Post by Josh on Feb 8, 2007 20:44:36 GMT -8
1/15/06:
Well, here we are at the "Olivet Discourse"-- Jesus' mini-apocalypse.
Definitely a lot to look at here.
I personally think that one shouldn't read Matthew 24 in isolation. It really needs to be read with it's parallel passages: Mark 13 and Luke 21. Furthermore, itis best to read Mark 13 first, then Luke 21, then Matthew 24, as they go from the simplest version to the most complex, and build on each other.
I believe it can clearly be established that Matthew 24: 4- 26 covers predictions about the time period between Jesus' resurrection and the destruction of Jerusalam in AD 70, which means all the 'signs' that need to happen before Christ returns have already happened- we're not waiting on any of them. Since AD 70, Jesus could have returned theoretically at any point-- no need for the world to see increasingly large famines or earthquakes, no need for a future tribulation and 'abomination', etc... One could perhaps state from this perspective that Revelation and 2 Peter imply that it will be a long time until his coming, but my point is that I believe all these 'signs' in the Olivet Discourse have already occurred.
It is important to show that all the signs did happen before AD 70, because by the Lord's own words in 24:34, those signs had to all happen before the generation to which he was speaking passes away. (The "these things" Jesus is referring to mean all the signs leading up to Jesus' coming being 'right at the door', but not including the actual coming. Jesus is not saying the 'coming' must happen before the generation passes away, just 'all the things that needed to happen to before His coming' For verification of this compare the 'these things' of v. 34 to the 'these things' of v. 35)
As to Christ's return, I currently hold that Matthew 24: 27 thru Matthew 25:46 refers to a future event. Even though Matthew uses the phrase 'immediately after' the AD 70 destruction in reference to Christ's coming, this can be translated, 'imminently after', meaning, after the AD 70 destruction, the next thing on the prophetic horizon is the 2nd coming, which has been 'about to' happen since that time.
Anyway, Luke makes it clear in Luke 21: 24 that the second coming doesn't indeed come right after (in terms of nearness) the destruction of Jerusalem .
I wrote a 2 part series on the Olivet Discourse earlier, which I'll append here for those interested in more about this perspective, which, of course, differs significantly from the Futurist perspective, currently popularized by the "Left Behind" books,etc..
Well, here we are at the "Olivet Discourse"-- Jesus' mini-apocalypse.
Definitely a lot to look at here.
I personally think that one shouldn't read Matthew 24 in isolation. It really needs to be read with it's parallel passages: Mark 13 and Luke 21. Furthermore, itis best to read Mark 13 first, then Luke 21, then Matthew 24, as they go from the simplest version to the most complex, and build on each other.
I believe it can clearly be established that Matthew 24: 4- 26 covers predictions about the time period between Jesus' resurrection and the destruction of Jerusalam in AD 70, which means all the 'signs' that need to happen before Christ returns have already happened- we're not waiting on any of them. Since AD 70, Jesus could have returned theoretically at any point-- no need for the world to see increasingly large famines or earthquakes, no need for a future tribulation and 'abomination', etc... One could perhaps state from this perspective that Revelation and 2 Peter imply that it will be a long time until his coming, but my point is that I believe all these 'signs' in the Olivet Discourse have already occurred.
It is important to show that all the signs did happen before AD 70, because by the Lord's own words in 24:34, those signs had to all happen before the generation to which he was speaking passes away. (The "these things" Jesus is referring to mean all the signs leading up to Jesus' coming being 'right at the door', but not including the actual coming. Jesus is not saying the 'coming' must happen before the generation passes away, just 'all the things that needed to happen to before His coming' For verification of this compare the 'these things' of v. 34 to the 'these things' of v. 35)
As to Christ's return, I currently hold that Matthew 24: 27 thru Matthew 25:46 refers to a future event. Even though Matthew uses the phrase 'immediately after' the AD 70 destruction in reference to Christ's coming, this can be translated, 'imminently after', meaning, after the AD 70 destruction, the next thing on the prophetic horizon is the 2nd coming, which has been 'about to' happen since that time.
Anyway, Luke makes it clear in Luke 21: 24 that the second coming doesn't indeed come right after (in terms of nearness) the destruction of Jerusalem .
I wrote a 2 part series on the Olivet Discourse earlier, which I'll append here for those interested in more about this perspective, which, of course, differs significantly from the Futurist perspective, currently popularized by the "Left Behind" books,etc..