Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why doesn't Matt. 24:32-34 disprove Preterism...?

    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 (what about the Holocaust of WWII...?) and vv.29-31 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 (or Matt. 24:31, which is a reference to Isa. 27:12-13) 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, 23), 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 with 24:3, noting Jesus' concluding statements in 24:31, 47; 25:10, 21, 23, 31-40). 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
    analyze. synthesize. repeat.

    *It is the next chapter of my life, whether I'm ready or not. My time here in these forums has come to its close. I bless you as I go!*

  • #2
    Originally posted by astrongerthanhe View Post
    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 (what about the Holocaust of WWII...?) and vv.29-31 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 (or Matt. 24:31, which is a reference to Isa. 27:12-13) 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, 23), 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 answer
    I'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 age
    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.
    Last edited by markedward; May 29th 2008, 12:01 AM. Reason: [Typos, clarification.]
    To This Day

    Comment


    • #3
      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?...28&postcount=8

      Hawk

      Comment


      • #4
        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. 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
        "People do not drift toward holiness. Apart from grace-driven effort, people do not gravitate toward godliness, prayer, obedience to Scripture, faith, and delight in the Lord. We drift toward compromise and call it tolerance; We drift toward disobedience and call it freedom; We drift toward superstition and call it faith. We cherish the indiscipline of lost self-control and call it relaxation; we slouch toward prayerlessness and delude ourselves into thinking we have escaped legalism; we slide toward godlessness and convince ourselves we have been liberated?" - D A Carson

        Comment


        • #5
          This Partial Preterist--

          ...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.

          Comment


          • #6
            astrongerthanhe, keep in mind the prophetic language used in Matthew too:

            Adam Clark's bible commentary:
            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...

            Anyway Mark explained it all very well.

            God bless
            "People do not drift toward holiness. Apart from grace-driven effort, people do not gravitate toward godliness, prayer, obedience to Scripture, faith, and delight in the Lord. We drift toward compromise and call it tolerance; We drift toward disobedience and call it freedom; We drift toward superstition and call it faith. We cherish the indiscipline of lost self-control and call it relaxation; we slouch toward prayerlessness and delude ourselves into thinking we have escaped legalism; we slide toward godlessness and convince ourselves we have been liberated?" - D A Carson

            Comment


            • #7
              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. So how can all things already be fulfilled?
              I don't know, I could just be waaaay off on my understanding of full preterism.
              Don't seek too much knowledge. You just may be putting more weight on your shoulders than you're able to bare. Let God be the one to decide how quickly you grow.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by astrongerthanhe View Post
                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+
                and something to ponder on.

                Blessings.
                "A text without context is a pretext."

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Saved7 View Post
                  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. So how can all things already be fulfilled?
                  I don't know, I could just be waaaay off on my understanding of full preterism.
                  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... 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

                  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
                  "People do not drift toward holiness. Apart from grace-driven effort, people do not gravitate toward godliness, prayer, obedience to Scripture, faith, and delight in the Lord. We drift toward compromise and call it tolerance; We drift toward disobedience and call it freedom; We drift toward superstition and call it faith. We cherish the indiscipline of lost self-control and call it relaxation; we slouch toward prayerlessness and delude ourselves into thinking we have escaped legalism; we slide toward godlessness and convince ourselves we have been liberated?" - D A Carson

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Saved7 View Post
                    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. 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.
                    To This Day

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by markedward View Post
                      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...

                      (sorry this is off topic for a minute here)

                      God bless
                      "People do not drift toward holiness. Apart from grace-driven effort, people do not gravitate toward godliness, prayer, obedience to Scripture, faith, and delight in the Lord. We drift toward compromise and call it tolerance; We drift toward disobedience and call it freedom; We drift toward superstition and call it faith. We cherish the indiscipline of lost self-control and call it relaxation; we slouch toward prayerlessness and delude ourselves into thinking we have escaped legalism; we slide toward godlessness and convince ourselves we have been liberated?" - D A Carson

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by moonglow View Post
                        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.
                        To This Day

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by markedward View Post
                          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...

                          God bless
                          "People do not drift toward holiness. Apart from grace-driven effort, people do not gravitate toward godliness, prayer, obedience to Scripture, faith, and delight in the Lord. We drift toward compromise and call it tolerance; We drift toward disobedience and call it freedom; We drift toward superstition and call it faith. We cherish the indiscipline of lost self-control and call it relaxation; we slouch toward prayerlessness and delude ourselves into thinking we have escaped legalism; we slide toward godlessness and convince ourselves we have been liberated?" - D A Carson

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by markedward View Post
                            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"...

                            Originally posted by markedward View Post
                            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.

                            Originally posted by markedward View Post
                            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.

                            Originally posted by markedward View Post
                            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").**

                            Originally posted by markedward View Post
                            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, but only on 23:39. Why? Because only 23:39, which is a quote from Ps. 118, 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) was not willing to be gathered to Jesus (cp. Luke 19:41-44).

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

                            Originally posted by markedward View Post
                            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... 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).

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

                            *It is the next chapter of my life, whether I'm ready or not. My time here in these forums has come to its close. I bless you as I go!*

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              “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
                              "Your name and renown
                              is the desire of our hearts."
                              (Isaiah 26:8)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X