|
Post by Josh on Mar 10, 2014 17:25:50 GMT -8
What follows is Luke’s version of Jesus’ “Olivet Discourse” (Jesus' words to his disciples about the future, so named because it was a conversation that happened on the Mount of Olives).
Matthew and Mark also have their versions of the Olivet Discourse which are very similar (Matthew 24 and Mark 13), but with a few notable differences. These differences (especially in Matthew) have led futurist commentators to suppose that in small or large part, Jesus is referring to two very separate but similar events. Usually they proport that Luke is describing the events of AD 70/ the destruction of the Temple by the Romans, whereas Matthew is describing a similar destruction of a future temple that is still yet future to us in our day.
That is the view I used to hold, but the more I studied the three versions of the Olivet Discourse, the more I became convinced that they were all descriptions of the same events and that the supposed differences were merely additional details on the same event. In order to explain my view, I’m going to use the text from Luke 21 as a template, interjecting my commentary along with references to the unique segments from Matthew and how I see them fitting into the same description of the same events in the 1st Century AD.
Luke 21: 5 Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, 6 “As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down.” 7 “Teacher,” they asked, “when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?”
Most scholars are agreed that here in Luke’s version, Jesus answers these questions by launching into a prediction of all the things that would happen over the next 40 years, leading up to the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in AD 70.
In Matthew, the disciples additionally ask what will be the sign of the “end of the age” and “Jesus’ coming”. Futurists often cite these additional questions as evidence that the answers (or some of the answers) given in Matthew are about different events which have an as yet-future fulfillment.
8 He replied: “Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The time is near.’ Do not follow them. 9 When you hear of wars and uprisings, do not be frightened. These things must happen first, but the end will not come right away.” 10 Then he said to them: “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom
Here Jesus warns that soon many false Messiahs would appear in Israel, which we know was an oft-repeated occurance in Israel in the 1st Century, leading right up to the Jewish revolt in the last 60’s.
The wars and rumors of wars and the nation rising against nation refers to the onset of the Jewish revolt against Rome in 66 AD. The end (the destruction of Jerusalem and along with it the end of the Temple worship system), however, would not come for a few more years (AD 70).
11 There will be great earthquakes, famines and pestilences in various places, and fearful events and great signs from heaven.
The decades leading up to the Jewish revolt of the 60’s were marked by earthquakes throughout the Roman world (often considered omens) and a severe famine during the reign of Claudius (see Acts 11:28). Matthew refers to these events leading up to the seige of Jerusalem as "birth pangs" (Matt. 8). Also, during the siege of Jerusalem itself, before it’s destruction, the Jewish historian Josephus tells us that there was a terrible famine, pestilence, and ominous omens seen in the sky.
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.
Jesus backs up here briefly, describing the kind of events we see beginning in earnest already in the book of Acts. Matthew’s version adds a few extra details, including the comment that the gospel would be preached to the whole world before the end comes. At first blush this seems to be as of yet unfulfilled, as the gospel has not yet literally reached every corner of the globe. However, elsewhere in the New Testament, the phrase ‘the whole world’ is used to mean the “known world of that time” (see Romans 1:8, Colossians 1:6, Acts 17:6, 24:5), so this can be said to have truly been fulfilled by AD 70.
Jesus then returns to the period of great distress:
20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
Again, most scholars, futurists included, see this passage in Luke as a straightforward prediction of the events of AD 70. But in Matthew’s version, which also mentions the same details of flight and nursing/pregnant women, etc. he adds this description:
For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again. “If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.
Futurists cite this additional detail as proof that in Matthew’s version, at least, Jesus cannot be referring to the events of AD 70, because there have been events in Jewish history (most notably, the Holocuast) that were far more distressing than the destruction of the Temple in the 1st Century. But if one reads detailed accounts of the siege of Jerusalem, one is struck by the horror of that event, not only in its suffering but also in its spiritual significance. The real distress of AD 70 wasn’t simply the suffering, but the never-to-be repeated destruction of the Temple worship system that was the very heart of Judaism.
I'll return later to finish my commentary on the rest:
25 “There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. 26 People will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. 27 At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.”
At this point, partial preterists tend to go in two possible directions (I'm fairly undecided). One is to say that these passages do describe the events of AD 70. Others argue that we are now seeing the distant future and Christ's second coming (I lean toward this view) The first view seems to find some support in Matthew 24 which says the astrological events will immediately follow the preceeding events. The second view seems better supported by Luke, however, because he has just told us in verse 24 to expect a large gap of time.
29 He told them this parable: “Look at the fig tree and all the trees. 30 When they sprout leaves, you can see for yourselves and know that summer is near. 31 Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near. 32 “Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 33 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
Likewise, there are at least two ways partial-preterists understand this. One is to say that "these things" refers to all the events described and predicted from verses 5-28, interpreting the "coming" of verse 27 as Jesus coming in judgment on Jerusalem (as opposed to his final, second coming) and the "redemption/ kingdom of God is near" as a reference to the "kingdom age" officially beginning in AD 70 with the end of the Temple sacrifice system. The other understanding would be that "these events" cover verses 5-24 only and that verses 25-28 point forward to the second coming.
Note also that Jesus implies that his generation will pass away once all these things have happened, which is odd if he intends this to be about the end of the world, where we would expect that some of Jesus' generation wouldn't see death at all (as some indeed did expect, see John 21:23).
I'm inclined to see this passage as bascially saying, "all the signs that need to happen before Christ's second coming will be fulfulled within this generation", though, as Matthew says, who do not know when that "day" will come. In other words, Christ's coming has been immanent since AD 70.
34 “Be careful, or your hearts will be weighed down with carousing, drunkenness and the anxieties of life, and that day will close on you suddenly like a trap. 35 For it will come on all those who live on the face of the whole earth. 36 Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man.”
Preterists point out that "whole earth" need only mean "all the land of Israel", or if the preceeding verses have now broached the subject of the second coming, this may indeed refer to the whole globe.
|
|
onthe3dge
Intermediate Member
Posts: 68
How did you find the Aletheia Forums?: proboards site
|
Post by onthe3dge on Mar 10, 2014 18:50:04 GMT -8
In Matt. 23:39 Jesus said, "For I tell you that you will never see me again until you say, 'Hosanna to the son of David: Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord." At this point he had already entered the city to shouts of those very words, and Jesus has not returned to Jerusalem to similar acclaim since then. So this is clearly an unfulfilled prophecy.
Just a few verses later the disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us when these things will happen, and what sign to look for that will signal your official arrival at the end of the age." The "these things" of course refers to the destruction of the Temple, which we all agree happened in AD 70. But the question is a separate one about "the end of the age". Regardless of whether the disciples expected both to happen at the same time, Jesus' response seems to indicate otherwise:
"You will see wars and hear reports of wars far away, but don't be alarmed, because such things must happen--- but it will not yet be the end. Nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places, but these are only the beginning of birth pangs."
The scope goes beyond just the armies of Titus against Jerusalem; this involves many nations and is accompanied by "famines and earthquakes in various places". These things did not occur along with the destruction of the Temple. But most important of all is the fact that Jesus said this was not the end. Then Jesus goes on to speak of many false prophets, and again there is no clear historical fulfillment by 70 AD. So also Jesus said that "The Good News of the Kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." Yet it seems a great stretch to claim that all the world heard the gospel by 70 AD, which you seem to be calling "the end".
Regarding the abomination of desolation, we agree that there was a fulfillment in 70 AD. Yet Jesus added, "After that will be great oppression, the likes of which has never happened from the beginning of the world until now, nor will ever happen again! In fact, if those days had not been cut short, all flesh would have been wiped out, but they will be shortened for the sake of the chosen people." One could certainly argue that the Jews qualify as "the chosen people", but not "all flesh". There have certainly also been terrible times of suffering in the world that at least rival, if not surpass, that which the Jews suffered when Jerusalem fell. The fact that Jesus uses two terms in the same sentence-- "all flesh" and "the chosen people"-- seems to me to be a very clear grammatical/contextual indication that "all flesh" means exactly that: the whole world, all humanity.
Finally, in vs. 29-31 we read this;
"Immediately after the distress of those days
"the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'
Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect form the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. "
It stretches credulity to think that all of this has been fulfilled.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 10, 2014 20:07:53 GMT -8
In Matt. 23:39 Jesus said, "For I tell you that you will never see me again until you say, 'Hosanna to the son of David: Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord." At this point he had already entered the city to shouts of those very words, and Jesus has not returned to Jerusalem to similar acclaim since then. So this is clearly an unfulfilled prophecy.
I also take this passage to have a future fulfillment, so we're agreed on this. But this is not included in the "all these things" that will happen within Jesus' generation.
As to your other points, I believe I've covered some of them earlier on this thread, but I'll recap:
I think that the questions "when will these things happen" and "what will be the sign of the end of the age" are referring to the same event (the question of Jesus' coming is a bit more tricky, more on that later)
I think the disciples knew full well that if the Temple is destroyed, that would be "the end of the age"-- that is, the end of the Mosaic covenant.
As to rumors of wars, earthquakes, famines, false prophets, etc.., these did indeed clearly occur in the years between AD 30 and AD 70, as reported by Roman history, Josephus, and the book of Acts. Jesus is saying that such events would be signs that the destruction of Jerusalem (the end) was near, but not yet* Would it be helpful to cite these historical events?
As to the gospel being preached throughout the world, the gospel WAS preached through the known world by AD 70. Elsewhere in the New Testament, the phrase ‘the whole world’ is used to mean the “known world of that time” (see Romans 1:8, Colossians 1:6, Acts 17:6, 24:5), so this can be said to have truly been fulfilled by AD 70.
The "all flesh" or "no human" of verse 22 need only refer to all the humans caught up in the siege of Jerusalem and the Jewish revolt, so that he is saying, "all the Jews caught up in this siege would have perished if it had not been for the sake of the Jesus followers among them. "
And that the distress of AD 70 would be unequaled in history isn't that strange, because although there have been other horrible events in Jewish history, events such as the Holocaust with an unequaled number of individual victims, no other event in Jewish history was as spiritually distressing and final as the moment when the Temple worship system was finally and irrevocably destroyed.
*However, rumors of war, false prophets, and fame in particular are also mentioned as part of the siege of Jerusalem as well (Josephus)
|
|
onthe3dge
Intermediate Member
Posts: 68
How did you find the Aletheia Forums?: proboards site
|
Post by onthe3dge on Mar 11, 2014 2:48:16 GMT -8
The nearest antecedents for "all these things" are the signs in the sky, the return of the Son of Man, the trumpet call, and the gathering. None of that happened within Jesus' generation.
I don't see justification for presuming this. Israel had been defeated more than once before, yet no one called each dispersion an "age". So, yes, a matter of opinion, and thus not a proof for either view.
Why does it "need only refer to all the humans caught up in the siege of Jerusalem"? Here again you add significant content to the text. There is no qualifying or restricting statement there. It is a far more natural reading to take it as stated: all flesh.
You also restrict the meaning of Jesus' clear statement of the unparalleled nature of the suffering. Where is the justification for adding the word "spiritual" to it?
Preterism seems to stand on a lot of altered meanings.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 11, 2014 8:43:40 GMT -8
As to Matthew 24:29-31,
Admittedly, the biggest weakness to my view, at least on the surface, is what Matthew 24 seems to say in his version:
29"Immediately after the distress of those days " 'the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.' 30"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. 31And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
Here, it seems a slam dunk that Matthew/ Jesus is saying that the coming on the clouds will follow straight on the heels of the destruction of the Temple in AD 70.
However, there are some problems with that perspective:
1) Within 5 verses Matthew/ Jesus will acknowledge that the day of the return in unknown (to firm that up, see Mark 13: 33 and Acts 1:7), so how can he mean that he knows it will follow immediately in a chronological sense after AD 70? Perhaps immediately after means simply that it is the “next event on the prophetic horizon”
Jesus is giving a sequence once the judgments begin, which has nothing to do with when they begin. For example, I could say that once the dollar collapses, our society will be in disarray, yet who would think I'm predicting the moment of the collapse? Apples and oranges, in my opinion.
It's interesting that in this case you're arguing for a prophetic gap.
It makes a whole lot of sense why it Jesus surrendered the right to know when he would return. It allowed him not even to be able to tell the disciples when they begged him. And not knowing when it will occur, but that it could occur any time after AD 70, has been the best possible state for the Church to be in for the last 2000 years, because that uncertain anticipation helps us avoid both the extremes of growing apathetic about the coming as well as hyper-apocalyptic and of no earthly good.
This uncertainty is exactly why I believe the Rapture is pre-trib.
2) Matthew 25 contains many parables about the “return of Christ” which seem indistinguishable from the final judgment depicted in Rev. 20 and elsewhere, which occurs at the end of the Millennium (ie, a long but indefinite time after AD 70)
Yes, it's complicated; that's why I will never understand why so many Christians get so bent about eschatology. Many say "I used to believe X but now I believe Y, so Y is clearly the correct view". Yet this is not anything close to clear.
3) Repeatedly this coming on the clouds is seen as something that is seen clearly by all humanity (Luke 17:24, Rev. 1:7, I could go on….) very similar to Paul’s sentiment that there will be a time at which “every knee will bow and every tongue confess” to Christ (Romans 14:9-12)
Coming with the clouds is not necessarily a one-off event. For example, Paul writes that Jesus will come with the clouds and we meet him there, while other passages have Jesus coming down to the earth.
4) Matthew just really seems to like the word immediately. He uses it several times, arguably more as a literary device to keep the book flowing than as an actual verbatim way of quoting Jesus.
It's easy to brush off something as a literary device, but I'd call it the fallacy of "special pleading" when timing is the point of debate.
5) Most importantly.... although Matthew at this point in the dialogue rushes to the second coming, Luke does not. Luke indicates at this same point that Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled, which indicates a long time.
Another reference to this time of the Gentiles was by James at the Jerusalem Council. This of course was after the Resurrection but before 70 AD. So there were 40 years before the next "trampling", and it's been trampled ever since. Paul also said that "Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in" (Rom. 11:25). So clearly we are still in that span of time.
I admit that I myself am now postulating a gap . As I'll explain on the other thread, I have to backpedal a bit and acknowledge that, yes, I do believe there are sometimes time gaps in prophecies (someone once likened it to seeing a line of ridgetops but not seeing all the valleys in between). I just think we shouldn't postulate a gap unless we have a good reason in Scripture to do so. I don't think we do in Daniel 11:36, but I think we do here because of Luke 21:24.
|
|
onthe3dge
Intermediate Member
Posts: 68
How did you find the Aletheia Forums?: proboards site
|
Post by onthe3dge on Mar 11, 2014 10:51:03 GMT -8
Yes, gaps happen. But just as it isn't wise to presume a gap out of personal preference, so also it isn't wise to presume no gap for the same reason. And I think at this point I've given at least a valid reason for why I see them where I do, largely due to my belief that prophecy requires all details to be fulfilled.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 11, 2014 12:32:31 GMT -8
OK, back on track... sort of. I'm not super pleased with my re-creation of the original posts (gonna have to work on that a bit more) and we lost the dialogue with Chris on the first page, but we've got all the recent stuff, which I hope to respond to soon.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 11, 2014 17:03:33 GMT -8
Yes, gaps happen. But just as it isn't wise to presume a gap out of personal preference, so also it isn't wise to presume no gap for the same reason. And I think at this point I've given at least a valid reason for why I see them where I do, largely due to my belief that prophecy requires all details to be fulfilled. I'd much rather see a reason or hint in the original prophecy to suppose a gap than just deduce one to make prophetic details work. That's my "skeptics" lens, which I cannot easily divorce from my assessment of prophecy (nor do I really think I should). I'm not saying that as Christian interpreters of Scripture we may not have to do that sometimes, but don't try and make me feel good about it .
This has me thinking.... which "gaps" in prophecy do I accept and which do I not? And for what reasons? I could be wrong, but I can't off the cuff think of one I accept without some kind of hint or clue in the original prophecy.
|
|
onthe3dge
Intermediate Member
Posts: 68
How did you find the Aletheia Forums?: proboards site
|
Post by onthe3dge on Mar 11, 2014 17:23:23 GMT -8
Yes, gaps happen. But just as it isn't wise to presume a gap out of personal preference, so also it isn't wise to presume no gap for the same reason. And I think at this point I've given at least a valid reason for why I see them where I do, largely due to my belief that prophecy requires all details to be fulfilled. I'd much rather see a reason or hint in the original prophecy to suppose a gap than just deduce one to make prophetic details work. That's my "skeptics" lens, which I cannot easily divorce from my assessment of prophecy (nor do I really think I should). I'm not saying that as Christian interpreters of Scripture we may not have to do that sometimes, but don't try and make me feel good about it .
This has me thinking.... which "gaps" in prophecy do I accept and which do I not? And for what reasons? I could be wrong, but I can't off the cuff think of one I accept without some kind of hint or clue in the original prophecy.
Again, this is not just a hunch or hint. It's based on the fact that no clear covenant for 7 years was established at Jesus' baptism, Jesus did notthing like the abomination of desolation, the claims of "a time of trouble never seen before and never to be seen again" as having happened then are purely arbitrary, and the stated purposes of the 70 weeks have not been achieved even after all this time. In fact, for all anyone can observe, life has gone on as if Daniel's prophecy was a failure-- if it's finished already. Yet when people were still scoffing at anyone who said Israel was to return to its land, it happened. This is significant because none of the other prophecies esp. of Revelation could happen without a nation of Israel in its ancient homeland. In fact, until it happened, most theologians had given up on a literal and futurist interpretation. Yet curiously they did not change their minds when they were proved wrong about Israel. So I'm a skeptic too; I demand the same degree of proof and evidence for other people's eschatological views as they demand for mine. And so far, in spite of many similar conversations as this one over the years, I've yet to see enough to convince me that preterism is valid. Of course I may be wrong and simply blind, but the same charge can be leveled in all directions.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 11, 2014 17:28:25 GMT -8
Good point, which is why many partial preterists also try and make those things fit into that generation, to which there is some merit in my opinion (especially the signs in the sky). And BTW, neither Matthew or Luke says "return of the Son of Man", they say "coming on the clouds", which can mean, a "coming in judgment". If one included these verses in Jesus generation one would have to spiritualize the trumpet call and gathering, which, though it feels a stretch does not break credulity in my book.
This was not a mere defeat, it was the final end to the Temple system, the culmination of the age of Mosaic Law. Note that Luke implies that it is the beginning of a new age- the "age of the Gentiles".
Gee, I'm starting to sound like a dispensationalist!!!!
You also restrict the meaning of Jesus' clear statement of the unparalleled nature of the suffering. Where is the justification for adding the word "spiritual" to it? Preterism seems to stand on a lot of altered meanings. These are not "altered meanings", they are contextualized meanings! If the context is the drama unfolding in Judea, then to say "everybody would have died" can easily mean "of those in Judea". It all depends of the point of reference. Just like how Paul can say "the whole world" when he really means "the known world".
And the words used in Luke 21:23 Matthew 24: 21 need not translate as "suffering" but "distress/tribulation". (anagke: calamity, distress, straits and thlipsis: pressure, oppression, affliction, tribulation, distress, straits). In other words, the focus need not be on physical suffering, but spiritual calamity.
|
|
onthe3dge
Intermediate Member
Posts: 68
How did you find the Aletheia Forums?: proboards site
|
Post by onthe3dge on Mar 11, 2014 17:44:17 GMT -8
Good point, which is why many partial preterists also try and make those things fit into that generation, to which there is some merit in my opinion (especially the signs in the sky). And BTW, neither Matthew or Luke says "return of the Son of Man", they say "coming on the clouds", which can mean, a "coming in judgment". If one included these verses in Jesus generation one would have to spiritualize the trumpet call and gathering, which, though it feels a stretch does not break credulity in my book.
I think the disciples knew full well that if the Temple is destroyed, that would be "the end of the age"-- that is, the end of the Mosaic covenant.
I don't see justification for presuming this. Israel had been defeated more than once before, yet no one called each dispersion an "age". So, yes, a matter of opinion, and thus not a proof for either view.
This was not a mere defeat, it was the final end to the Temple system, the culmination of the age of Mosaic Law. Note that Luke implies that it is the beginning of a new age- the "age of the Gentiles".
Gee, I'm starting to sound like a dispensationalist!!!!
The "all flesh" or "no human" of verse 22 need only refer to all the humans caught up in the siege of Jerusalem and the Jewish revolt, so that he is saying, "all the Jews caught up in this siege would have perished if it had not been for the sake of the Jesus followers among them. "
Why does it "need only refer to all the humans caught up in the siege of Jerusalem"? Here again you add significant content to the text. There is no qualifying or restricting statement there. It is a far more natural reading to take it as stated: all flesh.
You also restrict the meaning of Jesus' clear statement of the unparalleled nature of the suffering. Where is the justification for adding the word "spiritual" to it?
Preterism seems to stand on a lot of altered meanings. These are not "altered meanings", they are contextualized meanings! If the context is the drama unfolding in Judea, then to say "everybody would have died" can easily mean "of those in Judea". It all depends of the point of reference. Just like how Paul can say "the whole world" when he really means "the known world".
And the words used in Luke 21:23 Matthew 24: 21 need not translate as "suffering" but "distress/tribulation". (anagke: calamity, distress, straits and thlipsis: pressure, oppression, affliction, tribulation, distress, straits). In other words, the focus need not be on physical suffering, but spiritual calamity.
Re. "coming on the clouds", the angel told the discples that Jesus would return as he left, and that was a literal, physical, visible, ordinary atmospheric cloud. We can take "cloud" metaphorically if the context gives us something to go on, such as the expression "great cloud of witnesses". But we cannot arbitrarly make every mention of "coming with the clouds" a metaphor. It seems to me that the burden of proof is on the less direct interpretation. But I do think it stretches credulity to say that the trumpet call and gathering happened but you just couldn't see it. Skeptic that I am, I need something more than simply the belief that "the emperor is really wearing fine clothing". Re. the destruction of the temple, this was not the first time. Yet nobody called either the loss of temple or dispursion from the land the end of an age. The Mosaic law will be reinstated per Ezekiel 40-48; see www.preteristarchive.com/Futurism/2007_ice_millennium.html . And the times of the gentiles has an end, per Paul (Rom. 11:25) and James (Acts 15). And I really think dispies sound nice. Re. "altered meanings", I disagree that they're contextually justified. I don't see any basis for the phrase "all flesh" being an exaggeration or figure of speech, as opposed to such contexts as when John said the whole world couldn't hold the books it would take to write down everything Jesus did. The restrictions I mentioned are not just one or two, but seem numerous. As for "suffering/distress", on what basis do you make it spiritual only, and not physical?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 11, 2014 17:51:18 GMT -8
I'll have to get back to this tomorrow.... my kids need to eat!
Hah, you're giving me a run for my money dusting off stuff I haven't delved into much in the last several years. Good stuff!
|
|
onthe3dge
Intermediate Member
Posts: 68
How did you find the Aletheia Forums?: proboards site
|
Post by onthe3dge on Mar 11, 2014 18:02:45 GMT -8
I'll have to get back to this tomorrow.... my kids need to eat!
Hah, you're giving me a run for my money dusting off stuff I haven't delved into much in the last several years. Good stuff! Yeah, getting near bedtime here. And I truly appreaciate the workout; I had largely given up hope for any worthwhile debate after so many years talking to people whose idea of debate is "Oh no you didn't!" "Oh yes I did!" "Oh yeah? I'mma git you fer dat!"
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 13, 2014 17:00:01 GMT -8
I do believe in a literal, physical, visible, coming of Jesus as Acts 1 predicts, AFTER the millennium. But that doesn't mean this is the same "coming on the clouds" that the Olivet Discourse refers to. The OT prophets spoke of YHWH coming on the clouds in judgment of the 1st Temple and those clouds were most likely symbolic.
But, like I said, I do lean toward seeing the "coming" part of the Olivet discourse as future.
I don't think the Mosaic law will ever be reinstated. We could discuss that here: Ezekiel's Temple: Literal, Symbolic, Hypothetical? Agreed that the times of the Gentiles has an end, but I don't think it will then return to a new age of the "physical Jews". It will be the final age of the true Israel: Jews and Gentiles.
I'm not saying it's an exaggeration or figure of speech, just like if I said during the siege of Leningrad "everybody" was going to die if something hadn't ended it.
I'm not saying it doesn't imply any suffering, I'm just saying that the exceptional aspect of the event is the spiritual significance of the end of the sacrificial system. (which, could easily be called mental (ie, physical) anguish
BTW, I forgot that another argument preterists put forward is that Matthew's "never to be equaled again" language can be argued to be hyperbole based on similar examples from the OT:
2 Kings 18:5
He (Hezekiah) trusted in the LORD God of Israel, so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor who were before him.
2 Kings 23:25
Now before him (Josiah) there was no king like him, who turned to the LORD with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the Law of Moses; nor after him did any arise like him
Exodus 10:14
And the locusts went up over all the land of Egypt and rested on all the territory of Egypt. They were very severe; previously there had been no such locusts as they, nor shall there be such after them.
Exodus 11:6
Then there shall be a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt, such as was not like it before, nor shall be like it again.
Ezekiel 5:9
And I will do among you what I have never done, and the like of which I will never do again, because of all your abominations
Daniel 9:12
And He has confirmed His words, which He spoke against us and against our judges who judged us, by bringing upon us a great disaster; for under the whole heaven such has never been done as what has been done to Jerusalem.
|
|
onthe3dge
Intermediate Member
Posts: 68
How did you find the Aletheia Forums?: proboards site
|
Post by onthe3dge on Mar 13, 2014 18:09:27 GMT -8
I do believe in a literal, physical, visible, coming of Jesus as Acts 1 predicts, AFTER the millennium. But that doesn't mean this is the same "coming on the clouds" that the Olivet Discourse refers to. The OT prophets spoke of YHWH coming on the clouds in judgment of the 1st Temple and those clouds were most likely symbolic. But, like I said, I do lean toward seeing the "coming" part of the Olivet discourse as future. When Paul spoke of Jesus coming with the clouds, he made no mention at all of it being the end of all the judgments and the millennium. In fact, he believed that he could be included in the group that might be "alive and remaining" at this event. As I explain in one of my links, Paul wrote to the Thessalonians to calm their fears that "the day of the Lord had already come"... which is exactly what preterism teaches if everything was completed by 70 AD. Who would be afraid they had missed the Tribulation? Who would be upset that they had missed the wrath of God? Yet in spite of Paul assuring them that none of this had happened, he wrote as if he and they might live to see Jesus return. How can this be, if it was really the Antichrist they were to look for? We are to look for Jesus, not his impostor. So not all "clouds" have to do with the final return of Jesus to the earth; this one Paul wrote about has Jesus meeting us in the air and then taking us to heaven. Two very different events. In Christ "there is neither Jew nor Greek..."; the "wild" and "natural" branches are grafted into the vine, not one branch into the other; Paul openly rebuked Peter for slipping back into Judaism's separation laws... all of this teaches that the church is truly a mystery revealed, a third entity that is neither Jew nor Gentile. Israel is Israel, gentiles are gentiles, and Christians are Christians. This matter of who we are in Christ is what keeps prophecy debates going, because if one side sees everyone becoming literal(!!) Israel, and the other sees distinct differences among three entities, there is no hope of ever coming to an agreement on eschatology. Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism are forever separated, and eschatology debates between them can never be resolved since they stem from such widely divergent roots. It's absolutely pointless to continue this conversation if I accept a dispensational hermeneutic and you accept covenant theology. I'm very serious about this. But if it's not an exaggeration, then "all flesh" means literally "all flesh", which contradicts the preterist interpretation. So now it appears you're saing just the opposite of what you said before. I didn't say "any" suffering, but physical. You said it was only spiritual, and I saw nothing upon which you could base that assertion. Once again I'm finding it difficult to determine what you mean by what you say. Same problem with the rest of your comment; it seems that you cherry-pick what is literal and what is a figure of speech.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 16, 2014 17:49:42 GMT -8
In 1 Thess. 4 Paul doesn't mention the timing of the Lord's return. The "we" who are alive again need to indicate he thought he might still be alive again, it can simply mean at the time of the writing, he would have been included in "those still alive". 1 Thess. was written before the revelation of the Millennial Reign in Revelation, so it may not have figured in his thinking.
I agree that Paul wrote 1 Thess. to calm fears that somehow the final resurrection/ the Day of the Lord had already happened, only Full Preterists teach that EVERYTHING in prophecy was completed by AD 70. I look forward to the return of Christ, the final resurrection, and the last judgment of Rev. 20.
Not sure what you mean by "looking for the Anti-Christ"?
I agree with you that not all "cloud" references refer to the final coming of Christ. To me, the "cloud" coming of AD 70 may be different than the final "cloud" coming, just as to you "the cloud" coming before the Tribulation is different than the "cloud" coming after the Tribulation.
But I do think that 1 Thes. 4:16 and Revelation 20:9 are talking about the same event:
1 Thess 4:16
16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.
Rev. 20:9 9 They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God’s people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them.
The Greek for come down is the same in both of these verses (not that that proves anything, it's just a hint in my mind that they are talking about the same event. But that has to be substantiated by a much larger argument)
I don't call my view "covenant theology" because I don't arrive at it from a reformed perspective, but yes, we probably have very divergent views on the identity of Israel. But, you can read my thread on Israel and the Church and see if that's the case. Maybe that's a better place to start than in the details of the Olivet Discourse/ Revelation.
As to "all flesh", it can literally mean "all flesh" in a given locale, just as I pointed out in my Leningrad example.
Likewise, I don't recall ever saying that the suffering of AD 70 was "only spiritual". Either you're putting words in my mouth or I misstated my view (show me if that's the case). I'm simiply saying is that the suffering of AD 70, which was both physical and spiritual, was unique primarily because of the spiritual aspect of it.
|
|
onthe3dge
Intermediate Member
Posts: 68
How did you find the Aletheia Forums?: proboards site
|
Post by onthe3dge on Mar 16, 2014 20:01:32 GMT -8
In 1 Thess. 4 Paul doesn't mention the timing of the Lord's return. The "we" who are alive again need to indicate he thought he might still be alive again, it can simply mean at the time of the writing, he would have been included in "those still alive". 1 Thess. was written before the revelation of the Millennial Reign in Revelation, so it may not have figured in his thinking.
I agree that Paul wrote 1 Thess. to calm fears that somehow the final resurrection/ the Day of the Lord had already happened, only Full Preterists teach that EVERYTHING in prophecy was completed by AD 70. I look forward to the return of Christ, the final resurrection, and the last judgment of Rev. 20. Reading that passage as the Thessalonians would have read it, the natural meaning is that Paul used 'we' to refer to himself and all living Christians. He gave every indication of including himself in 'we', and none that excluded him. The topic included the people's fear of whether their dead loved ones would ever be seen again, and Paul assures them that those who died would precede their own transformation. This was his message of hope. And it is indeed significant that he wrote this before Rev., since so many people presume that when Paul speaks of "the last trump" that he must have meant the 7th trumpet of the as-yet nonexistant Revelation. Yet Rev. really doesn't concern itself with details of the Rapture, so of course it couldn't have been on Paul's mind as he wrote. Yet the fate of the dead in Christ certainly was on his mind, and this is why I believe he included himself in 'we'. Rev. really doesn't figure much in pre-trib arguments, beyond the conspicuous absence of the term "church" after the 7 letters. I find it most curious, though, that there can be such a thing as partial preterism, since it creates much inconsistency in whether a given passage is taken literally or figuratively/spiritually. If, for example, one takes literally Jesus' death as the midpoint of Daniel's 70th week, then why not also take literally his statements about signs in the sky, billows of smoke, etc.? It all seems very arbitrary. Those who believe the church goes through the Tribulation actually look for the Antichrist as the next prophetic event. I don't see those two passages as referring to the same thing at all. The dead in Christ do not rise in Rev. 20:9, for example. Rather, they descend from heaven. I'll have to save that for another time, as I've got too many irons in the fire right now. But yes, if one does not view the church and Israel as separate entities with separate destinies, there's little point in discussing eschatology. I still don't see any justification for qualifying or limiting "all flesh", as there is nothing in the context to indicate an exaggeration or figure of speech. If Jesus wanted to express all flesh in the world, one wonders what it would take to say so without people saying it isn't literal.
|
|