The Olivet Discourse (Luke 21, Matt 24, Mark 13)

[Josh]

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.

Because, as I said, apocalyptic literature was always a mix of literal and figurative.   That's it's nature, we shouldn't expect otherwise.  It's not always easy to figure out whether something is literal or figurative/ symbolic but often times we have clues from the context, style of writing, or from scriptural precedent.

As I said elsewhere, even futurists  acknowledge this at times (for instance, Revelation is full of figurative symbols we would be foolish to take literally, such as satan as a dragon, angels as stars, anti-Christ as a beast with horns, etc..)

 

In the OT "signs in the sky" were used figuratively, how strange is it for them to be used that way again?   

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.

Again, I'm not saying it's a figure of speech.  Just like if I said "there was a fire in that house and everyone died", the everyone would literally be everyone in the house.  Maybe we should let this one rest, but you can have the last word if you like.

[onthe3dge]

Mar 17, 2014 21:04:16 GMT -8 Josh said:

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.

Because, as I said, apocalyptic literature was always a mix of literal and figurative.   That's it's nature, we shouldn't expect otherwise.  It's not always easy to figure out whether something is literal or figurative/ symbolic but often times we have clues from the context, style of writing, or from scriptural precedent.

As I said elsewhere, even futurists  acknowledge this at times (for instance, Revelation is full of figurative symbols we would be foolish to take literally, such as satan as a dragon, angels as stars, anti-Christ as a beast with horns, etc..)

 

In the OT "signs in the sky" were used figuratively, how strange is it for them to be used that way again?   

We have already agreed that apocalyptic literature is not an exact science. My objection to preterism is the manner in which it goes about telling the difference between literal and non-literal. There seems to be no rhyme or reason to it. To take the 70 weeks literally but rely on invisible/ambigous to cope with details that don't fit in, is what I'm calling inconsistent and contradictory. I never said it was easy; this is another straw man. You seem to be using it though as an excuse not to deal with parts of the text that would contradict preterism if literal. And I don't know why you're bringing up the issue of "what futurists even acknowledge" again, since I've already responded to that and expained my rationale. And where in the OT were "signs in the sky" used figuratively?

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.

Again, I'm not saying it's a figure of speech.  Just like if I said "there was a fire in that house and everyone died", the everyone would literally be everyone in the house.  Maybe we should let this one rest, but you can have the last word if you like.

Exactly; Jesus said "all flesh". It's literally all flesh. But yes, I think it's time to let the whole topic rest, as we're going in circles. Last word is yours; it's your board.

[Josh]

Joel 2  contains both symbolic/ figurative "signs in the heavens" metaphors AS well as "never to be equaled" hyberbole.

[Josh]

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."

It just occurred to me that you have been basing this discussion of "all flesh" on this quote.  But in your quote you misstated Matthew 24:21.   I can't find a translation that says "after that".  They all say "at that time" or "for then there shall be".   What version where you citing?   Because the way it is written makes it pretty clear to me that verse 21 is describing the same situation that verses 15-20 are. 

[onthe3dge]

Mar 24, 2014 19:03:50 GMT -8 Josh said:

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."

It just occurred to me that you have been basing this discussion of "all flesh" on this quote.  But in your quote you misstated Matthew 24:21.   I can't find a translation that says "after that".  They all say "at that time" or "for then there shall be".   What version where you citing?   Because the way it is written makes it pretty clear to me that verse 21 is describing the same situation that verses 15-20 are. 

No, I've been basing it on the statement, "there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again." Whether "after that" or "then" (which, by the way, can legitimately be taken as "next"), the focus has been on "never before-- never again-- all flesh". I see nothing to restrict this statement, no qualifiers or boundaries. And 70 AD simply does not qualify.

Again, we are at an impasse on how to read scripture, and we'll never resolve this or any other issue while we approach it from such drastically divergent perspectives.

[Josh]

I'd like to add a thought or two here:

In Matthew 24:30 in the NIV we see:

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

where the footnote indicates that an alternate, viable translation would be "tribes of the land". 

It's interesting that the NIV is the only major translation that I can find that says "peoples", all the others specify "tribes".    And the words in Hebrew and Greek for "earth" here can mean either world or land.   So there's no reason to insist that Matthew 24 is talking about a situation involving the whole world.  In fact, because Jesus says "tribes of the land" rather than "nations", it's just one more clue he's probably referring to the land of Israel only in the Olivet Discourse.

[onthe3dge]

Mar 26, 2014 8:59:33 GMT -8 Josh said:

I'd like to add a thought or two here:

In Matthew 24:30 in the NIV we see:

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

where the footnote indicates that an alternate, viable translation would be "tribes of the land". 

It's interesting that the NIV is the only major translation that I can find that says "peoples", all the others specify "tribes".    And the words in Hebrew and Greek for "earth" here can mean either world or land.   So there's no reason to insist that Matthew 24 is talking about a situation involving the whole world.  In fact, because Jesus says "tribes of the land" rather than "nations", it's just one more clue he's probably referring to the land of Israel only in the Olivet Discourse.

Earth and land are pretty much synonymous, and tribes is essentially the various clans of people in general. Of course preterists see this as specific to Israel, but there is nothing in the Greek to require it, any more than "ekklesia" always means groups of Christians (it was also used for the mob that formed to shout praises to Diana of the Ephesians, if memory serves). So I don't see "probably" here, but only "possibly", since it's equally probable/possible that it really does mean "all the peoples of the earth". This is not a case of the NIV being out in left field but simply another valid translation choice.

[Josh]

Earth and land are pretty much synonymous, and tribes is essentially the various clans of people in general. Of course preterists see this as specific to Israel, but there is nothing in the Greek to require it, any more than "ekklesia" always means groups of Christians (it was also used for the mob that formed to shout praises to Diana of the Ephesians, if memory serves). So I don't see "probably" here, but only "possibly", since it's equally probable/possible that it really does mean "all the peoples of the earth". This is not a case of the NIV being out in left field but simply another valid translation choice.

The reason I'd rate it as "probable" and not just "possible" is that, again, the context of the passage so far has been a localized event (the destruction of the Temple in Israel).  If the Jesus had wanted to indicate a world-wide event he could have said "among the nations". 

[Josh]

elsewhere onthe3dge wrote:

Who ran to the mountains AS SOON AS THEY SAW what you say was "the abomination" (Jesus' death)?

I've never heard a preterism interpreter say the abomination is Jesus death.   It is the desecration of the Temple by the Zealots or the besieging Roman armies themselves (both interpretations have their merits, or perhaps it's just the impending siege all together)

[onthe3dge]

Mar 31, 2014 17:22:15 GMT -8 Josh said:

elsewhere onthe3dge wrote:

Who ran to the mountains AS SOON AS THEY SAW what you say was "the abomination" (Jesus' death)?

I've never heard a preterism interpreter say the abomination is Jesus death.   It is the desecration of the Temple by the Zealots or the besieging Roman armies themselves (both interpretations have their merits, or perhaps it's just the impending siege all together)

Isn't that what you say is the real meaning of "abomination of desolation", that Jesus was destroying the abominable temple or something like that? If the zealots desecrated the temple and Jesus' death did away with that, the point is nobody ran off to the mountains when they saw it.

And it's really tiring to chase threads of conversation all over the place like this. I still see no justification for seeing the sequence problem as parenthetical in the other thread, and have already said that I wouldn't try any more to sort this topic out. So I guess I'll just leave it here and maybe someday we can talk about something we both use the same hermeneutical principles for.

[Josh]

Sorry for the jumping between threads.  I'm just trying to keep them on generally separate topics (Daniel 9 focus on one, Olivet Discourse on the other)

I think I see the disconnect here. You think I'm interpreting the alternate reading of Daniel 9:27B (And one who causes desolation will come upon the wing of the abominable temple, until the end that is decreed is poured out on the desolated city) as something that supposedly happened when Jesus died. Rather, I'm saying that was fulfilled in AD 70 as a result of the parenthetical comment about wars continuing until the end.

I see some skipping back and forth* between references to AD 26-30 and AD 66-70. I'll color code it accordingly:

25 “Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. 26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And one who causes desolation will come upon the wing of the abominable temple, until the end that is decreed is poured out on the desolated city


Jesus was clearly claiming that verse 27B would be fulfilled in AD 70, as it was indeed. Whatever the reasons Daniel had for skipping back and forth here (maybe thematic reasons?), he obviously is skipping back and forth because  verse 27 must refer to events before 26B because verse 27 implies the temple is still standing, whereas 26B is about it's destruction. Then in verse 27 we know we've jumped back to the future because it's now talking about the Temple's destruction again!

[jaybee]

I know I am late to the discussion. I just found your forum here, and figured I would join in.

First, for full disclosure, I'll be clear that I am almost a full preterist, and evidence draws me closer to fullness of the belief everyday.

Two topics that came to light right away from your discussion are these:

Regarding a global event or a local one - I think we can initially agree that Lk 21, Mk 13, and Mt 24 are dealing with the same issue.

Luke helps us a lot with our understanding since he is writing to a Gentile listener and words things for such a reader.

Lk 21:23 clarifies who we are talking about. First, most translations get the people right, "this people" - obviously from the discussion regarding Jerusalem surrounded by enemies (v20), inhabitants of Judea fleeing (v21), etc. we should understand the people are the Jews.

The second point is a little tougher, and different Bible translations change the meaning of the text depending on the word they use. Some in v23 say "the land" and some say "the earth" - the Greek word "ge" can mean either. The context should determine the translation. Obviously in relation to Jews, if it is translated "the land" then we would know exactly to what geographical location is explicitly being referred - Israel. Since this discourse is directed to Jewish apostles Jesus is talking to, is seen at this point to be referencing "this people" (the Jews) rather than all people, and for other reasons, I believe the NASB gets the translation right when it translates the verse to say "the land" since we then understand what land we are talking about.

Bibles that translate it "the earth" I believe miss the context, and are perhaps clouded by their presupposed idea that this tribulation must be global, even though the context does not support it.

The other issue is the coming on the clouds - Mt 24 helps us, as Matthew shows us the events discussed are a fulfillment of some of the things Daniel prophesied.

First, it should be noted that the Olivet discourse does not tell us where the Son of Man is coming to, just how he will come - on the clouds. In our present understanding, we obviously know to look for a second coming of Christ to us, so that is the lens we look through, and presume the Son of Man coming, must be the second coming. Others who look for a 70 AD fulfillment try to say it is his coming in judgment.

First however, the disciples did not know there would be a second coming as we know it as evidenced by their question in Acts 1 if Christ would now establish his kingdom - they still didn't understand Christ was going to leave, and they should look for a second coming.

Additionally, Daniel provides us with another coming of the Son of Man on the clouds which is not related directly to the second coming or to judgment. I believe this satisfies the coming of the Son of Man on the clouds referred to by the Olivet Discourse.

Looking to Daniel's words, specifically Da 7:13, the Son of Man comes on the clouds to be presented to God and receive his kingdom and dominion. Remember, while we picture a coming down for a second coming, the discourse does not tell us where the coming is "to" so we need to let the Bible tell us where.

Daniel tells us this coming of the Son of Man is a coming to God. The wording matches, and I believe a greater exploration of this should satisfy the diligent reader that this is the coming which is being referred to.

I haven't read all the way through this thread yet, but these are a couple of thoughts I have related to the first page.

[jaybee]

Mar 18, 2014 3:15:41 GMT -8 onthe3dge said:

Exactly; Jesus said "all flesh". It's literally all flesh. But yes, I think it's time to let the whole topic rest, as we're going in circles. Last word is yours; it's your board.

According to Peter in Acts 2:17 the words of Joel were fulfilled on Pentecost regarding "all flesh" (same word as the Olivet Discourse - sarx), yet it happened to a very little group at the time Peter claimed fulfillment. Even if it could eventually be understood to mean all believers, "all flesh" would still only be limited to a specific group in this instance. So it would seem "all flesh" can be understood as related to a group of people defined in someway by geography, belief, time, or any combination.

[Josh]

Jaybee- Welcome! Yes, I've read enough nt wright to have the direction of Jesus' coming on the clouds (up not down) pretty firmly established in my mind.

And great points regarding the use of world vs land.

[Josh]

Don't remember the context earlier but "all flesh" need only mean a representative sample of people from the nations. It began on Pentecost and by the time of Paul had spread "throughout the world". Boom. Done. Although it continues to unfold.

[jaybee]

I just finished catching up on this thread. It looks like much of what I said was already covered. My apologies for being repetitive. While I might have 101 things to bring up, it appears that this thread has beat the topic to death for the time being. lol

One thing I will mention:

Mar 25, 2014 3:09:50 GMT -8 onthe3dge said:

No, I've been basing it on the statement, "there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again." Whether "after that" or "then" (which, by the way, can legitimately be taken as "next"), the focus has been on "never before-- never again-- all flesh". I see nothing to restrict this statement, no qualifiers or boundaries. And 70 AD simply does not qualify.

Again, we are at an impasse on how to read scripture, and we'll never resolve this or any other issue while we approach it from such drastically divergent perspectives.

Consider that the locust plague in Exodus was claimed to be the worst, and then the plague in Joel is claimed to be the same thing. This is just one example of the type of speech found here referring to "never before... never again..."

Another example is Solomon, 1 Kings implies he is and will always be the greatest ever, but then Matthew quotes Jesus' claim that something greater than Solomon has arrived.

Just a couple of considerations, along with the idea that "all flesh" can really be seen to refer to a people group rather than all of humanity.

Anyway, loving the forums so far, looking forward to engaging in enlightening conversations.

[Josh]

Likewise! Glad to have you