PDA

View Full Version : What is the sign of the Return?



third hero
Sep 23rd 2008, 04:23 AM
Now, I know that the POV's in this forum vary, from the pre-trib rapture people to the post-trib amils out there, and even some that aren't even in the sphere of mainstream.... (and we know who we are, don't we! hehehehehehehe).

Anyway. What is the sign of His coming, and how can we tell that He is coming? I base this question on 1 Thessalonians 5. Here's the verses.

1Thes 5:1-3
But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

Ok. We see that the Lord cometh as a thief in the night, right?

1Thes 5:4-6
But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. Therefore let us not sleep, as [do] others; but let us watch and be sober.

Now, looking at this, I get the impression that we are not to be ignorant as to the Coming of the Lord. Paul seem to indicate that there are signs by which we are to look for, hence the phrase, "let us WATCH, and be sober". Is Paul a liar?

Of course not! Jesus said the same thing!
-And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. -Matthew 24:4

-When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) -Matthew 24:15

-Behold, I have told you before. -Matthew 24:25

-Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer [is] nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, [even] at the doors. -Matthew 24:32-33

So....
What is the sign of His coming? I mean, what event can we all point to that screams out, "Here He comes!"? I am very interested in reading what is out there.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 23rd 2008, 04:35 AM
Matthew 24:27-31/Luke 21:28 -

"As lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.

"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.'

"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the peoples of the earth will mourn. 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 loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near."

I defy anybody to give me a reason why Jesus was not addressing the infant Church at this point. He was no more addressing "Israel" than he was addressing the Cherokee Indians.

third hero
Sep 23rd 2008, 04:40 AM
Ok.
According to the scriptures you cited, the sign of the Lord's return is when He is coming in clouds of heaven.

Right after that, you show scripture that says that immediately after the distress of those time, the sign would come. Luke.... why did you open this door? Does that mean that we are to watch for something other than the Him coming in clouds of heaven?

yoSAMite
Sep 23rd 2008, 04:42 AM
I think this is the winner.

-When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand -Matthew 24:15

Literalist-Luke
Sep 23rd 2008, 04:45 AM
Ok.
According to the scriptures you cited, the sign of the Lord's return is when He is coming in clouds of heaven.

Right after that, you show scripture that says that immediately after the distress of those time, the sign would come. Luke.... why did you open this door?I didn't open it, Jesus did. That was a word-for-word quote from Jesus. I thought He was quite clear.
Does that mean that we are to watch for something other than the Him coming in clouds of heaven?You're talking about "immanency"? "Immanency" is a myth. Just because there are other things that will happen before the 2nd Coming does not mean that we are not to be looking forward to the 2nd Coming. Jesus Himself told us that when you see the fig tree sprouting leaves, the time is near. Sounds like Jesus was espousing exactly the same thing to me. What's the confusion about?

Literalist-Luke
Sep 23rd 2008, 04:47 AM
I think this is the winner.

-When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand -Matthew 24:15That quote is instructions for run for the hills - read the next phrase - "then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains". That doesn't sound like instructions to "lift your heads, because your redemption draws nigh." Jesus says to run for your life at that point. That hardly sounds like the moment of the triumphant 2nd Coming to me.

Richard H
Sep 23rd 2008, 05:47 AM
One "sign" to look for is scoffers. :rolleyes:
As there were scoffers after Y2K, so I think it will be after 2012.

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
2 Peter 3:3,4

For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.
1 Thes 5:3,4

third hero
Sep 23rd 2008, 08:21 AM
The reason why there were scoffers after Y2K and that there will be scoffers after 2012 is because there are those who thought that the imminent return of the Lord was to happen right before a major "catastrophic" event, neither of which happpened in Y2K, and, Lord willing, not in 2012 either.

This is exactly why I have created this thread, because like some have already said, which I agree with, Jesus has left us with clear signs to watch out for. One thing that I noticed is when this question is presented, a lot of times, I get either totally unbiblical answers or something that causes the koo-koo bird in my head to go off.

All of which leads me to ask yet again: What are the things that we are to look out for that signal the return of the Lord?

Is it the Abomination that causes Desolation? What about the mission of the two lampstands? And the period of darkness that the Beast's kingdom falls into, where mankind loses it and begins to slaughter each other, is that what we are to look for?

Jesus says that He is coming as a thief, and Paul mentions the same thing, and yet both of them mention to us that we are to watch. If He is suddenly going to just pop up out of nowhere, then why would our Lord tell us to watch?

Anyway, these are some things to chew over right now, especially for those exhausted from the ethnic Israel debates.

vinsight4u8
Sep 23rd 2008, 10:57 AM
I take the Peace and safety part as being when the wicked people will send gifts to each other, as foretold by the angel in Rev. 11.

1 Thes. 5:3
"For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them..."

The wicked party right before they start to get destroyed at the Lord's coming for His church.

Richard H
Sep 23rd 2008, 01:54 PM
People often want to put everything inside the given box.
For example: nowhere does it say that the all the seals, bowels, and wrath of Revelation take place within Daniel's 70th week.

And when he had opened the third seal, I heard the third beast say, Come and see. And I beheld, and lo a black horse; and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand.

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine.
Rev 6:5,6

'Could be in tomorrow's paper - as things are beginning to look.
(I think the "week" begins with something having to do with the treaty or the temple.)

Richard H
Sep 23rd 2008, 01:58 PM
I take the Peace and safety part as being when the wicked people of the world will send gifts to each, as foretold by the angel in Rev. 11.

1 Thes. 5:3
"For when they shall say, Peace and safety,; then sudden destruction cometh upon them..."

The wicked party right before they start to get destroyed at the Lord's coming for His church.

I agree.

A "double" fulfillment? The former scoffers being a shadow?

vinsight4u8
Sep 23rd 2008, 03:12 PM
Hi third hero

If you are want, you can look into this prophecy in Romans 10:19
"..Did not Israel know? First Moses saith...I will provoke you...[and] by a foolish nation I will anger you."

Do you see this as linked up with what Moses prophesied as to the endtimes in Deuteronomy 32?

V21
"...I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation."
V20
"I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end [shall be]..."

Could this then end when God shows His face in the 6th seal of Revelation, which causes the wicked to hide?

The time of Isaiah 2:10-21?
the day of the Lord begins
the time of the wicked hide from His glory and His wrath

Before this time of the wicked hide - will come the time of the church will flee from the face of Satan.
///for the time of Rev. 12

so
Let's say that Moses told about a nation that will anger Israel in the end days. Could this nation be what the sealed riders are about in Rev. 6?

Thus, the first seal rider was the first ruler of that nation.

vinsight4u8
Sep 23rd 2008, 04:01 PM
I agree.

A "double" fulfillment? The former scoffers being a shadow?

All right, then you know too that when the Word of God comes riding on a white horse in Rev. 19 (time of Armageddon) that this is not when He comes to rapture the church?
At Armageddon - the wicked are not about hurrying and purchasing gifts. They are gathered for battle. They are not surprised that Jesus exists - they already saw Him earlier when He came and the church was gathered in the 7th trumpet time.

Peace and safety
ends with Jesus comes as a thief on them

Armageddon troops on the earth gather
and Jesus comes with His all changed earlier saints down from heaven.
Jesus comes as a thief this time too - but a warning went out for people to keep their garments/// - as in don't die. Jesus won't be changing anybody on this trip!

He comes in chapter 19 with His saints as "armies", and then the saints that had yet to defeat the beast - go as one army to take him down.
Then all the victors (saints) that overcame the beast - will get to reign for 1000 years.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 23rd 2008, 04:06 PM
The reason why there were scoffers after Y2K and that there will be scoffers after 2012 is because there are those who thought that the imminent return of the Lord was to happen right before a major "catastrophic" event, neither of which happpened in Y2K, and, Lord willing, not in 2012 either.

This is exactly why I have created this thread, because like some have already said, which I agree with, Jesus has left us with clear signs to watch out for. One thing that I noticed is when this question is presented, a lot of times, I get either totally unbiblical answers or something that causes the koo-koo bird in my head to go off.

All of which leads me to ask yet again: What are the things that we are to look out for that signal the return of the Lord?

Is it the Abomination that causes Desolation? What about the mission of the two lampstands? And the period of darkness that the Beast's kingdom falls into, where mankind loses it and begins to slaughter each other, is that what we are to look for?

Jesus says that He is coming as a thief, and Paul mentions the same thing, and yet both of them mention to us that we are to watch. If He is suddenly going to just pop up out of nowhere, then why would our Lord tell us to watch?

Anyway, these are some things to chew over right now, especially for those exhausted from the ethnic Israel debates.I'm confused - Jesus' answer is very plain as I posted above. What more do we need? http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w40/litluke/noidea.gif

jeffweeder
Sep 23rd 2008, 09:47 PM
You have 2 questions, 1 about "one stone not being on another" and 2- what will be be the sign of your coming and the end of the age.

When you see the abomination- ( jerusalem surrounded by armies ) answers the first.
Those are the days or Trib / vengeance that befell the Jews-- in their exile and treatment among th nations

The second is answered when Jerusalem is no longer trampled by nations. ( end of their exile perhaps)
After the Trib of those days the heavens begin to disintegrate, and through that we see Jesus coming.

John146
Sep 23rd 2008, 09:59 PM
Now, I know that the POV's in this forum vary, from the pre-trib rapture people to the post-trib amils out there, and even some that aren't even in the sphere of mainstream.... (and we know who we are, don't we! hehehehehehehe).

Anyway. What is the sign of His coming, and how can we tell that He is coming? I base this question on 1 Thessalonians 5. Here's the verses.

1Thes 5:1-3
But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

Ok. We see that the Lord cometh as a thief in the night, right?

1Thes 5:4-6
But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. Therefore let us not sleep, as [do] others; but let us watch and be sober.

Now, looking at this, I get the impression that we are not to be ignorant as to the Coming of the Lord. Paul seem to indicate that there are signs by which we are to look for, hence the phrase, "let us WATCH, and be sober". Is Paul a liar?

Of course not! Jesus said the same thing!
-And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. -Matthew 24:4

-When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) -Matthew 24:15

-Behold, I have told you before. -Matthew 24:25

-Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer [is] nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, [even] at the doors. -Matthew 24:32-33

So....
What is the sign of His coming? I mean, what event can we all point to that screams out, "Here He comes!"? I am very interested in reading what is out there.If you want to be technical, the only sign I see in Matthew 24 that shows His coming is very near is this:

Matt 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.

What the sign of the Son of man in heaven is exactly, I'm not sure. Of course, it talks about other things that would occur beforehand as well, some of which are merely the beginning of sorrows or labor pains. One thing that Jesus emphasized was the love of most growing cold and to watch out for false Christs and false prophets.

That seems to go along with this:

2 Thess 2:3
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

It seems to me that a massive falling away from the faith due to a high level of deception coming from many false Christs, false prophets and false teachers is the biggest sign that Christ is coming soon. There has always been false prophets and teachers around, but it seems as though both Jesus and Paul pointed to a time when it would be quite noticeable and more prevalent than before. As Paul said, "the mystery of iniquity doth already work" even back then. But it seems the level of iniquity would greatly increase as the coming of Christ comes closer.

Paladin54
Sep 24th 2008, 03:53 PM
Ok. We see that the Lord cometh as a thief in the night, right?

1Thes 5:4-6
But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. Therefore let us not sleep, as [do] others; but let us watch and be sober.

Now, looking at this, I get the impression that we are not to be ignorant as to the Coming of the Lord. Paul seem to indicate that there are signs by which we are to look for, hence the phrase, "let us WATCH, and be sober". Is Paul a liar?

I think you misunderstand this scripture. I take this scripture to mean that if we slept in darkness, a thief will come unknown in that darkness and we will be caught unawares.

But since we are believers and are in the light we know that Jesus is coming and so we should not sleep but watch for His coming.

The rest of the world slumbers in darkness unprepared for the coming of Christ.

As for the actual signs of his coming? The verses already given are what we have to go on. But it is not so much the signs of His coming, rather it is that we know He is coming and will not be surprised when He does come. Unlike those who sleep in darkness and will be very surprised when He does.

third hero
Sep 24th 2008, 05:58 PM
Here's my point in starting this thread. It is to cause people to take a good hard look at what they believe, and to see what others believe. I have heard people say back in 1999 that Jesus was coming on Jan 1, 2000, and it did not happen. I am hearing from others that they are expecting the Lord to return in 2012, right around October. I want to get all of the kooky theories out in the open, and so we can deal with these theories by using the Word. Seriously.

What I have learned concerning the return of the Lord is this; in order to say that the Lord is definitely returning in our lifetime, several signs must happen. (Hence the reason why the Lord said for us to watch, and Paul said ot watch and be sober.) We may not know the minute or the day or the hour of the Lord's return, but we have enough information to know at least the time period of His coming, by the signs He left.

This, to me, is where all of the end-time camps need to be judged by. Jesus made it very clear that we are not to be deceived, and Paul reiterates that we are to watch and be sober. So I guess that this is a gut-check at the same time, (call it unintentional consequences). In this thread, I want representatives of all camps, from the pre-trib, to the classical premil, (which I represent, along with some others Luke, I'm talking about you), and the amil, since full preterism is considered heresy and is not allowed on this forum. In my opinion, this is where the rubber meets the road, so to speak. All POV's must meet the Biblical standard in that they must all line up with what the Lord said. So naturally, Matthew 24:32-35 will be at play here as well.

With all of that said, let the fun begin.

jeffweeder
Sep 25th 2008, 09:03 AM
So naturally, Matthew 24:32-35 will be at play here as well.

With all of that said, let the fun begin.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Matt : 32-
"Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near;
33 so, you too, when you see all these things, recognice that He is near, right at the door.
34 "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.
35 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.

When you see all these things must = , the times of the gentiles over Jerusalem, must be over?

Didnt the times of the Gentiles start with Jerusalem/ temple being destroyed and the Jews being dispersed among the Nations?
How could the times of the Gentiles over Jerusalem be over if it wasnt in Jewish hands.....again?

Thats a major sign yes?

Therefore after the trib of those days, ( when the Jews return ) we would begin to see heavenly signs.

Theres more going on up there ,due to man, since the Jews returned than ever before.

vinsight4u8
Sep 26th 2008, 10:07 AM
third hero

You may not reply to this, since you have not commented yet on anything I wrote under your thread. I'm curious though - are you wanting events that are just before His return - as in only a few years before - or are you saying that how far back can we go - linking event to event and realize that Jesus will come soon?

such as - the seals of Revelation.

Could the first one be over! Could he have been the first ruler of Iraq?
The first ruler of the nation that both the OT and the NT warns us about - that this nation will provoke Israel to anger and then be judged by God?

Romans 10:19
"...by a foolish nation I will anger you.'
(Moses said)

Deuteronomy 32:21
"...I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation."
(Moses gave the words)

ananias
Sep 26th 2008, 11:18 AM
What is the sign of His coming, and how can we tell that He is coming?

-When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) -Matthew 24:15



Check the GREEK words in Matthew 24 translated variously into English language Bibles as "distress", "affliction", "tribulation", etc - they're all from one word: thlipsis (tribulation).

-When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand) (Matthew 24:15)

Why is that word "therefore" in verse 15?

- because it joins verse 15 to whatever was said before verse 15. What was said before verse 15?

Then (Greek: toteh: "the time of, or "the when" - the word is found from verse 9 to 30 - eight times:

"Then they will deliver you up to be afflicted and will kill you. And you will be hated of all nations for My name's sake. And then many will be offended, and will betray one another, and will hate one another. And many false prophets will rise and deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many will become cold. But he who endures to the end, the same shall be kept safe. And this gospel of the kingdom shall be proclaimed in all the world as a witness to all nations. And then the end shall come...

... When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)...then...

.... for then shall be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world to this time; no, nor ever shall be. And unless those days should be shortened, no flesh would be saved. But for the elect's sake, those days shall be shortened. ...

... And immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun shall be darkened and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from the heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man shall appear in the heavens. And all the tribes of the earth shall mourn, and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of the heaven with power and great glory. And He shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather His elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. (Mat 24: 9-31).

The word then (Greek: toteh: "the time of") only begins to be used after the birth-pain signs Jesus mentioned in verses 5-8.

So:

"And as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? And what shall be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the world?" (Mat 24: 3)

Verses 4-8: birthpains

verses 9-28: "then"

Verses: 29-31: immediately after the great tribulation, the sun and moon darkened, the sign of the Son of Man appears in the heavens, they see him in the clouds and he sends out his angels to gather his elect.

Verses 32-35: Learn the parable of the fig tree

Verses 36-51: BUT no-one knows the day of the hour - SO WATCH!

Watch for what?

Verses 4-8: birthpains

verses 9-28: "then":

"Then they will deliver you up to be afflicted and will kill you. And you will be hated of all nations for My name's sake. And then many will be offended, and will betray one another, and will hate one another. And many false prophets will rise and deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many will become cold. But he who endures to the end, the same shall be kept safe. And this gospel of the kingdom shall be proclaimed in all the world as a witness to all nations. And then the end shall come...

... When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)...then...

.... for then shall be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world to this time; no, nor ever shall be. And unless those days should be shortened, no flesh would be saved. But for the elect's sake, those days shall be shortened. ...

... And immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun shall be darkened and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from the heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man shall appear in the heavens. And all the tribes of the earth shall mourn, and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of the heaven with power and great glory. And He shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather His elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. (Mat 24: 9-31).

So what is THE SIGN OF THE LORD'S RETURN?

- THE COMING GREAT TRIBULATION OF THE SAINTS

ananias

third hero
Sep 26th 2008, 05:54 PM
Annanias,
you are 100% correct. This is what I believe, and it is also what I want to spread to everyone. Every portion of the sequence of Matthew 24:3-35 has to be given a lot of weight in determining when the Lord is going to return. According to those scriptures, we know that right before the Lord returns, the "Then" has to happen.

ananias
Sep 26th 2008, 09:52 PM
Annanias,
you are 100% correct. This is what I believe, and it is also what I want to spread to everyone. Every portion of the sequence of Matthew 24:3-35 has to be given a lot of weight in determining when the Lord is going to return. According to those scriptures, we know that right before the Lord returns, the "Then" has to happen.

You need a lot of perseverence and encouragement and prayer ("he who has ears to hear" - Rev.13: 7, 9)

God bless,

ananias

jeffweeder
Sep 26th 2008, 11:14 PM
Hi.


So what is THE SIGN OF THE LORD'S RETURN?

- THE COMING GREAT TRIBULATION OF THE SAINTS

When you read the olivet discourse in Luke 21, the AOD is identified with armies surrounding Jerusalem, and the result is desolation and exile.

The days of vengeance (GT) began then--In AD 70.



But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near.
21 "Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city;
22 because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled.
"Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people;
24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

That sign is an old one, and fully fulfilled when the times of the gentiles is over for Jerusalem.

Then other signs come into play;



"There will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth dismay among nations, in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the waves,
26 men fainting from fear and the expectation of the things which are coming upon the world; for the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
27 "Then they will see THE SON OF MAN COMING IN A CLOUD with power and great glory.
28 "But when these things begin to take place, straighten up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near."

Retrobyter
Sep 27th 2008, 05:46 AM
Matthew 24:27-31/Luke 21:28 -

"As lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.

"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.'

"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the peoples of the earth will mourn. 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 loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near."

I defy anybody to give me a reason why Jesus was not addressing the infant Church at this point. He was no more addressing "Israel" than he was addressing the Cherokee Indians.

Shabbat shalom, Literalist-Luke!

Hey, I'm always up for a challenge! Let me give it to you simply: The phrase in the above quotation, "all the peoples of the earth will mourn," is NOT about all the peoples of the earth! This is a direct quote from the OT passage Zechariah 12:12; however, let me give you the full gist of what is happening by giving it in context:

Zech. 12:10-14
And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Yerushalayim, the spirit of grace and of supplication; and they shall look unto Me whom they pierced through; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born. In that day shall there be a great mourning in Yerushalayim, as the mourning of Hadad-Rimmon in the valley of Megiddon. And the land shall mourn, every family apart: the family of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Natan apart, and their wives apart; The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of the Shimeites apart, and their wives apart; All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart.

The Greek word for "earth" is "ge" and it can also mean "land" or "ground" or even "dirt." This is also true for the Hebrew word "eretz," and this is the word that is being used in Zechariah. The nation of Isra'el has always been tied to the Land, even when they were separated from it for so long. In fact, to talk about the nation of Isra'el today, they will use the phrase "eretz Yisra'el," meaning "the land of Israel" to describe the nation's location. And, in spite of the way that the British and the Arabs and the Palestinians have carved up the land and will continue to do so, the Land is theirs by Divine decree and will be returned to them when the Messiah returns!

(There's a great story behind this passage in Zechariah that I'd like to go into, but I'll wait for now. Suffice it to say that it has to do with Luke 3.)

Now, if you can understand who comprised the Messianic communities at the time of the first century, it DOES apply to the "infant church," but only if you can understand that the Nazarene sect, including any believing Goyim or Gentiles, was a SUBSET of believing Isra'el!

Retrobyter

Richard H
Sep 27th 2008, 09:03 AM
WhooHoo! :pp

<snip>
(There's a great story behind this passage in Zechariah that I'd like to go into, but I'll wait for now. Suffice it to say that it has to do with Luke 3.)

Now, if you can understand who comprised the Messianic communities at the time of the first century, it DOES apply to the "infant church," but only if you can understand that the Nazarene sect, including any believing Goyim or Gentiles, was a SUBSET of believing Isra'el!


Welcome Retrobyter! :)
Shabbat shalom.

Richard

ananias
Sep 27th 2008, 12:34 PM
Hi.

When you read the olivet discourse in Luke 21, the AOD is identified with armies surrounding Jerusalem, and the result is desolation and exile.



Hello, Jeff. Yes, I'm fully aware of the above fact. But while it's good to compare Matthew's, Mark's and Luke's versions of the Olivet Discourse, we can't interpret Matthew's version "in the light of" either Luke or Mark.

In the first place, Matthew was an eye-witness disciple of the Lord and His teaching, and His Olivet-Discourse, whereas Luke wrote later from notes he had taken from other eye-witness disciples, and Mark, according to scanty early church tradition, wrote down what Peter had told him, but it is not known whether this was before or after Peter's martyrdom.

In the second place - and this is important - Luke's and Mark's records of the disciples' question are different to Matthew's, and relate only to the destruction of the temple:

"As to these things which you see, days will come in which there shall not be left a stone on a stone, which shall not be thrown down. And they asked Him, saying, Teacher, but when shall these things be? And what shall be the sign when these things are about to take place?" (Luk 21:6-7)

"And as He sat on the Mount of Olives, across from the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked Him privately, Tell us, When shall all these things be? And what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled? (Mar 13:3-4)

But Matthew records the disciples asking a question with a much larger scope:

"And as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? And what shall be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the world?" (Mat 24:3)

The structure of Matthew's gospel is very precise and totally unique, and the Olivet Disocurse (chapter 24 of matthew) to the end of chapter 25 of Matthew come at the end of the sixth division of Matthew's gospel
( http://divisionsofmatthew.blogspot.com/ )

One cannot separate the Lord's Olivet Discourse recorded by Matthew into an "A.D 70 part" and an "end of the age part", because the rules that govern both the original Greek and the English langauge prevent it - since the words "and", "therefore", "but", "for" and "then" (Greek: tote - "the when") join the whole passage together from verse 9 right up to the end of chapter 25 (the close of the sixth division of Matthew's gospel) - and the context throughout is the end of the age and the return of Christ.

The structure of Matthew's gospel: http://divisionsofmatthew.blogspot.com/ shows that the author had a first-hand and eye-witness knowledge of what he wrote about, whereas neither Luke nor Mark had the same advantage.

Matthew betrays an author who is obsessed not only with the details of the events, but also with the chronological sequence of the events that took place, as can be seen from the way he traces, in the sixth division of Matthew's gospel, the Lord's journey into Jerusalem and everything that took place from His first entry into the temple until His resurrection.

Therefore because of the above facts, I think that while it's good to compare Matthew's, Mark's and Luke's acccounts of the Olivet Discourse, it isn't wise to interpret Matthew's version "in the light of" either Mark's or Luke's versions. Luke is clearly addressing the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D, and then he makes a quantum-leap in time from verse 25 onwards, to the end of the age and the return of Christ.

Furthermore, not only did the events that took place in 70 A.D did not result in the return of Christ, but the armies surrounding Jerusalem is something which is prophesied to occur again at the end of this age - and since there are even now Christians living in Jerusalem, and since there certainly will be Christians still living in Jerusalem at the end of the age, the Lord's answer in Matthew, Mark and Luke may very well be true for both periods in history.

But that, of course, is open to debate.

The main two points we should bear in mind are

(1) that Matthew's version of the Olivet Discourse is joined from verse Mat.24: 9 to the end of Matthew 25 by the words "and", "therefore", "but", "for" and "then". To ignore this fact is to defy the common rules of both the Greek and English; and

(2) that because Matthew was an eye-witness of the Lord and His teaching, whereas Luke and Mark were not, and because the structure of Matthew's gospel is unique among the four gospels, we cannot interpret Matthew's gospel "in the light of" Mark's and Luke's versions - and John, of course, makes no mention of the Olivet Discourse in his gospel.

ananias

third hero
Sep 27th 2008, 07:03 PM
There's more. In Luke's version, he mainly deals solely with the event that surround the destruction of Jerusalem, hence the words, "but before all of these" found in chapter 21. Even the question that the disciples ask in Luke 21 is completely different than the question that is in Matthew's version.

[As for] these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign [will there be] when these things shall come to pass? Luke 21:6-7

The disciples, in this version, merely ask for the sign of the destruction of the Temple. They asked, "when shall the temple be destroyed, and what sign should we look out for?" Matthew's version is completely different. In his version, they ask, "when shall it be, and what are the signs of the end of the age?" Something that is not written in Luke's version.

Actually, Luketakes some of what Matthew has written down and shares it with us in chapter 17. More to the point, verses 17 through to the end of the chapter. He is talking about the sign of His return, and it almost completely matches the warnings that Matthew had written down later on in chapter 24.

ananias
Sep 27th 2008, 10:07 PM
There's more. In Luke's version, he mainly deals solely with the event that surround the destruction of Jerusalem, hence the words, "but before all of these" found in chapter 21. Even the question that the disciples ask in Luke 21 is completely different than the question that is in Matthew's version.

[As for] these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign [will there be] when these things shall come to pass? Luke 21:6-7

The disciples, in this version, merely ask for the sign of the destruction of the Temple. They asked, "when shall the temple be destroyed, and what sign should we look out for?" Matthew's version is completely different. In his version, they ask, "when shall it be, and what are the signs of the end of the age?" Something that is not written in Luke's version.

Actually, Luketakes some of what Matthew has written down and shares it with us in chapter 17. More to the point, verses 17 through to the end of the chapter. He is talking about the sign of His return, and it almost completely matches the warnings that Matthew had written down later on in chapter 24.

Thanks, third hero! That is such an important observation that I'm baffled that in the last 2,000 years, Christians haven't seen the direct correlation between Luk.17: 23-37 and Mat.24: 16-28.

Luk.17: 23-37 is so obviously the exact words spoken by Jesus in His Olivet Discourse - and one thing stands out especially:

"... Even so it shall be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed. In that day he who shall be on the housetop, and his goods in the house, let him not come down to take them away. And likewise, he who is in the field, let him not return to the things behind. Remember Lot's wife. Whoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it, and whoever shall lose his life shall preserve it. I tell you, in that night there shall be two in one bed, the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Two shall be grinding together, one will be taken, and the other left. Two shall be in the field, one will be taken, and the other left. And they answered and said to Him, Where, Lord? And He said to them, Wherever the body is, there the eagles will be gathered together." (Luk.17: 30-37).

Matthew was an eye-witness of the Lord and His teaching and His Olivet Discourse - and Matthew's gospel betrays an author who is obsessed with the accuracy of (a) the chronological sequence of the events that took place; and (b) the accuracy of the Lord's words in His Olivet Discourse - that's why Matthew's gospel records the Olivet Discourse all in the same place (Matthew chapters 24-25), whereas Luke quite evidently has the record of the Lord's words in His Olivet Discourse scattered in at least two different chapters (Luke 17 and Luke 24).

Very useful information! Thanks :)

ananias

jeffweeder
Sep 27th 2008, 11:34 PM
Hi ananias

I believe they both recorded events faithfully and they shed light on each other.

Lukes testamony-;


Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us,
2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,
3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus;
4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

Heres a quick comparison between texts

luke 21
And while some were talking about the temple, that it was adorned with beautiful stones and votive gifts, He said,
"As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down."
They questioned Him, saying, "Teacher, when therefore will these things happen? And what will be the sign when these things are about to take place?"

And He said, "See to it that you are not misled; for many will come in My name, saying, 'I am He,' and, 'The time is near.' Do not go after them.
9 "When you hear of wars and disturbances, do not be terrified; for these things must take place first, but the end does not follow immediately."


Then He continued by saying to them, "Nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, 11 and there will be great earthquakes, and in various places plagues and famines; and there will be terrors and great signs from heaven.
"But before all these things, they will lay their hands on you and will persecute you, delivering you to the synagogues and prisons, bringing you before kings and governors for My name's sake.
"It will lead to an opportunity for your testimony.
"So make up your minds not to prepare beforehand to def for I will give you utterance and wisdom which none of your opponents will be able to resist or refute. "But you will be betrayed even by parents and brothers and relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death,
and you will be hated by all because of My name.
"Yet not a hair of your head will perish.
"By your endurance you will gain your lives.

"But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognise that her desolation is near.
21 "Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city;
22 because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled. 23 ]"Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people;
24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. [/COLOR]




MATT 24
Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him.
2 And He said to them, "Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down."
3 As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?"

4 And Jesus answered and said to them, "See to it that no one misleads you.
5 "For many will come in My name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and will mislead many.
6 "You will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end.
7 "For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes.
8 "But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs.
9 "Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name.
10 "At that time many will fall away and will betray one another and hate one another.
11 "Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many.
12 "Because lawlessness is increased, most pople's love will grow cold.
13 "But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved.
14 "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.


"Therefore when you see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), 16 then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains.
17 "Whoever is on the housetop must not go down to get the things out that are in his house.
18 "Whoever is in the field must not turn back to get his cloak.
19 "But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! 20 "But pray that your flight will not be in the winter, or on a Sabbath.
21 "For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will.
22 "Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.

My heart's Desire
Sep 27th 2008, 11:39 PM
So....
What is the sign of His coming? I mean, what event can we all point to that screams out, "Here He comes!"? I am very interested in reading what is out there.
Ok, I'll bite. First, the most disputed one is Israel is once again a Nation on her land. (knew you'd like that one.) and I'm serious.

Other than that, I think the things screaming out is immorality, love growing cold, a different gospel becoming mainstream, a blending of religions. The kind of things that would make Jesus say "When I come, will I find faith on the earth?". It will be things which have always been only more intense just as birth pains get. Yes, these things have always been, the difference is because of a love grown cold people become so accustomed to it and indifferent they don't realize how much worse it is. I'm sure the screams will get louder.

My opinion is the scoffers. When everyone is saying He is not coming back that's when He will.

ananias
Sep 27th 2008, 11:57 PM
Ok, I'll bite. First, the most disputed one is Israel is once again a Nation on her land. (knew you'd like that one.) and I'm serious.

Other than that, I think the things screaming out is immorality, love growing cold, a different gospel becoming mainstream, a blending of religions. The kind of things that would make Jesus say "When I come, will I find faith on the earth?". It will be things which have always been only more intense just as birth pains get. Yes, these things have always been, the difference is because of a love grown cold people become so accustomed to it and indifferent they don't realize how much worse it is. I'm sure the screams will get louder.

My opinion is the scoffers. When everyone is saying He is not coming back that's when He will.

Yep - but there's a distinction between the birth-pain signs (plural) which show that the time is drawing close, and THE SIGN.

ananias

ananias
Sep 28th 2008, 12:02 AM
Hi ananias

I believe they both recorded events faithfully and they shed light on each other.



That's true - but they also differ from one another - that's why the picture that is revealed when the light is shed on the written Word is not seen the same way by everyone - some of us are seeing two vases and some are seeing to faces pointed toward one another in one and the same picture. Perhaps it's both?

ananias

My heart's Desire
Sep 28th 2008, 12:04 AM
Yep - but there's a distinction between the birth-pain signs (plural) which show that the time is drawing close, and THE SIGN.

ananias
Well.....you know premil believes He can return at any time (no specific sign) and its' been that way since He rose from death and returned to Heaven so that increasing birth pangs are the signs for the rapture of the Church.

When He appears at His coming at the end of the age, I believe it is the sign of Him appearing in the sky on that white horse with His armies so it would seem that when all the armies of the earth are assembled in the Valley of Jezreel then all heads better be looking up!

ananias
Sep 28th 2008, 12:07 AM
i think this is the winner.

-when ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand -matthew 24:15

don't overlook this post, anyone

jeffweeder
Sep 28th 2008, 12:28 AM
That's true - but they also differ from one another

Hmmm, so your saying that they interpreted Jesus teaching that day differently?

Luke uses those eyewitness accounts to clarify the teachings.--lk 1.

Both luke and Matt start and finish the olivet discourse the same way.

MATT
Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down."




"But immediately after the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.


LK
As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down."


"There will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth dismay among nations, in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the waves,
26 men fainting from fear and the expectation of the things which are coming upon the world; for the powers of the heavens will be shaken



God bless

Literalist-Luke
Sep 28th 2008, 01:49 AM
Shabbat shalom, Literalist-Luke!

Hey, I'm always up for a challenge! Let me give it to you simply: The phrase in the above quotation, "all the peoples of the earth will mourn," is NOT about all the peoples of the earth! This is a direct quote from the OT passage Zechariah 12:12; however, let me give you the full gist of what is happening by giving it in context:

Zech. 12:10-14
And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Yerushalayim, the spirit of grace and of supplication; and they shall look unto Me whom they pierced through; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born. In that day shall there be a great mourning in Yerushalayim, as the mourning of Hadad-Rimmon in the valley of Megiddon. And the land shall mourn, every family apart: the family of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Natan apart, and their wives apart; The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of the Shimeites apart, and their wives apart; All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart.

The Greek word for "earth" is "ge" and it can also mean "land" or "ground" or even "dirt." This is also true for the Hebrew word "eretz," and this is the word that is being used in Zechariah. The nation of Isra'el has always been tied to the Land, even when they were separated from it for so long. In fact, to talk about the nation of Isra'el today, they will use the phrase "eretz Yisra'el," meaning "the land of Israel" to describe the nation's location. And, in spite of the way that the British and the Arabs and the Palestinians have carved up the land and will continue to do so, the Land is theirs by Divine decree and will be returned to them when the Messiah returns!

(There's a great story behind this passage in Zechariah that I'd like to go into, but I'll wait for now. Suffice it to say that it has to do with Luke 3.)

Now, if you can understand who comprised the Messianic communities at the time of the first century, it DOES apply to the "infant church," but only if you can understand that the Nazarene sect, including any believing Goyim or Gentiles, was a SUBSET of believing Isra'el!

RetrobyterConsidering that Jesus had already established an international perspective with His phrase "nation against nation" and "kingdom against kingdom", I'm afraid I can't accept isolating that phrase to Israel.

I do recognize that the interpretation you have suggested is an option, but you aren't providing convincing evidence in favor of rejecting the other option(s).

third hero
Sep 28th 2008, 09:50 AM
Hmmm, so your saying that they interpreted Jesus teaching that day differently?

Luke uses those eyewitness accounts to clarify the teachings.--lk 1.

There are reporters today that give accounts from other people's vantage points. This does not mean that their version, or the compilation of the people's accounts are altogether accurate. According to Luke's own words, in Luke 21, the topic for discussion is not the end of the age, but rather the destruction of the Temple, which I must say that the Lord gave an accurate prophecy of what was going to happen to that city, because it happened exactly as He said it, with not one stone on top of another.


Both luke and Matt start and finish the olivet discourse the same way.

My beliefs and that of wpm start out as the same, for we both believe in the Return of the Lord being the time in which the saints are gathered to Him in the air, but from there, our beliefs go in two entirely two different and opposing directions. Thus is the case with Luke 21's version. There is a reason why Jesus said to them, "but before all of these", in verse 12. That is because everything that He said before that point was to happen AFTER what he said next. This distinction is often overlooked, and yet, it is vital in seeing the direction that Luke is taking on his version of the Olivet Discourse.

My actual opinion is thaat Jesus covered both the before the birth pangs, and after, and that the actual olivet Discourse encompassed all of Matthew 24-25, Mark 13, Luke 17:17-31 and Luke 21. What most people cared about, the prophecy of the destruction of the Temple, was what the reporter, Luke reported. Matthew and Mark's version shows us that He said a lot more than what is chronicled in Luke 21.

You know, it has been said that critical thinking, aka reasoning and logic, has no place in the Bible. It is also said that reason and faith can not be mixed. I completely disagree with that notion. I believe in the exact opposite. If God is the creative force of all life, and God is a logical, thinking, reasoning being, (Joel 2's let us reason together), then the way in which God operates can be seen through the pattern that He has shown us in the Bible. This means that every phrase has a meaning, and should be judged on not only it's own merits, but in context to the whole story. In the Case of the Olivet discourse, the wording of each author's version becomes critical in interpreting what the author was talking about, and how it all fits into the story as a whole. Phrases such as, "but before all these", brings great clarity to the story as a whole, and not only that, it makes the whole story make sense. This separates Luke's version of the Olivet discourse into the "before the birth pangs" section, which Mark's version highlights as well as Matthew's "After the birth pangs" section.

I am tired, and if that does not completely make sense, I will further explain it after I get some sleep.

ananias
Sep 28th 2008, 11:11 AM
Hmmm, so your saying that they interpreted Jesus teaching that day differently?

Luke uses those eyewitness accounts to clarify the teachings.--lk 1.

Both luke and Matt start and finish the olivet discourse the same way.

God bless

They couldn't have interpreted Jesus teaching that day differently, since Luke wasn't present that day - only Matthew was.

We have to interpret Luke 21 in the light of Luke's record of the discples' question, and Matthew 24 in the light of Matthew's record of the disciples' question - which records do not perfectly correspond with one another.

As third hero correctly points out, Luke is writing like any honest reporter would write - and this is evident also by the way Luke places part of the Olivet Discourse in Luk.17: 23-37 - according to Luke 14: 1, 25 and 15: 1 and 17: 23-37, the Lord wasn't sitting on the Mount of Olives when He said these things - yet these are His words Matthew records as part of the Olivet Discourse.

It's clear that Luke did not always know the chronological sequence of when the Lord said what, and where He was when He said what He said, whereas Matthew did know, because he was an eye-witness. Luke and Mark are totally honest, and nothing they write is untrue, but they did not have the advantage that Matthew had - which was a first-hand knowledge of the things they wrote about.

John also had a first-hand knowledge, but even John, in his gospel, isn't as concerned with accurately recording the chronological sequence of events as Matthew is - John's promary concern is to show the union of Deity and Manhood in Jesus.

This is why when we read Matthew, we can't interpret Matthew in the light of Mark or Luke.

ananias

John146
Sep 29th 2008, 04:39 PM
Hello, Jeff. Yes, I'm fully aware of the above fact. But while it's good to compare Matthew's, Mark's and Luke's versions of the Olivet Discourse, we can't interpret Matthew's version "in the light of" either Luke or Mark.Says who? Each of them clearly is an account of the Olivet Discourse and each was inspired by the Holy Spirit. You have no basis for saying that Matthew can't be interpreted in light of either Luke or Mark.


In the first place, Matthew was an eye-witness disciple of the Lord and His teaching, and His Olivet-Discourse, whereas Luke wrote later from notes he had taken from other eye-witness disciples, and Mark, according to scanty early church tradition, wrote down what Peter had told him, but it is not known whether this was before or after Peter's martyrdom.Are you trying to say that Matthew is a more reliable account than Mark or Luke despite the fact that the author of each is God?


In the second place - and this is important - Luke's and Mark's records of the disciples' question are different to Matthew's, and relate only to the destruction of the temple:

"As to these things which you see, days will come in which there shall not be left a stone on a stone, which shall not be thrown down. And they asked Him, saying, Teacher, but when shall these things be? And what shall be the sign when these things are about to take place?" (Luk 21:6-7)

"And as He sat on the Mount of Olives, across from the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked Him privately, Tell us, When shall all these things be? And what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled? (Mar 13:3-4)

But Matthew records the disciples asking a question with a much larger scope:

"And as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? And what shall be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the world?" (Mat 24:3)If what is recorded in Luke has only to do with the destruction of the temple then why does part of Jesus' answer include a global scope, such as when He speaks about "25 ...upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; 26Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth"?


The structure of Matthew's gospel is very precise and totally unique, and the Olivet Disocurse (chapter 24 of matthew) to the end of chapter 25 of Matthew come at the end of the sixth division of Matthew's gospel
( http://divisionsofmatthew.blogspot.com/ )

One cannot separate the Lord's Olivet Discourse recorded by Matthew into an "A.D 70 part" and an "end of the age part", because the rules that govern both the original Greek and the English langauge prevent it - since the words "and", "therefore", "but", "for" and "then" (Greek: tote - "the when") join the whole passage together from verse 9 right up to the end of chapter 25 (the close of the sixth division of Matthew's gospel) - and the context throughout is the end of the age and the return of Christ.

The structure of Matthew's gospel: http://divisionsofmatthew.blogspot.com/ shows that the author had a first-hand and eye-witness knowledge of what he wrote about, whereas neither Luke nor Mark had the same advantage.

Matthew betrays an author who is obsessed not only with the details of the events, but also with the chronological sequence of the events that took place, as can be seen from the way he traces, in the sixth division of Matthew's gospel, the Lord's journey into Jerusalem and everything that took place from His first entry into the temple until His resurrection.

Therefore because of the above facts, I think that while it's good to compare Matthew's, Mark's and Luke's acccounts of the Olivet Discourse, it isn't wise to interpret Matthew's version "in the light of" either Mark's or Luke's versions. Luke is clearly addressing the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D, and then he makes a quantum-leap in time from verse 25 onwards, to the end of the age and the return of Christ.Oh, so Luke makes a quantum-leap in time, but it's not possible that Matthew could have done the same? I don't see the logic in that.


Furthermore, not only did the events that took place in 70 A.D did not result in the return of Christ, but the armies surrounding Jerusalem is something which is prophesied to occur again at the end of this ageIt is? Where?


The main two points we should bear in mind are

(1) that Matthew's version of the Olivet Discourse is joined from verse Mat.24: 9 to the end of Matthew 25 by the words "and", "therefore", "but", "for" and "then". To ignore this fact is to defy the common rules of both the Greek and English; and Luke contains the same kind of words, yet you see no problem in seeing a change in subject there at verse 25. Where is the consistency in your view?


(2) that because Matthew was an eye-witness of the Lord and His teaching, whereas Luke and Mark were not, and because the structure of Matthew's gospel is unique among the four gospels, we cannot interpret Matthew's gospel "in the light of" Mark's and Luke's versions - and John, of course, makes no mention of the Olivet Discourse in his gospel.It's all inspired by the Holy Spirit and we should always compare scripture with scripture. In this case, the scriptures are clearly related.

John146
Sep 29th 2008, 04:43 PM
There are reporters today that give accounts from other people's vantage points. This does not mean that their version, or the compilation of the people's accounts are altogether accurate. According to Luke's own words, in Luke 21, the topic for discussion is not the end of the age, but rather the destruction of the Temple, which I must say that the Lord gave an accurate prophecy of what was going to happen to that city, because it happened exactly as He said it, with not one stone on top of another.If Luke 21 only records Jesus' answer to the question regarding the temple then how do you explain verses 25-28?

ananias
Sep 29th 2008, 05:02 PM
Says who? Each of them clearly is an account of the Olivet Discourse and each was inspired by the Holy Spirit. You have no basis for saying that Matthew can't be interpreted in light of either Luke or Mark.

Are you trying to say that Matthew is a more reliable account than Mark or Luke despite the fact that the author of each is God?

If what is recorded in Luke has only to do with the destruction of the temple then why does part of Jesus' answer include a global scope, such as when He speaks about "25 ...upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; 26Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth"?

Oh, so Luke makes a quantum-leap in time, but it's not possible that Matthew could have done the same? I don't see the logic in that.

It is? Where?

Luke contains the same kind of words, yet you see no problem in seeing a change in subject there at verse 25. Where is the consistency in your view?

It's all inspired by the Holy Spirit and we should always compare scripture with scripture. In this case, the scriptures are clearly related.

Each and every individual author of the Bible's 66 books was inspired by the Holy Spirit, Jeff - you know I'm not saying that they were not inspired.
But even in the books of 1 and 2 Kings and 1 and 2 Chronicles there are slightly conflicting versions of certain accounts - I can't remember now exactly where they are, but I know they do exist. And there are slightly conflicting versions in the 4 gospels of what exactly what took place the day the Lord rose from the dead. You can't say that every single time one book of the Bible has an account of an event or detail which is in slight conflict with the account in another book, that the Bible isn't nevertheless 100% inspired by God and you can't say that the Bible is fallible either (I know you're not saying that)

But you're implying that Matthew 24 and Luke 21 MUST be speaking of the same period of tribulation, or else the Bible is not inspired - yet it is not Luke 21 which parallels Matthew 24, but Luk.17: 23-37 - and Luke.17: 26 shows that Jesus is talking about His second coming.

Your implication (that if I say that Luke 21 and Matthew 24 differ, then I'm saying that the Bible isn't inspired), doesn't hold ground - because whatever Jesus said in Mat.24: 16-28 is said in Luk.17: 23-37 - not in Luke 21.

ananias

third hero
Sep 29th 2008, 08:43 PM
If Luke 21 only records Jesus' answer to the question regarding the temple then how do you explain verses 25-28?

People only give accounts to what they remember, or what is the "most important" to them. Luke had given a report of what the people around that time heard. Most of it is what they did not understand, but they did pay attention to the portions that dealt with the destruction of the Temple. Here is where you have the detail.

Signs in the heavens, men's hearts failing from the tossing of the waves, do you honestly believe that we can get any gauge of whether the Lord is returning or not based on those last signs? If that is the case, the switch to pre-trib now, because these things have happened for a very very long time.

What does verses 25-28 prove? It proves that there is definitely more to the Olivet discourse than what the people who told Luke described. Things like, the signs of the end of the age. Matthew, a disciple who was clearly there, understood exactly what Jesus was saying concerning the end of the age, and thus focused on that.

The better question to ask is this:
Which version is the correct version of the Olivet Discourse? Is it Luke or Matthew's version?


My answer? Both, and neither. From Luke's perspective, the people that told him of the Olivet Discourse focused on the destruction of the temple, which He clearly highlighted in verse 7. Matthew focused on the end of the age, which omitted the prophecies that dealt with the time before the start of the birth pangs. Mark 13 is the key to understanding both versions, because it is Peter's oratory to Mark that gives us the clue that we needed to understand. Both versions, that of both Matthew and Luke, are incorporated into Mark's version....

..or are they?

Mark's version was written first.

When you factor this into the equation. You see this.

Luke may have read Mark's version, and realized that Peter omitted a vast majority of things, like the Lord's upbringing. Luke, therefore, went out to investigate, and gained a lot of knowledge about the Lord's upbringing and the teachings that the people remembered. Matthew read both versions, and because he was an original Disciple, (probably the only one who could write, being a tax collector), and wanted to include things that were omitted in both versions, like chapter 25.

The conclusion is this, that all three versions make up the whole of the Olivet Discourse. It was a long discourse that had a vast amount of information that Lord Jesus gave to the disciples. I am willing to believe that there was even more information that the Lord actually said than what was written in all three versions, since John made that point very clear in the last chapter of his Gospel.

How about that for an explanation?