Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 130

Thread: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

  1. #106
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,813

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    Jesus was the one who limited the "great distress" to events in the land, not me. Jesus said "There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people." He was obviously referring to the Jewish/Roman War which includes ALL four of your points, even the taking of prisoners:
    1) beginning in the land of Israel
    2) constituting a punishment of the Jewish People (who were rejecting his priesthood)
    3) dying under the sword in Israel
    4) being taken as prisoners to all nations

    Only the part "to all nations" occurred outside the land of Israel. I would understand if you include the START of the diaspora in that great distress in the land, because this is where they were taken captive and started their journey as prisoners to other lands. But the entire diaspora certainly was not mentioned or inferred by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse.
    I disagree. Jesus said 1) distress in the land, and 2) wrath against this people. There was an initial pressure in the land, but this was just part of a more general tribulation that continued in the Jewish Diaspora. Jesus was not limiting "distress" to the land. Rather, he was saying there would be both distress in the land, and a distress that followed in the form of "wrath against this people." Do you think "wrath against this people" is not a "distress?"

    Matthew and Mark used a different word for "distress," indicating a more general tribulation. Luke is here defining a more specific "distress" in the land--a pressure imposed by the Romans, before continuing the general tribulation out among the nations in the Jewish Diaspora.

    Anyway, that's how I read it. I can't see the punishment extending out among the nations to be any less of a punishment than the initial "distress in the land?"

    Matthew and Mark, as I said, were more inclusive in their use of the term "tribulation," including both "distress in the land" and "punishment among the nations," because their "tribulation" would only be cut off at the return of Christ. And Luke's use of "distress in the land" is really no different because part of the "distress in the land" is the "trampling of Jerusalem," which is terminated only at the return of Christ, when the "times of the Gentiles" come to an end.

    Thus, the "distress" in the land continues together with the "wrath against this people," terminating only at the end of the age. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are all speaking of the same general tribulation of the Jewish People during this age--a time in which they are under the wrath of God.

    So I think when we read "great distress in the land and wrath against this people," we should read "great tribulation." It is a term in Matthew and Mark that is all inclusive. Luke simply means to apply a *beginning* of distress in the land, before continuing the tribulation out among the nations. It is all-inclusive, by definition, because the distress in the land goes together with the "wrath against this people," a Jewish punishment that only begins in the land and ends at the end of the age.

  2. #107
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,099

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I disagree. Jesus said 1) distress in the land, and 2) wrath against this people. There was an initial pressure in the land, but this was just part of a more general tribulation that continued in the Jewish Diaspora. Jesus was not limiting "distress" to the land. Rather, he was saying there would be both distress in the land, and a distress that followed in the form of "wrath against this people." Do you think "wrath against this people" is not a "distress?"

    Matthew and Mark used a different word for "distress," indicating a more general tribulation. Luke is here defining a more specific "distress" in the land--a pressure imposed by the Romans, before continuing the general tribulation out among the nations in the Jewish Diaspora.

    Anyway, that's how I read it. I can't see the punishment extending out among the nations to be any less of a punishment than the initial "distress in the land?"
    Sure there are a lot of ways of looking at it. We can't be dogmatic and say, only this one distress is in mind, that one in the land. As you say "Wrath against this people" is a distress. And as you say, there is BOTH distress in the land, AND a DISTRESS that followed. As you say "LUKE IS DEFINING A MORE SPECIFIC DISTRESS IN THE LAND--A PRESSURE IMPOSED BY THE ROMANS. This is the way I read the text too. The specific "great distress" in v23 is that imposed by the Romans, IN THE LAND.

    Furthermore you say: "Matthew and Mark used a different word for "distress," indicating a more general tribulation". EXACTLY, now we are talking, There are many distresses and Matthew and Mark refer to a more general tribulation. You may regard it as more general as in longer referring to the diaspora, I do not see any diaspora in Matthew and Mark. Rather the context is THE MODERN CHURCH. THE MODERN CHURCH.
    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
    To be hated by ALL NATIONS the church has to first reach all nations, something only happening the last two centuries. Is this ISRAEL.....nooo THEY ARE HATED BECAUSE OF JESUS "BECAUSE OF ME"!! This is the MODERN CHURCH (caps lock because you do not seem to concentrate on my posts, not shouting at all

    Then:
    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.
    Context is the modern church because they preach to the WHOLE WORLD, ALL NATIONS, something that only occurred the last two centuries.

    It is this MODERN CHURCH context we get the "more general tribulation" that is different to that distress which was a "pressure imposed by the Romans". Nothing in the context of Matthew 24 refers to diaspora, the context is the MODERN CHURCH.

  3. #108

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    ^ I agree that they are different.

    And I believe that [in Lk21] the Holy Spirit had verse 32's "ALL" ('till ALL be fulfilled') placed specifically AFTER verse 24's "shall be led away captive into all the nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles until the TIMES of the Gentiles be fulfilled" (that last part paralleling Rev11:2's final 42 mos ending with Christ's Second Coming to the earth, Rev19).


    And here's what I've posted before, about "who" the Matt24/Mk13 involves especially:

    In the Matt22 passage, verses 7-8 supply a specific SEQUENCE, with verse 7 referring to the events of 70ad ('burned up their city') and verse 8 telling of what happens AFTER THAT, "THEN SAITH HE to His servants"... Jesus was in Heaven during the "after 70ad" events, recall... yet this passage states "THEN SAITH HE to His Servants...". What we have in The Revelation, is (as stated in verse 1), "The Revelation of Jesus Christ WHICH GOD GAVE UNTO HIM, TO SHEW UNTO His servants [comp. 7:3 re: 144,000] things which must come to pass [comp. 4:1's "FUTURE" aspects of the Book] IN QUICKNESS [noun]..." [i.e. not events over the course of some 2000 yrs], and there He discloses FURTHER INFORMATION on THAT very subject (regarding the "day and hour" [Matt24:36] He did not "know" at the time that He SPOKE the Olivet Discourse, but here in Rev1:1 it says, "which GOD GAVE UNTO HIM [Jesus] TO SHEW UNTO His servants..." some 60 years AFTER His death/resurrection... and which pertains to events "far future" [the last 7 years before His Second Coming to the earth; i.e. WELL AFTER the 70ad events of verse 7 in Matt22 [so this passage is still about Israel doing the "INVITING" [see Matt24:14/26:13] TO their promised and prophesied EARTHLY Millennial Kingdom [DURING the trib years], even after "the Church which is His body" has been Raptured out [which scriptural evidence re: timing/sequence I won't go into in this post, which is already long ]).

  4. #109
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,813

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    Sure there are a lot of ways of looking at it. We can't be dogmatic and say, only this one distress is in mind, that one in the land. As you say "Wrath against this people" is a distress. And as you say, there is BOTH distress in the land, AND a DISTRESS that followed. As you say "LUKE IS DEFINING A MORE SPECIFIC DISTRESS IN THE LAND--A PRESSURE IMPOSED BY THE ROMANS. This is the way I read the text too. The specific "great distress" in v23 is that imposed by the Romans, IN THE LAND.

    Furthermore you say: "Matthew and Mark used a different word for "distress," indicating a more general tribulation". EXACTLY, now we are talking, There are many distresses and Matthew and Mark refer to a more general tribulation. You may regard it as more general as in longer referring to the diaspora, I do not see any diaspora in Matthew and Mark. Rather the context is THE MODERN CHURCH. THE MODERN CHURCH.
    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
    To be hated by ALL NATIONS the church has to first reach all nations, something only happening the last two centuries. Is this ISRAEL.....nooo THEY ARE HATED BECAUSE OF JESUS "BECAUSE OF ME"!! This is the MODERN CHURCH (caps lock because you do not seem to concentrate on my posts, not shouting at all

    Then:
    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.
    Context is the modern church because they preach to the WHOLE WORLD, ALL NATIONS, something that only occurred the last two centuries.

    It is this MODERN CHURCH context we get the "more general tribulation" that is different to that distress which was a "pressure imposed by the Romans". Nothing in the context of Matthew 24 refers to diaspora, the context is the MODERN CHURCH.
    Well, I, for one, am happy to have these conversations, both with you and with FHG, because it is this process that has helped me to unravel some long-standing issues. (For now I'm not interested in discussing things with FHG.) And yes, it *has* required patience to manage this process. There are literally hundreds of years of input into these subjects that sometimes merely cloud the issues.

    I can only tell you what I believe at this point. I do get the distinction you and FHG have been making about Tribulation in Matthew and Mark and Distress in Luke. But my formula now would look like this: Tribulaion = Distress in Land + Jewish Punishment in Diaspora.

    I do *not* see Matthew and Mark more about the Church than Luke's version. As I said earlier, the gospel mission to *all nations* is the same thing Luke described as a *testimony before kings.*

    I also dealt with the subjects of Christian persecution and martyrdom, as well as their being hated by all. You will find this in Luke equally, as follows.

    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.

    If you look carefully you will see that even if Luke's words are somewhat different, he is actually saying the exact same things as Matthew and Mark in connection with the believing Jews. Clearly, the 3 synoptic gospels are in agreement on what Jesus' Olivet Discourse was all about.

  5. #110
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,099

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Well, I, for one, am happy to have these conversations, both with you and with FHG, because it is this process that has helped me to unravel some long-standing issues. (For now I'm not interested in discussing things with FHG.) And yes, it *has* required patience to manage this process. There are literally hundreds of years of input into these subjects that sometimes merely cloud the issues.

    I can only tell you what I believe at this point. I do get the distinction you and FHG have been making about Tribulation in Matthew and Mark and Distress in Luke. But my formula now would look like this: Tribulaion = Distress in Land + Jewish Punishment in Diaspora.

    I do *not* see Matthew and Mark more about the Church than Luke's version. As I said earlier, the gospel mission to *all nations* is the same thing Luke described as a *testimony before kings.*

    I also dealt with the subjects of Christian persecution and martyrdom, as well as their being hated by all. You will find this in Luke equally, as follows.

    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.

    If you look carefully you will see that even if Luke's words are somewhat different, he is actually saying the exact same things as Matthew and Mark in connection with the believing Jews. Clearly, the 3 synoptic gospels are in agreement on what Jesus' Olivet Discourse was all about.

    You say "my formula now would look like this: Tribulaion = Distress in Land + Jewish Punishment in Diaspora". I have no idea why you want to focus in on the diaspora, only the START of the diaspora gets mentioned once in 4 words of Luke 21:24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations.
    For some very ODD reason you feel the need to argue that FOUR WORDS out of 170 VERSES is the major theme of the Olivet discourse. It's only 4 words Randyk, just 4 words. There is no diaspora context in the OD, and the unequalled distress greater even than WW2 cannot be 70 AD, which was not a greater distress than WW2.

    I have a question for you, what do you see as the prophetic ENDPOINT of Daniel's period is? The resurrection? Dan 9:24? And how do you think it was fulfilled?

  6. #111
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,813

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    You say "my formula now would look like this: Tribulaion = Distress in Land + Jewish Punishment in Diaspora". I have no idea why you want to focus in on the diaspora, only the START of the diaspora gets mentioned once in 4 words of Luke 21:24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations.
    For some very ODD reason you feel the need to argue that FOUR WORDS out of 170 VERSES is the major theme of the Olivet discourse. It's only 4 words Randyk, just 4 words. There is no diaspora context in the OD, and the unequalled distress greater even than WW2 cannot be 70 AD, which was not a greater distress than WW2.

    I have a question for you, what do you see as the prophetic ENDPOINT of Daniel's period is? The resurrection? Dan 9:24? And how do you think it was fulfilled?
    1st, I'd like to explain why I place such emphasis on the Jewish Diaspora, and why it appears to look so insignificant in this Discourse. One, the perspective of this Discourse is largely the perspective of *Jesus' generation.* They are the ones to see the 70 AD destruction of the temple, and the end of Jewish religion under the Law of Moses. Yes, Rabbinic Judaism would continue, but the end of the temple meant a major change would take place, making practice of the Law as *temple law* impossible.

    Furthermore, Jesus tended to discourage "reading tea leaves," or trying to anticipate future events and guess prophetic developments. The idea was to maintain spiritual readiness for the Kingdom at all times simply by living in a faithful relationship to God. The future would take care of itself.

    Finally, the prediction of a future Jewish Diaspora was *not* limited to 4 words in Luke. In all of the versions, a period of distress is stated as merely *beginning* in their time, constituting a greater period of tribulation for Jews than has ever happened previously in history. Since Hebrew punishments were marked out by lengths of time, this period of punishment was indicated by all 3 synoptic gospels as being longer than any period of punishment in Jewish history. And it was indicated in all 3 versions that this "great tribulation" would only end at the coming of Christ's Kingdom.

    The emphasis, therefore, was on *when the temple would be destroyed,* since that was the focus of the Disciples' questions. That would take place at the *beginning* of the tribulation. This would be the initial distress in the land. However, all versions indicate this would be but the *beginning* of the Tribulation-- "the end is not yet."

    Clearly, you misrepresent the fact that Jesus is talking of a greater Tribulation than just the beginning point, although that is what he is focused upon. Luke makes it unmistakably clear. But it is just as evident in the other two versions. Their connection to Luke's version has simply been obscured by a false view of the Discourse over all, limiting that account to either the 1st generation or the final generation. In reality, the Discourse merely focuses on the 1st generation, because that is what Jesus was being asked about. But it is quite clear that he was extending this Tribulation from his own time to the end of the age, since that is what he explicitly said.

    As to your question about the endpoint of Daniel, I'm not sure what you mean about the endpoint of "Daniel's period?" What "period" is that? There are a number of periods of time Daniel refers to. Dan 7 refers to the 3.5 years of Antichrist's reign, leading to the end of the age and the coming of Christ's Kingdom. Dan 8 and Dan 11 refer to periods leading to the end of Antiochus 4's reign, following periods of 1290 days and 1335 days. This obviously does not lead to the end of the age!

    Dan 12 refers to a great tribulation that I believe is the same "great tribulation" Jesus referred to in the Olivet Discourse. This period was to evolve after the fall of Antiochus 4, which is exactly what happened. Rome arose as a great power over Israel in the time following Antiochus 4, and were the ones to eventually cause Jewish religion to fail, when they destroyed the temple in 70 AD. After that time, Jerusalem was completely defeated and the Jews were exported throughout the world. This "great tribulation" would continue until "the times of the Gentiles" come to an end. That is, this Great Tribulation is a period that would end only at the end of the age and the coming of Christ's Kingdom.

  7. #112
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    ADELAIDE / South Australia
    Posts
    3,857

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Here is where your argument is clearly wrong.
    Matthew and Luke are NOT discerning things, they are NOT writing their OWN words.
    They are writing down words they know have been spoken by Jesus.
    Thankyou , this is what I have been saying.

    You note that Jesus made this discourse once , yet you have Matt and Luke writing different things about Jesus use of the terms "flee to the mountains" and "nursing mothers"...not me.


    It is ABUNDANTLY clear that the ONLY way to say Matt and Luke discerned it the same way is to make EITHER Matthew or Luke write words which Jesus did NOT say AS IF He had said them.
    And those castles made of sand....fall into the sea......eventually

  8. #113
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Pitt Meadows b.c.
    Posts
    4,962
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by jeffweeder View Post
    Thankyou , this is what I have been saying.

    You note that Jesus made this discourse once , yet you have Matt and Luke writing different things about Jesus use of the terms "flee to the mountains" and "nursing mothers"...not me.




    Nice.....................................

  9. #114
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,952
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by jeffweeder View Post
    Thankyou , this is what I have been saying.
    You note that Jesus made this discourse once , yet you have Matt and Luke writing different things about Jesus use of the terms "flee to the mountains" and "nursing mothers"...not me.
    No, what I note is that Jesus stated TWO different SIGNs which speak of TWO different occasions when it would be necessary to flee Jerusalem.
    This is NOT what you are saying as you make Luke write words down AS IF Jesus said them, but when Luke KNEW they weren't his words.
    Absolutely, what you claim is crazy. Luke did NOT write FALSE statements attributing them to Jesus.
    Jesus stated BOTH signs which are therefore TWO different signs.

    This is EASILY and clearly understood IF we consider that there are TWO times in which it is necessary to flee Jerusalem.
    One was in 66 AD after the army had surrounded Jerusalem and then left.
    Two is at some future time when it will again be necessary to flee Jerusalem.

    This is a very clear and logical way to understand the DIFFERENT things Jesus said.
    An army OUTSIDE a city is NOT an army INSIDE the temple.

  10. #115
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,099

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by jeffweeder View Post
    Thankyou , this is what I have been saying.

    You note that Jesus made this discourse once , yet you have Matt and Luke writing different things about Jesus use of the terms "flee to the mountains" and "nursing mothers"...not me.

    My view may disagree with FHG. Sometimes the bible has two meanings to the same sentence. For example the following can apply to Solomon but also more fully to Jesus, the two meanings are deliberate:
    ‘I declare to you that the LORD will build a house for you: 11 When your days are over and you go to be with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, one of your own sons, and I will establish his kingdom. 12 He is the one who will build a house for me, and I will establish his throne forever. 13 I will be his father, and he will be my son. I will never take my love away from him, as I took it away from your predecessor. 14 I will set him over my house and my kingdom forever; his throne will be established forever.’”


    Thus even though Jesus spoke those words once, not twice, some disciples accurately remember the words applying to the time immediately prior to the second coming, and some disciples accurately remember those words applying to 70AD. Whenever Jerusalem is taken by an enemy of God's chosen, it is good for them to flee, and difficult for nursing mothers. Jesus was answering two questions, the reply to EACH question involving danger for the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

  11. #116
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    ADELAIDE / South Australia
    Posts
    3,857

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    My view may disagree with FHG. Sometimes the bible has two meanings to the same sentence. For example the following can apply to Solomon but also more fully to Jesus, the two meanings are deliberate:
    ‘I declare to you that the LORD will build a house for you: 11 When your days are over and you go to be with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, one of your own sons, and I will establish his kingdom. 12 He is the one who will build a house for me, and I will establish his throne forever. 13 I will be his father, and he will be my son. I will never take my love away from him, as I took it away from your predecessor. 14 I will set him over my house and my kingdom forever; his throne will be established forever.’”


    Thus even though Jesus spoke those words once, not twice, some disciples accurately remember the words applying to the time immediately prior to the second coming, and some disciples accurately remember those words applying to 70AD. Whenever Jerusalem is taken by an enemy of God's chosen, it is good for them to flee, and difficult for nursing mothers. Jesus was answering two questions, the reply to EACH question involving danger for the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

    No matter which version of the olivet you read , both those questions are addressed.

    Matt clearly shows he is about to address 2 questions...,

    Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him
    2 And He said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down.”
    3 As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us,

    1) when will these things happen, ?
    2) and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”



    Folks seem to be reluctant to answer where Matt addressed the first question in his following discourse.

    hint
    Luke makes it all crystal clear using the same rhetoric as Matt , stating the destruction of the temple will be followed by exile to the nations and wrath to this people. (70AD)
    Luke then himself addresses the sign of his coming and the end of the age, as does Matthew.
    And those castles made of sand....fall into the sea......eventually

  12. #117
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,813

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    My view may disagree with FHG. Sometimes the bible has two meanings to the same sentence. For example the following can apply to Solomon but also more fully to Jesus, the two meanings are deliberate:
    ‘I declare to you that the LORD will build a house for you: 11 When your days are over and you go to be with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, one of your own sons, and I will establish his kingdom. 12 He is the one who will build a house for me, and I will establish his throne forever. 13 I will be his father, and he will be my son. I will never take my love away from him, as I took it away from your predecessor. 14 I will set him over my house and my kingdom forever; his throne will be established forever.’”


    Thus even though Jesus spoke those words once, not twice, some disciples accurately remember the words applying to the time immediately prior to the second coming, and some disciples accurately remember those words applying to 70AD. Whenever Jerusalem is taken by an enemy of God's chosen, it is good for them to flee, and difficult for nursing mothers. Jesus was answering two questions, the reply to EACH question involving danger for the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
    That is your assertion, but I don't believe it to be true (respectfully). Jesus did not mean 2 things at once. He did not apply one "flee to the mountains" to the war with the Romans and another "flee to the mountains" to the persecution of Antichrist! Jesus does not speak out of both sides of his mouth!

    But yes, there is something called "looking at prophecy like looking through a telescope." You can adjust the lens and focus on nearer events, and with the same telescope adjust the lens to focus on endtime events. There is some basis for this, but I prefer to stick with the literal application of Scripture.

    Jesus *only* applied "flee to the mountains" to the Roman war. Yes, there was a 2nd Coming component to this entire Discourse, but not as some kind of "dualistic application." Rather, the 2nd Coming provides the character for understanding the events of the 1st generation of the Church. As the 2nd Coming will be a coming in judgment, so was the 1st generation of the Church to see a coming of God in judgment upon Israel (70 AD). This 2 events were to be compared, but not confused.

    Jesus never intended to set forth signs by which to anticipate the 2nd Coming. The only sign was the coming of the Son of Man itself--a coming in judgment. By contrast, the sign of the imminent destruction of Jerusalem was the appearance of the Roman Army around Jerusalem--the Abomination of Desolation. It was because the Romans were an abomination in the vicinity of Jerusalem. And they were there to desolate Jerusalem. They were coming upon the municipal location of the temple in order to destroy it. They were "standing in the holy place" to commit desolation.

    The sign of the abomination encircling Jerusalem was in 66 AD. The forces of Cestius Gallus withdrew, giving time for Christians to flee to the mountains. They may have taken longer time to gather their things, making their escape of greater urgency, the closer it was to 70 AD. Matthew and Mark did not deal with 66 AD, and Luke with 70 AD.

    Nor does the "out isn't in" argument (FHG) make sense. It is argued that the Roman Army cannot be an "abomination *in* the city" if it is staged *outside of the city walls."

    The context for this desolation, mentioned in Dan 9, was an army sent by God to desolate "the city and the sanctuary." It was a military *siege* against a city, such that the Army had to stage themselves outside the walls.

    This was still inside the "city limits," if you will. Nobody can say that the boundaries of Jerusalem included only the part of society that lived inside the walls. Going "outside the camp," like Jesus did, to die for sin, still placed him *in Jerusalem!*

    Luke 13.33 In any case, I must press on today and tomorrow and the next day—for surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem!

    I find it unfortunate that the signs Jesus gave to his Disciples *for their time* are conflated with the endtime situation with Antichrist! Antichrist is not mentioned once in any of the synoptic versions! The 2nd Coming is placed as if a period at the end of a sentence. The 2nd Coming ends the age, and initiates the beginning of the Kingdom Age. It is not something that becomes predictable, and we are not to prognosticate about it. The times and the seasons belong to the Lord.

    On the other hand, the imminent judgment coming against Jerusalem in 70 AD was not an eschatological event, and was something Jesus wanted his Disciples to be ready for. As Jews, they would be impacted by these Roman invasions. The judgment was not for them, but they had to be ready to flee.

    This is not saying that the Discourse has nothing at all to do with anticipating the 2nd Coming. We are to mark it as the thing for which we remain perennially ready, by keeping ourselves spiritually fit. That is the judgment that men are to ultimately prepare for. But in the meantime, our actions and behaviors are being judged in the current age, and we will pay a price if we don't straighten up our act.

    Thus, the Disciples were to be more immediately concerned with the approaching Roman judgment. But in preparing for this event, their spiritual readiness prepared them for the judgment at the 2nd Coming as well. This is how the 2nd Coming and the imminent destruction of the temple related. Both comings of Jesus had a quality of *judgment* about them!

  13. #118
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,813

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by jeffweeder View Post
    No matter which version of the olivet you read , both those questions are addressed.

    Matt clearly shows he is about to address 2 questions...,

    Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him
    2 And He said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down.”
    3 As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us,

    1) when will these things happen, ?
    2) and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”



    Folks seem to be reluctant to answer where Matt addressed the first question in his following discourse.

    hint
    Luke makes it all crystal clear using the same rhetoric as Matt , stating the destruction of the temple will be followed by exile to the nations and wrath to this people. (70AD)
    Luke then himself addresses the sign of his coming and the end of the age, as does Matthew.
    Yes, I see no conflict in any of the 3 synoptic gospels, with respect to their versions of the Olivet Discourse. Wording is different from gospel to gospel, and this may not be anything more than a paraphrase of what is being attributed to Jesus in substance.

    For example, Matthew mentions the need for the reader to reference Daniel. And Mark mentions the need for the reader to understand, which is substantially the same thing as Matthew said. They are not always *exact quotes.*

    In my view, the Discourse was probably much longer than the 3 versions, enabling there to be greater explanation on that particular occasion. Each gospel version recites only as much as they feel necessary for their purpose. None of the gospel authors explain that their version is different from another version.

    So yes, 2 questions were asked of Jesus: when would the temple be desolated, and what about the coming of the Kingdom? Jesus was asked to compare these 2 events, because the Jews expected the Messiah, at his 1st Coming, to bring about the Kingdom, with its final Jewish salvation. They expected Jesus to bring about the Age to Come, or the Jewish Hope.

    So instead of conflating these 2 events Jesus explained them separately, while reconciling them as similar in purpose. Both comings of Jesus were to bring judgment, and not just salvation. Although both comings were for the purpose of salvation, they both also brought judgment, the 1st to Israel, and the 2nd to the whole world. In reality, God's judgment takes place historically all through the NT age--people just don't recognize it. We are judged for our behaviors not just in the future age, but also in the present age. And it is the gospel message preached to all nations that brings this salvation, or judgment, home.

    And so, Jesus answered the question as to *when* the temple would be desolated. He said it would be with a warning, that the Roman Army would encircle Jerusalem. This was the "abomination of desolation." The army was an abomination. It was standing in the vicinity of the holy city of Jerusalem.And it was standing around Jerusalem to desolate both the city and the temple.

    Secondly, Jesus said this event would happen *in this generation." And so Jesus answered the question in all 3 versions. All 3 versions indicate it would be in the generation of the Disciples.

    As to when the Kingdom would come, or when Jesus would return, he said it would not be something that can be calculated as an earthly event. It would be a heavenly appearance of the divine Messiah, the Son of Man in Dan 7. This is the kind of judgment that will judge the eternal souls of men. It could not be calculated like an army approaching Jerusalem.

    However, the book of Revelation does speak of armies marching to Armageddon. Nevertheless, this is not something that can be fled from. Eternal judgment takes place within the souls of men, who decide for or against Christ. This alone can make them ready...or not!

  14. #119
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,099

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    That is your assertion, but I don't believe it to be true (respectfully). Jesus did not mean 2 things at once. He did not apply one "flee to the mountains" to the war with the Romans and another "flee to the mountains" to the persecution of Antichrist! Jesus does not speak out of both sides of his mouth!

    But yes, there is something called "looking at prophecy like looking through a telescope." You can adjust the lens and focus on nearer events, and with the same telescope adjust the lens to focus on endtime events. There is some basis for this, but I prefer to stick with the literal application of Scripture.

    Jesus *only* applied "flee to the mountains" to the Roman war. Yes, there was a 2nd Coming component to this entire Discourse, but not as some kind of "dualistic application." Rather, the 2nd Coming provides the character for understanding the events of the 1st generation of the Church. As the 2nd Coming will be a coming in judgment, so was the 1st generation of the Church to see a coming of God in judgment upon Israel (70 AD). This 2 events were to be compared, but not confused.

    Jesus never intended to set forth signs by which to anticipate the 2nd Coming. The only sign was the coming of the Son of Man itself--a coming in judgment. By contrast, the sign of the imminent destruction of Jerusalem was the appearance of the Roman Army around Jerusalem--the Abomination of Desolation. It was because the Romans were an abomination in the vicinity of Jerusalem. And they were there to desolate Jerusalem. They were coming upon the municipal location of the temple in order to destroy it. They were "standing in the holy place" to commit desolation.

    The sign of the abomination encircling Jerusalem was in 66 AD. The forces of Cestius Gallus withdrew, giving time for Christians to flee to the mountains. They may have taken longer time to gather their things, making their escape of greater urgency, the closer it was to 70 AD. Matthew and Mark did not deal with 66 AD, and Luke with 70 AD.

    Nor does the "out isn't in" argument (FHG) make sense. It is argued that the Roman Army cannot be an "abomination *in* the city" if it is staged *outside of the city walls."

    The context for this desolation, mentioned in Dan 9, was an army sent by God to desolate "the city and the sanctuary." It was a military *siege* against a city, such that the Army had to stage themselves outside the walls.

    This was still inside the "city limits," if you will. Nobody can say that the boundaries of Jerusalem included only the part of society that lived inside the walls. Going "outside the camp," like Jesus did, to die for sin, still placed him *in Jerusalem!*

    Luke 13.33 In any case, I must press on today and tomorrow and the next day—for surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem!

    I find it unfortunate that the signs Jesus gave to his Disciples *for their time* are conflated with the endtime situation with Antichrist! Antichrist is not mentioned once in any of the synoptic versions! The 2nd Coming is placed as if a period at the end of a sentence. The 2nd Coming ends the age, and initiates the beginning of the Kingdom Age. It is not something that becomes predictable, and we are not to prognosticate about it. The times and the seasons belong to the Lord.

    On the other hand, the imminent judgment coming against Jerusalem in 70 AD was not an eschatological event, and was something Jesus wanted his Disciples to be ready for. As Jews, they would be impacted by these Roman invasions. The judgment was not for them, but they had to be ready to flee.

    This is not saying that the Discourse has nothing at all to do with anticipating the 2nd Coming. We are to mark it as the thing for which we remain perennially ready, by keeping ourselves spiritually fit. That is the judgment that men are to ultimately prepare for. But in the meantime, our actions and behaviors are being judged in the current age, and we will pay a price if we don't straighten up our act.

    Thus, the Disciples were to be more immediately concerned with the approaching Roman judgment. But in preparing for this event, their spiritual readiness prepared them for the judgment at the 2nd Coming as well. This is how the 2nd Coming and the imminent destruction of the temple related. Both comings of Jesus had a quality of *judgment* about them!
    The Roman War :IN THE LAND" is clearly in mind in the fleeing/nursing context of Luke 21:20-24 yet I have repeatedly pointed out that the context of Matthew 24 is as follows:
    A) v9 “Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations BECAUSE OF ME
    To be hated by ALL NATIONS the church has to first reach all nations, and this is "because of Jesus", nothing to do with ethnic Israel. The context of Matthew 24:9-14 does not even hint in the slightest at the Roman war, and is in modern church context.
    B) v14 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.
    Context is the modern church because they preach to the WHOLE WORLD, ALL NATIONS, a modern church context.
    C) A distress greater than ww2, unlike the Roman War: v21 there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.
    D) The distress occurs just before the second coming according to v29-30, UNLIKE the Roman War "in the land" at that time.

    THE WHOLE WORLD: The term the whole world is a loose phrase sometimes used in an exaggerated manner, for example the Pharisees used it to refer to the popularity of Jesus within Israel in John 12:19: Look how the whole world has gone after him! . Even though this phrase is used loosely in the bible, it's primary and most common usage does refer to the LITERAL whole world. Jesus' only other usage was in the context of the literal whole world: Mtt 16:26 Mark 8:36 Luke 9:25.
    So when Jesus COMBINES the use of the phrase "the whole world" with the phrase "all nations" one can be assured that this particular context is NOT the first century, but events related to the whole world, the way the bible normally uses the phrase as per John 21:25 Romans 3:19 1John 2:2 1John 5:19 Rev 3:10 Rev 12:9 Rev 13:3. Some try to restrict the usage of the term to the Roman world, a less used biblical application of the phrase.

    Matthew 24:9-14 never once hints at the Roman War or diaspora and involves the whole world and all nations. In this context a distress greater than ww2 is then mentioned occurring just before the second coming, yet you want to associate it with either the Roman Distress or the Diaspora. This just does not make sense. (Except that some wording matches Roman War terminology in Luke 21 , BUT you do admit that "But yes, there is something called "looking at prophecy like looking through a telescope." You can adjust the lens and focus on nearer events, and with the same telescope adjust the lens to focus on endtime events. There is some basis for this"). On the balance of logic, and the lack of diaspora/Roman war context in Matthew 24, the telescope applies.

  15. #120
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,813

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    The Roman War :IN THE LAND" is clearly in mind in the fleeing/nursing context of Luke 21:20-24 yet I have repeatedly pointed out that the context of Matthew 24 is as follows:
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    A) v9 “Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations BECAUSE OF ME
    To be hated by ALL NATIONS the church has to first reach all nations, and this is "because of Jesus", nothing to do with ethnic Israel. The context of Matthew 24:9-14 does not even hint in the slightest at the Roman war, and is in modern church context.
    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!

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    B) v14 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.
    Context is the modern church because they preach to the WHOLE WORLD, ALL NATIONS, a modern church context.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    C) A distress greater than ww2, unlike the Roman War: v21 there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.
    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!

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    D) The distress occurs just before the second coming according to v29-30, UNLIKE the Roman War "in the land" at that time.
    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.

    Of course, I see the Jewish Punishment as also implicating Christian persecution. That is how it is presented in the Olivet Discourse. And this dual experience, associated with the GD, may be responsible for you separating Luke and the other Synoptic Authors.

    Again, the initial persecution of Christians began with the Jewish believers who suffered under the Roman assault on Jerusalem, leading to an international dispersion of the Jewish people. Believing Jews suffered the dislocation, as well as unbelieving Jews.

    And so, the Jewish Punishment, which I call the Great Distress, was also the beginning point for general Christian persecution. The unbelieving Jews, even in their punishment under God, hated the Christians and their righteousness. Not only so, but the unbelieving pagans, among whom the believing Jews were dispersed, hated their righteousness as well. And this became the prototypical experience of Christian persecution, generally, throughout the age.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    THE WHOLE WORLD: The term the whole world is a loose phrase sometimes used in an exaggerated manner, for example the Pharisees used it to refer to the popularity of Jesus within Israel in John 12:19: Look how the whole world has gone after him! . Even though this phrase is used loosely in the bible, it's primary and most common usage does refer to the LITERAL whole world. Jesus' only other usage was in the context of the literal whole world: Mtt 16:26 Mark 8:36 Luke 9:25.
    So when Jesus COMBINES the use of the phrase "the whole world" with the phrase "all nations" one can be assured that this particular context is NOT the first century, but events related to the whole world, the way the bible normally uses the phrase as per John 21:25 Romans 3:19 1John 2:2 1John 5:19 Rev 3:10 Rev 12:9 Rev 13:3. Some try to restrict the usage of the term to the Roman world, a less used biblical application of the phrase.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    Matthew 24:9-14 never once hints at the Roman War or diaspora and involves the whole world and all nations.
    That really depends on your presuppositions. If you presuppose that everything Jesus said had to do with a *future generation,* then you would, by default, ignore any so-called "hint" that Roman troops are involved.

    But if you, like me, see each version of the Olivet Discourse as involving the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, then you would read into the Abomination of Desolation the same thing that Luke expressed so explicitly. All versions thus refer to the same thing, ie to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    In this context a distress greater than ww2 is then mentioned occurring just before the second coming, yet you want to associate it with either the Roman Distress or the Diaspora. This just does not make sense. (Except that some wording matches Roman War terminology in Luke 21 , BUT you do admit that "But yes, there is something called "looking at prophecy like looking through a telescope." You can adjust the lens and focus on nearer events, and with the same telescope adjust the lens to focus on endtime events. There is some basis for this"). On the balance of logic, and the lack of diaspora/Roman war context in Matthew 24, the telescope applies.

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
  •