Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789
Results 121 to 130 of 130

Thread: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,490

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I wish you would focus less on trying to "persuade," and spend more time on trying to "understand!" We do not have to agree. But we should be able to understand our respective positions. You act as if you have to endlessly repeat arguments that I don't understand. But I *do* understand your position.

    I will once again try to explain my responses to your positions, not to *persuade you,* but rather, to *explain to you.* I really, really have in fact responded, point by point, to your positions. And if you understand this, you will not have to repeat your positions ad nauseum. I don't, of course, mind if you want to reassert your views. It just won't be necessary to repeat them with me, if you know I already understand.
    t's infuriating to me that when I argue these points, regarding the Great Distress, my position is regularly ignored, and instead, replaced with a version of the Great Distress that I *do not agree with!* If you are arguing a point with me, please acknowledge that I *do not* hold to the idea that the Great Distress is the 66-70 AD period of Distress when the Romans attacked, and eventually destroyed, Jerusalem.
    Infuriating? Ad nauseam? You requested that we take things slowly and repetitively. You took a very long time to realise my view on the "local distress" and so should allow me the same leeway. You said this to me: What I'm noticing is that you're beginning to lose your patience. I commonly find this happening when someone is losing an argument. If you wish me to take your arguments seriously, and not as a contentious argument, then please calm down.
    If you don't want to take things slowly, and repetitively, we can end the discussion right here? I have no wish to develop hostile relations with you, on any subject that causes division.


    Could you kindly give me patience as I gave you?

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,813

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    Infuriating? Ad nauseam? You requested that we take things slowly and repetitively. You took a very long time to realise my view on the "local distress" and so should allow me the same leeway. You said this to me: What I'm noticing is that you're beginning to lose your patience. I commonly find this happening when someone is losing an argument. If you wish me to take your arguments seriously, and not as a contentious argument, then please calm down.
    If you don't want to take things slowly, and repetitively, we can end the discussion right here? I have no wish to develop hostile relations with you, on any subject that causes division.


    Could you kindly give me patience as I gave you?
    Brother, I have *great problem* with patience! Sorry if my rhetoric is tactless. I lack tact, I lack patience, and I lack all kinds of Christian virtues. I've felt judged by God most of my life. But I also feel loved of God all of my life. This is a strange contrast, but it appears to be the truth. Grace is king...

    I feel so distressed that I cannot exchange contrasting ideas with some brothers here, who I really respect. It really comes down to how much self-control we can exercise. None of us have it completely. Some of us have it more than others. I really do want to be among those who have more virtue! God help us all!

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,490

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Brother, I have *great problem* with patience! Sorry if my rhetoric is tactless. I lack tact, I lack patience, and I lack all kinds of Christian virtues. I've felt judged by God most of my life. But I also feel loved of God all of my life. This is a strange contrast, but it appears to be the truth. Grace is king...

    I feel so distressed that I cannot exchange contrasting ideas with some brothers here, who I really respect. It really comes down to how much self-control we can exercise. None of us have it completely. Some of us have it more than others. I really do want to be among those who have more virtue! God help us all!
    I respect that, but then you expect more from me than you are able to do. Which isn't too cool. You said: "If you don't want to take things slowly, and repetitively, we can end the discussion right here?I have no wish to develop hostile relations with you, on any subject that causes division. "

    Anyway I will continue the chat soon when I get more time.

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,490

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    This message in Matt 24.9-14 contain the exact same truths as contained in Luke 21, which you admit has to do with the Jews' tribulation in the land and suffering under the Romans.

    As I've said before, 1) the persecution of Jewish believers, 2) their martyrdom, and 3) their suffering of international hostility are all the *same things* expressed in Luke 21.

    12 “But before all this, they will seize you and persecute you. They will hand you over to synagogues and put you in prison, and you will be brought before kings and governors, and all on account of my name. 13 And so you will bear testimony to me. 14 But make up your mind not to worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves. 15 For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict. 16 You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers and sisters, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death. 17 Everyone will hate you because of me. 18 But not a hair of your head will perish. 19 Stand firm, and you will win life."

    These are the same exact words that are recorded in Matthew 24 and Mark 13! Any differences are negligible, and are the products of paraphrasing.

    Mark 13.9 “You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues. On account of me you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them. 10 And the gospel must first be preached to all nations. 11 Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit.
    12 “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 13 Everyone will hate you because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved."

    You are trying to distinguish Luke 21 from Matt 24 and Mark 13, but I find them saying *the exact same things!* There are none of the distinguishing factors that provide the basis for your claims!


    Luke speaks synonymously of the same thing, although couched in different terms. He speaks of believers having to witness to Christ *before kings.* This is an international proclamation of the gospel, which the early apostles of Jesus engaged in!

    Again, Luke's version is not substantially different than Matt 24 or Mar 13, where an "international gospel" is being preached. This is the "testimony before kings" that the early apostles initially engaged in, and which continues through the Church until the end of the age. All versions speak of a continuing process leading to the end of the age.
    Sure all 3 gospels refer to a time of preaching which is to expand until the gospel has reached "the whole world" and "all nations" (Mtt 24:9 and Mtt 24:14). Jesus was warning believers through the ages what they are to endure and how to handle it. I completely agree the Luke account largely matches the other accounts.Up until this point there is no mention of any Roman War, diaspora, abomination, GT or second coming.

    It's infuriating to me that when I argue these points, regarding the Great Distress, my position is regularly ignored, and instead, replaced with a version of the Great Distress that I *do not agree with!* If you are arguing a point with me, please acknowledge that I *do not* hold to the idea that the Great Distress is the 66-70 AD period of Distress when the Romans attacked, and eventually destroyed, Jerusalem.

    My view is, and has been, for some time, that the Great Distress actually *began with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.* It is a Distress that is called a GREAT Distress because it extends from 70 AD to the end of the age. It is the *Jewish Diaspora.*

    So I'm not comparing the Distress of 70 AD with a different Distress at the end of the age. Rather, my sense of the Great Distress ends at the end of the age, just as yours does. It just *begins* in 70 AD, and ends at the return of Christ. It is a *very long* Distress!

    Our beginning point of the Great Distress is different. I see the GD as a Jewish judgment that lasts throughout the age. You see the GD as a Christian persecution under Antichrist.
    I do hear you that you believe there is just one OD distress which is a lot longer than just the Roman War, and includes the diaspora, but I do not see your view in the text. In Luke 21 the Roman War is referred to "in the land", and then the beginning of the diaspora is mentioned. The wording of Luke 21:24 does not mention ANY further distress in the nations for Israel, and neither do the other OD accounts.

    You say that "I see the Jewish Punishment as also implicating Christian persecution". I believe the OD does no such thing. The distress/punishment of Luke 21 specifically relates to death and captivity of unsaved Israel. The church escapes these two punishments by escaping to Perea. As for Christian persecutions mentioned elsewhere in the OD, not one of them is in context of a "Jewish punishment".

    How often the "whole world" is used in a certain way is irrelevant. It is always *context* that rules. The sense of the whole world is relevant in the Olivet Discourse, regardless of whether it is applying in the Roman world of the 1st century, or the whole world at the end of the age. They are both involved in one way or another.
    Words can be better understood through common usage. Common usage and the combined use of two terms "the whole world" and "all nations" creates a modern church context in the verses leading up to the abomination and distress. We can happily agree to disagree.

    I don't presuppose that "everything Jesus said had to do with a future generation", I recognise some history in the OD. We seem to disagree on the modern church emphasis of two verses, being Mtt 24:9 and Matt 24:14 which creates future context for the abomination in v15, and I disagree that there is any Roman war or diaspora theme outside of Luke 21:20-24, I am still awaiting your proof verses of that.

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,813

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    Sure all 3 gospels refer to a time of preaching which is to expand until the gospel has reached "the whole world" and "all nations" (Mtt 24:9 and Mtt 24:14). Jesus was warning believers through the ages what they are to endure and how to handle it. I completely agree the Luke account largely matches the other accounts.Up until this point there is no mention of any Roman War, diaspora, abomination, GT or second coming.

    I do hear you that you believe there is just one OD distress which is a lot longer than just the Roman War, and includes the diaspora, but I do not see your view in the text. In Luke 21 the Roman War is referred to "in the land", and then the beginning of the diaspora is mentioned. The wording of Luke 21:24 does not mention ANY further distress in the nations for Israel, and neither do the other OD accounts.

    You say that "I see the Jewish Punishment as also implicating Christian persecution". I believe the OD does no such thing. The distress/punishment of Luke 21 specifically relates to death and captivity of unsaved Israel. The church escapes these two punishments by escaping to Perea. As for Christian persecutions mentioned elsewhere in the OD, not one of them is in context of a "Jewish punishment".

    Words can be better understood through common usage. Common usage and the combined use of two terms "the whole world" and "all nations" creates a modern church context in the verses leading up to the abomination and distress. We can happily agree to disagree.

    I don't presuppose that "everything Jesus said had to do with a future generation", I recognise some history in the OD. We seem to disagree on the modern church emphasis of two verses, being Mtt 24:9 and Matt 24:14 which creates future context for the abomination in v15, and I disagree that there is any Roman war or diaspora theme outside of Luke 21:20-24, I am still awaiting your proof verses of that.
    Matt 24.9 Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me.
    Matt 24.4 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.


    These 2 verses can be seen in 2 different ways. They are either looked at in the historicist sense, or in the futurist sense. You are seeing this in the futurist sense because you are looking at the totality of NT history, and seeing in retrospect how these things have been fulfilled. You've seen the progress of the Gospel mission, and the birth of many Christian nations, as well as the birth of many individual Christians among the nations. And you've seen Christians regularly persecuted both within and outside of Christian nations, because there are hostile people everywhere who want to defend a more pagan culture.

    But you can also see this in the historicist sense. We've seen how the apostles themselves witnessed in Israel, and then went out into the nations. There they were dragged before kings, and were persecuted as dissidents or even as rebels. This became the fulfillment of their own personal experience of "preaching the gospel to all nations."

    So it really depends on how you want to read it, as the personal experience of the apostles, or as the historical outcome of this early ministry. I prefer to see this from the historicist perspective, because the focus is on the experience of the apostles. Only after establishing this are we to see a continuation of the same, by implication, for the remainder of the age.

    The time frame belongs to the apostles themselves, as the focus is on their experience. But the time frame expands by implication because the end of this process is the end of the age and the beginning of the Kingdom. So between the experience of the apostles and the end of the age we may assume that the same experience the apostles had continues throughout the age.

    But from my perspective, the main focus is on the experience of the apostles. Very little detail is given to the age as a whole, except by way of implication. It is merely implied that what the apostles experienced will continue with the Church until the end of the age.

    But the futurist position looks at this in reverse, and sees all detail given to the historical Church, instead of the apostles' experience. And the specific detail and focus of the events are attributed to the final generation instead of to the experience of the apostles. I find this the exact opposite of the way I read it.

    As far as my understanding of how the Great Distress applies simultaneously to Jewish Punishment as to Christian persecution, this also involves how you read it. If you read the Great Distress as exactly the same thing for both Jews and Christians then obviously we have a problem. Christians do not experience punishment at the same time Jews go through punishment. This is true--I just don't define the Great Distress as applying to the Jews and to the Church in the same way.

    I apply the Great Distress as a Jewish Punishment. But the Jews who are Christians obviously are not punished at this time. However, they are persecuted at this time. So I see the *era* of Great Distress as the same *era* in which Jewish believers are persecuted. While the unbelieving Jews are suffering a Jewish Punishment, the believing Jews are suffering in the same *time period,* and in the same circumstances. However, they are suffering for righteousness, while the unbelievers are suffering for their wrongs. Those who are suffering for their wrongs persecute the believers because they oppose the Christian idea of what is right, and thus seek to justify themselves.

    And this is how Christians and nonChristians suffer in the same era of punishment. While one is punished for their crimes, the righteous are persecuted by those who are being punished. This was a process that began among the Jews, and is what Jesus specifically referred to. But it is to be assumed that the process continues throughout the history of the Christian Church, in all of the nations into which the Christian Gospel spreads.

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,490

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Matt 24.9 Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me.
    Matt 24.4 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.


    These 2 verses can be seen in 2 different ways. They are either looked at in the historicist sense, or in the futurist sense. You are seeing this in the futurist sense because you are looking at the totality of NT history, and seeing in retrospect how these things have been fulfilled. You've seen the progress of the Gospel mission, and the birth of many Christian nations, as well as the birth of many individual Christians among the nations. And you've seen Christians regularly persecuted both within and outside of Christian nations, because there are hostile people everywhere who want to defend a more pagan culture.

    But you can also see this in the historicist sense. We've seen how the apostles themselves witnessed in Israel, and then went out into the nations. There they were dragged before kings, and were persecuted as dissidents or even as rebels. This became the fulfillment of their own personal experience of "preaching the gospel to all nations."

    So it really depends on how you want to read it, as the personal experience of the apostles, or as the historical outcome of this early ministry. I prefer to see this from the historicist perspective, because the focus is on the experience of the apostles. Only after establishing this are we to see a continuation of the same, by implication, for the remainder of the age.

    The time frame belongs to the apostles themselves, as the focus is on their experience. But the time frame expands by implication because the end of this process is the end of the age and the beginning of the Kingdom. So between the experience of the apostles and the end of the age we may assume that the same experience the apostles had continues throughout the age.

    But from my perspective, the main focus is on the experience of the apostles. Very little detail is given to the age as a whole, except by way of implication. It is merely implied that what the apostles experienced will continue with the Church until the end of the age.

    But the futurist position looks at this in reverse, and sees all detail given to the historical Church, instead of the apostles' experience. And the specific detail and focus of the events are attributed to the final generation instead of to the experience of the apostles. I find this the exact opposite of the way I read it.
    Yes that portion of the OD certainly does have some application to the recorded Acts of the apostles, so I do not see this portion of the OD strictly in a futurist sense. Nevertheless the primary meaning of v14 has an obvious clarity about it, which I see as creating an end-times context for the abomination in the very next verse: COLOR="#FF0000"]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. “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation[/COLOR]

    I think we have both clarified our view on the context of v14 leading up to v15, and remain in disagreement, thanks for expressing your view.



    As far as my understanding of how the Great Distress applies simultaneously to Jewish Punishment as to Christian persecution, this also involves how you read it. If you read the Great Distress as exactly the same thing for both Jews and Christians then obviously we have a problem. Christians do not experience punishment at the same time Jews go through punishment. This is true--I just don't define the Great Distress as applying to the Jews and to the Church in the same way.

    I apply the Great Distress as a Jewish Punishment. But the Jews who are Christians obviously are not punished at this time. However, they are persecuted at this time. So I see the *era* of Great Distress as the same *era* in which Jewish believers are persecuted. While the unbelieving Jews are suffering a Jewish Punishment, the believing Jews are suffering in the same *time period,* and in the same circumstances. However, they are suffering for righteousness, while the unbelievers are suffering for their wrongs. Those who are suffering for their wrongs persecute the believers because they oppose the Christian idea of what is right, and thus seek to justify themselves.

    And this is how Christians and nonChristians suffer in the same era of punishment. While one is punished for their crimes, the righteous are persecuted by those who are being punished. This was a process that began among the Jews, and is what Jesus specifically referred to. But it is to be assumed that the process continues throughout the history of the Christian Church, in all of the nations into which the Christian Gospel spreads.
    Luke 21:24 mentions just the START of the diaspora , I am still waiting for ANY scriptural indication that the ongoing diaspora is even in mind in the OD. The distresses are linked to other events, but not linked to the diaspora in the OD. You are linking them in the above narrative but scripture does not.

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,813

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    Yes that portion of the OD certainly does have some application to the recorded Acts of the apostles, so I do not see this portion of the OD strictly in a futurist sense. Nevertheless the primary meaning of v14 has an obvious clarity about it, which I see as creating an end-times context for the abomination in the very next verse: COLOR="#FF0000"]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. “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation[/COLOR]

    I think we have both clarified our view on the context of v14 leading up to v15, and remain in disagreement, thanks for expressing your view.
    You're welcome. And I would reinforce my argument that it really, really depends on how you define the "testimony of the gospel to all nations." If you see this as the progress of the gospel throughout Christian history, then you have a point. But if you see this as focused *primarily* on the experience of the apostles, in being brought before kings, then the emphasis is on the apostolic experience.

    The apostolic experience certainly sets a precedent for the progress of the gospel in the rest of Christian history, but as I see it, the emphasis is on the initial thrust of the gospel by the apostles. Inasmuch as mention is made of the endpoint of the gospel mission, at the return of Christ, this gospel mission must include all of Christian history.

    But again, the focus is on the initial thrust of the gospel in the 1st century, as experienced by the apostles. It includes the rest of history, not as a part of the detailed description, but rather, by inference. And that would make how you look at this "preaching of the gospel" as inferring an immediate eschatological context, or more likely, the beginning of historical Christian expansion.

    Reading the Olivet Discourse primarily as the initial thrust of the gospel by the Apostles does not demand an immediate eschatological fulfillment following. Rather, looking at it as a description, primarily, of the Apostolic experience brings us to see, as following after this, the progress of the gospel in history in the following centuries.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    Luke 21:24 mentions just the START of the diaspora , I am still waiting for ANY scriptural indication that the ongoing diaspora is even in mind in the OD. The distresses are linked to other events, but not linked to the diaspora in the OD. You are linking them in the above narrative but scripture does not.
    It is in how you read it. As I said, there are always several ways a passage can be read. I read the initial signs as *for the Apostolic experience,* because *their generation* would be confronted with Jewish judgment in 70 AD. These were "beginning signs," not of the end of the age, but of the beginning of Jewish Punishment in the NT age.

    And so, I view the destruction of the temple as but the beginning of what Jesus called "Great Distress," or "Great Tribulation." What followed after this *beginning* of Distress in 70 AD was the "dispersion" of the Jews throughout the earth. Jesus indicated that following the initial Distress, or following the beginning of Great Tribulation, would be a continuing Tribulation, consisting of a Jewish Dispersion.

    And the word "great" in Great Tribulation meant that this would be the longest Jewish Punishment in history, and never to be repeated. It would be the longest period of removing Jewish religion than had ever happened prior, and will never happen again. The NT dislocation of the Jewish People as the "People of God" is truly unprecedented. And since it will only end when the "times of the Gentiles are fulfilled," we *must* conclude that the entire space of time between 70 AD and the 2nd Coming is part of this great dislocation of the Jewish People, aka the Great Tribulation.

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,490

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    It is in how you read it. As I said, there are always several ways a passage can be read. I read the initial signs as *for the Apostolic experience,* because *their generation* would be confronted with Jewish judgment in 70 AD. These were "beginning signs," not of the end of the age, but of the beginning of Jewish Punishment in the NT age.

    And so, I view the destruction of the temple as but the beginning of what Jesus called "Great Distress," or "Great Tribulation." What followed after this *beginning* of Distress in 70 AD was the "dispersion" of the Jews throughout the earth. Jesus indicated that following the initial Distress, or following the beginning of Great Tribulation, would be a continuing Tribulation, consisting of a Jewish Dispersion.

    And the word "great" in Great Tribulation meant that this would be the longest Jewish Punishment in history, and never to be repeated. It would be the longest period of removing Jewish religion than had ever happened prior, and will never happen again. The NT dislocation of the Jewish People as the "People of God" is truly unprecedented. And since it will only end when the "times of the Gentiles are fulfilled," we *must* conclude that the entire space of time between 70 AD and the 2nd Coming is part of this great dislocation of the Jewish People, aka the Great Tribulation.
    Thanks for expressing your view. The Olivet Discourse does not mention the "longest Jewish Punishment"; and you somehow linking that punishment with the "Apostolic Experience" is not clear. The dispersion of the church (Acts 8:1) and acts of the apostles carried on before, during and after the Roman War. Whenever the OD mentions a distress the ongoing diaspora remains unmentioned. Nevertheless you want to associate the distress with the ongoing diaspora. I do not agree, however at least we were able to complete the discussion with civility.

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,813

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    Thanks for expressing your view. The Olivet Discourse does not mention the "longest Jewish Punishment"; and you somehow linking that punishment with the "Apostolic Experience" is not clear. The dispersion of the church (Acts 8:1) and acts of the apostles carried on before, during and after the Roman War. Whenever the OD mentions a distress the ongoing diaspora remains unmentioned. Nevertheless you want to associate the distress with the ongoing diaspora. I do not agree, however at least we were able to complete the discussion with civility.
    Right, ending a discussion with civility is paramount with me, because what good is it to discuss Christian truth with brothers and sisters if we can't do it while acting as Christians? Our whole purpose is to show that we can act like Christ because he is in us, by the Spirit! So thank you for clarifying where we disagree on various points.

    I fully understand that we can read these passages in different ways, and then conclude things differently. I don't think Scriptures try to anticipate all possible future problems, but simply state the truth. As I said, the "Jewish Punishment," as described by Luke, appears to include both the destruction of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the Jewish People. In describing an era of Jerusalem's oppression by the Gentiles "until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled," it does sound to me as if this "Great Tribulation" lasts throughout the NT age, until the coming of Christ.

    It makes little sense to me, from my vantage point, to see the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD as the "greatest tribulation" in the history of Israel, when the Babylonian Captivity lasted 70 years--far longer than the period of Jerusalem's fall by the Romans! No, the greatest Jewish punishment in history must, logically, last much longer than even the Babylonian Captivity!

    I hope you will keep an open mind, because I've held to your position, as well, and never found satisfaction until I've come to my present position. And I've been searching for peace on this for several decades! But the most important thing is that you have peace in your soul--not just peace of mind over a number of prophetic issues.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,813

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Since some of the material I provided, linking the 70 Weeks of Dan 9 with the Olivet Discourse, I will once again provide some quotations from the Church Fathers on this subject. This is largely for reference purposes.


    Following are some of the quotes I provided, in a debate, about whether there was a consensus that the 70 Weeks are completely fulfilled in Christ's 1st Coming, and in the subsequent fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Irenaeus, and his disciple Hippolytus, followed a more futurist path in interpreting this prophecy. They saw the Abomination of Desolation as the Antichrist, I believe, as opposed to most of the Church Fathers, who saw it as a Jewish judgment in the early generations of the Church.

    The arguments that these Church Fathers provided sort of piggy-backed on one another on the matter that Jesus was the "Anointed One," or "Holy Place," of the 70 Weeks, whose work completely fulfilled the 70th Week. Jesus was the one who was "cut off" in the 70th Week, and who brought an end to sacrifice and offering. And they seemed to argue, as one, that the fall of Jerusalem and the temple, following Christ's death, was a punishment upon the Jews for having rejecting their Messiah. Here then are the quotes:

    Barnabas...

    But let us enquire whether there be any temple of God. There is; in
    the place where he himself undertakes to make and finish it. For it
    is written And it shall come to pass, when the week is being accomplished, the temple of God shall be built gloriously in the
    name of the Lord.

    (Here, Barnabas is speaking of the *new temple* of Christianity, which is introduced by Christ at his 1st Coming, to replace the old temple of Law.)

    Tertullian...

    Whence, again, it is manifest that “the city must simultaneously be exterminated” at the time when its “Leader” had to suffer in it, (as foretold) through the Scriptures of the prophets... Since, therefore, the Jews were predicted as destined to suffer these calamities on Christ’s account, and we find that they have suffered them, and see them sent into dispersion and abiding in it, manifest it is that it is on Christ’s account that these things have befallen the Jews, the sense of the Scriptures harmonizing with the issue of events and of the order of the times.

    (Here Tertullian is speaking of the calamities falling upon the Jews as a result of rejecting Jesus, defined as a "dispersion." This speaks of Luke 21. Here is also referenced Daniel's prophecy of the extermination of both the Leader and the city in Dan 9.)

    Clement of Alexandria...

    And Christ our Lord, "the Holy of Holies," having come and fulfilled the vision and the prophecy, was anointed in His flesh by the Holy Spirit of His Father.
    In those "sixty and two weeks," as the prophet said, and "in the one week," was He Lord. The half of the week Nero held sway, and in the holy city Jerusalem placed the abomination; and in the half of the week he was taken away, and Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius. And Vespasian rose to the supreme power, and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the holy place. And that such are the facts of the case, is clear to him that is able to understand, as the prophet said.

    (Here, Clement speaks of Jesus as the "Holy of Holiees" in Dan 9, with an accompanying judgment against the Jews in the time of Nero and Vespasian. It combines Dan 9 and Luke 21.)

    Origen...

    The weeks of years, also, which the prophet Daniel had predicted, extending to the leadership of Christ, have been fulfilled.

    (Here, Origen speaks of the complete fulfillment of the 70 Weeks in the time of Christ.)

    Athanasius...

    For it is a sign, and
    an important proof, of the coming of the Word of God,
    that Jerusalem no longer stands, nor is any prophet
    raised up nor vision revealed to them and that very
    naturally. For when he that signified was come,
    what need was there any longer of any to signify him ?
    When the truth was there, what need any more of the
    shadow ? For this was the reason of their prophesying
    at all namely, till the true Righteousness should come,
    and he that was to ransom the sins of all. And this
    was why Jerusalem stood till then namely, that there
    they might be exercised in the types as a preparation for
    the reality. So when the Holy of Holies was come,
    naturally vision and prophecy were sealed and the kingdom
    of Jerusalem ceased.

    (Here, Athanasius speaks of the need for Christ, at his 1st Coming, to replace the old Jewish worship at the temple, which is a reference to Luke 21. He also combines this with the 70 Weeks prophecy of Dan 9.)

    Eusebius...

    But the number of calamities which everywhere fell upon the nation at that time; the extreme misfortunes to which the inhabitants of Judea were especially subjected, the thousands of men, as well as women and children, that perished by the sword, by famine, and by other forms of death innumerable — all these things, as well as the many great sieges which were carried on against the cities of Judea, and the excessive sufferings endured by those that fled to Jerusalem itself, as to a city of perfect safety, and finally the general course of the whole war, as well as its particular occurrences in detail, and how at last the abomination of desolation, proclaimed by the prophets, stood in the very temple of God, so celebrated of old, the temple which was now awaiting its total and final destruction by fire — all these things any one that wishes may find accurately described in the history written by Josephus.

    (Here, Eusebius mentions the judgment of God against the Jews, as in Luke 21. And he references the Abomination of Deesolation in Dan 9 as being fulfilled in Jesus' Olivet Discourse--Matt 24, Mar 13, and Luke 21.)

    John Chrysostom...

    Because what things befell them in the time of Vespasian and Titus, were very far more grievous than those. Wherefore also He said, "There shall be great tribulation, such as never was, neither shall be."
    What then did He after these things? Since they were not willing to come, yea and also slew those that came unto them; He burns up their cities, and sent His armies and slew them.
    And these things He says, declaring beforehand the things that took place under Vespasian and Titus, and that they provoked the father also, by not believing in Him; it is the father at any rate who was avenging.
    And for this reason let me add, not straightway after Christ was slain did the capture take place, but after forty years, that He might show His long suffering, when they had slain Stephen, when they had put James to death, when they had spitefully entreated the apostles.
    See thou the truth of the event, and its quickness? For while John was yet living, and many other of them that were with Christ, these things came to pass, and they that had heard these words were witnesses of the events.

    (Here, Chrysostom references the judgment of the Jews in the time of Vespasian and Titus as a result of their rejection of Jesus, the Christ. It is also called the "great tribulation," which is a reference to the Olivet Discourse--Matt 24, Mar 13, and Luk 21.)

    Augustine...

    The same Savior is spoken of in Daniel, where the Son of man appears before the Ancient of days, and receives a kingdom without end, that all nations may serve Him. Daniel 7:13-14 In the passage quoted from Daniel by the Lord Himself, "When you shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place, let him that reads understand," Matthew 24:15 the number of weeks points not only to Christ, but to the very time of His advent. With the Jews, who look to Christ for salvation as we do, but deny that He has come and suffered, we can argue from actual events. Besides the conversion of the heathen, now so universal, as prophesied of Christ in their own Scriptures, there are the events in the history of the Jews themselves. Their holy place is thrown down, the sacrifice has ceased, and the priest, and the ancient anointing; which was all clearly foretold by Daniel when he prophesied of the anointing of the Most Holy.

    (Here, Augustine links the Abomination of Desolation in Dan 9 with the Olivet Discourse--Matt 24, Mar 13, and Luk 21. The termination of sacrifice, the anointing of Jesus, and the destruction of the temple worship is linked to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD.)

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
  •