1. Symbolic reading of the Bible (especially Revelation)⁴

2. Christ reigns now and Christians share in His kingdom through worship and sacraments⁵

3. Early loss of interest in the “millennium” (Origen, Dionysius, Athanasius)⁶

4. Time shaped by worship, not charts or schedules⁷

Because of this, the Eastern Church never developed rapture theology, never split Israel and the Church, and never treated Revelation as a timeline of future events.

The Western Church: Systems, Definitions, and Resolution

The Western Church followed a different path. It increasingly valued definition, order, and system. Everything had to fit in a box and label. Several developments are important:

• Literal millennial expectations lingered longer in the West than in the East.⁸

• Augustine rejected chiliasm and read Revelation 20 as the present reign of Christ through the Church.⁹

• Western theology increasingly emphasized textual precision and legal categories, helping set the stage for later system-building.¹⁰

Unlike the East, the West often resolved debates through formal theological definition rather than organic consensus.

10. Why Dispensationalism Could Arise Only in the West

Dispensationalism required a theological environment that combined:

• Linear, segmented views of history

• Legal and administrative categories

• Anxiety over delay and fulfillment

• A desire to preserve literalism at all costs

This environment existed only in the modern West.

Dispensationalism solves interpretive tension by dividing history, separating peoples, and postponing promises. Israel and the Church become parallel groups. Christ’s work therefore, is is said to be complete only spiritually but unfinished historically. Fulfillment is delayed to protect literal interpretation.¹¹

The Eastern Church had no conceptual space for such a system. Its theology insisted on continuity in Christ, symbolic fulfillment, and present participation in the kingdom. Second Temple Judaism likewise expected fulfillment, not postponement.

11. Summary: The Myth of a Uniformly Premillennial Early Church

The idea that the early Church was united in premillennial belief is not true. While some early Christians held millennial views, many others rejected them. From early on, Christians debated how Revelation should be read.³⁶

From Origen and Clement to Dionysius, Eusebius, and Athanasius, proto-amillennial thinking developed steadily and well before Augustine. These writers did not abandon hope—they reshaped it around Christ’s resurrection, reign, and final return.

Early Christian eschatology was diverse. The historical record shows movement away from literal millennialism, not consensus behind it. This diversity makes it impossible to claim that the early Church supported modern premillennial or pre-tribulation rapture theology.³⁷

Endnotes:

1. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 80–81, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 239–241.

2. Larry V. Crutchfield, “Justin Martyr and the Millennium,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39, no. 4 (1996): 541–556.

3. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.25–30, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, 553–560.

4. Charles E. Hill, Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Millennial Thought in Early Christianity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 34–39.

5. Craig L. Blomberg and Sung Wook Chung, eds., A Case for Historic Premillennialism (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 32–35.

6. Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh 24–25, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, 560–562.

7. Tertullian, Against Marcion 3.24, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, 342–343.

8. Alan Hultberg, “The Rapture: Early Church or Late Invention?” in Three Views on the Rapture, ed. Stanley N. Gundry (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 87–90.

9. Mark S. Sweetnam, “Defining Dispensationalism: A Cultural Studies Perspective,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44, no. 2 (2001): 195–213.

10. Alan E. Kurschner, “A Response to Ken Johnson’s Use of the Early Church Fathers,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 54, no. 4 (2011): 773–789.

11. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.30.1–4, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 559–561.

12. Grant R. Osborne, “Rapture,” in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments, ed. Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 1034–1036.

13. F. F. Bruce, Biblical Exegesis in the Early Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 120–123.

14. Charles E. Hill, Regnum Caelorum, 25–31.

15. G. K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 100–106.

16. Origen, De Principiis 2.11.2, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 293–295.

17. Richard Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 7–10.

18. Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, vol. 1 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971), 125–128.

19. Augustine, The City of God 20.6–9, trans. Henry Bettenson (London: Penguin, 2003), 908–915.

20. Origen, De Principiis 2.11.2, 293–295.

21. Origen, Against Celsus 2.5; 7.28, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4, 431–432, 614–616.

22. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 4.25, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 438–440.

23. Pelikan, Christian Tradition, 109–112.

24. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 7.24–25, trans. Kirsopp Lake (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926), 645–653.

25. Hill, Regnum Caelorum, 150–156.

26. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.11–13, 297–299.

27. Robert L. Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984), 166–170.

28. Athanasius, On the Incarnation 54–56, trans. John Behr (Yonkers, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2011), 109–113.

29. Khaled Anatolios, Athanasius: The Coherence of His Thought (London: Routledge, 1998), 195–201.

30. G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 48–55.

31. Beale, Book of Revelation, 972–979.

32. Bauckham, Theology of the Book of Revelation, 7–12.

33. Augustine, City of God 20.7, 909–910.

34. Hill, Regnum Caelorum, 183–189.

35. Pelikan, Christian Tradition, 124–131.

36. Wilken, The Spirit of Early Christian Thought (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 90–97.

37. Sweetnam, “Defining Dispensationalism,” 195–213.

Matthew and the Kingdom Messaging: Part 4–Covenant Judgment and Prophetic Fulfillment

Purpose:

This post is the final piece of a four-part series examining how the Gospel of Matthew presents the kingdom of heaven—from its announcement to its reckoning. Here the focus shifts to the book of Revelation (specifically chapters 17-18). It is written to encourage careful reading of the text rather than debate over theological systems.
____________________________

Reading Revelation 17–18 through Matthew 23–25 and Rethinking the Millennium

Introduction:

This essay looks at the judgment of “Babylon” in Revelation chapters 17 and 18. It argues that these chapters should be read together with Jesus’ judgment speech in Matthew chapters 23–25. When read this way, Revelation does not introduce a new story. Instead, it shows the same judgment Jesus already announced, but in symbolic and poetic language.

To make this case, this essay follows the interpretive approach of G. K. Beale. Beale explains how the New Testament uses the Old Testament, how apocalyptic symbols work, and how Revelation repeats the same themes in cycles instead of a straight timeline.¹

This essay argues that Revelation 17–18 describes covenant judgment. It shows the carrying out of the judgment Jesus announced against Jerusalem and its temple-centered system. This reading fits the historical destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, while also matching the New Testament’s teaching that God’s kingdom has already begun but is not yet complete.²

How Christians read Revelation matters. It shapes how they understand judgment, God’s kingdom, and the Bible’s overall story. Reading Revelation through Matthew gives clarity, because it ties Revelation directly to Jesus’ own teaching. It also helps avoid speculation that pulls Revelation away from its historical setting. When read this way, Revelation becomes a message of God’s faithfulness—showing that he keeps his covenant promises by judging unfaithfulness and moving history toward its final renewal.

I. How the New Testament Reads Prophecy

G. K. Beale argues that the most important question in end-times interpretation is not which system fits best, but which method the New Testament itself uses.³ Three key ideas shape his approach and help explain how Revelation relates to Matthew.

1. Fulfillment through completion and growth

The New Testament does not treat Old Testament promises as unfinished plans waiting to be restarted later. Instead, it teaches that these promises reach their true goal through Jesus and his people. The temple, the land, kingship, and sacrifices are not paused and then restored later in the same form. They are transformed and fulfilled in Christ and in the community connected to him.⁴

Fulfillment moves forward, not backward. Because of this, the New Testament does not support the idea that Old Testament religious systems will return in their old form.

2. Symbolic language shaped by the Old Testament

Revelation uses many images from the Old Testament—such as cities, beasts, prostitutes, and cosmic destruction. These symbols come from Israel’s prophets, not from attempts to predict modern events.⁵ Apocalyptic writing uses strong images to explain covenant faithfulness and judgment.

Taking these images too literally can miss their meaning. They are not meant to give exact pictures of future events, but to explain real covenant situations using symbolic language.

3. Repeating cycles, not a strict timeline

Revelation does not move step-by-step through history. Instead, it retells the same struggle between God and evil powers multiple times, each from a different angle. Each cycle often ends with judgment and victory.⁶

Because of this, Revelation should not be read like a future timeline. Its visions can be linked directly to Jesus’ earlier teaching in Matthew 23–25 without forcing them into a strict sequence.

Together, these principles show that Revelation should be read as covenant prophecy, not as a stand-alone prediction of distant future events.

II. Matthew 23–25 as a Covenant Lawsuit

Matthew chapters 23–25 form Jesus’ final prophetic message in Matthew’s Gospel. Together, they act as a covenant lawsuit against Jerusalem’s leaders and temple system.⁷

• Matthew 23 brings formal charges. Jerusalem is accused of hypocrisy, killing God’s messengers, and piling up guilt from generation to generation.

• Matthew 24 announces the punishment. The temple will be destroyed, the city judged, and the old covenant order brought to an end within “this generation.”

• Matthew 25 explains the justice of this judgment and shows that the faithful will be vindicated.

This is not abstract teaching about the distant future. It is a real judgment tied to real history, fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem.

Bridge: Since we now know how the New Testament reads prophecy and what Jesus announced in Matthew, the next question is simple: how does Revelation speak to the same judgment? If Revelation uses Old Testament symbols and repeating cycles, then it should be read as another way of showing the judgment Jesus already declared.

III. Revelation 17–18 as the Execution of That Judgment

Revelation chapters 17 and 18 describe the same judgment in symbolic form. Chapter 17 presents Babylon as a prostitute, a common biblical image for covenant unfaithfulness. Chapter 18 shows her fall, her exposure, and her destruction.⁸

Read together with Matthew 23–25, Revelation is not changing topics. It is showing the same judgment using prophetic imagery.

Revelation 18 uses the style of Israel’s prophets. It exaggerates, renames, and uses dramatic language to show the seriousness of judgment. Babylon is a symbolic name for the covenant enemy.

Note on prophetic satire: Hebrew prophets often used exaggeration, irony, and strong imagery to expose unfaithfulness and announce judgment. This was not for humor, but to make God’s verdict clear.

Revelation 18 repeats Jesus’ accusations: bloodguilt, false security, unfaithfulness, and persecution of God’s messengers. The fall of commerce and culture points to the collapse of a temple-centered world that has come under judgment.⁹

IV. A Clear Covenant Parallel

Matthew 23–25	Revelation 18
Killing the prophets (23:31–32)	Blood of prophets found in her (18:24)
Judgment on “this generation” (23:35–36)	God remembers her sins (18:5)
“Your house left desolate” (23:38)	“Never found again” (18:21–23)
Temple destroyed (24:1–2)	City burned and thrown down (18:8, 21)
Call to flee (24:15–20)	“Come out of her” (18:4)
Faithful vindicated (25:31–46)	Saints told to rejoice (18:20)

This is not accidental. Revelation 18 turns Jesus’ spoken judgment into prophetic poetry using the language of Israel’s prophets.¹⁰

V. Answering Futurist Objections

Objection 1: Babylon must be a future world city:

This assumes prophecy should be read literally unless stated otherwise. Beale shows this is not how the New Testament reads prophecy.¹¹ In Revelation, cities represent covenant roles, not geography.

Objection 2: Revelation must describe the end of history:

Revelation blends historical judgments with final outcomes. The judgment of Jerusalem in AD 70 does not cancel future resurrection, and future hope does not erase past fulfillment.¹²

Objection 3: This approach “spiritualizes” prophecy

This reading does not deny history. It follows the New Testament, which shows real places judged and fulfilled, then carried forward into Christ and the new creation.

VI. Problems with Premillennial Assumptions

Premillennial views often assume:

• Old Testament promises must return in national form

• Israel and the Church are separate peoples

• The kingdom is mostly future

• Revelation follows strict chronology

• A millennium is required to finish prophecy

When Matthew and Revelation are read together using the New Testament’s method, these assumptions lose support.¹³

VII. Why These Assumptions Fail

Jesus declares the temple finished, not paused. Israel’s covenant story reaches its climax, not a delay.¹⁴ The New Testament teaches one people of God, one kingdom already begun, and fulfillment in Christ—not a return to old systems.

Revelation repeats judgment scenes throughout the book, showing cycles rather than sequence.¹⁵ No future millennium is needed to complete what Christ has already fulfilled.

VIII. Progressive Dispensationalism

Progressive dispensationalism admits Christ reigns now and that fulfillment has begun.¹⁶ But it still requires a future national restoration and millennium. Beale’s approach does not allow this, because fulfillment moves forward, not backward.¹⁷

IX. Conclusion

Matthew 23–25 sets the stage. Jesus acts as covenant judge, condemns Jerusalem, and announces judgment within that generation.¹⁸ Revelation 17–18 does not replace this message—it presents it symbolically. Babylon represents covenant unfaithfulness and judgment, not a future puzzle city.¹⁹

This changes how the millennium is understood. Jesus’ judgment is decisive, not temporary. Revelation assumes it has happened. What remains is not another covenant stage, but resurrection and new creation.²⁰

The kingdom is already here. Judgment has already occurred. The church now lives between judgment completed and renewal awaited.²¹ ²²

Endnotes:

1. G. K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), esp. chaps. 6–9; G. K. Beale, Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament: Exegesis and Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 14–26.

2. N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 345–368.

3. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 712–770.

4. Beale, Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 14–26.

5. G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation (New International Greek Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 111–15.

6. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 111–15; 955–58.

7. R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (New International Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 870–906; Dale C. Allison Jr., Matthew 19–28 (International Critical Commentary; London: T&T Clark, 2014), 287–356.

8. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 847–918.

9. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 847–918.

10. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 847–918.

11. Beale, Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 14–26.

12. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 1110–1116; N. T. Wright, Surprised by Hope (New York: HarperOne, 2008), 207–230.

13. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 997–1042.

14. France, The Gospel of Matthew, 870–906; Allison, Matthew 19–28, 287–356.

15. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 111–15; 955–58.

16. Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 181–211; Darrell L. Bock, Jesus According to Scripture (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 93–121.

17. Beale, Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 14–26.

18. France, The Gospel of Matthew, 870–906; Allison, Matthew 19–28, 287–356.

19. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 847–918; Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 345–368.

20. John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1959), 3–32; cf. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 997–1042.

21. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 712–770; Beale, The Book of Revelation, 1110–1116.

22. Wright, Surprised by Hope, 207–230; Beale, The Book of Revelation, 1110–1116.

Matthew and the Kingdom Messaging: Part 3–The Olivet Discourse - Matthew 23:37–25:46

Purpose:

This post is the third of a four-part series examining how the Gospel of Matthew presents the kingdom of heaven—from its announcement to its reckoning. It is written to encourage careful reading of the text rather than debate over theological systems.
______________________   

Although the Olivet Discourse proper is located in Matthew 24–25, it is best read beginning with Jesus’ lament over Jerusalem in Matthew 23:37–39. This lament is not an isolated saying but functions as a deliberate transition into the discourse that follows. Because His own people—represented by “Jerusalem” as the covenantal and symbolic center of Israel—have refused to respond to Him as Messiah, Jesus announces impending judgment.

“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. Behold, your house is being left to you desolate! For I say to you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, ‘BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!’”

The lament sets both the emotional and theological trajectory for the discourse. Jesus’ departure from the temple immediately afterward is therefore not incidental but symbolic, marking the withdrawal of divine protection from an institution that has rejected its purpose. What follows is not speculative prediction, but a sustained explanation of the consequences of covenantal rejection.¹

Matthew 24:1–8 — Judgment and the “Beginning of Birth Pangs”

Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 24 follows directly upon the series of pronouncements commonly known as the “Seven Woes” (Matt 23:13–32), in which He delivers a sustained indictment against the scribes and Pharisees for their hypocrisy and failure as Israel’s leaders. This critique is essential to the discourse’s meaning. The events Jesus describes are framed as the outcome of covenantal unfaithfulness, not as detached forecasts of distant end-time events.²

The destruction Jesus predicts and the imagery of “birth pangs” function as prophetic language announcing events that are about to unfold. Rather than signaling the immediate end of the world, these disturbances mark the onset of a painful but purposeful transition associated with the inauguration of the kingdom of heaven and the emergence of the New Covenant community. Historically, these warnings culminate in the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in AD 70, precisely as Jesus foretells.¹

Birth Pangs: Ancient Meaning vs. Modern Assumptions

The imagery of “birth pangs” reflects a well-established Second Temple Jewish apocalyptic metaphor rather than a technical forecast of cosmic annihilation. In Jewish Scripture and literature, wars, famines, political upheaval, and natural disasters were frequently described as labour pains preceding decisive divine judgment and renewal (cf. Dan 12:1; 1 Enoch; 4 Ezra). These pains marked the approach of transformation, not its completion.

By contrast, many modern end-times interpretations—shaped by post-Enlightenment literalism and contemporary geopolitical assumptions—tend to read such signs as global indicators of the imminent end of world history. Jesus’ original audience, however, would have understood this language covenantally. “Birth pangs” signaled an intensifying crisis in which God was judging unfaithful leadership while simultaneously bringing forth a renewed people under His reign.

Jesus therefore explicitly cautions that these events do not mean “the end” has arrived (Matt 24:6). They mark the beginning of a process through which God’s kingdom would be revealed in judgment and renewal. Historically, this process culminated in the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in AD 70—an event that judged the old order and confirmed the emergence of the New Covenant community centered on Christ.¹

Matthew 24:9–14 — Persecution, Endurance, and the Gospel’s Advance

In verses 9–14, those delivered over to tribulation are best understood as Jesus’ own followers—those who have aligned themselves with Him. Jesus warns that persecution will exert real pressure on this community, leading some to fall away and even betray others.

Yet the emphasis does not rest solely on apostasy. Jesus sets realistic expectations for the period in which the gospel of the kingdom is proclaimed. Perseverance, rather than avoidance of suffering, marks genuine faithfulness. Those who endure “to the end” are promised deliverance.

In this context, “the end” refers not to the final consummation of world history, but to the climactic outcome of the crisis Jesus has been describing—namely, the judgment of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple. Jesus consistently distinguishes between preliminary turmoil and “the end,” explicitly cautioning that wars and persecution do not themselves signal its immediate arrival.¹

This reading coheres with the experience of the early Christian movement prior to AD 70. Acts records repeated persecution of Jesus’ followers, including arrests, martyrdom, and sustained opposition from both Jewish and Roman authorities.² The Epistles further confirm this historical setting, describing believers suffering publicly, enduring imprisonment, and losing property for their allegiance to Christ.³

Accordingly, Jesus’ promise that “the one who endures to the end will be saved” functions as pastoral assurance to first-century believers facing real danger. Endurance refers to covenant faithfulness through this period of trial until the appointed conclusion of the old order. The proclamation of the gospel of the kingdom throughout the known world prior to this end belongs to the same historical framework.⁴

Matthew 24:15–28 — The Abomination of Desolation and the Great Tribulation

Jesus next speaks of a period of acute distress, marked by the “abomination of desolation.” This language deliberately echoes His earlier declaration: “Behold, your house is being left to you desolate” (Matt 23:38). The reference signals the impending profanation and collapse of Jerusalem’s temple-centred order.

Within Matthew’s narrative, the “holy place” most naturally refers to Jerusalem and its temple precincts, not to a distant or symbolic location. Jesus anticipates a “great tribulation” experienced within the lifetime of that generation (Matt 24:34), grounding the warning firmly in first-century realities.

Importantly, this tribulation is not portrayed as unavoidable. Jesus explicitly instructs His followers to flee when they see the sign approaching. Early Christian testimony confirms that believers did, in fact, flee Jerusalem prior to its destruction, escaping the devastation that followed.⁵ ⁶

The rise of false Christs and prophets further coheres with this historical setting. First-century sources attest to numerous messianic pretenders during the years leading up to Jerusalem’s fall. Jesus’ warnings therefore address concrete dangers rather than abstract future speculation.⁷ ⁸ ⁹

Matthew 24:29–31 — Cosmic Imagery and the Vindication of the Son of Man

In verses 29–31, Jesus employs classic prophetic-apocalyptic imagery drawn directly from Isaiah (Isa 13:10; 34:4). In their original contexts, these passages describe divine judgment on nations, not the literal dissolution of the cosmos. Cosmic disturbances function symbolically, representing the collapse of political power under divine judgment.

Jesus’ use of this imagery would have been immediately recognizable to a Jewish audience. Rather than predicting astronomical catastrophe, He situates Jerusalem’s judgment within the established prophetic tradition. The “coming of the Son of Man” echoes Daniel 7:13–14, where the Son of Man comes to the Ancient of Days to receive authority—not in order to descend to earth.

Accordingly, the darkening of heavenly bodies and the gathering of the elect should be understood as covenantal and redemptive-historical imagery. Jesus announces His vindication and the decisive transition from the temple-centred order to the inaugurated reign of the Son of Man.¹⁰ ¹¹ ¹² ¹³

Why This Matters: This reading preserves continuity with the prophets, avoids anachronistic literalism, explains Jesus’ reference to “this generation,” and grounds the passage firmly in first-century Jewish expectation rather than modern speculative eschatology.

Matthew 24:32–41 — The Fig Tree and “This Generation”

The parable of the fig tree functions as a sign analogy, not a riddle. Just as budding leaves signal the nearness of summer, so the events Jesus describes signal the nearness of judgment. Jesus anchors this warning temporally: “this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place” (Matt 24:34). Within Matthew’s Gospel, “this generation” consistently refers to Jesus’ contemporaries, particularly those who have rejected His message.

The comparison with the days of Noah clarifies the nature of judgment. In the flood narrative, the wicked are taken away while the righteous are left behind. Jesus’ analogy follows the same pattern. Those “taken” are removed in judgment; those “left” are spared. This reading coheres with Old Testament judgment imagery and with the immediate context of Jerusalem’s destruction.

Matthew 24:42–51 — Vigilance, Stewardship, and Accountability

In the final section of chapter 24, Jesus shifts from prophetic description to ethical exhortation. The metaphor of the thief emphasizes unexpected timing, not secrecy. Preparedness, not prediction, is the proper response.

The parable of the faithful and wicked slave reinforces the theme of accountability. Delay does not negate responsibility. The severity of judgment reflects the covenantal principle that greater privilege entails greater accountability. Judgment begins with those entrusted with authority.

Taken together, these metaphors emphasize that delay is not cancellation. Faithfulness is measured by obedience, not speculation. Jesus concludes by pressing the ethical implications of His warning upon His disciples, especially those in positions of responsibility.
__________________________________

To see the final post in this series, check out: Matthew and the Kingdom Messaging: Part 4–Covenant Judgment and Prophetic Fulfillment

If you missed the first part of the series, it can be found here:  Matthew and the Kingdom Messaging: Part 1—From Kingdom Formation to Kingdom Reckoning

Footnotes:

1. R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 902–906; Dale C. Allison Jr., Matthew: A Shorter Commentary (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 403–406.

2. N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 339–368; Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 1–8.

3. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, eds., Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 950–954; Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989), 291–299.

4. N. T. Wright, Matthew for Everyone, Part 2 (London: SPCK, 2004), 112–116; Ulrich Luz, Matthew 21–28 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), 190–198.

5. Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War 2.259–263; 4.382–388; 6.285–309.

6. Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History 3.5.3.

7. France, Matthew, 909–918.

8. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 345–368.

9. Allison, Matthew: A Shorter Commentary, 414–423.

10. France, Matthew, 930–939.

11. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 361–368.

12. Allison, Matthew: A Shorter Commentary, 426–433.

13. Luz, Matthew 21–28, 206–215.