PDA

View Full Version : Why doesn't Matt. 24:32-34 disprove Preterism...?



Nihil Obstat
May 28th 2008, 07:02 PM
Matthew 24
32 Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. 33 So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near - at the doors! 34 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.

Which generation? Just as with the tender, budding, spring-time fig tree, the generation Jesus spoke of was not necessarily that of those standing before Him, but the generation who would see all these things He had just spoken of to them. Though a Full Preterist would somehow disagree that v.21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:21;&version=50;) (what about the Holocaust of WWII...?) and vv.29-31 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:29-31;&version=50;) clearly did not take place in 70 AD (nor have they yet occurred), I doubt very much that they could argue the fact that Israel was not gathered or redeemed from among the nations in 70 AD, but that the exact opposite happened. How could a Full Preterist read, for example, Luke 21:27-28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2021:27-28&version=50) (or Matt. 24:31 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:31;&version=50;), which is a reference to Isa. 27:12-13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2027:12-13;&version=50;)) and somehow still believe as they do?

But not only does this disprove Full Preterism, I believe that it must also disprove Partial Preterism. If *all* these things must come to pass in *one* generation, and some of it clearly hasn't (something a Partial Preterist would agree with), then why is anyone a Preterist? It doesn't matter if the gospel had been preached to all nations prior to 70 AD (Col. 1:5-6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%201:5-6&version=50), 23 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%201:23;&version=50;)), nor does Jesus' continual use of the word "you" bear any weight in the matter, since no one would argue the fact that the scattered Jews were not restored to Israel in 70 AD, but were, on the contrary, disseminated into all the world!

"Summer" in the parable of the fig tree represents not Jesus' return nor the end of the age, but Israel's redemption, as that is the subject the disciples were concerned with and asked Jesus to answer (compare 23:39 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2023:39;&version=50;) with 24:3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:3;&version=50;), noting Jesus' concluding statements in 24:31 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:31;&version=50;), 47 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:47;&version=50;); 25:10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025:10;&version=50;), 21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025:21;&version=50;), 23 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025:23;&version=50;), 31-40 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025:31-40;&version=50;)). The generation in which Israel is redeemed is the generation who will themselves have seen *all* the things Jesus spoke of in 24:4-31, and if some have already happened (and some have), then they simply must happen again.

So, if it's not too much trouble (as I'm sure you've been asked this a zillion times), could I get some Preterists' thoughts on all of this, and their answers to my questions as well? I'm not so much out to change your minds as I am to simply understand your point of view. Thanks so much! - Lk.11

markedward
May 28th 2008, 10:29 PM
Matthew 24
32 Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. 33 So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near - at the doors! 34 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.

Which generation? Just as with the tender, budding, spring-time fig tree, the generation Jesus spoke of was not necessarily that of those standing before Him, but the generation who would see all these things He had just spoken of to them. Though a Full Preterist would somehow disagree that v.21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:21;&version=50;) (what about the Holocaust of WWII...?) and vv.29-31 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:29-31;&version=50;) clearly did not take place in 70 AD (nor have they yet occurred), I doubt very much that they could argue the fact that Israel was not gathered or redeemed from among the nations in 70 AD, but that the exact opposite happened. How could a Full Preterist read, for example, Luke 21:27-28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2021:27-28&version=50) (or Matt. 24:31 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:31;&version=50;), which is a reference to Isa. 27:12-13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2027:12-13;&version=50;)) and somehow still believe as they do?

There are two arguments usually made for a post-2000 AD fulfillment of the Discourse. The first is that the word "generation" in the verse above means "race," but you are making use of the second argument to a post-2000 AD fulfillment, which concedes that the proper word to be used is "generation." However, it is argued that the "generation" being spoken off wasn't the one Jesus was living in, but rather a future generation. This argument, in my opinion, has less ground to it than the first one.

Jesus quite plainly stated "this generation." The Greek word for "this" is houtos. The same Greek word is used again in the same sentence, for "these things." It is a word used in the very same way we use the English words "this" or "these." When Jesus said "this generation," it makes no sense to interpret His meaning as "that generation," just as it would make no sense to interpret His meaning of "these things" as "those things." When Jesus spoke of "these things" He was referring to the prophecies He had just spoken, the prophecies that were that present context of the Discourse. Likewise, when Jesus spoke of "this generation" He was referring to the generation He was living in, the generation that was alive at that present moment.


But not only does this disprove Full Preterism, I believe that it must also disprove Partial Preterism. If *all* these things must come to pass in *one* generation, and some of it clearly hasn't (something a Partial Preterist would agree with), then why is anyone a Preterist? It doesn't matter if the gospel had been preached to all nations prior to 70 AD (Col. 1:5-6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%201:5-6&version=50), 23 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%201:23;&version=50;)), nor does Jesus' continual use of the word "you" bear any weight in the matter, since no one would argue the fact that the scattered Jews were not restored to Israel in 70 AD, but were, on the contrary, disseminated into all the world!You seem to rely solely upon Matthew's version of the Olivet Discourse, yet where in the Discourse does it say that Jesus was going to restore Israel as a nation? In fact, Luke's version of the Discourse says precisely what you think the Discourse does not. Luke's version directly says that at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem (and, of course, the second temple with it), the people of the city would be taken away to foreign nations.

The verse in question, likewise, is so similar in speech to a certain verse in the Revelation that it should go without saying that they speak of the same event. Below is the verse from Luke, as well as the verse from the Revelation, and I have highlighted by color the two segments that are similar in speech.


And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.


But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

Each verse specifically says that the Gentile armies would "tread" upon Jerusalem for a predetermined amount of time. In the first case, Jesus' simply says "the time of the Gentiles," but in the latter case, the Revelation makes it clear that this "time of the Gentiles" is only forty-two months, not multiple-thousands of years. And, taking these two verses in tandem, such events did indeed take place in 70 AD. The city (and temple) were destroyed by Gentile armies (the Romans), and what Jews had not been killed in the preceding war ("they shall fall by the edge of the sword") were taken off to foreign nations as slaves ("[they] shall be led away captive into all nations"), and Jerusalem was "trampled" by the Roman armies, when war was declared by Rome against Judea in early February of 67 AD on through when the temple was destoyed in late July/early August of 70 AD, being a period of 42 months.


Israel's redemption ... is the subject the disciples were concerned with and asked Jesus to answerI'm not trying to be insulting, but if I must be blunt, I will; this is simply wrong.

Absolutely nothing in the opening of any version of the Olivet Discourse speaks of nor implies that the disciples were asking Jesus about "Israel's redemption."

I think it is entirely mistaken to change the entire context of the Discourse. While certainly "redemption" was the whole purpose of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross, the Olivet Discourse itself makes zero mention of this redemption plan, and to insert the idea that the disciples were asking about "redemption" into the Discourse is to drastically and intentionally change the given context of the whole chapter, namely the context that is defined by the first few verses of the chapter.

The disciples had pointed out the temple buildings to Jesus. Jesus said "These stones will fall." The disciples, in turn, asked Jesus "When will these things happen?" The only thing Jesus had prophesied up to that point was the destruction of the temple, so the only thing "these things" refers to is its destruction. So when the disciples asked Jesus "When will these things happen," Jesus entire response is His answering of the disciples' question of the signs and of the timing of the temple's destruction.


"Summer" in the parable of the fig tree represents not Jesus' return nor the end of the ageThis also, isn't correct. Jesus was not using the fig tree as a parable for "Israel's redemption," He was comparing it to the "signs of the end of the age."

He was saying that...

When a fig tree starts to bear fruit will people know summer is near.

... so that in the same way...

When false prophets show up and His followers are persecuted and when Gentile armies surround Jerusalem will people know that the destruction of the temple, the end of the age, and the coming of the Son of Man were all near.

Hawk
May 28th 2008, 11:00 PM
I think it's critical to examine Matthew 24 in context to the full message of Matthew's gospel, and especially the words of Jesus in chapter 23 leading up to 24:2 and the disciples question of "when will the temple be thrown down?" in 24:3.

I think Jesus, just like any prophet, is using apocalyptic language to describe both the end of the age and the types and shadows throughout history.

There was a good thread on this a few days ago here:

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=126370

See post #8:

http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1649428&postcount=8

Hawk

moonglow
May 28th 2008, 11:15 PM
markedward:This also, isn't correct. Jesus was not using the fig tree as a parable for "Israel's redemption," He was comparing it to the "signs of the end of the age."

He was saying that...

When a fig tree starts to bear fruit will people know summer is near.

... so that in the same way...

When false prophets show up and His followers are persecuted and when Gentile armies surround Jerusalem will people know that the destruction of the temple, the end of the age, and the coming of the Son of Man were all near.

Exactly...Luke 21 clarifies this and many miss it because they only look at Matthew 24...this is why we really need to take other related scriptures into account to get a better idea of what is going on.

Luke 21

29 Then He spoke to them a parable: “Look at the fig tree, and all the trees. 30 When they are already budding, you see and know for yourselves that summer is now near. 31 So you also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near. 32 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all things take place.

I honestly don't know where the idea came from about Israel being a tree that is to 'bloom' later (many say that means becoming their own country again), I find no scriptures on this at all. :hmm: I used to believe this when I believed in the pre-trib rapture view because everyone said so...but when I actually tried to find scriptures saying that...explaining the fig tree in Matthew...I couldn't find anything. Then I read Luke...Jesus is not talking about the fig tree as being anything special...as He goes on to say all trees...He is just saying when we see the leaves of the trees coming out its a sign for a season change...He could have easily said when you see the leaves falling off the trees its a sign...He is just saying watch for the signs...then goes on to say what signs to watch for...

God bless

The Village Idiot
May 29th 2008, 12:48 AM
...would relegate that passage to Jesus' generation. Indeed, I'd run her up to to vs. 36, which I see as a transition point based on several considerations that arise from the text.

On the Day of Pentecost Peter utilized similar "sun darkened" and "blood-moon" rhetoric (Ac 2:20), so even though it is apocalyptic, this language is not necessarily to be shut up until the end.

I'm not sure where the "fig tree as Israel's redemption" arises. In Mt 24 the fig tree is cited as a parable, rather than a symbol or metaphor. Today, we might very well say, "when you see that first, spring robin, you know that spring is around the corner--so when you see all these things..."

I have to say that I wonder why the futurist cause so oft relies on texts that admit different readings and that many well-taught thinkers regard as genuinely difficult.

moonglow
May 29th 2008, 01:48 AM
astrongerthanhe, keep in mind the prophetic language used in Matthew too:

Adam Clark's bible commentary: (http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=mt&chapter=024)
Verse 29. Immediately after the tribulation, generally understand this, and what follows, of the end of the world and Christ's coming to judgment: but the word immediately shows that our Lord is not speaking of any distant event, but of something immediately consequent on calamities already predicted: and that must be the destruction of Jerusalem. "The Jewish heaven shall perish, and the sun and moon of its glory and happiness shall be darkened-brought to nothing. The sun is the religion of the Church; the moon is the government of the state; and the stars are the judges and doctors of both. Compare Isaiah 13:10; ; Ezekiel 32:7,8, Lightfoot.

In the prophetic language, great commotions upon earth are often represented under the notion of commotions and changes in the heavens:-

The fall of Babylon is represented by the stars and constellations of heaven withdrawing their light, and the sun and moon being darkened. See Isaiah 13:9,10.

The destruction of Egypt, by the heaven being covered, the sun enveloped with a cloud, and the moon withholding her light. Ezekiel 32:7,8.

The destruction of the Jews by Antiochus Epiphanes is represented by casting down some of the host of heaven, and the stars to the ground. See Daniel 8:10.

And this very destruction of Jerusalem is represented by the Prophet Joel, Joel 2:30,31, by showing wonders in heaven and in earth-darkening the sun, and turning the moon into blood. This general mode of describing these judgments leaves no room to doubt the propriety of its application in the present case.

I am Partial and I have to agree with markedward, I am utterly confused here as how you are getting Matthew 24 as redeeming Israel in any way here...you are right..this was about the scattering of the Jews as he explained...there is totally nothing about redemption in this chapter. No Partial Preterist says there is or expects there to be in this chapter so I am not sure how you think that verse disproves anything actually...:confused

Anyway Mark explained it all very well.

God bless

Saved7
May 29th 2008, 01:54 AM
I was just thinking about preterism the other night and how I understand it. I may be wrong, but according to preterism, this is it, we have made it to the time spoken of in Rev where we are living in the Kingdom on earth and there is no more in Rev to be fulfilled.
But how can this be when there was a question asked about this particular time...a woman who had 5 husbands, whose wife would she be? Jesus said that in the Kingdom they do not marry nor are given in marriage. Well, people are still marrying.:hmm: So how can all things already be fulfilled?:confused
I don't know, I could just be waaaay off on my understanding of full preterism.:confused

Clifton
May 29th 2008, 02:06 AM
Matthew 24
32 Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. 33 So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near - at the doors! 34 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.

For Matthew 24:33, the parallels are Luke 21:31 and Mark 13:29.

In Matthew 24:33 and Mark 13:29, some English Bibles render that phrase as "He is near" as opposed to "it is near", which better aligns up with Luke 21:31 (Luke was more informative and did follow-ups);
“So you also, when you see these matters take place, know that the reign of Elohim is near.
Luke 21:31 The Scriptures 1998+
:2cents: and something to ponder on. ;)

Blessings.

moonglow
May 29th 2008, 02:09 AM
I was just thinking about preterism the other night and how I understand it. I may be wrong, but according to preterism, this is it, we have made it to the time spoken of in Rev where we are living in the Kingdom on earth and there is no more in Rev to be fulfilled.
But how can this be when there was a question asked about this particular time...a woman who had 5 husbands, whose wife would she be? Jesus said that in the Kingdom they do not marry nor are given in marriage. Well, people are still marrying.:hmm: So how can all things already be fulfilled?:confused
I don't know, I could just be waaaay off on my understanding of full preterism.:confused

Yea you are confusing the two...partial means there is alot left to be fulfilled...that only part of it has been fulfilled...Jesus obviously has not had His Second Coming...nor has satan been let loose, nor have we had the Great White Throne Judgment...etc, etc...those that believe in the FULL preterism believe all of this has happened...I haven't read up on it indepth but I heard they think the fulfillment is all spiritual...:hmm: I don't get it.

In the partial view point the tribulation HAS happened and happened to the first century Christians..that was part of the seven years, going on to the destruction of Jerusalem...so in this sense part of Revelation has happened but not all of it. The PP view point believes Revelation was written before the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple...what throws people off is thinking it was written afterwards..if it was, then there is a big problem for the PP and the full preterism view. Daniel also fits well with this view...the confusion comes in a few verses of 'who' is 'cut off'..with the proper understanding though, it fits.

Seven Years (http://www.geocities.com/Nashville/Opry/2092/Destruct.html#Seven)

The period of time from the first attack of the Jews upon the Romans at Masada, in May of A.D. 66, to the final resistance of the Jews at Masada in April of A.D. 73, encompassed approximately seven years. The daily sacrifice ceased at about three and a half years into this seven year period. The abomination of desolation was manifested when the Roman armies surrounded the city.14

Flavius Josephus in WARS OF THE JEWS, chapter VII, section 7, states that the Romans themselves never took the Jews for their enemies until they revolted from them in A.D. 66. Regarding their state of affairs, he wrote, "however, the circumstances we are now in, ought to be an inducement to us to bear such calamity courageously, since it is by the will of God, and by necessity that we are to die: for it now appears that God hath made such a decree against the whole Jewish nation, that we are to be deprived of this life which (He knew) we would not make a due use of;"

Even Titus, who conquered the Jews, stated that God had fought with his army and given the Jews over to him
************************************************** *********************************
That link on "Seven Years", gives answers to all the questions on this topic if anyone cares to read it...it covers, 'this generation', 'Abomination of desolation', 'scattered to all nations', etc...its an easy read too.

God bless

markedward
May 29th 2008, 02:16 AM
I was just thinking about preterism the other night and how I understand it. I may be wrong, but according to preterism, this is it, we have made it to the time spoken of in Rev where we are living in the Kingdom on earth and there is no more in Rev to be fulfilled.That depends on which school of Preterism one falls under, Partial or Full.

Full Preterism believes that the entirety of Revelation is fulfilled, Partial Preterism does not.


But how can this be when there was a question asked about this particular time...a woman who had 5 husbands, whose wife would she be? Jesus said that in the Kingdom they do not marry nor are given in marriage. Well, people are still marrying.:hmm: So how can all things already be fulfilled?As for this, regardless of whether one is Preterist, Futurist, or whatever, this passage was about activity in heaven, not the kingdom of.

Arguably, there is ample evidence within the Bible that the "kingdom of heaven" (or "the kingdom of God") is found on earth. The Kingdom of God is, in essence, best summarized by part of the Lord's Prayer - "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." The Kingdom of God so spoken of in the Bible is based on earth, not heaven.

The passage about marriage in the resurrection is distinctly about activity in heaven itself, not the kingdom of God found on earth.

Not to insult you in any way, but the question you ask above would be similar to asking why we age when Jesus promised us eternal life. The eternal life is an attribute of heaven itself, not the Kingdom of God as it is advanced on earth. Likewise, the absence of marriage is an attribute of heaven itself, not the Kingdom of God as it is advanced on earth.

moonglow
May 29th 2008, 02:19 AM
That depends on which school of Preterism one falls under, Partial or Full.

Full Preterism believes that the entirety of Revelation is fulfilled, Partial Preterism does not.

As for this, regardless of whether one is Preterist, Futurist, or whatever, this passage was about activity in heaven, not the kingdom of.

Arguably, there is ample evidence within the Bible that the "kingdom of heaven" (or "the kingdom of God") is found on earth. The Kingdom of God is, in essence, best summarized by part of the Lord's Prayer - "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." The Kingdom of God so spoken of in the Bible is based upon earth, not heaven.

The passage about marriage in the resurrection is distinctly about activity in heaven itself, not the kingdom of God found on earth.

Not to insult you in any way, but the question you ask above would be similar to asking why we age when Jesus promised us eternal life. The eternal life is an attribute of heaven itself, not the Kingdom of God as it is advanced on earth. Likewise, the absence of marriage is an attribute of heaven itself, not the Kingdom of God as it is advanced on earth.

I wondered about something in regards to what you said here...every night I do the Lord's prayer with my son...and have been wondering, should be still be praying, 'thy kingdom come?' When its already here as Jesus said...:hmm:

(sorry this is off topic for a minute here)

God bless

markedward
May 29th 2008, 02:32 AM
I wondered about something in regards to what you said here...every night I do the Lord's prayer with my son...and have been wondering, should be still be praying, 'thy kingdom come?' When its already here as Jesus said...Why not? Daniel 2 shows the Kingdom of God as being established as a small Kingdom and then growing larger and larger.

The Kingdom is ever advancing, and there are still certain people it hasn't reach, whether they be your neighbors or people across the oceans. For them, the Kingdom has not yet come and God's will is not yet done, so until literally every single living person is a follower of Christ I think we should continue to pray for the advancement of God's will and His Kingdom.

In a similar vein, we don't toss out the Old Testament just because we are no longer bound to the Law, for the sake that it provides to us moral guidelines, so likewise we shouldn't stop praying for the advancement of the Kingdom, for the sake of those it has not yet reached.

moonglow
May 29th 2008, 02:53 AM
Why not? Daniel 2 shows the Kingdom of God as being established as a small Kingdom and then growing larger and larger.

The Kingdom is ever advancing, and there are still certain people it hasn't reach, whether they be your neighbors or people across the oceans. For them, the Kingdom has not yet come and God's will is not yet done, so until literally every single living person is a follower of Christ I think we should continue to pray for the advancement of God's will and His Kingdom.

In a similar vein, we don't toss out the Old Testament just because we are no longer bound to the Law, for the sake that it provides to us moral guidelines, so likewise we shouldn't stop praying for the advancement of the Kingdom, for the sake of those it has not yet reached.

True...you can chalk my post up to one of those 'duh' moments...:rolleyes::lol:

God bless

Nihil Obstat
May 29th 2008, 10:51 PM
When Jesus said "this generation," it makes no sense to interpret His meaning as "that generation," just as it would make no sense to interpret His meaning of "these things" as "those things." When Jesus spoke of "these things" He was referring to the prophecies He had just spoken, the prophecies that were that present context of the Discourse. Likewise, when Jesus spoke of "this generation" He was referring to the generation He was living in, the generation that was alive at that present moment.

And "this" generation would see how many of the signs He just gave? ALL. A simple "yes" or "no", please: Did His generation see *all* these things? Only a Full Preterist would say "yes"...


You seem to rely solely upon Matthew's version of the Olivet Discourse, yet where in the Discourse does it say that Jesus was going to restore Israel as a nation?

No, my point is that the reader *can* rely solely on Matthew's account. The other accounts only strengthen the fact that the Olivet Discourse is not about Israel's destruction, but her redemption.


Luke's version of the Discourse says precisely what you think the Discourse does not. Luke's version directly says that at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem (and, of course, the second temple with it), the people of the city would be taken away to foreign nations.

And Luke 21 also then *concludes* by saying that when they see *all* these things (including their being scattered amongst the nations, and the Son of Man's return), that their *redemption* draws near. This confirms what I'm saying.


The verse in question, likewise, is so similar in speech to a certain verse in the Revelation that it should go without saying that they speak of the same event.

Each verse specifically says that the Gentile armies would "tread" upon Jerusalem for a predetermined amount of time. In the first case, Jesus simply says "the time of the Gentiles," but in the latter case, the Revelation makes it clear that this "time of the Gentiles" is only forty-two months, not multiple-thousands of years. And, taking these two verses in tandem, such events did indeed take place in 70 AD. The city (and temple) were destroyed by Gentile armies (the Romans), and what Jews had not been killed in the preceding war ("they shall fall by the edge of the sword") were taken off to foreign nations as slaves ("[they] shall be led away captive into all nations"), and Jerusalem was "trampled" by the Roman armies, when war was declared by Rome against Judea in early February of 67 AD on through when the temple was destoyed in late July/early August of 70 AD, being a period of 42 months.

Something of importance to note is that Luke 21 is not a parallel to Matt. 24 or Mark. 13.

Luke 21
1. takes place during the day
2. takes place in and around the temple
3. Jesus is asked only about His prophecy that the temple stones would be thrown down
4. Jesus is asked this question by many people
5. He lets them know that when Jerusalem is surrounded by armies, they will have ample time to leave


Matt. 24 / Mark 13
1. takes place at night
2. takes place on the Mount of Olives
3. Jesus is asked only to expound on when Jerusalem's leadership would apply Ps. 118 to Him
4. Jesus is asked this question by His four closest friends, Peter, James, John, and Andrew
5. He lets them know that when the abomination of desolation (Dan. 11:31; 12:11) stands in the Holy Place to immediately leave Jerusalem, as those who delay will be destroyed


We find that, concerning #5, Luke 21 came true (they had over over two years, I believe, to flee the city), whereas Matt. 24 / Mark 13 has not yet occurred. Indeed, Luke 21 shouldn't even be titled "the Olivet Discourse", as it mainly focuses on the events of 70 AD (because that's what Jesus was asked about, and He answered them), while Matt. 24 / Mark 13 solely focuses on days still future (because again, that's what Jesus was asked about, and He answered them).

Are you claiming that "the times of the Gentiles" were fulfilled in 70 AD? That doesn't make *any* sense. Israel was not redeemed in 70 AD - the exact opposite happened! As a Preterist, how do you explain that? **And please take special note of the major differences between Matt. 24:34 / Mark 13:30, and Luke 21:32 (the word "these").**


Absolutely nothing in the opening of any version of the Olivet Discourse speaks of nor implies that the disciples were asking Jesus about "Israel's redemption."

The only thing Jesus had prophesied up to that point was the destruction of the temple, so the only thing "these things" refers to is its destruction. So when the disciples asked Jesus "When will these things happen," Jesus entire response is His answering of the disciples' question of the signs and of the timing of the temple's destruction.

Again, as I've written to you before, the disciples could not have been asking Jesus to expound on Matt. 24:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:2&version=50), but only on 23:39 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2023:39;&version=50;). Why? Because only 23:39, which is a quote from Ps. 118 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20118;&version=50;), has the elements of the two questions asked Him, being 1. His coming ("...you will not see Me again...") and 2. the end of the age (that Psalm was and is considered to find its fulfillment at the end of the age). The buildings of the temple would be thrown down because that generation (23:36 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2023:32-36;&version=50;)) was not willing to be gathered to Jesus (cp. Luke 19:41-44 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2019:41-44;&version=50;)).

What age do you believe ended in 70 AD with the destruction of the temple?


Jesus was not using the fig tree as a parable for "Israel's redemption," He was comparing it to the "signs of the end of the age."

He was saying that...

When a fig tree starts to bear fruit will people know summer is near.

... so that in the same way...

When false prophets show up and His followers are persecuted and when Gentile armies surround Jerusalem will people know that the destruction of the temple, the end of the age, and the coming of the Son of Man were all near.

I didn't say the fig tree represented Israel's redemption; I said "summer" represented Israel's redemption. I believe the fig tree (or perhaps more accurately, all of the tender, blossoming spring-time trees) represents the generation who would see all the signs He spoke of. The trees' blossoming and becoming tender represented all the signs He had just given.

And so, putting all three gospel accounts together, we find that not only is the Son of Man a sign (see Dan. 7:13-14, 25-27 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%207:13-14,%2025-27;&version=50;)... this clearly hasn't happened yet), but Israel being redeemed from among the nations is as well. You can try and claim that "the sign of the Son of Man" has spiritually happened, but no one can argue against the fact that Israel has yet to be redeemed from all the nations (Luke 21:27-28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2021:27-28;&version=50;)).

Knowing this, why doesn't Matt. 24:32-34 disprove Preterism? I think it does...

Cyberseeker
May 29th 2008, 11:42 PM
“Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
(Matt 24:29-31)It is patently obvious that this part of the Olivet discourse was not fulfilled in AD70. There is only one way that Matthew 24 can be properly understood in regard to the 'generation' question. AD70 was a precursor to a greater fulfillment later on. There are plenty of examples of dual fulfillment in the Bible and this is one of those cases.

Cyberseeker

markedward
May 29th 2008, 11:49 PM
And "this" generation would see how many of the signs He just gave? ALL. A simple "yes" or "no", please: Did His generation see *all* these things? Only a Full Preterist would say "yes"...I say yes and I am not a full Preterist. I could take the time to explain how all of the things He prophesied were fulfilled. Would you be willing to consider such explanations or would I be wasting my time?


No, my point is that the reader *can* rely solely on Matthew's account. The other accounts only strengthen the fact that the Olivet Discourse is not about Israel's destruction, but her redemption.I don't feel like arguing this point anymore. Myself and others have pointed out the context of the Discourse on more than one occasion, I don't see the need to explain it again.


And Luke 21 also then *concludes* by saying that when they see *all* these things (including their being scattered amongst the nations, and the Son of Man's return), that their *redemption* draws near. This confirms what I'm saying.The "redemption" that is spoken of in Luke's gospel is parallel to the "gathering of the elect" in Matthew's gospel. The "redemption" being spoken of is not Israel's restoration as a nation, it's the "gathering of the elect."


Something of importance to note is that Luke 21 is not a parallel to Matt. 24 or Mark. 13.

Luke 21
1. takes place during the day
2. takes place in and around the temple
3. Jesus is asked only about His prophecy that the temple stones would be thrown down
4. Jesus is asked this question by many people
5. He lets them know that when Jerusalem is surrounded by armies, they will have ample time to leave


Matt. 24 / Mark 13
1. takes place at night
2. takes place on the Mount of Olives
3. Jesus is asked only to expound on when Jerusalem's leadership would apply Ps. 118 to Him
4. Jesus is asked this question by His four closest friends, Peter, James, John, and Andrew
5. He lets them know that when the abomination of desolation (Dan. 11:31; 12:11) stands in the Holy Place to immediately leave Jerusalem, as those who delay will be destroyed

1 - Where do Matthew or Mark say the Discourse took place at night?

2 - Luke's version simply leaves out the details that they left for the Mount of Olives. That doesn't automatically make it a different event anymore than Mark's gospel leaving out the story of Jesus' birth means His gospel is about a different Jesus.

3 - This is simply wrong. You say that Luke's version asks about the temple stones and Matthew's and Marks' versions don't.

Luke 21:5-7, Mark 13:1-4, Matthew 24:1-3

Each gospel contains the discussion about the second temple. If you're denying that Matthew's gospel and Mark's gospel don't say anything about Jesus speaking of the second temple's destruction and the disciples asking when such events would happen, I must honestly ask you what Bible you are reading.

4 - You say that Matthew's and Mark's versions mention only four disciples while Luke's version mentions "many people." Again, this is wrong. Yes, Mark's version does indeed mention four specific disciples, but Matthew's versions gives no specific names.

Matthew = "the disciples came unto Him privately"

Mark = "Peter and James and John and Andrew asked Him privately"

Luke = "And some spake of the temple ... And they asked Him"

Luke's version specifically says "some" people asked Jesus about the temple, not "many" as you claim. And Matthew's version gives no names as to which disciples were asking Him about the temple.

5 - Point number five doesn't even "prove" the accounts are different. The description of the "abomination that causes desolation" in Matthew and Mark's version is virtually identical to the "armies" that bring "desolation" in Luke's version. The manner in which the three gospels present their respective accounts is so identical that they could only be speaking of the same thing.


Are you claiming that "the times of the Gentiles" were fulfilled in 70 AD? That doesn't make *any* sense.Why not? I already showed that the description given in Luke's gospel is almost identical to the description given in the Revelation. The Revelation shows that the "time of the Gentiles" is only 42 months. History shows that the Jewish-Roman War was officially declared by Rome upon Judea 42 months before Jerusalem and the temple was destroyed. Gentile armies (the Romans) sieged the city and put it to ruin, culminating in the temple's destruction (Matthew 24:1-3, Mark 13:1-4, Luke 21:5-7).


Israel was not redeemed in 70 AD - the exact opposite happened! As a Preterist, how do you explain that?For one, you're mistaken on what "redemption" means in Luke's version of the Discourse. Luke's reference to "redemption" is not about Israel being restored as a nation. It is about the "gathering of the elect." Firstly, it is directly parallel to where Mark and Matthew each mention the "gathering," giving evidence that that is what Luke meant by "redemption." Secondly, the way that Jesus speaks of the "redemption" in Luke's gospel is exactly the same as how Paul speaks of "salvation" in a certain section of Romans:


And do this, understanding the present time. The hour has come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed.Throughout his letters Paul continually and repeatedly declared that a major event would happen "soon." Any objective reader of his epistles could tell you that he clearly expected something of major importance to happen within the lifetime of the people he was writing to. The passage quoted here directly reflects this, where Paul is saying "Hey, our salvation is a lot closer to us than we used to think it was!" The way he speaks of "salvation" is the same as how Luke depicts Jesus speaking of "redemption." Paul was writing during the first century, before Jerusalem was destroyed, yet he is quite obviously expecting "salvation" as happening soon and within his own time period (not thousands of years in the future). The "redemption" Jesus spoke of was not the restoration of a physical nation.

Second, your objection to Israel being scattered in 70 AD instead of restored quite plainly does prove that Luke's description of Jerusalem's destruction came to pass:


When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.Jerusalem's destruction is entirely evident, and Jesus finishes it off by saying that people of Jerusalem and of Judea would be "taken away as prisoners."

Jesus was not prophesying Israel's restoration as a nation, He was prophesying the exact opposite! He was saying that the nation of the Jews would be conquered and overcome.


What age do you believe ended in 70 AD with the destruction of the temple?The Mosaic Age.

With the destruction of the temple, God could no longer be approached through temple priests or regular sacrifices. The only method of salvation from that point on was found in Christ.

"The end of the age" was the end of the age of the temple, of regularized sacrifices, of condemnation under the Law. With the end of the Mosaic Age, a new age began, the Messianic Age. A physical temple is no longer needed - Jesus is our temple, and we are His. Regular sacrifices are worthless in God's eyes - Jesus is our sacrifice, once for all time. We are no longer condemned in the Law - we are made alive in Christ's grace.

moonglow
May 30th 2008, 12:18 AM
I agree with everything mark posted...Matthew 24 is not about the end of the earth as we know it...nor is it about the Second Coming of Christ. Matthew 24 says we will see a 'sign' of the Son of Man coming on the clouds...in the OT it meant judgement...here is part of an excellent study on what 'coming on the clouds' means.

How did they understand the language about clouds in the Old Testament culture setting?

Clouds are depicted as the chariots of God and indicative of his MAJESTY. In Job 22:12ff Job exalts Jehovah as the one who is in the height of heaven and covered with thick clouds. In Psalm 18 which is a highly apocalyptic description of David's deliverance from Saul the former shepherd tells how Jehovah bowed the heavens...and came down with darkness under his feet, he rode upon a cherub, and flew; He flew upon the wings of the wind. He made darkness His secret place; His canopy around Him was dark waters and thick clouds of the skies. Now one can look but in vain to find a physical event matching these words. Jehovah had acted to deliver his servant and thus he had come. He had acted and his actions had vindicated his righteousness, thus he was depicted as coming in majesty in the clouds. Psalm 68:32-35 also speaks of God who rides on the heaven of heavens and his strength is in the clouds. Again the concept is his majesty and sovereignty. Psalms 104:3 tells us God makes the clouds his chariots and walks on the wings of the wind.

The idea of God's coming in the clouds is also associated with the exercise of his sovereignty in JUDGING his enemies. In Isaiah 19 Jehovah rides on a swift cloud and will come into Egypt. We know from chapter 20 that it was the Assyrians who were God's instrument of wrath on Egypt, see Isaiah 20:1-4; yet it is said that Jehovah was coming on a cloud. In Zephaniah 1:14-16 we are told the great day of the Lord is near; and that it would be a day of wrath, distress, and a day of clouds, when the Lord would come. We know this is a prediction of the impending judgment on Jerusalem, 1:4ff. This judgment came in 606-586 BC.

Similar language is found in Nahum in the prediction of Nineveh's fall. Jehovah has his way in the whirlwind...and the clouds are the dust of his feet. El Shaddai would come, the mountains would melt, the earth would be destroyed at his presence when he came on the clouds. We know that Nineveh was destroyed, not by a literal coming of Jehovah out of heaven on the clouds, but by the invading armies of the Chaldeans and Medes in approximately 612 BC.

Yet another though related concept of the coming with the clouds is the Messianic motif of Daniel. In Daniel 7 one like the Son of man is depicted as coming in the clouds of heaven. This concept of Messiah on the clouds was certainly one well known in the first century. For John to say in Revelation 1:7 that Jesus would come with the clouds was nothing less than an assertion of his Messianic role as the ruler of the kingdom of God. In his coming in the clouds he was exercising the sovereignty and demonstrating the majesty of deity so well known in the Old Covenant. The idea is not a literal coming with the clouds so much as an identifying factor of the one under consideration. He is to be viewed not just as man but the One, who, like Jehovah, rides on the clouds. The association of Jesus coming in the clouds then was a way for the Biblical writers to IDENTIFY Jesus, in a manner well known to those conversant with Old Testament symbolism, as God's Messiah, as the Judge, worthy of majesty and honor.

This is precisely the thought Jesus was conveying to Caiaphas when he told him he would see him coming in the clouds. When Jesus said he was going to come in the clouds this was a claim to the Messianic office and divine nature; Caiaphas responded, He has spoken blasphemy Caiaphas was not responding to a claim that Jesus would literally return on a physical cloud. He was responding to the IDENTITY which Jesus was claiming by associating himself as the one to come in the clouds of heaven

One final thought. We would note the New Testament TIME FRAME for the coming of Jesus in the clouds. Patently Jesus told Caiaphas he would see Jesus' return in the clouds. He did not say he would die and millenia later be resurrected to view the parousia. He was living and was told he would witness Jesus' return, which we hope is now understood to be the exercise of his Messianic sovereignty by an act of judgment.

from http://blog.absolutetruth.us

************************************************** *************
Understanding the OT is important in understanding what Jesus was talking about not in just this but everything He said...remember He constantly quoted from the OT.

God bless

Cyberseeker
May 30th 2008, 12:56 AM
I agree with everything mark posted...Matthew 24 is not about the end of the earth as we know it...


:hmm:
"Heaven and earth will pass away ..."
(Matt 24:35)

markedward
May 30th 2008, 01:03 AM
Albert Barnes commentary:


Heaven and earth shall pass away ... - "You may sooner expect to see the heaven and earth pass away and return to nothing, than my words to fail."

Cyberseeker
May 30th 2008, 03:41 AM
"You may sooner expect to see the heaven and earth pass away and return to nothing, than my words to fail."

LOL, Albie would have to be a preterist grasping at straws to come up with a classic like that. :rofl:

Be honest. “Heaven and earth will pass away” was said in the same mouthful as, “the stars will fall from heaven.” It ought to be obvious what he is talking about – the end of the world.

And no, it didn’t happen in AD 70.

Cyberseeker

markedward
May 30th 2008, 05:03 AM
Be honest. “Heaven and earth will pass away” was said in the same mouthful as, “the stars will fall from heaven.” It ought to be obvious what he is talking about – the end of the world.

First

Anyone who believes that Jesus meant the sun would literally stop shining its light and that the stars would literally fall to the earth believes in something unfeasible in a practical sense.

If the sun literally stopped shining it's light, the earth would freeze. If the stars literally "fell" to earth, they would have to fly through space at thousands the time of the speed of light (note: nothing travels faster than light) just to reach the earth within a single three and a half year time period. And besides that, a star can't literally fall onto the earth. Most stars are thousands of times larger than the earth, and the first one to reach it would completely disintegrate our planet before it even "touched down." Yes, God is capable of working miracles, but to think that the sun would literally turn "off" and that the stars would literally crash into the earth is just too farfetched to comprehend. If they literally happened word-for-word, the earth would freeze over (killing everyone on it), but the planet itself would be burned up in the atmosphere of the first star that got near it (and then incinerated into cosmic dust). The same sun-and-moon-darkening, stars-falling phrasing is used in the Revelation three times, how could it happen once, let alone three times?

Second

Anyone who believes that Jesus meant the sun would literally stop shining its light and that the stars would literally fall to the earth I think I can accurately guess doesn't really know a whole lot about Old Testamant prophetic language.

The Old Testament has numerous passages where God's prophets spoke against ancient nations with the exact same cosmic catastrophes. The judgments did come to pass, but the universe didn't really destroy itself when it happened.


An oracle concerning Babylon that Isaiah son of Amoz saw:
...
Wail, for the day of the LORD is near; it will come like destruction from the Almighty. Because of this, all hands will go limp, every man's heart will melt. Terror will seize them, pain and anguish will grip them; they will writhe like a woman in labor. They will look aghast at each other, their faces aflame. See, the day of the LORD is coming—a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger—to make the land desolate and destroy the sinners within it. The stars of heaven and their constellations will not show their light. The rising sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light. I will punish the world for its evil, the wicked for their sins. I will put an end to the arrogance of the haughty and will humble the pride of the ruthless. I will make man scarcer than pure gold, more rare than the gold of Ophir. Therefore I will make the heavens tremble; and the earth will shake from its place at the wrath of the LORD Almighty, in the day of his burning anger.
Prophesied against ancient Babylon.
Fulfilled
539 BC, the Medo-Persian empire conquered the Babylonians.
(Isaiah 13:17)


All the stars of the heavens will be dissolved and the sky rolled up like a scroll; all the starry host will fall like withered leaves from the vine, like shriveled figs from the fig tree. My sword has drunk its fill in the heavens; see, it descends in judgment on Edom, the people I have totally destroyed.
Prophesied against ancient Edom.
Fulfilled
Edom was conquered by Babylon, by Nebuchadnezzar.
(Jeremiah 27:3-7)


Son of man, take up a lament concerning Pharaoh king of Egypt and say to him:
...
When I snuff you out, I will cover the heavens and darken their stars; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon will not give its light. All the shining lights in the heavens I will darken over you; I will bring darkness over your land, declares the Sovereign LORD.
Prophesied against ancient Egypt.
Fulfilled
Egypt was conquered by Babylon, by Nebuchadnezzar.
(Ezekiel 29:19)


Tell this to the nations, proclaim it to Jerusalem: "A besieging army is coming from a distant land, raising a war cry against the cities of Judah.
...
I looked at the earth, and it was formless and empty; and at the heavens, and their light was gone.
...
Therefore the earth will mourn and the heavens above grow dark, because I have spoken and will not relent, I have decided and will not turn back."
Prophesied against ancient Jerusalem/Judah.
Fulfilled
Jerusalem/Judah was conquered by Babylon, by Nebuchadnezzar.
(Jeremiah 6:1, 6:22)

This is just some, there are more. You can look all you want through history, you won't find any such cosmic events literally happening. The stars never "dissolved" or "fell" when Isaiah's prophecy against Edom came to pass. The Old Testament makes frequent use of these cosmic idioms, but it's quite obvious that they didn't literally happen.

So, taking into account that Jesus was (A) a Jew just like all of the above prophets, (B) familiar with the Old Testament including the above prophets, and (C) prophesying judgment (Luke 21:22) against Jerusalem (21:20), the fact that He uses such cosmic catastrophes in His prophecies is not any way unique.


Immediately after the distress of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.
Prophesied against Jerusalem/Judea.
Fulfilled
Jerusalem/Judea was conquered by Rome.

the rookie
May 30th 2008, 05:13 AM
Just curious, is it at all possible that the fantastic language used by the prophets hinted at a future apocalyptic event (one, where, say, the sky recedes like a scroll) related to the "day of the Lord" by which the (just an example) events of Joel 3 would come to pass in a manner described by John related to the future trouble of the nations and their judgment at the hands of a zealous God? Any chance?

I mean, the "apocalyptic language" of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel could actually fit a future apocalyptic event. Or is there no chance of this? Just curious.

I ask mainly because God already did something patently impossible via the incarnation. It's kind of like cramming a redwood tree into a two-inch pot, except far more ludicrous as a concept. With the hard part behind him, wouldn't the other stuff be, well, not that hard in comparison?

I ask not because I think that the sun will stop giving heat and stars will slam into the earth, but because "that's impossible!" doesn't really feel like a legitimate debate point in the ball game we're all playing in with the One who holds the stars in the palm of His hand.

So an honest answer would seemingly have to be some concession of at least the slightest possibility of a future scenario that ties all of those passages together, explaining John's use of the language alluding to those passages to form the narrative of the future he foresaw.

To say that 1.) there is absolutely no possibility of a future fulfillment that fits the details a bit more precisely and that 2.) such a fulfillment is 100% impossible would strike me as slightly dishonest.

Cyberseeker
May 30th 2008, 05:28 AM
... "that's impossible!" doesn't really feel like a legitimate debate point ...

Indeed, its a very poor point, especially since it is used to explain away the words of Jesus himself. :thumbsdn:

the rookie
May 30th 2008, 05:30 AM
I want to be clear, however, that I am not stating that the poster is dishonest, but a theoretical position that no one has yet taken. Of course, I'd like to make it difficult to take such a position of certainty... :D

markedward
May 30th 2008, 05:43 AM
Just curious, is it at all possible that the fantastic language used by the prophets hinted at a future apocalyptic event (one, where, say, the sky recedes like a scroll) related to the "day of the Lord" by which the (just an example) events of Joel 3 would come to pass in a manner described by John related to the future trouble of the nations and their judgment at the hands of a zealous God? Any chance?

I mean, the "apocalyptic language" of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel could actually fit a future apocalyptic event. Or is there no chance of this? Just curious.The way I see it is, why would it be prophesied upon ancient nations and be intended to be interpreted as non-literal when it came to them, but suddenly it's literal when applied to our future?

If anything, when Jesus spoke the sun-moon-stars things, He wasn't speaking to us modern-day literalistic thinking Americans. He was speaking to first century Jews, who were the very culture that created the Scriptures He was quoting from. He was speaking to them, so when He spoke of the sun-moon-stars stuff, He knew without a doubt that they would have interpreted as it was presented throughout the Scriptures - earthly nations falling to God's wrath through the hands of other earthly nations. They were the original audience and they were the ones who would have understood it in a context they were familiar with.

Similarly, we have an idiom "it's raining cats and dogs." We know that such a phrase is not even close to literal, but we know how to interpret it. But if we went up to a first-century Jew and said "it's raining cats and dogs" they would either think we were insane, or they would find a place to hide from the cats and dogs dropping out of the sky. We would know that they were mistaken for trying to hide, because they were not part of the culture or time in which the phrase "it's raining cats and dogs" is interpreted as "it's raining really hard."

So, I will concede that it is possible that perhaps Jesus (and the other prophets) were hinting at a distant (distant) future time period, but I must say I think it is highly unlikely, and at the very least if it were to happen as such the fact that the Old Testament uses such language to refer to non-literal fulfillments would have been incredibly misleading. When they prophesied, it was understood as non-literal, and it was fulfilled as non-literal. So if the ancients understood it as non-literal, why should we? And if we are supposed to, the fact that the ancients used it non-literally and understood it non-literally only brings in confusion.

But I must insist that when we interpret the sun-moon-stars thing that Jesus spoke, we need to interpret with the mindset of a first-century Jew; and they would more than likely have interpreted it in a non-literalistic sense. Their culture understoond the Old Testament prophecies as non-literal, so that Jesus, who continually appealed to the prophets, uses cosmic prophetic language in the same context that they did (judgment upon a people), then we have no real reason to interpret it in anything but a non-literalistic sense.

So, discarding the "impossible" basis I used above, I still maintain through the consistent manner in which the cosmic language is used in the Old Testament that a literalistic interpretation is not to be used.

the rookie
May 30th 2008, 06:02 AM
There are two problems with that thesis:

1. The 1st Advent prophecies came to pass in a very literal manner. One could argue that the verbiage used related to ancient nations and events served in and of themselves as types and foreshadowing of a fuller, more literal event to come related to God's "controversy with the nations". There are hundreds of small details that can find no historical fulfillment and leaves the reader either painting with too broad a brush in consigning OT prophecy to the distant past or looking to the future to see if the 2nd Advent will come to pass with the same agreement with prophecy as the 1st.

2. The Pharisees asked Jesus for signs in the heavens - literal ones. Which seems to give a hint regarding how a "1st Century Jew" understood the OT Messianic prophecies. IOW...literally.

I do appreciate the concession, however! I would boldly follow up that concession with a second request to give the same consideration (slight consideration is fine) that consigning the Second Coming without cause to the "distant" future is as much a shot in the dark as the other premise about the possibility of prophecy having a future expression. There is "literally" no grounds or scriptural cause to insist on a "distant" future return of Christ, and such a stand seems more reactionary (related to a frustration with the so-called dispensational "end-times madness") than substantive, IMO.

matthew94
May 30th 2008, 06:07 AM
I can't rep him again, but markedward has posted some thorough and excellent stuff here.

Cyberseeker
May 30th 2008, 06:19 AM
Jesus ... was speaking to first century Jews, who were the very culture that created the Scriptures He was quoting from. He was speaking to them, so when He spoke of the sun-moon-stars stuff, He knew without a doubt that they would have interpreted as it was presented throughout the Scriptures - earthly nations falling to God's wrath through the hands of other earthly nations. They were the original audience and they were the ones who would have understood it in a context they were familiar with.


Here is one 1st century Jew who who didn't put a figurative spin on the Matthew 24. Iraenaeus expected the heavens and the earth to come to an end.


For in six days as the world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded. And for this reason the Scripture says: “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all their adornment. And God brought to a conclusion upon the sixth day the works that He had made; and God rested upon the seventh day from all his works.” This is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of the things to come. For that day of the Lord is a thousand years; and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year.
Irenaeus, Heresies, 5.28.3 (ANF, Vol. 1, 557).
We are in good company interpreting the Olivet discourse literally. We are not talking about symbolic writings such as the Revelation. We are talking the plain words of Christ. "Heaven and earth will pass away!" (Matt 24:35) And when will this solar system pass away? Not AD70 ... not after a future millennium ... nope, neither of those but at the second coming of Christ.

markedward
May 30th 2008, 06:28 AM
1. The 1st Advent prophecies came to pass in a very literal manner. One could argue that the verbiage used related to ancient nations and events served in and of themselves as types and foreshadowing of a fuller, more literal event to come related to God's "controversy with the nations". There are hundreds of small details that can find no historical fulfillment and leaves the reader either painting with too broad a brush in consigning OT prophecy to the distant past or looking to the future to see if the 2nd Advent will come to pass with the same agreement with prophecy as the 1st.The first advent being the literal coming of Christ. The second advent, then, I would say is not the same event as the "coming on the clouds" referred to in the Discourse. For this I refer to moonglow's post (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1655060&postcount=17) earlier. The prophecies of the "first advent" didn't used any sort of cosmic language as we saw consistently used upon ancient nations. None of the language of the old prophets that prophesied Jesus coming as a man fits the non-literalistic cosmic-language of the judgment prophesies (such as the ones shown above). The language used in the discourse more resembles those non-literally-fulfilled judgment prophecies, and hardly resembles passages like the suffering servant of Isaiah or the cut off Messiah of Daniel. The sun-moon-stars language used by Jesus is used in the same manner as the ancient prophets I cited above, so a non-literal fulfillment is, I believe, most likely, and the "coming with the clouds" language used by Jesus is used in the same manner as the ancient prophets as cited by moonglow (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1655060&postcount=17), so a non-literal fulfillment of that is also most likely.

This, however, does not deny a "second advent;" a physical appearance of Jesus.


2. The Pharisees asked Jesus for signs in the heavens - literal ones. Which seems to give a hint regarding how a "1st Century Jew" understood the OT Messianic prophecies. IOW...literally.The pharisees asked for a sign, yes, but so did Gideon and Hezekiah. The pharisees wanted to know whether Jesus was truly who He was claiming to be, so they asked for signs. The sort of signs they were asking for were for verification of Jesus' identity, that God was truly speaking through Him. Such a sign that they were seeking should be paralleled to the wet fleece asked by Gideon to verify that the Angel of the LORD was who he said he was, or the shadow moving backwards asked by Hezekiah to verify that Isaiah was truly speaking God's words - not the cosmic language used in judgment upon ancient nations. Even so, Jesus did give them a sign, and it was indeed for verification of His identity. So the signs the Pharisees hoped for is not likely the stars dissolving or falling from the sky. And even still, that they asked for "signs from heaven," the phrase itself may not be even meant literally - "from heaven" could mean "in the sky," sure, but given the context (again, asking Jesus to verify His identity), "from heaven" could equally be taken to mean "from God (in heaven)." Compare this to someone saying "Thank heaven!"

markedward
May 30th 2008, 06:40 AM
Here is one 1st century Jew who who didn't put a figurative spin on the Matthew 24. Iraenaeus expected the heavens and the earth to come to an end.Two things:

First
Arguably, Irenaeus isn't the best ancient Christian writer to use for interpretive support of Scripture. Irenaeus believed that Jesus was around 50 years old when He was cruficied based on his faulty intepretation of the gospels. Aside from that one example, there are at least a few other blunders found in his works.

Second
Irenaeus was not a first century Jew. He was a second century Gentile. Depending on who you ask, he was born as early as 115 or as late as 140. He was also born in Asia Minor to a Greek family, but he moved to France. Considering the culture he was raised in (non-Jewish), the time period (the second century, when Christians began to disseminate from Jewish communities and thus Jewish culture), it's not farfetched to say that Irenaeus may not have had the best knowledge about Jewish idioms, including the "sun-moon-stars" prophecy language.

Cyberseeker
May 30th 2008, 07:10 AM
Irenaeus isn't the best ancient Christian writer to use for interpretive support of Scripture.

I'm sure he isn't, since he obviously wasn't a preterist. :rolleyes:

OK Irenaeus was a generation later than the apostles. Try this then for a first century Jew who took the Olivet discourse literally concerning the end of the world. >> Peter.


But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.
(2Peter3:10)

markedward
May 30th 2008, 07:27 AM
I'm sure he isn't, since he obviously wasn't a preterist.I gave credible reasons why Irenaeus isn't the best to rely on; his writings are recognized as faulty in at least a few instances of his Scriptural interpretations, as well as his historical accounts. Honestly, if you're going to resort to sarcastic wit, I don't feel the need to respond to you any further.


OK Irenaeus was a generation later than the apostles. Try this then for a first century Jew who took the Olivet discourse literally concerning the end of the world. >> Peter.As for your quote from 2 Peter, I do have a response to, but I'm quite certain I would not be allowed to post on the open forum. If you want my honest response to this, it will have to be taken to email or IM, so that I may respect the forum rules.

Cyberseeker
May 30th 2008, 08:21 AM
I gave credible reasons why Irenaeus isn't the best to rely on ...
We are told Irenaeus was the student of Polycarp who was the the student of St John. (Mind you 50 years old for Jesus was a blue I hafta admit.) It is unlikely that within 80 years of the apostles the Church Fathers had done a flip-flop on how to interpret the old testament prophets.


As for your quote from 2 Peter, I do have a response to, but I'm quite certain I would not be allowed to post on the open forum. If you want my honest response to this, it will have to be taken to email or IM, so that I may respect the forum rules.

Naw, stick it on the forum. I'll probably choke on my sandwich but I promise not to tell Project.

Clifton
May 30th 2008, 01:28 PM
We are told Irenaeus was the student of Polycarp who was the the student of St John. (Mind you 50 years old for Jesus was a blue I hafta admit.)

Good Point.;)

The Gospels (back then known as the Memiors) were the popular sources back in those days... it was not uncommon for people to think that Yeshua made it to the age of 50 years of age, as they did back in those days...

The Yehuḏim, therefore, said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Aḇraham?”
John 8:57 The Scriptures 1998+

So the argument goes that "according to scripture", he had reached at least His 40's when He was in His ministry. If I were isolated in a land with the Bible as my only source of information, I would probably figure that as well, without any thought of Numbers 4:3, which by the time one gets to reading the now-termed "Gospels", I would have forgot about.

I understand the the Book of Acts puts Yeshua over the age of 50 as well, (by a chronological sense), but where that is, I do not remember or recall - I guess that one just kind of flew over my head.:D But there are two issues there: people were better acquainted with historic events back then, and the Book of Acts underwent some fudge work in the 90's A.D. (thus, that is what people got in the 2nd Century). I got Codex D of Acts - it has more text in places where the Bible versions don't.

Irenaeus also spoke to those whom spoke to The Seer, John The Prebyster, face to face. So he had some good Intel (of course, one could conjure up the thought of a wide-spread conspiracy:P). It is quite doubtful that Irenaeus just said to those whom spoke to The Seer face to face, said, "hey Jimmy bud, come over here for a moment", "can you tell me which number for the beast is correct?", then get a response, and say, "thanks, have a nice day!", and that was all that was ever mentioned about.:)

Blessings.

moonglow
May 30th 2008, 03:54 PM
Just curious, is it at all possible that the fantastic language used by the prophets hinted at a future apocalyptic event (one, where, say, the sky recedes like a scroll) related to the "day of the Lord" by which the (just an example) events of Joel 3 would come to pass in a manner described by John related to the future trouble of the nations and their judgment at the hands of a zealous God? Any chance?

I mean, the "apocalyptic language" of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel could actually fit a future apocalyptic event. Or is there no chance of this? Just curious.

I ask mainly because God already did something patently impossible via the incarnation. It's kind of like cramming a redwood tree into a two-inch pot, except far more ludicrous as a concept. With the hard part behind him, wouldn't the other stuff be, well, not that hard in comparison?

I ask not because I think that the sun will stop giving heat and stars will slam into the earth, but because "that's impossible!" doesn't really feel like a legitimate debate point in the ball game we're all playing in with the One who holds the stars in the palm of His hand.

So an honest answer would seemingly have to be some concession of at least the slightest possibility of a future scenario that ties all of those passages together, explaining John's use of the language alluding to those passages to form the narrative of the future he foresaw.

To say that 1.) there is absolutely no possibility of a future fulfillment that fits the details a bit more precisely and that 2.) such a fulfillment is 100% impossible would strike me as slightly dishonest.

I think we have to remember that though the stars may not literally fall from the sky, it doesn't mean something doesn't happen at all! Obviously something does as in the examples mark gave...in every one of those, something literally did happen. It wasn't the stars falling but one nation overtaking another nation. So we wouldn't want to go so far as to say nothing at all happens in regards to the verses that speak this way...

Verse 29. Immediately after the tribulation, (http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=mt&chapter=024) generally understand this, and what follows, of the end of the world and Christ's coming to judgment: but the word immediately shows that our Lord is not speaking of any distant event, but of something immediately consequent on calamities already predicted: and that must be the destruction of Jerusalem. "The Jewish heaven shall perish, and the sun and moon of its glory and happiness shall be darkened-brought to nothing. The sun is the religion of the Church; the moon is the government of the state; and the stars are the judges and doctors of both. Compare Isaiah 13:10; ; Ezekiel 32:7,8, Lightfoot.

In the prophetic language, great commotions upon earth are often represented under the notion of commotions and changes in the heavens:-

The fall of Babylon is represented by the stars and constellations of heaven withdrawing their light, and the sun and moon being darkened. See Isaiah 13:9,10. (Isaiah 13:9

9 For see, the day of the Lord is coming—
the terrible day of his fury and fierce anger.
The land will be made desolate,
and all the sinners destroyed with it.

Isaiah 13:10

10 The heavens will be black above them;
the stars will give no light.
The sun will be dark when it rises,
and the moon will provide no light.)

The destruction of Egypt, by the heaven being covered, the sun enveloped with a cloud, and the moon withholding her light. Ezekiel 32:7,8.

Ezekiel 32:7

7 When I blot you out,
I will veil the heavens and darken the stars.
I will cover the sun with a cloud,
and the moon will not give you its light.

Yes I know I am repeating some things here...my point being something DID happen in these cases and in the ones mark posted...nations were overthrown. And we know from historical documents that Jerusalem was overthrown AND destroyed along with the temple. While these things don't sound as dramatic at the sun or moon going dark and stars literally falling from the sky...if people would just do a little reading on exactly what happened they would see how truly, truly significant this is. For those going through it, you be it was dramatic! Horrifying in fact. All of history changed for the Jews and for us in a huge way. I couldn't image Jesus or anyone in the bible not mentioning the events either before they happened or at least afterwards...but especially before since this was judgment from God and their were always warnings before His wrath fell on a nation.

I something think we think because this is the New Testament, God would stop working this way in using other nations to enact His wrath on another nation as we see ALL through the OT...but yet we say God is the same now as He was in the OT, yet we don't expect these things to happen like this? :hmm:

But yet we all expect the 'big battle' in Revelation to happen...Armageddon. That's ok but not the Romans destroying Jerusalem meaning anything other then 'another battle happen' and nothing more...nothing worth Jesus mentioning???

Of course I realize there were a few times God didn't use another nation to enact His wrath...such as the flood and raining down fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah...and yes He worked miracles within nations to overcome other ones for sure..I am not saying nor of this is devoid of honest to good God given miracles at all.

Even though no stars fell from Heaven when Jerusalem was destroyed there were MANY supernatural events happening before this and even right before it....first when the Roman army came and surrounded Jerusalem...something happened and they briefly backed off...giving the Christians time to escape! These believers heeded the words of Jesus and FLED just as He told them to do here:

Matthew 24
15 “The day is coming when you will see what Daniel the prophet spoke about—the sacrilegious object that causes desecration standing in the Holy Place.” (Reader, pay attention!) 16 “Then those in Judea must flee to the hills. 17 A person out on the deck of a roof must not go down into the house to pack. 18 A person out in the field must not return even to get a coat. 19 How terrible it will be for pregnant women and for nursing mothers in those days.

Luke 21

20 “And when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then you will know that the time of its destruction has arrived. 21 Then those in Judea must flee to the hills. Those in Jerusalem must get out, and those out in the country should not return to the city. 22 For those will be days of God’s vengeance, and the prophetic words of the Scriptures will be fulfilled. 23 How terrible it will be for pregnant women and for nursing mothers in those days. For there will be disaster in the land and great anger against this people.

Why does the futurist take everything literally in both these chapters EXCEPT the verses about fleeing Judea? About fleeing Jerusalem? And try to apply them to the whole world? If everyone in the whole world is to flee...yet the whole world is affected, exactly where would we flee too?

I live in Kansas...am I suppose to flee too? No of course not. No army can surround the whole world anyway.

Anyway its historical FACT the believers escaped and got out and did not suffer God's wrath just as He promised.

1 Thessalonians 5:
9 For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, 10 who died for us, that whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with Him.

What a great witness this is! Its a witness that God keeps His promises! All of this can be used as a great witnessing tool in showing the dependability of the bible and that Gods Word is true!

Ok let me back up a bit as I am getting ahead of myself...to show you and those reading these things did take place:

Adam Clark takes Matthew 24 verse by verse and matches it with what the Jewish historian Josephus recorded as he saw these events unfold in his lifetime:

Verse 16. Then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains
This counsel was remembered and wisely followed by the Christians afterwards. Eusebius and Epiphanius say, that at this juncture, after Cestius Gallus had raised the siege, and Vespasian was approaching with his army, all who believed in Christ left Jerusalem and fled to Pella, and other places beyond the river Jordan; and so they all marvellously escaped the general shipwreck of their country: not one of them perished. See on Matthew 24:13.

Verse 17. Let him which is on the house top
The houses of the Jews, as well as those of the ancient Greeks and Romans, were flat-roofed, and had stairs on the outside, by which persons might ascend and descend without coming into the house. In the eastern walled cities, these flat-roofed houses usually formed continued terraces from one end of the city to the other; which terraces terminated at the gates. He, therefore, who is walking on the house top, let him not come down to take any thing out of his house; but let him instantly pursue his course along the tops of the houses, and escape out at the city gate as fast as he can.

Verse 18. Neither let him which is in the field return back
Because when once the army of the Romans sits down before the city, there shall be no more any possibility of escape, as they shall never remove till Jerusalem be destroyed. Our Lord had ordered his followers to make their escape from Jerusalem when they should see it encompassed with armies; but how could this be done?

God took care to provide amply for this. In the twelfth year of Nero, Cestius Gallus, the president of Syria, came against Jerusalem with a powerful army. He might, says Josephus, WAR, b. ii. c. 19, have assaulted and taken the city, and thereby put an end to the war; but without any just reason, and contrary to the expectation of all, he raised the siege and departed. Josephus remarks, that after Cestius Gallus had raised the siege, "many of the principal Jewish people, πολλοιτων επιφανωνιουδαιων, forsook the city, as men do a sinking ship."

Vespasian was deputed in the room of Cestius Gallus, who, having subdued all the country, prepared to besiege Jerusalem, and invested it on every side. But the news of Nero's death, and soon after that of Galba, and the disturbances that followed, and the civil wars between Otho and Vitellius, held Vespasian and his son Titus in suspense. Thus the city was not actually besieged in form till after Vespasian was confirmed in the empire, and Titus was appointed to command the forces in Judea.

It was in those incidental delays that the Christians, and indeed several others, provided for their own safety, by flight. In Luke 19:43, our Lord says of Jerusalem, Thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side. Accordingly, Titus, having made several assaults without success, resolved to surround the city with a wall, which was, with incredible speed, completed in three days! The wall was thirty-nine furlongs in length, and was strengthened with thirteen forts at proper distances, so that all hope of safety was cut off; none could make his escape from the city, and no provisions could be brought into it. See Josephus, WAR, book v. c. 12.
************************************************** ********
I want to also show the supernatural events that took place before all of this happened too...there were plenty of 'signs' for sure...but this post is getting long, so continued on the next.

God bless

moonglow
May 30th 2008, 04:11 PM
The FIFTH sign, fearful portents. (http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=mt&chapter=024)

To these St. Luke adds that there shall be fearful sights and great signs from heaven 21:11.) Josephus, in his preface to the Jewish war, enumerates these.

1st. A star hung over the city like a sword; and a comet continued a whole year.

2d. The people being assembled at the feast of unleavened bread, at the ninth hour of the night, a great light shone about the altar and the temple, and this continued for half an hour.

3d. At the same feast, a cow led to sacrifice brought forth a lamb in the midst of the temple!

4th. The eastern gate of the temple, which was of solid brass, and very heavy, and could hardly be shut by twenty men, and was fastened by strong bars and bolts, was seen at the sixth hour of the night to open of its own accord!

5th. Before sun-setting there were seen, over all the country, chariots and armies fighting in the clouds, and besieging cities.

6th. At the feast of pentecost, when the priests were going into the inner temple by night, to attend their service, they heard first a motion and noise, and then a voice, as of a multitude, saying, LET US DEPART HENCE!

7th. What Josephus reckons one of the most terrible signs of all was, that one Jesus, a country fellow, four years before the war began, and when the city was in peace and plenty, came to the feast of tabernacles, and ran crying up and down the streets, day and night: "A voice from the east! a voice from the west! a voice from the four winds! a voice against Jerusalem and the temple! a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides! and a voice against all the people!"

Though the magistrates endeavoured by stripes and tortures to restrain him, yet he still cried, with a mournful voice, "Wo, wo to Jerusalem!" And this he continued to do for several years together, going about the walls and crying with a loud voice: "Wo, wo to the city, and to the people, and to the temple!" and as he added, "Wo, wo to myself!" a stone from some sling or engine struck him dead on the spot! It is worthy of remark that Josephus appeals to the testimony of others, who saw and heard these fearful things. Tacitus, a Roman historian, gives very nearly the same account with that of Josephus. Hist. lib. v.

Verse 8. All these are the beginning of sorrows.
ωδινων, travailing pains. The whole land of Judea is represented under the notion of a woman in grievous travail; but our Lord intimates, that all that had already been mentioned were only the first pangs and throes, and nothing in comparison of that hard and death-bringing labour, which should afterwards take place.

From the calamities of the nation in general, our Lord passes to those of the Christians; and, indeed, the sufferings of his followers were often occasioned by the judgments sent upon the land, as the poor Christians were charged with being the cause of these national calamities, and were cruelly persecuted on that account.
************************************************** *****************
If those aren't enough 'signs' I don't know what is...yet the Jews ignored them possibly doing the 'peace and safety' thing all along ignoring the signs and ignoring the Words of Jesus...even when the Roman army came and surrounded them.

God bless

Nihil Obstat
May 31st 2008, 06:34 AM
I say yes and I am not a full Preterist. I could take the time to explain how all of the things He prophesied were fulfilled. Would you be willing to consider such explanations or would I be wasting my time?

You say "yes" that Israel was *redeemed* from among the nations in 70 AD? No, you would not be wasting your time if you could explain how; I'd love to see you try (that's why I started this thread).


The "redemption" that is spoken of in Luke's gospel is parallel to the "gathering of the elect" in Matthew's gospel. The "redemption" being spoken of is not Israel's restoration as a nation, it's the "gathering of the elect."

Matthew's "gathering of the elect" *is* about Israel's redemption, that's the point (see Isa. 27:12-13). If you think it's about the resurrection, then are you'd also have quite a difficult time trying to persuade anyone that the Virgin Mary (Luke 1:50-55), Zacharias (Luke 1:67-75), Simeon (Luke 2:25), or Anna (Luke 2:38) understood "redemption" to mean "resurrection". What Luke clearly meant by "redemption" was a return from exile (Luke 21:24).


1 - Where do Matthew or Mark say the Discourse took place at night?

This can be found in Luke 21:37.


3 - This is simply wrong. You say that Luke's version asks about the temple stones and Matthew's and Marks' versions don't.

Luke 21:5-7, Mark 13:1-4, Matthew 24:1-3

Each gospel contains the discussion about the second temple. If you're denying that Matthew's gospel and Mark's gospel don't say anything about Jesus speaking of the second temple's destruction and the disciples asking when such events would happen, I must honestly ask you what Bible you are reading.

I'm reading the NKJV, if you are honestly asking, and though Jesus speaks of the temple's destruction in Matt. 24 and Mark 13, He does not do so during His Olivet Discourse. In Luke's account, He speaks of the temple's destruction, and while still there, is asked by all those who were listening when that would take place. They do not ask Him anything about His coming or the end of the age there in the city, as His closest friends do privately later that night on Mount Olivet.


4 - You say that Matthew's and Mark's versions mention only four disciples while Luke's version mentions "many people." Again, this is wrong. Yes, Mark's version does indeed mention four specific disciples, but Matthew's versions gives no specific names.

Matthew = "the disciples came unto Him privately"

Mark = "Peter and James and John and Andrew asked Him privately"

Luke = "And some spake of the temple ... And they asked Him"

Luke's version specifically says "some" people asked Jesus about the temple, not "many" as you claim. And Matthew's version gives no names as to which disciples were asking Him about the temple.

Matthew and Mark's Olivet Discourse passages clearly take place at the same time. Luke's is the one in question. By "many" I was speaking of the undoubtedly large number of people listening to Jesus' teaching there in the city (Luke 20:45).


5 - Point number five doesn't even "prove" the accounts are different. The description of the "abomination that causes desolation" in Matthew and Mark's version is virtually identical to the "armies" that bring "desolation" in Luke's version. The manner in which the three gospels present their respective accounts is so identical that they could only be speaking of the same thing.

"Virtually identical" you say? Only to the casual passer-by. Why doesn't Luke record Jesus speaking of Daniel's prophecy of the "abomination of desolation" (Dan. 11:31; 12:11)? Because that didn't happen in 70 AD. Why didn't Luke record Jesus saying that this would be the greatest tribulation ever? Because 70 AD wasn't the greatest tribulation ever. And why doesn't Luke record Jesus saying that the days would have to be cut short to keep all the flesh from perishing? Because that wasn't necessary in 70 AD.


...you're mistaken on what "redemption" means in Luke's version of the Discourse. Luke's reference to "redemption" is not about Israel being restored as a nation. It is about the "gathering of the elect." Firstly, it is directly parallel to where Mark and Matthew each mention the "gathering," giving evidence that that is what Luke meant by "redemption."

I 100% agree with you that "redemption" and "gathering" are the same event, but your conclusion is simply incorrect. Do you not understand what redemption means?


...your objection to Israel being scattered in 70 AD instead of restored quite plainly does prove that Luke's description of Jerusalem's destruction came to pass... Jerusalem's destruction is entirely evident, and Jesus finishes it off by saying that people of Jerusalem and of Judea would be "taken away as prisoners."

Jesus was not prophesying Israel's restoration as a nation, He was prophesying the exact opposite! He was saying that the nation of the Jews would be conquered and overcome.

You must have mis-read my post, because my point was that only Luke's account spoke of Jerusalem's destruction. Yet Jesus did not end there; He continued to speak of how all would see the Son of Man (speaking about Dan. 7:13-14, which was a good thing for Israel and those who stand with her). And still though, even the Son of Man was a literal sign (cp. Matt. 24:30) unto something to come, something which He was leading up to the entire time: "your redemption" (Luke 21:28). So, did this happen in 70 AD? No, of course not. So did that first generation see *all* things take place? No, they couldn't have, even if you symbolized away the Son of Man coming on the clouds. Therefore, how is Preterism biblical?


The Mosaic Age.

With the destruction of the temple, God could no longer be approached through temple priests or regular sacrifices. The only method of salvation from that point on was found in Christ.

"The end of the age" was the end of the age of the temple, of regularized sacrifices, of condemnation under the Law. With the end of the Mosaic Age, a new age began, the Messianic Age. A physical temple is no longer needed - Jesus is our temple, and we are His. Regular sacrifices are worthless in God's eyes - Jesus is our sacrifice, once for all time. We are no longer condemned in the Law - we are made alive in Christ's grace.

The Mosaic age ended in 70 AD? What about during the Jewish War in 132-135 when the temple sacrifices started back up again? Or what about how there was no mercy seat in the Most Holy Place since before Babylon invaded Jerusalem and pillaged their temple (2 Ki. 25:13-17)? Or - I don't know - what about Jesus on the cross and the veil being torn and the book of Hebrews? (I'm being facetious, of course...)

But salvation was *always* in Christ, not just from 70 AD on. And condemnation will *always* come from the law, not just before 70 AD. And the law was not abolished by Christ, but fulfilled (Matt. 5:17), and we are to fulfill the law just as He did (Jas. 2:8), because the law is holy (Rom. 7:12), and the *doers* of the law will be justified (Rom. 2:13).

Note this, and research it for yourself: The Jews (not excluding Jesus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter, and Jude) only had two ages in their eschatology: the present evil age (Gal. 1:4), and the age to come. These two ages were characterized by death and the Spirit, respectively. Before Jesus came, however, they believed that the present evil age ended at the Day of the Lord, which then ushered in the age to come. But Jesus taught instead that there would be a period of time where the two ages would co-exist, which began at His death, and will end at the Day of the Lord. We are now in the stage Jesus likened to the wilderness between leaving Egypt and entering the Promised Land, where two ages are presently at work, one fading and the other pervading.

Lk.11

markedward
May 31st 2008, 06:37 PM
You say "yes" that Israel was *redeemed* from among the nations in 70 AD?No. You said, quote, "Did His generation see *all* these things?" You did not ask "Was Israel redeemed?" You asked "Did everything He said happen?" I said "yes" to the latter.


No, you would not be wasting your time if you could explain how; I'd love to see you try (that's why I started this thread).I think for this I'll need to start a new thread. Before I do that, though, I have a few things In Real Life to do, but following that I will gather my notes and start the new thread. I'll send you a PM when I do; sound cool?


I'm reading the NKJV, if you are honestly asking, and though Jesus speaks of the temple's destruction in Matt. 24 and Mark 13, He does not do so during His Olivet Discourse. In Luke's account, He speaks of the temple's destruction, and while still there, is asked by all those who were listening when that would take place. They do not ask Him anything about His coming or the end of the age there in the city, as His closest friends do privately later that night on Mount Olivet.


As he was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!"

"Do you see all these great buildings?" replied Jesus. "Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."

As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him privately, "Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?"Followed by the Discourse.


Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. "Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."

As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"Followed by the Discourse.


Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, "As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down."

"Teacher," they asked, "when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?"Followed by the Discourse.

In each version, Jesus leaves the temple. In each version His disciples ask Him to look at how great it is. In each version Jesus says "These stones will fall." In each version the disciples go on to ask "When will this happen?"

Mark's version of the disciple's question is identical to Luke's version of the question. Each version of the Discourse has complementing descriptions. Something that Mark says can be found in Luke's version. Something Matthew says can be found in Mark. Something Luke says can be found in Matthew. But the opening of each gospel directly sets the context of the whole Discourse, being the destruction of the second temple. All three of them lead right into "Don't let anyone deceive you."


Matthew and Mark's Olivet Discourse passages clearly take place at the same time. Luke's is the one in question. By "many" I was speaking of the undoubtedly large number of people listening to Jesus' teaching there in the city (Luke 20:45).Except Luke directly says "some" people pointed out the temple to Christ, and that "they" (the "some") asked Him when "these things" would happen. Jesus did have a large crowd following Him at times, but Luke's description that "some" of the people easily relates to that it was only (four of) the disciples who asked Jesus the question.


"Virtually identical" you say? Only to the casual passer-by. Why doesn't Luke record Jesus speaking of Daniel's prophecy of the "abomination of desolation" (Dan. 11:31; 12:11)? Because that didn't happen in 70 AD.Where Matthew and Mark speak of the "abomination that causes desolation" Luke speaks of "armies surround Jerusalem" that would cause the city's "desolation."

Ancient historical reports show that when the Roman armies finally broke into Jerusalem after a five-month siege, and they broke down the temple, Roman soldiers made a sacrifice to Caesar where the temple stood. Matthew's and Luke's descriptions are different, but complemental. When reading them together, they happened exactly as described. Gentile armies surrounded Jerusalem (Luke), made an unclean sacrifice in the temple ("abomination of desolation," Matthew), showing that it was the armies who caused the "desolation" (Luke).


Why didn't Luke record Jesus saying that this would be the greatest tribulation ever? Because 70 AD wasn't the greatest tribulation ever.Why doesn't Matthew's version of the Discourse speak of the disciples being brought into synagogues and being flogged while both Mark's and Luke's does? Again, different descriptions that complement each other.


And why doesn't Luke record Jesus saying that the days would have to be cut short to keep all the flesh from perishing? Because that wasn't necessary in 70 AD.Again, different descriptions that complement each other.


The [I]Mosaic age ended in 70 AD? What about during the Jewish War in 132-135 when the temple sacrifices started back up again?Well, for one, the temple wasn't even around during the Bar Kochba Revolt, so no, temple sacrifices did not start back up again. There were occasional attempts to revive temple sacrifices, but (A) that's impossible without a temple, and (B) they were attempts to bring back the temple sacrifices; they all failed.


Or what about how there was no mercy seat in the Most Holy Place since before Babylon invaded Jerusalem and pillaged their temple (2 Ki. 25:13-17)?When the second temple was built (this was God-sanctioned; He approved it), a raised platform in the Holy of Holies was made to take place of the mercy seat. Considering God was the one who allowed the second temple's construction to take place, it goes without a doubt that He knew the mercy seat wouldn't be in it.


Or - I don't know - what about Jesus on the cross and the veil being torn and the book of Hebrews? (I'm being facetious, of course...)Jesus brought the New Covenant, but the Old Covenant did not disappear at the very moment Jesus was crucified. Read Hebrews again:


By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.Hebrews was written after Christ's sacrifice, yet the author clearly shows that the Old Covenant and New Covenant overlapped for a short time. Since Hebrews was written between 30 AD (the establishment of the New Covenant) and 70 AD (the destruction of the second temple), it seems obvious (to me, at least) that the second temple's destruction was when the Old Covenant "disappeared."


But salvation was *always* in Christ, not just from 70 AD on. And condemnation will *always* come from the law, not just before 70 AD. And the law was not abolished by Christ, but fulfilled (Matt. 5:17), and we are to fulfill the law just as He did (Jas. 2:8), because the law is holy (Rom. 7:12), and the *doers* of the law will be justified (Rom. 2:13).Rightio, but as I said, in the Old Covenant God was approached through the temple sacrifices. In the New Covenant God can only be approached through Christ.


Note this, and research it for yourself: The Jews (not excluding Jesus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter, and Jude) only had two ages in their eschatology: the present evil age (Gal. 1:4), and the age to come.On a technical note: remember that Galatians 1:4 was written before the second temple's destruction, as in, before the "end of the age." The "present evil age" could very easily be applied to the Mosaic Age and the "age to come" could then very easily be applied to the Messianic Age.


These two ages were characterized by death and the Spirit, respectively. Before Jesus came, however, they believed that the present evil age ended at the Day of the Lord, which then ushered in the age to come. But Jesus taught instead that there would be a period of time where the two ages would co-exist, which began at His death, and will end at the Day of the Lord.And, again, I point back to Hebrews.

The "co-existence" of the two ages was the overlapping of the Old and New Covenants. The New Covenant began at His death (30 AD) and the Old Covenant ended "soon" after Hebrews was written (pointing to 70 AD).


We are now in the stage Jesus likened to the wilderness between leaving Egypt and entering the Promised Land, where two ages are presently at work, one fading and the other pervading.Ironically, you refer to the wandering in the wilderness as the "in-between" time period.

How long was the time between Jesus' sacrifice (30 AD, beginning the New Covenant) and the destruction of the second temple (70 AD, ending the Old Covenant).

The wandering of the wilderness was 40 years.
The in-between of the Covenants was 40 years.

RogerW
May 31st 2008, 08:09 PM
What difference would it make in our understanding of the fulfillment of prophecy if we view "this generation" as either (1) chosen generation (2) perverse generation?

1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Php 2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation [genea-generation], among whom ye shine as lights in the world;

We have two distinct generations coexisting at the same time. A generation of evil, and a chosen generation of God. Both these generations, or families, spans all of time.

The crooked and perverse generation of the devil is contrasted with the sons of God, or the family of God (chosen generation) who shine as lights among them.

These generations aren't periods of time spanning ones life, they last until all is fulfilled at Christ's return. One generation shall not escape the damnation of Hell, and the other is a special people who shall by Christ's blood escape the damnation of Hell.

When reading the Olivet Discourse in the gospels, is it possible to determine if the generation in question is the perverse generation or the chosen generation? Which generation shall not pass until all things be fulfilled?

Many Blessings,
RW

markedward
May 31st 2008, 11:49 PM
When reading the Olivet Discourse in the gospels, is it possible to determine if the generation in question is the perverse generation or the chosen generation? Which generation shall not pass until all things be fulfilled?At least in the case of the Discourse, when Jesus spoke of "generation," He wasn't speaking of a type of people ("perverse" or "chosen"), He was using the word in its normal definitional sense: a time period based upon the age of those living in it.

When He spoke of "this generation" He was using it as a specifically temporal term, not a perpetual type of people as you seem to be suggesting. At least two other verses verify that Jesus was restricting His prophecies to an amount of time, not a type of people.


When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.


I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.


They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. ... I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

These three passages each have two things in common:

1 - The Coming of the Son of Man
2 - A limitation of time to when the Coming will occur

First, saying Matthew 16:27-28 referred to the transfiguration is just plain distorting the context. When Jesus spoke of the "Coming of the Son of Man" He always used it to refer to a specific event, so no, Matthew 16:27-28 does not refer to the transfiguration.

Second, each of these verses places a specific time frame for when the Coming of the Son of Man would happen. First, Jesus told His disciples that when they were persecuted, that they were to flee from one city to another and that they wouldn't be able to reach all of the cities of Israel before the Coming. Second, Jesus told His disciples that some of the people standing right around Him would not die before the Coming had occurred; by now, everyone standing around Him had died. Third, Jesus told His disciples that the Coming would occur within the lifetime of their generation; their generation has died out.

It shouldn't be this hard to see that Jesus was making specific time-restrictions to when the Coming of the Son of Man would occur. He kept saying that it would happen within a specific amount of time, not that it was supposed to be perpetually imminent.

BroRog
Jun 1st 2008, 01:29 AM
[Verse 29 is] generally understand this, and what follows, of the end of the world and Christ's coming to judgment: but the word immediately shows that our Lord is not speaking of any distant event, but of something immediately consequent on calamities already predicted: and that must be the destruction of Jerusalem.

Not ONLY the destruction of Jerusalem. :)

I believe the term "immediately" also refers to the other aspects of the prophecy. The destruction of the temple is only one of the events that must transpire before Jesus' return. According to Luke's account, the destruction of the temple is coincident with "this people" [the Jews living in Israel] being taken captive into the nations until "the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled." This TOO must be fulfilled before the Lord comes in the clouds etc.

In other words, the Tribulation begins in 70AD when Titus destroys the temple and takes the Jewish people captive into the nations. But the Tribulation doesn't end until AFTER the "times of the Gentiles are fulfilled." Immediately after THAT, the Lord returns.

And so, since the captivity of Israel is over. The Tribulation is over. :)

markedward
Jun 1st 2008, 02:07 AM
I believe the term "immediately" also refers to the other aspects of the prophecy. The destruction of the temple is only one of the events that must transpire before Jesus' return. According to Luke's account, the destruction of the temple is coincident with "this people" [the Jews living in Israel] being taken captive into the nations until "the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled." This TOO must be fulfilled before the Lord comes in the clouds etc.

Compare:


Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.


[The Gentiles] will trample on the holy city for 42 months.

The similarities between the two passages is reasonable enough to conclude they're speaking of the same event. Actually, the only thing that makes them look different is the sentence structure. Each one has:

The Gentiles...
... trampling...
... Jerusalem ("the holy city")...
... until a certain amount of time is over.

The "time of the Gentiles" was only 42 months, I believe...

BroRog
Jun 1st 2008, 02:31 AM
Compare:





The similarities between the two passages is reasonable enough to conclude they're speaking of the same event. Actually, the only thing that makes them look different is the sentence structure. Each one has:

The Gentiles...
... trampling...
... Jerusalem ("the holy city")...
... until a certain amount of time is over.

The "time of the Gentiles" was only 42 months, I believe...

:)

I think I agree with you that the two passages seem similar enough to be talking about the same thing. Can you demonstrate why the time period "42 months" is to be understood literally? If so, I will need to re-think my position.

BroRog
Jun 1st 2008, 02:34 AM
By the way, I think Revelation 12:6 and 12:14 are the same time period.

markedward
Jun 1st 2008, 03:00 AM
I think I agree with you that the two passages seem similar enough to be talking about the same thing. Can you demonstrate why the time period "42 months" is to be understood literally? If so, I will need to re-think my position.The Revelation makes use of a 3.5 year time period in a few places.

When he said "time and times and half a time," which has been interpreted as 3.5 years since ancient days (time = 1, times = 2, half a time = .5, totalling 3.5 "times," or years), it should, in my opinion, be understood as just that, 3.5 years.

When he said 1260 days, it should be interpreted as just that, 1260 days.

When he said 42 months, it should be interpreted as just that, 42 months.

Now, some may say the "days" are correspond to years, but there are some problems to this.

First, usually when there was a "day = year" thing going on, we were specifically told so. This can be found in Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6. (A note about Daniel 9 - In Hebrew, the word that is often translated into English as "weeks" most literally refers to a "set of seven." It is most often used in Scripture to refer to a "week," but the word itself simply means "seven." This is evidenced in the fact that the word is used twice in a single sentence of Daniel, when it speaks of the "seven 'weeks.'" Most literally, this phrase should be translated as "seven sevens." As such, Daniel 9 does not use a "day = year" rule unless one translates the Hebrew word specifically as "week," even though in this particular instance it is not necessary.) Since Revelation does not specify that a "day = year" rule, we should lean towards a literal reading of the time-units, leading us to...

Second, what what about the "months," or the "times?" Even on the Jewish calendar, a single month didn't always have the same number of days in it, so how would we know if the 42 "months" (if they were using a "day = year" type of rule) is supposed to be 28 days, 29 days, 30 days, or 31 days? There's just no way to tell...

Third, the fact that the author goes out of his way to translate a period of 3.5 years into different units of time points to the idea that he is intentionally trying to tell us that when he says X-amount of time that he means X-amount of time.

Whether each of these 3.5 years are the same 3.5 years or not is up to interpretation, but I personally think it's necessary to recognize that he was trying to get across the idea of literal 3.5 year time frames.



In the specific case of the 42 months of the Gentiles trampling on Jerusalem: Rome declared war on Judea in early February, 67 AD when Nero officially sent General Vespasian to begin to organize troops to subdue the Jewish revolt, and the Romans destroyed the temple of Jerusalem in late July/early August of 70 AD. That's 42 months of the Gentiles trampling on Jerusalem.

Nihil Obstat
Jun 1st 2008, 04:41 AM
No. You said, quote, "Did His generation see *all* these things?" You did not ask "Was Israel redeemed?" You asked "Did everything He said happen?" I said "yes" to the latter.

Well if Israel was not redeemed in 70 AD (and they weren't), then how can Preterism be true, considering that the generation who would see all things take place spoken of in the "Olivet Discourse", as it's known, would be the generation that sees Israel redeemed from all nations (Luke 21:28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2021:28&version=50), 32 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2021:32;&version=50;))?


Well, for one, the temple wasn't even around during the Bar Kochba Revolt, so no, temple sacrifices did not start back up again. There were occasional attempts to revive temple sacrifices, but (A) that's impossible without a temple, and (B) they were attempts to bring back the temple sacrifices; they all failed.

Oops on that. I knew what I meant - thanks for clarifying for others. (I was just being facetious anyway, considering anytime I mention millennial sacrifices, I hear in return, "Oh, but the cross and the veil and the book of Hebrews"...)


Ironically, you refer to the wandering in the wilderness as the "in-between" time period.

How long was the time between Jesus' sacrifice (30 AD, beginning the New Covenant) and the destruction of the second temple (70 AD, ending the Old Covenant)?

The wandering of the wilderness was 40 years.
The in-between of the Covenants was 40 years.

Rep for that. Great point. I 100% disagree with you, but still a great point.

BroRog
Jun 1st 2008, 05:33 AM
Third, the fact that the author goes out of his way to translate a period of 3.5 years into different units of time points to the idea that he is intentionally trying to tell us that when he says X-amount of time that he means X-amount of time.

Interesting, I used to think that too. But now, the very reason you think they are literal is the same reason I think they are symbolic. :)

Don't get me wrong; what you say makes perfect sense. He says 42 months in chapter 11, and in case we don't know how long that is he uses "time, time and half a time", in chapter 12, and in case we still can't do the math he says "1260 days."

But this seems to overly complicate an already complicated subject with unnecessary mental gymnastics. And so, I ask John, as my wife often says to me, "Why didn't you say that to begin with?" If you're going to come right out and tell me it's literally 1,260 days, why the coy language at first?

It's perfectly understandable why someone, such as John, wants to give a prophecy in symbolic language. The message is purposely obtuse in order to weed out the uninitiated with just enough clues for those who really want to know. For the rest, it's gibberish -- and they don't care anyway.

But if you just come right out and define your terms, after making them obscure, you defeat the purpose.

However, I don't think John is giving things away. I think he is purposely giving us three different phrases in order for us to think about what they each have in common, that is, beside the obvious.

I could be wrong, but if so, I would need to explain why Jesus' reference to the end of the tribulation includes the 70AD event but not the return of the Jews to the land.

BTW, I'm not suggesting that I have figured out the symbolic meaning of "time, times and half a time" and I agree with you that the day for a year calculus doesn't work. I'm still putting things together. :hmm:

RogerW
Jun 2nd 2008, 01:48 AM
At least in the case of the Discourse, when Jesus spoke of "generation," He wasn't speaking of a type of people ("perverse" or "chosen"), He was using the word in its normal definitional sense: a time period based upon the age of those living in it.

When He spoke of "this generation" He was using it as a specifically temporal term, not a perpetual type of people as you seem to be suggesting. At least two other verses verify that Jesus was restricting His prophecies to an amount of time, not a type of people.

That's easy enough to confirm. We should be able to go to various verses that speak to a specific generation of people and find confirmation that the generation in view is addressed only to people living within that time reference. However, if we find verses that show us that a generation is not limited to a specific time of those living in it, but to a generation of evil doers, or even a chosen people, then it makes your assumption, "a time period based upon the age of those living in it" wrong.

Luke 11:50-51 "That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;" From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

The generation, standing there were not those guilty of the blood of all the prophets from Abel to Zacarias. How could their blood be required of the generation Christ was speaking to? The disciples who also stood there won’t have the blood of the prophets required of them. So how is the blood of Abel and all the prophets required of “this generation” that Christ spoke to? Because the generation of evil were part of “this generation” of which Christ spoke, but they were not limited to those standing there, the generation of evil spans human history.

1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Certainly we cannot limit a chosen generation to those who lived at that time. All who become saved, throughout redemptive history are among the chosen generation.

Matthew 12:32-35 "And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.
O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things."

Jesus is clearly telling us that they are part of a particular spiritual family group, and identifies their father as the devil, who was a murderer from the beginning. So Satan is the father reference for this generation or family. And he has many children, not just these whom Christ was immediately speaking to. All those under Satan's control are the generation or kindred of evil, which has existed from the beginning, and who are under the judgment of God. In Biblical terms, they are the spiritual offspring or generation of their father reference, that old serpent, Satan. The phrase 'generation of vipers' identifies only that seed or family group who serve their father Satan, not everyone in that physical time period.



These three passages each have two things in common:

1 - The Coming of the Son of Man
2 - A limitation of time to when the Coming will occur

Mt 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

Mt 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Mr 9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

Lu 9:27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.

When we read the corresponding passages of Christ instructing His disciples, we find Christ telling them that they will be persecuted, and even killed for His name sake, and that some of them, who are standing there will not die until they see the Son of man coming in the kingdom of God with power.

When did Christ come and establish the kingdom of God with power? Not AD 70, but at Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit was sent with power.

Lu 24:49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

Ac 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.



Second, each of these verses places a specific time frame for when the Coming of the Son of Man would happen. First, Jesus told His disciples that when they were persecuted, that they were to flee from one city to another and that they wouldn't be able to reach all of the cities of Israel before the Coming. Second, Jesus told His disciples that some of the people standing right around Him would not die before the Coming had occurred; by now, everyone standing around Him had died. Third, Jesus told His disciples that the Coming would occur within the lifetime of their generation; their generation has died out.

I agree there is a certain time frame, but these verses are not speaking of the coming of Christ, but rather for the coming of His kingdom in power. Christ ushered in the Kingdom when He came to earth a man, but the Kingdom did not come with power until after Christ went to the cross, and defeated Satan and death. The Kingdom of God could not come with power as long as Satan was un-opposed. But Christ promised that after His death and resurrection the Kingdom of God would come, and sending His Holy Spirit at Pentecost established His Kingdom with all Authority and Power.

If you notice in the verses in question it says they would "see" the Son of man coming in His Kingdom with power. This word "see" is translated from the Greek word eido and means to know or be aware, to understand. So these verses are telling us some there would not die until they perceive, or understand that the Kingdom of God has come with power. What does this matter? Compare this "see" to "see" in Mt. 24:30.

Mt 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

You tell us this happened in AD 70, but the Greek word translated "see" in this verse is optanomai and means to gaze with wide-open eyes, as at something remarkable. When Christ comes again it will not be spiritually as the Preterists tell us, it will be something that all the peoples of the earth will literally see.



It shouldn't be this hard to see that Jesus was making specific time-restrictions to when the Coming of the Son of Man would occur. He kept saying that it would happen within a specific amount of time, not that it was supposed to be perpetually imminent.

You are confusing the coming of the Kingdom with power and the coming again of the Son of man. Yes, Christ did make specific time restrictions about His Coming. He tells us it is the last day, in the fullness of time!

Many Blessings,
RW

Clifton
Jun 2nd 2008, 02:02 AM
Why doesn't Matt. 24:32-34 disprove Preterism...?

2 small verses. Doesn't matter. To disprove Preterism, just read chapter to chapter and book to book contextually (unedited and AS-IS) the following:
Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21!:P

Blessings.

The Village Idiot
Jun 2nd 2008, 02:08 AM
Makes you wonder why anyone disagrees on anything...


To disprove Preterism, just read chapter to chapter and book to book contextually (unedited and AS-IS) the following: Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21!


:rofl: :lol: :eek: :o :D :rofl:

Nihil Obstat
Jun 2nd 2008, 07:09 AM
**...please take special note of the major differences between Matt. 24:34 / Mark 13:30, and Luke 21:32 (the word "these").**

This is something of importance that somehow was lost in the shuffle, and so I want to bring it to the forefront.

Let's start by looking at the different accounts:

Matthew 24:34
Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things (tauta (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5023&t=kjv)) take place.

Mark 13:30
Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things (tauta (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5023&t=kjv)) take place.

Luke 21:32
Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all things take place ("things" an editor's addition; no "tauta").

I find this to be extremely noteworthy: Matthew and Mark's accounts speak of a generation yet to come, where all these things will occur in this future generation; whereas in Luke's account, speaking of 70 AD until Israel's redemption (v.24 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2021:24;&version=50;) is the transition), all will be fulfilled before this future generation can pass away. See the difference? Luke allows for multiple generations, while Matthew and Mark do not.

RogerW
Jun 2nd 2008, 11:34 AM
This is something of importance that somehow was lost in the shuffle, and so I want to bring it to the forefront.

Let's start by looking at the different accounts:

Matthew 24:34
Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things (tauta (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5023&t=kjv)) take place.

Mark 13:30
Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things (tauta (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5023&t=kjv)) take place.

Luke 21:32
Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all things take place ("things" an editor's addition; no "tauta").

I find this to be extremely noteworthy: Matthew and Mark's accounts speak of a generation yet to come, where all these things will occur in this future generation; whereas in Luke's account, speaking of 70 AD until Israel's redemption (v.24 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2021:24;&version=50;) is the transition), all will be fulfilled before this future generation can pass away. See the difference? Luke allows for multiple generations, while Matthew and Mark do not.

What I find interesting in each of these verses is that they speak of a generation that will pass away. Pass away is translated from the Greek word parerchomai which means to perish, go away, past. This can be said of an evil and adulterous generation, but where do we ever find Scripture telling us that the chosen generation will ever pass away? Christ is not speaking of the chosen generation in these passages, because we have His promise that we shall never perish.

Many Blessings,
RW

BroRog
Jun 2nd 2008, 02:45 PM
What I find interesting in each of these verses is that they speak of a generation that will pass away. Pass away is translated from the Greek word parerchomai which means to perish, go away, past. This can be said of an evil and adulterous generation, but where do we ever find Scripture telling us that the chosen generation will ever pass away? Christ is not speaking of the chosen generation in these passages, because we have His promise that we shall never perish.

Many Blessings,
RW


In the context Jesus predicts that the temple will be destroyed and the people will be taken away in exile. Some will even lose their life at the hands of the Roman army. He even warns them to flee the city and pray that this repatriation won't happen on a Sabbath or in the winter. Moreover, if the time of the exile had been any longer no flesh would be left alive.

His focus is on "Jewish" flesh, just as the Tribulation is not worldwide but "on this people". These are the days of vengeance, not on the entire world, but on the nation of Israel whose "house will be left . . . desolate."

His announcement that "this generation will not pass away" is a word of hope to the Jewish people. The Jewish/Roman wars did not wipe them out. The holocaust did not wipe them out. And 2,000 years of exile did not wipe them out. This genea did not pass away. :)

RogerW
Jun 2nd 2008, 04:34 PM
In the context Jesus predicts that the temple will be destroyed and the people will be taken away in exile. Some will even lose their life at the hands of the Roman army. He even warns them to flee the city and pray that this repatriation won't happen on a Sabbath or in the winter. Moreover, if the time of the exile had been any longer no flesh would be left alive.

Greetings BroRog,

This speaks of the fulfillment of prophecy against the Jewish Nation, and was literally fulfilled about AD 70. The warning to flee was to believers living in Jerusalem at that time. Since the gospel went first to the Jews, who were to take the message of the gospel unto all the nations of the world, had they not fled Jerusalem, taking the message of the gospel with them, then who could be saved?



His focus is on "Jewish" flesh, just as the Tribulation is not worldwide but "on this people". These are the days of vengeance, not on the entire world, but on the nation of Israel whose "house will be left . . . desolate."

I agree that part of the Olivet Discourse is directed to the Jewish Nation, and this I agree was prophecy that was fulfilled when the Roman Army sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the temple.



His announcement that "this generation will not pass away" is a word of hope to the Jewish people. The Jewish/Roman wars did not wipe them out. The holocaust did not wipe them out. And 2,000 years of exile did not wipe them out. This genea did not pass away. :)

The evil adulterous generation will not pass away until the Second Coming. The generation, which includes elect Jews, that will never pass away is the chosen generation:

1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Many Blessings,
RW

BroRog
Jun 2nd 2008, 07:56 PM
The evil adulterous generation will not pass away until the Second Coming. The generation, which includes elect Jews, that will never pass away is the chosen generation:

1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Three things:

1. The prophecy about the exile, captivity and death concerns the physical Jews. And so, in my view, the prophecy about the "genea" also applies to the Jews.

2. I believe Peter is speaking about the Diaspora, the Jews living abroad, when he speaks about the chosen generation, holy nation etc.

3. This is slightly off topic, but I believe the literal/physical nation of Israel will come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah before he returns and it could happen years before he returns.

markedward
Jun 3rd 2008, 06:43 AM
See the difference? Luke allows for multiple generations, while Matthew and Mark do not.I do see the difference, but I think it's just splitting hairs.

The verbage between the three is different in different places.

We can't just look at something between the three and say "Oh, the words are different, they're not the same!" If you keep doing that everytime you find a different wording, you're just going to have three completely different Jesus-es altogether.

Heck, using the same narrow manner in which you split Luke apart from Matthew and Mark, I can do the same thing to split Matthew apart from Luke and Mark.

In Matthew the disciples ask Jesus about three specific things ("these things, the signs of the "coming", and the signs of "the end of the age"). On the other hand, in Mark and Luke, Jesus is only asked about two things ("these things" and what "sign" would precede "these things").

Mark and Luke both speak of being given up to synagogues and kings and rulers. Matthew doesn't.

Mark and Luke both say that "You shall be hated by all men for My name's sake." Matthew doesn't.

Mark and Luke both have Jesus telling His disciples not to worry about their words when they testify. Matthew doesn't.

So, based on this evidence, we should conclude that Mark's and Luke's versions are about something entirely different than Matthew's right?

Of course not. All it is is reaching, digging to find differences where there really aren't any. Compare it to a court trial:

Witness A and Witness B both say they saw the man use a silver gun with a black grip, while Witness C only says he saw a gun with a black grip. But then Witness B and C both say they saw the gun shoot, while Witness A only says he saw a person get shot. But then Witness A and C each describe the man as an "insane animal," while Witness B only calls the man "insane." Just because Witness C doesn't include the detail about the gun being silver doesn't mean he saw an entirely different event. Just because Witness A describes the action of the shooting differently doesn't mean he saw a different shooting. Just because Witness B leaves out the "animal" description doesn't mean he's describing a different person.

As I said, splitting hairs over the precise wording is pointless. The similarities between all three gospel accounts are so obvious and numerous, it's just meaningless to assume they're describing different events.