Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789
Results 121 to 132 of 132

Thread: Brief commentary on Matt 24

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,473

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    Well then we agree on a lot, because that is possibly the best way to understand the Olivet Discourse. There is near fulfilment in the first century, but a dual application of much of that wording to the events before the second coming.
    Church Father Victorinus saw the AoD of the Olivet Discourse as Antichrist, as did, I believe, Irenaeus and Hippolytus. They tended to see the AoD, the Tribulation, and Daniel's 70th Week as the Reign of Antichrist. This was probably because they saw the AoD through the lens of allegorical interpretation more than any interest in the literal rendering of these passages. Origen, for example, applied an allegorical method to his interpretations of Scripture, and Victorinus, following Origen, had an interest in this method as well.

    But I believe that historical fulfillment is essential if we are to understand the patterns of the future. The AoD and Daniel's 70th Week were fulfilled in the 1st Coming of Christ, and in the 70 AD destruction of the temple that followed. The Great Tribulation was the Jewish Diaspora that ends at the 2nd Coming of Christ.

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,240

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Church Father Victorinus saw the AoD of the Olivet Discourse as Antichrist, as did, I believe, Irenaeus and Hippolytus. They tended to see the AoD, the Tribulation, and Daniel's 70th Week as the Reign of Antichrist. This was probably because they saw the AoD through the lens of allegorical interpretation more than any interest in the literal rendering of these passages. Origen, for example, applied an allegorical method to his interpretations of Scripture, and Victorinus, following Origen, had an interest in this method as well.

    But I believe that historical fulfillment is essential if we are to understand the patterns of the future. The AoD and Daniel's 70th Week were fulfilled in the 1st Coming of Christ, and in the 70 AD destruction of the temple that followed. The Great Tribulation was the Jewish Diaspora that ends at the 2nd Coming of Christ.
    He sounds so very important when you call him "Church Father Victorinus" He's just another bloke that has the bible in front of him, I wouldn't esteem him more than your own opinions. Jesus said "do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah."
    To cherry pick some blokes who agree with you adds no real meaning in a discussion.

    I see some aspects of 70AD in the Olivet discourse but I assign the abomination to the end-times for various reasons as discussed in the Army=Abomination thread. Its great to see that we agree on the dual application of some parts of the Olivet discourse, but obviously we disagree on the extent of the historical part.

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,240

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    With regards to the Olivet Discourse, there's only one fulfillment for the following:

    1. The AoD
    2. Great Tribulation.

    .
    Yes I agree with this. In some cases it's a matter of semantics, because the diaspora certainly is a period of great distress for Jews and can certainly be called that:
    There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

    That sounds quite distressful for Jews, and is their great distress. However there is another period of great distress, an unequalled period at the end of this age. We tend to want to have only one period of great distress/tribulation but the bible describes more than one.
    21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.

    We should actually refer to that great distress at the end of the age as "the greatest distress". I agree that the "unequalled" distress of Matthew 24:21 and the abomination refer to the end-times and not 70AD and the diaspora.

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,978
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    In Matt 24:2 Jesus said that the temple would be destroyed so much so that no stone will be left standing upon another. This was clearly fulfilled in 70 AD. There is no supporting scripture of the temple facing similar complete destruction under the Antichrist. As a matter of fact, I have argued strenuously that instead of destruction, the AC will protect the temple since he needs it to portray himself as God and will also place his image there.

    Apart from the temple, the rest of Matt 24 points to the end times.
    Thank you for that - I should have clarified I was referring to when Jesus was on the Mount of Olives. Matt 24:2 is indeed about 70 AD.

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,473

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    He sounds so very important when you call him "Church Father Victorinus" He's just another bloke that has the bible in front of him, I wouldn't esteem him more than your own opinions. Jesus said "do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah."
    To cherry pick some blokes who agree with you adds no real meaning in a discussion.

    I see some aspects of 70AD in the Olivet discourse but I assign the abomination to the end-times for various reasons as discussed in the Army=Abomination thread. Its great to see that we agree on the dual application of some parts of the Olivet discourse, but obviously we disagree on the extent of the historical part.
    I think you misunderstand me. I don't agree with Victorinus, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus and their identification of the AoD as the Antichrist. Most of the Church Fathers seemed to view the AoD of the 70 Weeks prophecy and of the Olivet Discourse as the Romans, who destroyed the temple in 70 AD. To see the AoD as the "Antichrist," therefore, was quite a leap in interpretation. And I therefore completely disagree with Victorinus. I believe in a future Antichrist, but I believe the AoD was the Roman desolation of the temple in Jerusalem.

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,240

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I think you misunderstand me. I don't agree with Victorinus, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus and their identification of the AoD as the Antichrist. Most of the Church Fathers seemed to view the AoD of the 70 Weeks prophecy and of the Olivet Discourse as the Romans, who destroyed the temple in 70 AD. To see the AoD as the "Antichrist," therefore, was quite a leap in interpretation. And I therefore completely disagree with Victorinus. I believe in a future Antichrist, but I believe the AoD was the Roman desolation of the temple in Jerusalem.
    My bad, yes I did misunderstand you. Even if these "fathers" agree with me, I prefer looking at the scripture itself than some 1800 year old opinions. You may think they sometimes had an advantage being closer to the time of the apostles, but even the apostles disagreed among themselves and false doctrines were already around during the writing of the epistles. I see the advantage of hindsight resting with us, not them. We are more exposed to multiple opinions, and our history is better than it was even closer to the time as they were. Thus we can quickly weigh up various thoughts, and in the end come to the correct conclusion faster than they were able to. The very dramatic nature of the distresses and persecutions under the Roman Empire would have affected their opinions, yet we await the abomination of the image of the beast of Rev 13 , and this abomination is future and seems to be associated with the coming to power of the beast 42 months before the end.

    Or do you think the image is a good thing? Unlikely, and so "abomination" is an apt description of this future image of the beast. Thus even if you see an historical abomination in Matthew 24, surely you can see a greater fulfilment in a more abominable event even better matching Antiochus abomination still in the future just before the second coming?

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,473

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    My bad, yes I did misunderstand you. Even if these "fathers" agree with me, I prefer looking at the scripture itself than some 1800 year old opinions. You may think they sometimes had an advantage being closer to the time of the apostles, but even the apostles disagreed among themselves and false doctrines were already around during the writing of the epistles. I see the advantage of hindsight resting with us, not them. We are more exposed to multiple opinions, and our history is better than it was even closer to the time as they were. Thus we can quickly weigh up various thoughts, and in the end come to the correct conclusion faster than they were able to. The very dramatic nature of the distresses and persecutions under the Roman Empire would have affected their opinions, yet we await the abomination of the image of the beast of Rev 13 , and this abomination is future and seems to be associated with the coming to power of the beast 42 months before the end.

    Or do you think the image is a good thing? Unlikely, and so "abomination" is an apt description of this future image of the beast. Thus even if you see an historical abomination in Matthew 24, surely you can see a greater fulfilment in a more abominable event even better matching Antiochus abomination still in the future just before the second coming?
    I don't have a huge problem with some level of "dual interpretation" if by that we see earlier prophecies that are fulfilled being foreshadows of future prophecies as well? For example, I believe the AoDs were fulfilled in 2 prophecies, involving Antiochus 4 and the Roman desolation of Jerusalem. However, these AoDs may forecast something in the future about Antichrist as well. Paul may have done that when he described the Antichrist as "taking his seat in the temple of God." I don't think that will mean a literal temple of wood and stone, but it is the concept of self-deification built upon a dual interpretation.

    I don't accept the authority of the Church Fathers on just any subject. Yes, they are subject to the flaws of their own times, and we do have an advantage when it comes to endtimes fulfillment. We're seeing things actually taking place! We've actually seen Israel return to their ancient homeland!

    However, I believe that if the Early Church Fathers didn't have a grasp of what Jesus said to them then the word of God pretty much failed in their time! And I don't think that happened, except in perhaps peripheral, less important ways. For example, in their time I'm not sure it mattered much whether they were Amillennial or Premillennial! Israel was scattered, and any teaching about their return to the Promised Land didn't really have much value.

    But they were closer to the time of the Apostle John, and thus may have held some keys to understanding Revelation. They also were closer to Jesus himself, and may have had a better understanding of the Olivet Discourse than we do, since this was closer to the time when Jews still lived in their land. The Olivet Discourse was given in that particular time frame.

    I'm trying to figure out what the "image of the Beast" is. It may simply be a form of religious paganization of former Christian Europe. Catholic Rome may be replaced with the False Prophet of a different religion, such as Islam?

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,240

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I don't have a huge problem with some level of "dual interpretation" if by that we see earlier prophecies that are fulfilled being foreshadows of future prophecies as well? For example, I believe the AoDs were fulfilled in 2 prophecies, involving Antiochus 4 and the Roman desolation of Jerusalem. However, these AoDs may forecast something in the future about Antichrist as well. Paul may have done that when he described the Antichrist as "taking his seat in the temple of God." I don't think that will mean a literal temple of wood and stone, but it is the concept of self-deification built upon a dual interpretation.
    Good, although I disagree with your basic emphasis on the Olivet discourse, to see some sort of end-times fulfilment there would bring you in my eyes, closer to the truth.



    I don't accept the authority of the Church Fathers on just any subject. Yes, they are subject to the flaws of their own times, and we do have an advantage when it comes to endtimes fulfillment. We're seeing things actually taking place! We've actually seen Israel return to their ancient homeland!

    However, I believe that if the Early Church Fathers didn't have a grasp of what Jesus said to them then the word of God pretty much failed in their time! And I don't think that happened, except in perhaps peripheral, less important ways. For example, in their time I'm not sure it mattered much whether they were Amillennial or Premillennial! Israel was scattered, and any teaching about their return to the Promised Land didn't really have much value.

    But they were closer to the time of the Apostle John, and thus may have held some keys to understanding Revelation. They also were closer to Jesus himself, and may have had a better understanding of the Olivet Discourse than we do, since this was closer to the time when Jews still lived in their land. The Olivet Discourse was given in that particular time frame.
    I cringe at the thought of giving anyone the respect of calling them "father" when Jesus advised us never to give any man that title of respect. Semantics aside, for me the value added by studying what some of those blokes thought on these matters is negligible. If maybe a revival followed their teaching, I would respect that more, puffed up academics add little value.



    I'm trying to figure out what the "image of the Beast" is. It may simply be a form of religious paganization of former Christian Europe. Catholic Rome may be replaced with the False Prophet of a different religion, such as Islam?
    I am not sure myself what to expect as the image of the beast. But let's not mix up our symbols between the false prophet and the image it creates.

    We have the false prophet "beast", a beast being a kingdom. Horns on a beast have precise symbolic precedent in Daniel 8, being kings (and the relative size of their kingdoms) of an empire:
    The two-horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia. 21 The shaggy goat is the king of Greece, and the large horn between its eyes is the first king. 22 The four horns that replaced the one that was broken off represent four kingdoms that will emerge from his nation

    Looking at the wording of Rev 13, the "false prophet" beast has religious power over the nations to cause them to worship the other beast. Two tiny horns (horns like a lamb) mean two tiny kingdoms that make up this powerful beast with world religious influence. The only historical cities that match this sort of tiny location with vast power through religious means, are the cities of Rome and Istanbul. United they support the rise of the beast in a third location. The image of the beast is not the image of Rome/Istanbul (the second beast) but is the image of the first beast (a new location for the Roman capital). Knowing that the first beast is a country that re-arose to amaze the unbelievers of the world, but expected by believers as implied by Rev 17:8, we need to consider the possibility that the image of the beast is in fact the image of Israel (the temple building project).

    What other country can possibly have the distinction of disappearing by the time of the writing of Revelation, and then re-appearing to the prophetic expectation of only the church, but to the astonishment of unbelievers? The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because it once was, now is not, and yet will come.

    The image of the beast, could very well be the image of Israel, pointing to the Jewish temple.

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    8,053
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    Yes I agree with this. In some cases it's a matter of semantics, because the diaspora certainly is a period of great distress for Jews and can certainly be called that:
    There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

    That sounds quite distressful for Jews, and is their great distress. However there is another period of great distress, an unequalled period at the end of this age. We tend to want to have only one period of great distress/tribulation but the bible describes more than one.
    21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.

    We should actually refer to that great distress at the end of the age as "the greatest distress". I agree that the "unequalled" distress of Matthew 24:21 and the abomination refer to the end-times and not 70AD and the diaspora.
    Thank you, DurbanDude. One can only arrive at this conclusion by acknowledging that the "generation" in the Olivet Discourse is not limited to those in 70 AD.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,240

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    Thank you, DurbanDude. One can only arrive at this conclusion by acknowledging that the "generation" in the Olivet Discourse is not limited to those in 70 AD.
    Yes definitely. As I keep pointing out to Randyk, the generation referred to is in context of the second coming. The first century generation did actually pass away before all the events were fulfilled, yet the verse says that generation will not pass away.

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,473

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    Yes definitely. As I keep pointing out to Randyk, the generation referred to is in context of the second coming. The first century generation did actually pass away before all the events were fulfilled, yet the verse says that generation will not pass away.
    You and others have pointed this out. I don't include Jesus' 2nd Coming as "all the things" that must take place in "this generation." I see "all these things" as a qualified set of events that by definition must precede the fall of the temple. That was the initial statement, initiating the Discourse. And so, that is the qualifying element that determines "what things" must take place in "this generation."

    Just to be extra, extra clear about this, let me give you the briefest of examples. Let's say I talk about 2 things that will take place, an earthquake in this generation, and WW3 in a future generation. And so, when asked when these things will happen I give 2 sets of signs, one set for the earthquake in this generation, and the other set of signs for the anticipation of WW3. And then I say, "all this will happen in this generation."

    What I'm saying is that the 1st set of events, predicting the earthquake in my generation will be anticipated by "all these things" that anticipate that particular event. "All these things" does not include the signs I gave for the other event, the WW3 event.

    So for me, it's a matter of what event is qualifying the particular set of signs being given. Since the main event being predicted is the earthquake in my generation, I would exclude the signs that have to do with the WW3 event. In the same way, Jesus is referring only to the signs that anticipate the fall of the temple, excluding all signs having to do with the 2nd Coming. I'm convinced this is the case. "All these things" is not to be exhaustively interpreted if there is an important qualifying factor that excludes some of the signs. And I believe that qualifying factor is there.

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Central Iowa, USA
    Posts
    253

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by ross3421 View Post
    the AOD is not "something" being placed in the temple it is "someone". The someone being the beast claiming to be the Christ. Thus the abomination nothing to do with 70AD of therin.
    Or a representation of the beast.

    Revelation 13:15 He was granted power to give breath to the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak and cause as many as would not worship the image of the beast to be killed. So it is indeed justified to say the AOD is a "something".
    Israel.... the Believer's insurance policy!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Need Advice: Commentary's on Revelation
    By matthewhenry in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Feb 14th 2016, 08:45 AM
  2. Commentary?
    By michael b in forum Bible studies - archive
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Sep 9th 2013, 03:34 AM
  3. Commentary on Romans
    By drmerillat in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Jul 20th 2010, 02:44 AM
  4. commentary for Psalms only
    By *Living~By~Faith* in forum Christian Fellowship
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Nov 16th 2008, 08:02 AM
  5. Commentary of Romans 9
    By Diolectic in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: Nov 15th 2008, 04:26 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •