Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 130

Thread: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,952
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shimatoree66 View Post
    RandyK... I love your posts and the thoughtful diligence put into them!

    That said, I think you might be making the abomination that causes desolation more complicated than it has to be, hopefully you'll consider these points.

    Luke's writings, as I understand it, were mainly for the benefit of the gentile audience. For that reason, I believe he posited a different sign for them as they would have no understanding of Daniel's abomination which causes desolation.

    For example; I might tell a fellow Indiana University Basketball fan "Be sure to arrive before the William Tell Overture", however if I'm speaking to someone unfamiliar with the Indiana Basketball traditions, I would just say "Be sure to arrive before tip-off". The William Tell Overture and the opening tip-off are two totally different things, but I'm intimating basically the same point.

    The scriptural evidence is obviously key though, I think. At the beginning of Matt 23 Jesus says that the scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat, then at the end he tells those scribes and Pharisees "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate". In between Jesus outlines 7 woes unto the scribes and Pharisees, in which I think he makes it clear that they, themselves are the authors of their own desolation.
    The problem with such a view is that you have Luke writing things AS IF Jesus had said those words, even though Luke knew Jesus didn't say them.
    This is a false idea proposed with a desire to try to harmonise what CANNOT be harmonised in this way.

    You see, you as an individual can state the same thing different ways, but IF you are reporting what someone else said, then IF you report it as THEIR words then you need to give an explanation in addition to what you say that person said. However Luke does NOT do this.

    A further problem is that what Luke stated Jesus said would happen, did indeed happen in 66 AD, but this event did NOT match what Jesus stated in Matt 24.

    The AoD was something standing in the Holy Place, which scripture ALWAYS has as meaning the place in the Temple where the altar is and is just outside the Most Holy Place.
    Further the ECFs who claimed that the AoD occurred place that event as occurring in 70 AD and when they note how, mention a statue placed in the location of the Holy Place (though AFTER the Temple was destroyed.)

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,952
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    I agree with you the area around Jerusalem was holy which makes perfect sense as the Christians would have a chance to leave once the army retreated.
    The area around Jerusalem (OUTSIDE the city) was NOT known as being a Holy place.
    We know this for the simple reason of where Jesus was crucified.
    He was crucified OUTSIDE the city.
    Further OUTSIDE the city was also the valley of Hinom, which was the rubbish dump and definitely NOT holy.

    In scripture the phrase "the Holy Place" ONLY refers to the place INSIDE the Temple.
    So Luke 21:20 was seen as fulfilled in 66 AD, but Matt 24:15 was NOT.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,161

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Great question! I've had to do multiple threads on the OD because I've had detractors who obscure what I'm arguing, or those honestly confused about what I'm arguing. I'm not surprised because it has taken me 40 years to understand some of these things! And I'm excited to finally have a coherent view of this Discourse!

    Yes, there is no real concern that I have with a futurist view of this passage. Whether you look at it in a historicist way or in a futurist way, the lesson is the same. We must not believe false Christs who portray the Kingdom of God as presently on earth in a false way. Whether it was zealotry in the early Jewish church or cultism in our own day, we are not to believe false representations of God's Kingdom. Our main duty is not to prognosticate about the future, but rather, to keep our lives pure and righteous, prepared for the Kingdom.

    Beyond this I feel it would be extraordinarily helpful to Bible students to understand the historicist perspective. Since I have adopted this view, many other portions of Scripture have made more sense than ever before. For example, in understanding how the Assyrian and Babylonian judgments played a role in Israel's thinking, I now understand that the Roman judgment was intended to do exactly the same! I now read in the Assyrian and Babylonian judgments something that is much more reflective of NT realities, beginning in 70 AD!

    This is not just for the purpose of argument, or to satisfy my own need to talk endlessly on a single topic. Rather, it is something that I've dedicated my life to, and feel would be of benefit to you and to others, should you see things the way I do.
    I already do acknowledge some parts of the OD refer to 70AD, and so certainly it matches closely with the Assyrian and Babylonian judgements. But please again explain why going a step further and seeing this greater historical emphasis should make any difference to my walk of faith.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,865

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    I already do acknowledge some parts of the OD refer to 70AD, and so certainly it matches closely with the Assyrian and Babylonian judgements. But please again explain why going a step further and seeing this greater historical emphasis should make any difference to my walk of faith.
    There are numerous passages in the Bible on the Assyrian and Babylonian judgment of Israel. It helps to explain how this relates to the Roman judgment of Israel because the transition during the Roman period is integral to the expansion of the gospel to Gentile nations. Clearly, there was no expansion to Gentile nations during the Assyrian and Babylonian judgments. But in the Roman judgment Israel lost its place to Gentile nations.

    Let me just be clear here. I'm *not* an advocate of Replacement Theology. This is just what happened, and what Jesus said would happen. Israel was reduced to a mere believing remnant--just as the OT prophecies had indicated Israel would be reduced to a small remnant after judgment.

    Part of putting the whole picture together, therefore, is the matter of understanding how Jesus handled Jewish religion in the OT era. This is very well expressed in the Olivet Discourse when Jesus said the temple would be completely demolished, and Israel would be sent packing into other countries.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,952
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Here we read in hebrews about the Holy Place and the place OUTSIDE the city and that they are considered DIFFERENT by the authors of the NT.

    Heb 13:11 - 13 For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy place by the high priest as an offering for sin, are burned outside the camp. Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate. So, let us go out to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach.

    The above references Levitical law.
    OUTSIDE the camp and OUTSIDE the city are in this case synonymous and OUTSIDE the camp is NOT being INSIDE the Holy Place.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Pitt Meadows b.c.
    Posts
    4,967
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    The area around Jerusalem (OUTSIDE the city) was NOT known as being a Holy place.
    We know this for the simple reason of where Jesus was crucified.
    He was crucified OUTSIDE the city.
    Further OUTSIDE the city was also the valley of Hinom, which was the rubbish dump and definitely NOT holy.

    In scripture the phrase "the Holy Place" ONLY refers to the place INSIDE the Temple.
    So Luke 21:20 was seen as fulfilled in 66 AD, but Matt 24:15 was NOT.
    Revelation places outside of the city as a part of Jerusalem

    Revelation 11:8
    8 Their bodies will lie in the public square of the great city—which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt—where also their Lord was crucified.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,865

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    Revelation places outside of the city as a part of Jerusalem

    Revelation 11:8
    8 Their bodies will lie in the public square of the great city—which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt—where also their Lord was crucified.
    Whoa, I never saw that, Marty! Thanks for that!

    Beyond that I posted earlier on how "holy place" could be used, including in places *outside of* the temple itself. It is most certainly used most often in the OT of the temple, because that is where God dwelled among Israel under the Old Covenant. God's representative place of dwelling was in the Holy of Holies, within the temple. Adjacent to that was an area called the "Holy Place," which was holy by virtue of it being where the priests ministered to God, and by virtue of it being right next to the Holy of Holies, where God dwelled.

    Outside the temple, in the courtyard, were areas where the priests ministered. This also was called a "holy place" in the Scriptures, due to it being the place where priests ministered to God, and due to it being right next to the temple itself.

    Finally, places outside the temple were referred to as a holy territory as well, by virtue of it being right next to the courtyard of the temple. For example, in Ezekiel 40-48 there is a *holy acreage* around the temple area--holy by virtue of it containing the temple itself, and also by virtue of it being a place where the priests live as ministers of God.

    The city of Jerusalem itself is called the "holy city" because it contains the temple, as well. As you can see, an area in proximity to, or adjacent to, the temple area, where the priests ministered, was also called a "holy place."

    What is interesting is that when priests ministered to God they were often portrayed as "standing" before the Lord. But in the context of the Abomination of Desolation, we have an Army "standing" around the holy city, to desolate it. Thus, this was a different kind of "holy place." It was a place adjacent to the temple area, and adjacent to the holy city, where they were poised to destroy them both.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    6,613

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Where both Futurism and Full-Preterism miss the Olivet Discourse mark, is by both camps believing the Olivet is either 100% past-fulfilled, or 100% future-unfulfilled.

    Both of those camps miss the important fact that Jesus is asked "two" questions.
    One question is about near-events that were fulfilled in the first century (preteristic)
    and another question about far-events that wont be fulfilled until Jesus returns (futuristic).

    When one carefully examines the Olivet:
    Matt 10, 24, 25;
    Mark 13;
    Luke 17, 21;
    and John's entire Revelation Olivet;

    both times (preteristic and futuristic) are represented and explained.

    Far too many hardliners from either camp are unaware or unwilling to recognize this.

    "Two questions, about two events, from two time periods."...that's the harmonizing factor often missed.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    3,104
    Blog Entries
    69

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Taylor View Post
    Where both Futurism and Full-Preterism miss the Olivet Discourse mark, is by both camps believing the Olivet is either 100% past-fulfilled, or 100% future-unfulfilled.

    Both of those camps miss the important fact that Jesus is asked "two" questions.
    One question is about near-events that were fulfilled in the first century (preteristic)
    and another question about far-events that wont be fulfilled until Jesus returns (futuristic).

    When one carefully examines the Olivet:
    Matt 10, 24, 25;
    Mark 13;
    Luke 17, 21;
    and John's entire Revelation Olivet;

    both times (preteristic and futuristic) are represented and explained.

    Far too many hardliners from either camp are unaware or unwilling to recognize this.

    "Two questions, about two events, from two time periods."...that's the harmonizing factor often missed.

    I agree with your position.
    “A” cannot be “A” & not “A” at the same time.

    מקום כניעה סך הכל

  10. #25
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Clanton Alabama
    Posts
    1,040

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    There are a number of views of the Olivet Discourse, including Historicist, the Preterist, and the Futurist. The Historicist interpreter sees biblical prophecies as being already fulfilled. For example, if you believe Jesus, at his 1st Coming, fulfilled biblical prophecy, then you've indulged in an historicist interpretation.


    Others believe in Futurist interpretations. If you believe that Jesus is Coming Again a 2nd time then you've indulged in futurist interpretation.


    The Preterist is, in my opinion, too unorthodox, because he believes that most all of biblical prophecy has already been fulfilled, and very little future prophecy remains to be fulfilled. Most people have a combination of historicist and futurist interpretations. For example, most Christians believe that biblical prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus' 1st Coming, and will also be fulfilled in Jesus' 2nd Coming. Much less do people believe that virtually all biblical prophecy was fulfilled in the past.


    I believe in a combination of both historicist and futurist interpretations, but I want to focus in particular upon the Olivet Discourse, where these various interpretive systems really have a conflict. I would argue that most of the Early Church Fathers believed that the Olivet Discourse focused primarily on the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD as a sign of God's rejection of Jewish worship. The temple was completely destroyed.


    Luke 21.5 Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, 6 “As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down.”
    7 “Teacher,” they asked, “when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?”.....
    20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 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.....
    32 “Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."


    Jesus began the Discourse at the temple, where he declared straight out that the temple would be destroyed, stone by stone. And when asked *when* this event would take place he explained it would take place in his own generation. And so, the Church Fathers largely saw in the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem an historicist fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy.


    However, a couple of Church Fathers, Irenaeus and his disciple Hippolytus, saw in this same Discourse a prophecy of the coming Antichrist. This was the futurist interpretation. Although Antichrist himself is not named in Jesus' Olivet Discourse, Irenaeus assumed that this was talking about Antichrist, because he saw in the term "Abomination of Desolation" a picture of the Antichrist. (see Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.25.1-5)


    Since Irenaeus was a notable futurist interpreter of the Olivet Discourse, let's examine why he inserted Antichrist into this discussion. Let me just say that he saw in the term "Abomination of Desolation" the Antichrist because he saw a relationship between 2 Thessalonians 2 and Matthew 24. As the Abomination "stands in the Holy Place,"the Antichrist "sits in the temple of God." These two passages sound alike, but are not necessarily the same thing. However, Irenaeus thought so.


    Matthew 24.15 “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."
    2 Thess 2.4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.


    The Preterists, by contrast, see the Abomination of Desolation as historically fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. But they go much farther and refuse to accept a future Beast and and a future Antichrist, which is portrayed in the book of Revelation. These are portrayed as taking place in the last 3.5 years of the age in Revelation 13.


    They believe the Beast was fulfilled in the ancient Roman Empire. And they believe that the Antichrist was fulfilled in either Nero or in some other ruler in ancient history. Since Preterism was introduced by Alcasar in the early 17th century, it is not really an interpretation with a great depth of historical validation.


    As I said, most of the Church Fathers seemed to favor the historicist position, which I also take. And even the Preterists take some of this position. But the historicist position does not mean that there are no futurist elements in the Olivet Discourse. It only means that they see the primary focus of the Discourse, with respect to the Abomination of Desolation, to be the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Other elements in the Discourse remain future, such as the preaching of the gospel to all nations and the dispersion of the Jews into all nations. And of course, Christ comes the 2nd time to defeat the Antichrist.


    So let's take a look at how the Abomination of Desolation should be viewed, from an historicist perspective. 1st, the Abomination of Desolation contains the word "desolation," which corresponds to Jesus' description of the temple's desolation. Furthermore, since Jesus said this would take place in his own generation, this "desolation" could only have been the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.


    Secondly, Luke in ch. 21 explicitly declares that Jerusalem, in the process of being destroyed, would be encircled by armies. This is said in the same place in the Discourse where the other versions describe the Abomination of Desolation. Thus, the Abomination of Desolation is the encirclement of Jerusalem by armies.


    Matthew and Mark latched onto Jesus' words, the "Abomination of Deesolation," while Luke latched onto Jesus' description of the "encirclement of Jerusalem by armies." Jesus' actual discourse was likely much longer than we have recorded, and Jesus likely referred to both the Abomination of Desolation and the encirclement of Jerusalem by armies. But since the Abomination of Desolation and the encirclement of Jerusalem by armies take place in the exact same place in the Discourse, they likely referred to the same event.


    Thirdly, historicists would see a connection between the destruction of Jerusalem Jesus described and Daniel's description, in ch. 9, of the same. In Daniel 9 is the famous 70 Weeks Prophecy, which is fulfilled with the cutting off of Christ, and with the destruction of "the city and the sanctuary. And later he described it as the "Abomination of Desolation."


    However, there are several references to an Abomination of Desolation in Daniel. Some of these references seem to apply to Antiochus 4 of the 2nd century AD. Only one of these references refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in the time of Christ, and that is in Dan 9.


    And so, the Olivet Discourse appears to be Jesus' version of the 70 Weeks Prophecy in Daniel 9, identifying the Abomination of Desolation as the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. It is at that time, when Jerusalem is defeated by the Romans, that the period of great tribulation begins for the Jewish People, ending with the fulfillment of the "times of the Gentiles" at the end of the age. In the meantime, believers among the Jews initially, and later Christians from all nations, suffer in this tribulation, as they await the end of their gospel mission.


    There is concern about how the Abomination of Desolation can "stand in the holy place," and many have disagreed on exactly what the "abomination" is, and where it "stands?" I personally believe it is self-explanatory in Luke's version, and in Daniel 9 itself. It is the armies of Rome who stand against Jerusalem and the temple, encircling Jerusalem and laying siege against it, that identifies them as an "abomination" standing on the "holy outskirts" of Jerusalem.


    Some see the "Holy Place" here as the temple itself. But the armies initially surrounded Jerusalem in 66 AD, and withdrew, giving time for Christians to flee from the city and from the countryside. The actual destruction of the city took place later in 70 AD when a 2nd Army arrived in Jerusalem to destroy the city and the sanctuary.


    I see no need, however, to believe the "holy place" refers to the temple, even though that is the most common use of the term "holy place." Rather, an area adjacent to God's dwelling place can be viewed itself as a "holy place," and not strictly the area where God Himself sits.


    For example, the Holy Place inside the temple was adjacent to God's dwelling in the Holy of Holies. The courtyard of the priests was considered a "holy place" because it was adjacent to the temple. And Jerusalem itself is considered the "holy city" because it is the city surrounding the temple courtyard and the temple itself.


    So I would ask, why wouldn't the area around Jerusalem be considered holy if it is adjacent to the holy city? In fact these armies are described by Jesus as "standing in the holy place" when they lay siege to Jerusalem. So it must be that the holy place is the territory in the vicinity of Jerusalem from which an army can attack.
    Matt. 24:1-6 = 70 AD........Matt. 24:7-14 = The Church Age........Matt. 24:15-31 = The Tribulation/Second Coming........Matt. 24:36-51 = Rapture.


    I don't think the Sorrows have anything to do with the End Times, that means Birth Pangs and the Birth Pangs only Birth the End Times. The events in Matthew 24:7-14 have nothing to do with the Tribulation like many think, so we seem to agree there. However I do think the AoD is an end time event, I guess we differ there.

  11. #26

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    The problem with such a view is that you have Luke writing things AS IF Jesus had said those words, even though Luke knew Jesus didn't say them.
    This is a false idea proposed with a desire to try to harmonise what CANNOT be harmonised in this way.

    You see, you as an individual can state the same thing different ways, but IF you are reporting what someone else said, then IF you report it as THEIR words then you need to give an explanation in addition to what you say that person said. However Luke does NOT do this.

    A further problem is that what Luke stated Jesus said would happen, did indeed happen in 66 AD, but this event did NOT match what Jesus stated in Matt 24.

    The AoD was something standing in the Holy Place, which scripture ALWAYS has as meaning the place in the Temple where the altar is and is just outside the Most Holy Place.
    Further the ECFs who claimed that the AoD occurred place that event as occurring in 70 AD and when they note how, mention a statue placed in the location of the Holy Place (though AFTER the Temple was destroyed.)
    I'm not sure I understand? I think Jesus did say what Luke reported as well as what Matthew reported. Then they each delivered the message as it pertained to their respective audience.

    Do you think that Matt 24 and Luke 21 are talking about different events? If so, that is something that I should maybe consider. It seemed plain to me before that they were talking about the same thing, but maybe I jumped to a hasty conclusion. It's easy to get stuck reading something over and over the same way, and I have certainly been guilty of this before. Tomorrow, I will clear my head of presuppositions and give the pertinent chapters another look with fresh eyes.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,865

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Taylor View Post
    Where both Futurism and Full-Preterism miss the Olivet Discourse mark, is by both camps believing the Olivet is either 100% past-fulfilled, or 100% future-unfulfilled.

    Both of those camps miss the important fact that Jesus is asked "two" questions.
    One question is about near-events that were fulfilled in the first century (preteristic)
    and another question about far-events that wont be fulfilled until Jesus returns (futuristic).

    When one carefully examines the Olivet:
    Matt 10, 24, 25;
    Mark 13;
    Luke 17, 21;
    and John's entire Revelation Olivet;

    both times (preteristic and futuristic) are represented and explained.

    Far too many hardliners from either camp are unaware or unwilling to recognize this.

    "Two questions, about two events, from two time periods."...that's the harmonizing factor often missed.
    We may not agree on all things here, but this was certainly well said! Thanks!

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,865

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revelation Man View Post
    Matt. 24:1-6 = 70 AD........Matt. 24:7-14 = The Church Age........Matt. 24:15-31 = The Tribulation/Second Coming........Matt. 24:36-51 = Rapture.


    I don't think the Sorrows have anything to do with the End Times, that means Birth Pangs and the Birth Pangs only Birth the End Times. The events in Matthew 24:7-14 have nothing to do with the Tribulation like many think, so we seem to agree there. However I do think the AoD is an end time event, I guess we differ there.
    That's okay. I need to test my views against all concerns. My brother offered me some thoughts as possible counter-arguments. I'll post them next.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,161

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    There are numerous passages in the Bible on the Assyrian and Babylonian judgment of Israel. It helps to explain how this relates to the Roman judgment of Israel because the transition during the Roman period is integral to the expansion of the gospel to Gentile nations. Clearly, there was no expansion to Gentile nations during the Assyrian and Babylonian judgments. But in the Roman judgment Israel lost its place to Gentile nations.

    Let me just be clear here. I'm *not* an advocate of Replacement Theology. This is just what happened, and what Jesus said would happen. Israel was reduced to a mere believing remnant--just as the OT prophecies had indicated Israel would be reduced to a small remnant after judgment.

    Part of putting the whole picture together, therefore, is the matter of understanding how Jesus handled Jewish religion in the OT era. This is very well expressed in the Olivet Discourse when Jesus said the temple would be completely demolished, and Israel would be sent packing into other countries.
    I can agree with all of that. Let me try again to clarify my question.
    Many futurists see some reference to the 70AD destruction of the temple in the Olivet Discourse. So we can therefore agree with you on your comparisons with the previous judgments on Israel and also some change in status of Israel at that point. Our debate is merely one of emphasis because even your view recognises the second coming in much of Matthew 24 and most of Matthew 25. Normally in these discussions it is a simple agree to disagree after a month or so of discussion.

    Why over such a small issue as to the emphasis of the OD, do you feel motivated to keep debating this particular topic more than other topics?

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    5,896

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarkos View Post
    I have to disagree with 70 AD being a blip, it was a major event. The Temple of which Jesus said « your house » was build after the 70 years of exile of Judah and Benjamin, mentioned in Dan. 9:2, so by divine command. The reason He called it « your house » is because of the apostasy of Israel. He did see it to be God's house when He was kicking out the changers of money and the like « And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise », John 2:16.

    What you call a blip has had and still has major consequences for the whole word. The Kingdom of Heaven that Christ came to establish, is refused twice, first in the Gospels, then in the Acts. The result is 2000 years of misery, suffering and what not. His second coming is postponed because of it, the dispensation changed, the powers of the coming aion ceased (Heb. 6:5) and with it the coming of that aion. So no blip.

    Aristarkos
    We all have a view of the matter. To one, 70 AD is fulfillment of pages of the Bible. To another it does not come near to say, the flood of Noah, the Exodus and its wonders, Joshua's conquest of Canaan, the building of Solomon's Temple, David's reign, Elijah's activities and of course the birth, life and death of our Lord Jesus. In 70 AD a city under curse, and a Temple declared "desolate" by the Living God Himself, and a few million Israelites, also under the curses of the Law are destroyed. It was just the last small event marking the end of a people and a nation that had had all the advantages of God in their midst.

    70 AD did not mark the rejection of the Kingdom. That happened when Israel attributed our Lord's ministry as driven by Beelzebub - some 43 years earlier. And whether 70 AD happened or not, the Lord had withdrawn Himself to the Father's throne anyway to direct the building of His Church. 70 AD is tragedy for the last remnants of Israel, but has no bearing on world history.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. The Olivet Discourse
    By The Lion and his lamb in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 127
    Last Post: Nov 18th 2015, 12:26 AM
  2. Information A Historicist View of the Church Age
    By Cyberseeker in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: Jun 2nd 2015, 08:56 PM
  3. Another view of the Olivet Discourse
    By sudds in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Jan 18th 2011, 04:59 PM
  4. Discussion The Olivet Discourse
    By Searcher1 in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: Apr 15th 2009, 02:18 PM
  5. Information The Olivet Discourse
    By markedward in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: Jun 11th 2008, 03:19 PM

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
  •