Page 1 of 9 123456789 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 132

Thread: Brief commentary on Matt 24

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,871

    Brief commentary on Matt 24

    This is not your conventional view of the Olivet Discourse, but it is, I believe, essential if you are to understand it completely. This view is pretty much what the Church Fathers believed, and so is not heterodox teaching. But the original view in the Church was corrupted by many years of influences that were the product of common human misconceptions. This is just my best effort to explain it.


    Matt 24.Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2 “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”


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


    Comment: The primary purpose of this Discourse is to announce the imminent destruction of the temple. However, inasmuch as this pronouncement brought conflicts in the minds of Jesus' disciples he had to address concerns outside of the issue of the temple destruction alone. The thought from the 70 Weeks prophecy of Dan 9 was that Messiah would come in roughly the time that Jesus came. And the disciples naturally thought that this should bring final atonement for Israel's sins.


    However, the prophecy in Dan 9 indicated that following the 70th Week there would be an Abomination of Desolation causing the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. And so, Jesus' disciples asked him about the restoration of Israel at the coming of Messiah's Kingdom, in the light of the imminent destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.


    The question the disciples asked regarding the temple desolation is the primary issue. But of secondary importance is the issue of when Christ would come with his Kingdom, to save Israel.


    4 Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many. 6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of birth pains.


    Comment: These signs leading up to the temple's destruction were not intended to lead to immediate salvation at the coming of Messiah's Kingdom. They were actually the "beginning" of troubles that would last for a long time until the Son of Man comes. The thought that all of these troubles would be concentrated in a single generation is therefore cast aside by Jesus, since he indicated that signs leading up to the temple's destruction would be but the beginning of a long period of Jewish Diaspora.


    9 “Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13 but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.


    Comment: Jesus said the Gospel Mission would begin in his own generation, and would be involved along with the signs leading up to the temple's destruction. False prophecy consisted of those who advocated for war against the Romans, as well as false messiahs who claimed to be leaders in Israel. This clearly was something to be experienced by the apostles in their own generation. They would be persecuted and martyred, which is precisely what happened to many of them.


    15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house. 18 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 19 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.


    Comment: The Abomination of Desolation is a reference to Dan 9 and the 70 Weeks prophecy. It is *after* the 70th Week that the AoD brings about the desolation of the temple and the city of Jerusalem. And that abomination was the Roman Army led by Titus. This is what most of the Church Fathers believed. Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and modern futurists have hijacked this historical interpretation. They have insisted that the AoD is the Antichrist, rather than the Roman Army under Titus. But these signs were specifically for the apostles' generation, and they were to lead up to the desolation of the temple. The AoD cannot have been the Antichrist!


    22 “If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. 23 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time.


    Comment: The Great Tribulation associated with the fall of the temple would eventually be "cut short," meaning that this distress would last a very long time. To cut it short is to end an interminable length of time. The distress associated with it would affect believers in the apostles' generation, as well as at the time just before the coming of the Kingdom.


    This Great Tribulation is the Jewish Diaspora of the NT era. It initially involved both believers and unbelievers in Israel, since all Jews were expelled by the Romans from the Holy Land. The believers formed the Early Church, and were persecuted, as well, by Jewish unbelievers.


    26 “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. 27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28 Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.


    Comment: The Coming of the Son of Man is described as a sudden judgment, and as such, is something that can only be prepared for by maintaining vigil. To prepare for the Kingdom at an unknown time in the future Christians must maintain righteousness at all times, and not grow weary of doing right. It is to be expected that unbelievers will be gathered together, in order to be judged. And then judgment will suddenly strike them, without warning. This happened, in a sense, in 70 AD. But it is also an indication of what Christ's 2nd Coming will be like, at the Battle of Armageddon.


    29 “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.’


    Comment: The Great Tribulation of the Jewish People, and of the Church, will end with the end of the times of the Gentiles. The darkening of the heavenly bodies indicates the end of time in the age, since the heavenly bodies were signs for times and seasons. Daniel indicated that the Kingdom of God would begin with a rock, who is Christ, and then become a mountain, which is the Church. And this Kingdom would come to destroy the powers of the pagan kingdoms of the world.


    30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. 31 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.


    Comment: The remnant of Jewish believers, as well as Christians throughout the earth, will be gathered as though in a great national restoration. Angels gathering men indicates a resurrection from the dead, and a gathering for glorification in heaven, both of which are for the Church. This will be prerequisite for the establishment of God's Kingdom on the earth. The righteous must be given authority to govern the earth properly.


    32 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.


    Comment: "This generation" has to do with the apostles' generation, in which Christ was crucified and the apostles martyred. This was the generation to see the signs leading up to and including the desolation of the temple. Excluded from "all these things" are events that transcend the desolation of the temple, which includes the things to take place during the Great Tribulation of the Jewish People and of the Church.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Thames, New Zealand
    Posts
    2,239
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    This Generation will live to see it all.

    Luke 21:29-36 Jesus told them a parable: Look at the fig tree, as soon as it buds you can tell that summer is near. In the same way when you see all this happening, you will know that the Kingdom of God is near. Truly, I tell you the present generation will live to see it all. My words will never pass away.
    Be on your guard, do not let your minds be dulled by dissipation or worldly cares so that the great Day catches you unawares, for that Day will come upon everyone, the whole world over. Be on the alert, praying at all times for strength to pass safely through all that is coming and to stand in the presence of the Son of Man.
    Ref: REB

    The present generation - or the generation present: the same thing. When they see Judah become a nation again, we will know the end times are upon us.

    The fig tree – Israel is the vine, Judah is the fig tree: Isaiah 5:7, Hosea 9:10. The parable of the fig tree applies to the House of Judah, Matthew 21:43. Therefore when Judah starts to bud, that is: becomes a nation again, as they formed the State of Israel in May 1948, then within that generation, [a lifetime of 70 years] the end times events will commence. Ezekiel 12:25

    The great Day – The Day of the Lord’s vengeance and wrath, the multi prophesied judgement/punishment of the nations, an event that will come unexpectedly, sudden and shocking all those who have failed to understand the Lord's plans and purposes. Isaiah 29:5-12, Isaiah 66:15-16, Revelation 6:12-17
    That Day will come upon everyone – There is no ‘rapture’ at this time, all will go through this judgement. Isaiah 24:1, Psalms 50:1-3, Zephaniah 3:8

    Strength to pass safely through – This is often mistranslated as ‘escape all these things’, which is a serious error and is incorrect, as the previous sentence has just stated ‘that Day will come upon everyone’. What the Lord promises, is not a removal from earth – an escape as such, but protection. Psalms 91, Isaiah 43:1-2

    The presence of the Son of Man – Jesus called Himself the ‘Son of Man’, when He was present on earth in a human body. This was necessary so as He could become our ‘kinsman Redeemer’. After the great Day of the Lord, when every faithful Christian has gathered in the holy Land, they will stand in His presence when the 144,000 are selected; Revelation 14:1. Then, later at His glorious Return, His Name will be ‘The Word of God’. Revelation 19:13

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,171

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Two questions are asked. Context isn't 100% clear which parts of the Olivet discourse are relating to which question. To add confusion, prophets often predicted imminent events, but while prophesying were inspired to predict similar events related to the coming of Jesus. There are many examples of this near/far prophecy in the Bible. So the destruction of the temple and the second coming would likely have matching circumstances.

    The secret then is not to be too dogmatic about which parts belong where. We must rather maintain our readiness that it's possible that there is an abomination which is a precursor to the second coming and be aware of the circumstances surrounding that abomination.

    My view is that up to v14 there is an overlap of events applying to both history and the end times. Then v14 mentions the Gospel preached to all nations and mentions the "end" and goes on to speak about end times events.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,871

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    Two questions are asked. Context isn't 100% clear which parts of the Olivet discourse are relating to which question. To add confusion, prophets often predicted imminent events, but while prophesying were inspired to predict similar events related to the coming of Jesus. There are many examples of this near/far prophecy in the Bible. So the destruction of the temple and the second coming would likely have matching circumstances.

    The secret then is not to be too dogmatic about which parts belong where. We must rather maintain our readiness that it's possible that there is an abomination which is a precursor to the second coming and be aware of the circumstances surrounding that abomination.

    My view is that up to v14 there is an overlap of events applying to both history and the end times. Then v14 mentions the Gospel preached to all nations and mentions the "end" and goes on to speak about end times events.
    Anybody who wishes to communicate sensibly to others will not speak using "dualisms." Sure, there are motifs used that aid in understanding repetitions in history. But this should not lose a sense of attachment to certain defined elements, which otherwise would confuse the meaning.

    Jesus spoke in the clearest possible terms that the temple in Jerusalem would be judged, and that Jerusalem itself would be judged. And he made it clear that this was a result of their rejecting him as Messiah. This is not, therefore, a future generation he is speaking of. He had already made it clear that he was speaking to his own generation!

    The AoD is therefore his description of the temple's destruction, as drawn from Dan 9, where the AoD follows the 70th Week in which Christ is "cut off." None of this is forced into the passage. This is precisely what Jesus was talking about.

    Jesus was, at the same time, asked how this relates to his Coming and to the coming of the Kingdom. His answer was that nobody can know the precise day and hour of his return. But men can be assured that men in his own generation will see the destruction of the temple, which he called the AoD.

    When Jesus said, therefore, that "all these things" would be seen in "this generation," he was simply restating what he had already been saying, that the temple would be destroyed for what his own generation had been doing. They had rejected their Messiah, and so would lose their temple.

    All of the signs leading up to the temple's destruction would be seen in his own generation. But some of these signs would continue until the end of the age, when he would return. Nothing could be more natural to the language Jesus used. Why complicate it?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,171

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Anybody who wishes to communicate sensibly to others will not speak using "dualisms." Sure, there are motifs used that aid in understanding repetitions in history. But this should not lose a sense of attachment to certain defined elements, which otherwise would confuse the meaning.

    Jesus spoke in the clearest possible terms that the temple in Jerusalem would be judged, and that Jerusalem itself would be judged. And he made it clear that this was a result of their rejecting him as Messiah. This is not, therefore, a future generation he is speaking of. He had already made it clear that he was speaking to his own generation!

    The AoD is therefore his description of the temple's destruction, as drawn from Dan 9, where the AoD follows the 70th Week in which Christ is "cut off." None of this is forced into the passage. This is precisely what Jesus was talking about.

    Jesus was, at the same time, asked how this relates to his Coming and to the coming of the Kingdom. His answer was that nobody can know the precise day and hour of his return. But men can be assured that men in his own generation will see the destruction of the temple, which he called the AoD.

    When Jesus said, therefore, that "all these things" would be seen in "this generation," he was simply restating what he had already been saying, that the temple would be destroyed for what his own generation had been doing. They had rejected their Messiah, and so would lose their temple.

    All of the signs leading up to the temple's destruction would be seen in his own generation. But some of these signs would continue until the end of the age, when he would return. Nothing could be more natural to the language Jesus used. Why complicate it?

    You acknowledge two sets of events in Matthew 24, first century events and then the events before the second coming.

    It is while speaking of the events surrounding the second coming, that Jesus uses the phrase "this generation". I believe this is the generation referred to.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,171

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Anybody who wishes to communicate sensibly to others will not speak using "dualisms." Sure, there are motifs used that aid in understanding repetitions in history. But this should not lose a sense of attachment to certain defined elements, which otherwise would confuse the meaning.

    Jesus spoke in the clearest possible terms that the temple in Jerusalem would be judged, and that Jerusalem itself would be judged. And he made it clear that this was a result of their rejecting him as Messiah. This is not, therefore, a future generation he is speaking of. He had already made it clear that he was speaking to his own generation!

    The AoD is therefore his description of the temple's destruction, as drawn from Dan 9, where the AoD follows the 70th Week in which Christ is "cut off." None of this is forced into the passage. This is precisely what Jesus was talking about.

    Jesus was, at the same time, asked how this relates to his Coming and to the coming of the Kingdom. His answer was that nobody can know the precise day and hour of his return. But men can be assured that men in his own generation will see the destruction of the temple, which he called the AoD.

    When Jesus said, therefore, that "all these things" would be seen in "this generation," he was simply restating what he had already been saying, that the temple would be destroyed for what his own generation had been doing. They had rejected their Messiah, and so would lose their temple.

    All of the signs leading up to the temple's destruction would be seen in his own generation. But some of these signs would continue until the end of the age, when he would return. Nothing could be more natural to the language Jesus used. Why complicate it?

    I replied to this post , stating the following:
    ""You acknowledge two sets of events in Matthew 24, first century events and then the events before the second coming.
    It is while speaking of the events surrounding the second coming, that Jesus uses the phrase "this generation". I believe this is the generation referred to.
    ""

    I am yet to receive a reply. You acknowledge that you are not a preterist, and therefore you do see some mention of the second coming in Matt 24. Yet it is in the context of the second coming wording that the phrase "this generation" is used:
    29 “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.’
    30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth[c] will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. 31 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. 32 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.


    There are two parts to Matthew 24, the 70AD part, and the end-times part. The phrase "this generation" occurs when Jesus is speaking about the end-times, not 70AD. Which things must they look out for ? signs in the sky. This cannot possibly be the first generation which according to you live in the time of distress, not after the distress as per the generation Jesus refers to.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,871

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    I replied to this post , stating the following:
    ""You acknowledge two sets of events in Matthew 24, first century events and then the events before the second coming.
    It is while speaking of the events surrounding the second coming, that Jesus uses the phrase "this generation". I believe this is the generation referred to.
    ""

    I am yet to receive a reply. You acknowledge that you are not a preterist, and therefore you do see some mention of the second coming in Matt 24. Yet it is in the context of the second coming wording that the phrase "this generation" is used:
    29 “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.’
    30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth[c] will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. 31 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. 32 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.


    There are two parts to Matthew 24, the 70AD part, and the end-times part. The phrase "this generation" occurs when Jesus is speaking about the end-times, not 70AD. Which things must they look out for ? signs in the sky. This cannot possibly be the first generation which according to you live in the time of distress, not after the distress as per the generation Jesus refers to.
    You are trying to read into normal human communication a robotic, linear construction. People don't speak like a list of to-do jobs or recipe instructions. People integrate a couple of different subjects together, summarize, recap, and do all kinds of gyrations typical of communication.

    Jesus is here integrating 2 subjects that the Disciples found related. They saw the need for Israel's restoration, which was the coming of the Kingdom. But they saw the destruction of the temple as a setback to this evolution.

    And so, Jesus spoke of both events, explaining how they are to be perceived. The main event, the desolation of the temple, would be preceded by several intervening activities, such as false prophets, wars, persecution of believers, and the proclamation of the coming Kingdom. Then, the main event, the AoD, would take place, in which the temple would be desolated. After all, Abomination of Desolation contains the word "desolation," which is what Jesus said would happen to the temple!

    Then Jesus goes on to describe how this relates to the coming Kingdom. Jesus depicted the Kingdom as judgment, and only after that, the salvation of Israel. And so, Jesus explained that as the coming of the Kingdom would bring judgment, so would the main event in his own time mean judgment.

    The coming of the Kingdom would be marked by Jesus' coming itself, and would be an activity of judgment. Unbelievers would not be prepared. Believers would prepare primarily by living a righteous life. It is at this point that Jesus reverts back to the desolation of the temple and explained it would take place in his own generation, in the generation of the Disciples. None of this is linear, as you wish it to be. But this is how human discourses normally flow--not strictly linear, but more complex than that, integrating several subjects together.

    No, I'm not a Preterist. Preterists see the Olivet Discourse and the Book of Revelation largely fulfilled in the 1st century. Partial Preterists accept the 2nd Coming of Christ as future, but that's about it. Some accept other future elements, but this begins to blur the distinction between historical interpretation and future interpretation.

    I'm not a Preterist because I believe that the Great Tribulation of the Olivet Discourse was the Jewish Diaspora of the NT age. In other words, the Jewish Diaspora is not historically fulfilled, and remains even now.

    Also, I believe in a future Antichrist, who will reign for 3.5 years. This was not fulfilled, in my view, in the ancient Roman Empire.

    I also believe in the future salvation of national Israel. That will happen after Christ's 2nd Coming.

    I also believe that the gospel mission was intended to continue throughout the NT age, and not just be fulfilled in the 1st generation of the Church. These things are not Preterism. The fact I believe the *main emphasis* of the Olivet Discourse was on the 1st generation makes me an historical interpreter, and not a Preterist.

    The Early Church Fathers were largely historical interpreters of the Olivet Discourse. We all agree that a significant portion of the Discourse was devoted, as well, to the 2nd Coming. But the main focus of the Discourse was on the desolation of the temple, and on when that would happen. Jesus said it would happen in his own generation.

    He compared it to the 2nd Coming insofar as it would be about judgment. But the 2nd Coming would follow the long Jewish Diaspora of the present age, and would *not* take place in Jesus' generation.

    The point is, we prepare for the Kingdom of God in the same way in all times. In Jesus' generation preparation was by living a righteous life. In other eras Christians prepared for the Kingdom of God in the same way--by living righteous lives.

    Jesus indicated the desolation of Jerusalem would be all about judgment. In the same way his 2nd Coming would be all about judgment. Preparation is the same way in both respects--we prepare by living righteous lives.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,171

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    You are trying to read into normal human communication a robotic, linear construction. People don't speak like a list of to-do jobs or recipe instructions. People integrate a couple of different subjects together, summarize, recap, and do all kinds of gyrations typical of communication.
    Unless one has a very good reason to change the order of events, most events unfold in the order they are told. This is just common sense, not "robotic". So let us see if you give a very good reason for removing the phrase "this generation" from it's end times/second coming context of Matthew 24:29-35. The phrase "this generation" certainly does not appear in the context of earlier events surrounding 70AD.


    Jesus is here integrating 2 subjects that the Disciples found related. They saw the need for Israel's restoration, which was the coming of the Kingdom. But they saw the destruction of the temple as a setback to this evolution. And so, Jesus spoke of both events, explaining how they are to be perceived. The main event, the desolation of the temple, would be preceded by several intervening activities, such as false prophets, wars, persecution of believers, and the proclamation of the coming Kingdom. Then, the main event, the AoD, would take place, in which the temple would be desolated. After all, Abomination of Desolation contains the word "desolation," which is what Jesus said would happen to the temple!

    Then Jesus goes on to describe how this relates to the coming Kingdom. Jesus depicted the Kingdom as judgment, and only after that, the salvation of Israel. And so, Jesus explained that as the coming of the Kingdom would bring judgment, so would the main event in his own time mean judgment.

    The coming of the Kingdom would be marked by Jesus' coming itself, and would be an activity of judgment. Unbelievers would not be prepared. Believers would prepare primarily by living a righteous life. It is at this point that Jesus reverts back to the desolation of the temple and explained it would take place in his own generation, in the generation of the Disciples. None of this is linear, as you wish it to be. But this is how human discourses normally flow--not strictly linear, but more complex than that, integrating several subjects together.

    No, I'm not a Preterist. Preterists see the Olivet Discourse and the Book of Revelation largely fulfilled in the 1st century. Partial Preterists accept the 2nd Coming of Christ as future, but that's about it. Some accept other future elements, but this begins to blur the distinction between historical interpretation and future interpretation.

    I'm not a Preterist because I believe that the Great Tribulation of the Olivet Discourse was the Jewish Diaspora of the NT age. In other words, the Jewish Diaspora is not historically fulfilled, and remains even now.

    Also, I believe in a future Antichrist, who will reign for 3.5 years. This was not fulfilled, in my view, in the ancient Roman Empire.

    I also believe in the future salvation of national Israel. That will happen after Christ's 2nd Coming.

    I also believe that the gospel mission was intended to continue throughout the NT age, and not just be fulfilled in the 1st generation of the Church. These things are not Preterism. The fact I believe the *main emphasis* of the Olivet Discourse was on the 1st generation makes me an historical interpreter, and not a Preterist.

    The Early Church Fathers were largely historical interpreters of the Olivet Discourse. We all agree that a significant portion of the Discourse was devoted, as well, to the 2nd Coming. But the main focus of the Discourse was on the desolation of the temple, and on when that would happen. Jesus said it would happen in his own generation.

    He compared it to the 2nd Coming insofar as it would be about judgment. But the 2nd Coming would follow the long Jewish Diaspora of the present age, and would *not* take place in Jesus' generation.

    The point is, we prepare for the Kingdom of God in the same way in all times. In Jesus' generation preparation was by living a righteous life. In other eras Christians prepared for the Kingdom of God in the same way--by living righteous lives.

    Jesus indicated the desolation of Jerusalem would be all about judgment. In the same way his 2nd Coming would be all about judgment. Preparation is the same way in both respects--we prepare by living righteous lives.
    Thanks for confirming that you are not a preterist. I do know that.
    You confirm that a significant portion of the Olivet discourse is about the second coming, agreed! Many ECFs also see that, good!
    Also you believe the abomination was in the first century. Yes I know that is what you believe.

    You say a lot, but you do not give any reason why you need to take the phrase "this generation" out of it's second coming context:
    29 “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.’ 30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth[c] will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.[d] 31 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. 32 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.


    How can "all these things" happen to the first generation, they did not see the second coming. Not only is this generation in context of the second coming, they are the only generation which can exist after all these things have happened. Otherwise the logic does not make sense. AFTER the distress there will be signs in the sky. This generation referred to (the generation after the distress) will not pass away until the second coming occurs.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,871

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    Unless one has a very good reason to change the order of events, most events unfold in the order they are told. This is just common sense, not "robotic". So let us see if you give a very good reason for removing the phrase "this generation" from it's end times/second coming context of Matthew 24:29-35. The phrase "this generation" certainly does not appear in the context of earlier events surrounding 70AD.




    Thanks for confirming that you are not a preterist. I do know that.
    You confirm that a significant portion of the Olivet discourse is about the second coming, agreed! Many ECFs also see that, good!
    Also you believe the abomination was in the first century. Yes I know that is what you believe.

    You say a lot, but you do not give any reason why you need to take the phrase "this generation" out of it's second coming context:
    29 “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.’ 30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth[c] will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.[d] 31 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. 32 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.


    How can "all these things" happen to the first generation, they did not see the second coming. Not only is this generation in context of the second coming, they are the only generation which can exist after all these things have happened. Otherwise the logic does not make sense. AFTER the distress there will be signs in the sky. This generation referred to (the generation after the distress) will not pass away until the second coming occurs.
    It's the way I look at the Discourse over all. The key to understand *how I look at it* is by seeing the principle that Jesus is using the elements involved in the 2nd Coming to explain how they are applied in his own generation. This is the way prophets most often operated, by using the backdrop of the "last things" to explain how the then-current generation should be operating.

    For example, saints in the OT era understood from the Prophets that the Age to Come would bring about a resolution to the problem of Israel surviving in a hostile, pagan world. Therefore, in light of this future hope they were to endure under the Law, maintaining righteousness until God finally brought about the destruction of their enemies. It was their hope in a promised future that encouraged them to keep on going in their own times, no matter how tough it got.

    It is the same thing with the Olivet Discourse, I believe. Jesus was asked about the future hope, in the light of the tough times he had just finished predicting. The temple would be destroyed. Jerusalem would be ravaged. And many Jews would not accept him--they would accept other Messiahs, but not him. They would continue on in their sin, and suffer for it.

    So Jesus used the promise of final judgment against his enemies to explain how his Disciples in his own generation should be operating. They should be living with the assumption that Israel would continue on in disobedience until the final judgment. Pagan nations would continue to assault the Jewish People. But just as Israel would be judged at the 2nd Coming so the temple would be destroyed in their own generation.

    And so, Jesus described the certainty of the temple's desolation in the context of the 2nd Coming. They both would ensure judgment until the final salvation would take place, at the end of the age. That is my explanation, and that is how I see it, brother.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,171

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post

    And so, Jesus described the certainty of the temple's desolation in the context of the 2nd Coming. They both would ensure judgment until the final salvation
    would take place, at the end of the age. That is my explanation, and that is how I see it, brother.
    Your view of the "backdrop" of prophecy does not override the second coming context of verse 36, neither does it override logic.
    Logic is that the generation that follows or experiences ALL those events up until verse 36 has to be the second coming generation because the earlier generation did actually pass away before all those things up until v36 occurred:
    v36 "this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened" _________________________ Think about it!

    Despite your analysis of the "backdrop" of prophecy, your overview still does not specifically deal with the logic and context of the words "this generation" in Matthew 24:36.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,871

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    Your view of the "backdrop" of prophecy does not override the second coming context of verse 36, neither does it override logic.
    Logic is that the generation that follows or experiences ALL those events up until verse 36 has to be the second coming generation because the earlier generation did actually pass away before all those things up until v36 occurred:
    v36 "this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened" _________________________ Think about it!

    Despite your analysis of the "backdrop" of prophecy, your overview still does not specifically deal with the logic and context of the words "this generation" in Matthew 24:36.
    Again, Jesus is talking not just about A but also about B. A is the destruction of the temple. B is the 2nd Coming of Christ. So Jesus is talking firstly and primarily about the destruction of the temple (A). He says, definitively, that the temple would be destroyed in *this generation,* that is, in *his own* generation. He says this on the authority of Dan 9.26-27 and on his own authority. According to Daniel, the temple would be "desolated" immediately after the 70 Weeks are fulfilled with the "cutting off" of the Messiah.

    And so, Jesus positively identified the desolation, or the "abomination of desolation," in his own generation, following his death. But having been asked also about his 2nd Coming he immediately follows by asserting that that day, by contrast, could not be known by Man. It was a day reserved for the Father's knowledge only. This makes it crystal clear that Jesus was talking not just about one thing, but about two things. He was talking about the desolation of Jerusalem, which was a known time, and his 2nd Coming, which was an unknown time. One would positively take place in "this generation," whereas the other would *not* take place in "this generation." Rather, it would take place *following* the AoD in a future time, following the Jewish Diaspora, as Luke 21 so clearly outlines.

    I don't know why you say I don't deal with the logic of this, or with the fact that Jesus deals with 2 subjects, and not just 1? I've said this repeatedly--it is simply rejected out of hand, without any consideration. Perhaps it just doesn't make sense to you? But that makes me wonder why, because it makes perfect sense to me! Maybe you are just unable to look at it without reverting back to your preferred view of it? Please try harder to look at this in an unbiased way? I think you will be very surprised!

    Matt 24.
    30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earthwill mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. 31 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.
    32 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

    Verse 30 is talking about B, the 2nd Coming. Verse 32 reverts back to the original item, A, the desolation of the temple. Verse 36 then compares the predictability of the "day" of Christ's Coming with the predictability of the "generation" in which the temple will be desolated. One is predictable, and one is not.

    Again, these 2 events, A and B, are being *compared.* One will take place in "this generation," and the other takes place in a *future generation,* following the Jewish Diaspora of the NT age. One is predicted to take place in the immediate generation. The other event *cannot* take place in the immediate generation, but will rather take place in a future generation, on an unknown day. Nothing could be clearer to me.

    Jesus is speaking of 2 events, but had been predicting only 1 event. He was asked how the event he was predicting compared with the other event. And so Jesus dealt primarily with the desolation of Jerusalem, and then compared it with the 2nd Coming. Both events would mean judgment. Both events would not be anticipated by the ungodly. The believers in Jesus were required to anticipate both events, to escape the one by fleeing, and to escape the other by putting their faith in Jesus.

    I do think the major problem here is in the recognition that the Main Subject is the prediction of the Desolation of the Temple, which took place in Jesus' generation. When you see it this way, references to the 2nd Coming become a matter of comparing this to the 70 AD event, rather than a separate prophecy and a separate focus. The tendency to look at the 2nd Coming as the Main Focus is what destroys the sense of what Jesus is saying, which is that the desolation of the temple will take place in the very generation of his apostles. This will mean judgment, and not salvation, for the Jewish People, just as the 2nd Coming will mean judgment *before* the salvation of Israel. The 2nd Coming, then, becomes a "backdrop" for the Main Prophecy, which is the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. By contrast, the 2nd Coming is a far off, future event to take place on an unknown day.

    I can confidently say that the Main Subject was the prediction of the temple in Jesus' generation because the Olivet Discourse *begins* with this prophecy. The Disciples introduced the subject of the 2nd Coming, and wanted Jesus to compare the 2 events, which seemed incompatible with each other. Jesus made it plain that prophecy of the 2nd Coming can be an unhealthy indulgence, when men try to predict that day. The more important focus was on the present generation, because that is when we actually prepare our lives to meet judgment. We prepare by choosing to live righteous lives--now, and not just before the judgments to come!

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,171

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Again, Jesus is talking not just about A but also about B. A is the destruction of the temple. B is the 2nd Coming of Christ. So Jesus is talking firstly and primarily about the destruction of the temple (A). He says, definitively, that the temple would be destroyed in *this generation,* that is, in *his own* generation. He says this on the authority of Dan 9.26-27 and on his own authority. According to Daniel, the temple would be "desolated" immediately after the 70 Weeks are fulfilled with the "cutting off" of the Messiah. And so, Jesus positively identified the desolation, or the "abomination of desolation," in his own generation, following his death.
    In these comments you state that Jesus "says, definitively, that the temple would be destroyed in *this generation,* that is, in *his own* generation". If he did say that definitively, then you have won your case already. It makes no sense to start building your case as if your case was already won. A very illogical start
    And to use a further debatable point, that the abomination was in the first century as proof of your position without acknowledging that this point is oft debated also makes no sense. You have failed to prove that point repeatedly in other threads, so it is completely illogical to assume that point is concluded when you know it is not concluded between us. You need to build that case all over again, and prove it beyond all reasonable doubt before you can use the first century abomination as a concluded fact. So also a very illogical start

    Let me assure you that Jesus used the phrase in second coming context, occurring after verse 29 and so he did not say "definitively, that the temple would be destroyed in *this generation,* that is, in *his own* generation." Bad start




    But having been asked also about his 2nd Coming he immediately follows by asserting that that day, by contrast, could not be known by Man. It was a day reserved for the Father's knowledge only. This makes it crystal clear that Jesus was talking not just about one thing, but about two things. He was talking about the desolation of Jerusalem, which was a known time, and his 2nd Coming, which was an unknown time. One would positively take place in "this generation," whereas the other would *not* take place in "this generation." Rather, it would take place *following* the AoD in a future time, following the Jewish Diaspora, as Luke 21 so clearly outlines.
    I always agree that Jesus was talking about two things, that is crystal clear. But you fail to prove your further conclusions. The first set of events did take place, and then in context of the SECOND set of events Jesus assures us that this generation will not pass away until they have witnessed the second coming. We know this because Jesus said:
    “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth[c] will mourn when they 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. 32 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it[e] is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.[/B]

    You may have noticed that the first century generation has actually passed away before all these things happened. Did you notice that? I noticed it.


    I don't know why you say I don't deal with the logic of this, or with the fact that Jesus deals with 2 subjects, and not just 1? I've said this repeatedly--it is simply rejected out of hand, without any consideration. Perhaps it just doesn't make sense to you? But that makes me wonder why, because it makes perfect sense to me! Maybe you are just unable to look at it without reverting back to your preferred view of it? Please try harder to look at this in an unbiased way? I think you will be very surprised!

    Matt 24.
    30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earthwill mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. 31 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.
    32 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

    Verse 30 is talking about B, the 2nd Coming. Verse 32 reverts back to the original item, A, the desolation of the temple. Verse 36 then compares the predictability of the "day" of Christ's Coming with the predictability of the "generation" in which the temple will be desolated. One is predictable, and one is not.

    Again, these 2 events, A and B, are being *compared.* One will take place in "this generation," and the other takes place in a *future generation,* following the Jewish Diaspora of the NT age. One is predicted to take place in the immediate generation. The other event *cannot* take place in the immediate generation, but will rather take place in a future generation, on an unknown day. Nothing could be clearer to me.

    Jesus is speaking of 2 events, but had been predicting only 1 event. He was asked how the event he was predicting compared with the other event. And so Jesus dealt primarily with the desolation of Jerusalem, and then compared it with the 2nd Coming. Both events would mean judgment. Both events would not be anticipated by the ungodly. The believers in Jesus were required to anticipate both events, to escape the one by fleeing, and to escape the other by putting their faith in Jesus.

    I do think the major problem here is in the recognition that the Main Subject is the prediction of the Desolation of the Temple, which took place in Jesus' generation. When you see it this way, references to the 2nd Coming become a matter of comparing this to the 70 AD event, rather than a separate prophecy and a separate focus. The tendency to look at the 2nd Coming as the Main Focus is what destroys the sense of what Jesus is saying, which is that the desolation of the temple will take place in the very generation of his apostles. This will mean judgment, and not salvation, for the Jewish People, just as the 2nd Coming will mean judgment *before* the salvation of Israel. The 2nd Coming, then, becomes a "backdrop" for the Main Prophecy, which is the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. By contrast, the 2nd Coming is a far off, future event to take place on an unknown day.

    I can confidently say that the Main Subject was the prediction of the temple in Jesus' generation because the Olivet Discourse *begins* with this prophecy. The Disciples introduced the subject of the 2nd Coming, and wanted Jesus to compare the 2 events, which seemed incompatible with each other. Jesus made it plain that prophecy of the 2nd Coming can be an unhealthy indulgence, when men try to predict that day. The more important focus was on the present generation, because that is when we actually prepare our lives to meet judgment. We prepare by choosing to live righteous lives--now, and not just before the judgments to come!
    I do now see that the debate regarding the abomination has become more central to this discussion, something which I didn't think was necessary before. "All these things" may be difficult for you to apply to just the signs in the sky and second coming as the end-times portion. However you still do not deal with the fact that the first generation actually did pass away before all these things were completed, and to exclude the second coming from "all these things" makes no sense when the second coming is part of a long list of events.

    To emphasize that you regard the second coming as just an aside mention , I believe you take even your own view too far when you say "Jesus made it plain that prophecy of the 2nd Coming can be an unhealthy indulgence". Way too far. Even per your view, Matthew 24: 29-45 and Matthew 25:1-45 deal with the second coming (excluding maybe 24:32-35). Which means 57 verses on the second coming, as opposed to 29 verses on the first century as per your own view. (assuming you see Matthew 25 as the Olivet discourse, and concerns the second coming). So this is certainly no "unhealthy indulgence". The second coming is undeniably a central theme of Jesus' words in Matthew 24 and Matthew 25 and so to deny that "all these things" can apply to the second coming makes little logical sense.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,871

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    In these comments you state that Jesus "says, definitively, that the temple would be destroyed in *this generation,* that is, in *his own* generation". If he did say that definitively, then you have won your case already. It makes no sense to start building your case as if your case was already won. A very illogical start
    And to use a further debatable point, that the abomination was in the first century as proof of your position without acknowledging that this point is oft debated also makes no sense. You have failed to prove that point repeatedly in other threads, so it is completely illogical to assume that point is concluded when you know it is not concluded between us. You need to build that case all over again, and prove it beyond all reasonable doubt before you can use the first century abomination as a concluded fact. So also a very illogical start

    Let me assure you that Jesus used the phrase in second coming context, occurring after verse 29 and so he did not say "definitively, that the temple would be destroyed in *this generation,* that is, in *his own* generation." Bad start :
    Aw, don't look at it this way. I'm well aware that I'm asserting things that you believe are mere assertions. The point I wish to make by doing this is laying out that these things are, in fact, stated, and if taken at face value do prove the point.

    For example, "this generation" does say "this generation." And if taken at face value, "this generation" would mean "this literal generation." And although I readily admit, and have admitted, that what the AoD is is hotly debated, my point is that the AoD is recognized, by the Church Fathers, as originating in the 70 Weeks prophecy, and thus, likely is the thing they believe is being talked about in the Olivet Discourse. In this case, it is logical to assume the Church Fathers viewed the AoD as fulfilled in the 70 AD destruction of the temple. And this is, in fact, the case.

    The simple reality is, not a whole lot more evidence is present to prove my point. It really matters how you begin your arguments and the assumptions you begin with. I'm just pointing out that there are justified reasons to begin with the assumptions I'm applying. I'm not asking you to agree. I'm asking you to understand.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    I always agree that Jesus was talking about two things, that is crystal clear. But you fail to prove your further conclusions. The first set of events did take place, and then in context of the SECOND set of events Jesus assures us that this generation will not pass away until they have witnessed the second coming. We know this because Jesus said:
    “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth[c] will mourn when they 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. 32 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it[e] is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.[/B]
    This is completely illogical, unless you cut this section out and separate it from the rest of the Discourse. As you cut it out, this section does *sound* like what you're saying, that "this generation" has to do with the 2nd Coming. And many have been befuddled and disturbed by such an apparent failed prophecy from Jesus! Many, like Albert Schweitzer came to just this kind of conclusion, that Jesus certainly was talking about expectation of his return within his own generation. Thus, Jesus was mistaken.

    But if you look at the entire Discourse a different picture emerges. I don't have a lot of time right now, but there are 2 things I'd like you to consider here, if you will? 1) Jesus had been comparing the events of his own generation with the event of his 2nd Coming, and was discussing their time frame. He was saying that the events of his own generation would be like the leafing of the trees in Spring, heralding the coming of the Kingdom, which instead of producing fruit would produce barrenness and judgment.

    2) Jesus reiterated the events of his own generation in the midst of discussing the day of the 2nd Coming because he was showing the indestructible nature of Israel throughout the age, following the collapse of Jerusalem. Though Israel would suffer dispersion and judgment throughout the NT age, God's word would be an unbreakable covenant with Israel, ensuring that at the Coming of Messiah Israel would not be utterly destroyed.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    You may have noticed that the first century generation has actually passed away before all these things happened. Did you notice that? I noticed it.
    That wasn't the point Jesus was making, in my view. He was saying that the Main Event, the fall of Jerusalem, would take place within his own generation, including the signs that presage that event.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    I do now see that the debate regarding the abomination has become more central to this discussion, something which I didn't think was necessary before. "All these things" may be difficult for you to apply to just the signs in the sky and second coming as the end-times portion. However you still do not deal with the fact that the first generation actually did pass away before all these things were completed, and to exclude the second coming from "all these things" makes no sense when the second coming is part of a long list of events.
    Wrong. This was not difficult for me to apply "all these things" to the signs in the sky because that's how I used to apply them. In other words, I used to hold to your view. I'm well beyond that now. And I wish you were too, because after an adjustment in perspective, which is substantial, it became clear to me. But testimonials do little in convincing anybody!

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    To emphasize that you regard the second coming as just an aside mention , I believe you take even your own view too far when you say "Jesus made it plain that prophecy of the 2nd Coming can be an unhealthy indulgence". Way too far. Even per your view, Matthew 24: 29-45 and Matthew 25:1-45 deal with the second coming (excluding maybe 24:32-35). Which means 57 verses on the second coming, as opposed to 29 verses on the first century as per your own view. (assuming you see Matthew 25 as the Olivet discourse, and concerns the second coming). So this is certainly no "unhealthy indulgence". The second coming is undeniably a central theme of Jesus' words in Matthew 24 and Matthew 25 and so to deny that "all these things" can apply to the second coming makes little logical sense.
    My view is that the 2nd Coming is central in this passage, but not the Main Event being predicted. It is central as a comparison because Jesus indicated we are not to try to anticipate the times and the seasons with respect to eschatological prognostication. We are to live in our own time, doing due diligence.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Outside of the box. Where else?
    Posts
    18,004

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    1) Jesus had been comparing the events of his own generation with the event of his 2nd Coming, and was discussing their time frame. He was saying that the events of his own generation would be like the leafing of the trees in Spring, heralding the coming of the Kingdom, which instead of producing fruit would produce barrenness and judgment.
    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.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,871

    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.

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
  •