Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678
Results 106 to 109 of 109

Thread: Brief commentary on Matt 24

  1. #106
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,271

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by divaD View Post
    Jesus does no such thing in the Discourse. He was clearly predicting things that would take place after His ascension up until His return. The events of 70 AD were some of the things that were to occur post His ascension. It was hardly the main thing Jesus was focusing on, though at that time it may have seemed like the main thing to them. Yet in the Discourse Jesus wasn't only speaking to that particular generation, He was also speaking to generations beyond that one.

    Take the generation we now live in. You don't agree, for example, that Matthew 24:7 can apply to this day and time as well? If this verse can apply to us today, and that in the Discourse Jesus had been comparing the events of his own generation with the event of his 2nd Coming, that should mean in the Discourse Jesus also had been comparing the events in future generations, such as the one we live in, with the events in His own generation at the time. That sounds somewhat circular. There seems to be no point to it if this were the case. I like my initial conclusion far better....The events of 70 AD were some of the things that were to occur post His ascension. It was hardly the main thing Jesus was focusing on, though at that time it may have seemed like the main thing to them. Yet in the Discourse Jesus wasn't only speaking to that particular generation though, He was also speaking to generations beyond that one.

    How then can the events of 70 AD be the main event in our day and time? 70 AD is already fulfilled and in the past. Why should we still concern ourselves with that event today? The past is past. We are currently living in the present, with the future still ahead of us, and that some of Jesus' predictions in the Discourse apply to us in this generation, especially if Jesus were to return in the very near future.
    Matt 21.20 When the disciples saw this, they were amazed. “How did the fig tree wither so quickly?” they asked.


    The fig tree represented, I believe, Israel. And Jesus was saying that Israel was coming to the season to produce fruit, because Jesus was among them. And yet Jesus saw that Israel would not accept him. He therefore treated the fig tree as a failure, and cursed it for having no fruit. I don't think there is any question that this was a statement Jesus was making regarding his people, Israel.

    So, a few chapters in Matthew later, we read about the same fig tree, which is now portrayed as being in leaf. It was prepared to produce fruit. But we already know that the fig tree would be cursed, because it would produce no fruit.

    Therefore, this is a sign of Israel's generation, and not future generations. This was the generation of Jesus, in which Israel would fail to produce fruit. As a nation they would fail, even though Jesus would have disciples who would produce fruit. But the nation itself would fail to come into its promised day of salvation.

    So the leafing of the fig tree was a sign of Jesus' generation, and of Israel's failure, and had nothing to do with the future rebirth of the State of Israel, nor with the last generation of Antichrist. Rather, this was the thing that Jesus declared regarding the destruction of the temple, prompting the Disciples' questions about the 2nd Coming. It was not the 2nd Coming that was the major sign being predicted, but rather, the destruction of the temple. This is beyond dispute in my thinking.

    You are looking, David, at this in the modern sense of trying to read the "tea leaves" of our own times, trying to fit biblical prophecy into contemporary events. I think we can indeed do this, but not with this chapter. Would you try to read contemporary history into biblical prophecies of Israel's destruction by ancient Babylon? No. And yet, there were many biblical prophecies of the impending historical destruction of Israel and Judah. Historical prophecies are not invalid because they have no modern fulfillment! That is what you seem to be claiming, that true biblical prophecies must have a modern fulfillment? At least, you do this with the Olivet Discourse, in which you *assume* that this is about the 2nd Coming primarily, and not the destruction of Jerusalem. You have it, I believe, in reverse order.

  2. #107
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    6,431
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by divaD View Post
    Jesus does no such thing in the Discourse. He was clearly predicting things that would take place after His ascension up until His return. The events of 70 AD were some of the things that were to occur post His ascension. It was hardly the main thing Jesus was focusing on, though at that time it may have seemed like the main thing to them. Yet in the Discourse Jesus wasn't only speaking to that particular generation, He was also speaking to generations beyond that one.

    Take the generation we now live in. You don't agree, for example, that Matthew 24:7 can apply to this day and time as well? If this verse can apply to us today, and that in the Discourse Jesus had been comparing the events of his own generation with the event of his 2nd Coming, that should mean in the Discourse Jesus also had been comparing the events in future generations, such as the one we live in, with the events in His own generation at the time. That sounds somewhat circular. There seems to be no point to it if this were the case. I like my initial conclusion far better....The events of 70 AD were some of the things that were to occur post His ascension. It was hardly the main thing Jesus was focusing on, though at that time it may have seemed like the main thing to them. Yet in the Discourse Jesus wasn't only speaking to that particular generation though, He was also speaking to generations beyond that one.

    How then can the events of 70 AD be the main event in our day and time? 70 AD is already fulfilled and in the past. Why should we still concern ourselves with that event today? The past is past. We are currently living in the present, with the future still ahead of us, and that some of Jesus' predictions in the Discourse apply to us in this generation, especially if Jesus were to return in the very near future.
    The Olivet Discourse is a generalised outline of ALL the bumps on the road to Christ' Glorious return. Evidently, some believe it's about the events of 70 AD, which in my view, is just one of the events that will occur before Jesus returns.

  3. #108
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,271

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    The Olivet Discourse is a generalised outline of ALL the bumps on the road to Christ' Glorious return. Evidently, some believe it's about the events of 70 AD, which in my view, is just one of the events that will occur before Jesus returns.
    The 70 AD judgment was the Main Event Jesus predicted was befalling his own generation. Jesus began the discussion by correcting the Disciples' attitude about the temple buildings. He said, "You see these beautiful buildings? Don't fall in love with them, and don't be impressed with them. Those who worship there are doing so insincerely and with hidden sins in their hearts. It will all be torn down."

    This was the *major* event, therefore, that Jesus was prophesying. To say otherwise is untrue to the text and to the recorded history. It was *all about* the fall of the temple, because we hear the Disciples respond, "When will this happen? And what then about your 2nd Coming, or the Restoration of Israel?" In other words, "When will this Main Event happen, as related to the promised Kingdom?"

    Respected men like Albert Schweitzer misread Jesus here, and led many people into his liberal thinking. They thought Jesus made a mistake, thinking the 2nd Coming would take place in his own generation!

    So the real answer is looking at it the way it is really written. This is all about the fall of the temple, when it would happen, and how it relates to the coming of the Kingdom. Somehow the restoration of Israel had to fit in with Jesus' prophecy that the Jewish temple would fall!

    So the issue became, for Jesus, explaining how the temple's fall relates to the 2nd Coming. Jesus' answer is that even though the 2nd Coming is viewed as the restoration of Israel, it would actually mean judgment. And in the same way, his 1st Coming meant judgment for Israel, as well. There would be initial signs signaling the approaching desolation of Jerusalem. And these would be but the beginning of a long age of Jewish devastation, along with the ultimate sign of the coming Kingdom, namely the coming of Jesus himself. This would be the same kind of sign as the desolation of Jerusalem--it would be judgment against the nations, including Israel.

    I wouldn't deny that some of these were signs of the 2nd Coming. But they began in the generation of Jesus, and with the desolation of the temple. This led to an age-long period of Jewish tribulation, ending with the sign of the Son of Man. To say this isn't mainly about the desolation of the temple is flat out false!

  4. #109
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    6,431
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    The 70 AD judgment was the Main Event Jesus predicted was befalling his own generation. Jesus began the discussion by correcting the Disciples' attitude about the temple buildings. He said, "You see these beautiful buildings? Don't fall in love with them, and don't be impressed with them. Those who worship there are doing so insincerely and with hidden sins in their hearts. It will all be torn down."

    This was the *major* event, therefore, that Jesus was prophesying. To say otherwise is untrue to the text and to the recorded history. It was *all about* the fall of the temple, because we hear the Disciples respond, "When will this happen? And what then about your 2nd Coming, or the Restoration of Israel?" In other words, "When will this Main Event happen, as related to the promised Kingdom?"

    Respected men like Albert Schweitzer misread Jesus here, and led many people into his liberal thinking. They thought Jesus made a mistake, thinking the 2nd Coming would take place in his own generation!

    So the real answer is looking at it the way it is really written. This is all about the fall of the temple, when it would happen, and how it relates to the coming of the Kingdom. Somehow the restoration of Israel had to fit in with Jesus' prophecy that the Jewish temple would fall!

    So the issue became, for Jesus, explaining how the temple's fall relates to the 2nd Coming. Jesus' answer is that even though the 2nd Coming is viewed as the restoration of Israel, it would actually mean judgment. And in the same way, his 1st Coming meant judgment for Israel, as well. There would be initial signs signaling the approaching desolation of Jerusalem. And these would be but the beginning of a long age of Jewish devastation, along with the ultimate sign of the coming Kingdom, namely the coming of Jesus himself. This would be the same kind of sign as the desolation of Jerusalem--it would be judgment against the nations, including Israel.

    I wouldn't deny that some of these were signs of the 2nd Coming. But they began in the generation of Jesus, and with the desolation of the temple. This led to an age-long period of Jewish tribulation, ending with the sign of the Son of Man. To say this isn't mainly about the desolation of the temple is flat out false!
    The events of 70 AD was just ONE of the events Jesus warned would happen before his return. His Second Coming is the primary theme of the discourse. Your position on the Olivet Discourse is well known. I have diligently followed your lively discussion with FHG with interest, particularly on the meaning of "this generation". You will recall that I have debated various aspects of the OD with you, including the AoD, the Great Tribulation, etc. I see no need to go into another protracted round knowing that none of will budge from their position.

    But I will gladly engage in a new topic.

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
  •