Mt 24:14, Mk 13:10, Greek, and Preterism

[Rayado]

Hi, all you wonderful eschatology/exegesis buffs, I have a question for you.

I've got two verses here, Matthew 24:14, and Mark 13:10.

Matt. 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Mark 13:10 And the gospel must first be published among all nations.

Here's my question: we have two similar verses, from to very similar accounts of the Olivet Discourse, arguably one of the most difficult passages of Scripture to interpret. I know that the Greek word for 'world' (oikoumene if I remember correctly) in the Matthew verse means the Roman Empire (as opposed to kosmos), but what about Mark 13:10? The Roman Empire, that's one thing; but the nations themselves? Does the Greek grammar used in the Mark passage influence the meaning beyond the English? How are the two reconciled with Preterism? I'm sure the answer's sitting right in front of me, I just can't see it right now.

I would especially appreciate a response from Preterists (how about it, studyhound?), and a pearl or two will go to the person who answers. :smile:

[dizzle]

Oh oh, can I answer? I hope you do not mind if I just use something that I wrote before... I want those pearls.

....when was the gospel preached to all the nations, assuming that you are referring to Matthew 24:14? Well we know it was before 70AD for one very simple reason. Jesus said it would happen with that generation. Now that may be convincing to those of us who just simply accept the Bible but to others, not as convincing, and to those indoctrinated in futurism, not too convincing… so what does the rest of the NT have to say about this??



Colossians 1:5-6 – because of the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, of which you heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel, 6 which has come to you, as it has also in all the world, and is bringing forth fruit, as it is also among you since the day you heard and knew the grace of God in truth.



Colossians 1:23 – if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.



Paul says that the Gospel was even preached to every creature under heaven at the time he wrote to the Church at Colosse and was even bearing fruit in the whole world.



Paul told the Romans that their faith was being proclaimed to all the nations and throughout the whole world.



Romans 1:5-6 Through Him we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations for His name, 6 among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ



Romans 16:25-26 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began 26 but now made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures made known to all nations , according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith



You may ask how this could possibly be… well even if I could not explain it, it would still be true because that is how the Bible defines “the Gospel being preached to all the nations” and the Bible must be allowed to interpret the Bible. The word for “world” in Matthew 24:14 is “oikoumene” which means the “inhabited earth” which very often in the NT simply means the Roman Empire. We forget that Rome was the “world” of that time, made up of many, many nations. This same word is used in Luke 2:1 about the census that was ordered that caused Joseph and Mary to have to go to Bethlehem. No one teaches that even the Indians on the American continent were ordered to be censused as well….but that is the same word used in Matthew 24:14 – oikoumene.



Also we must remember that the Jews were, and still are, a very colorful and passionate people. Their idioms and means of communication often employed hyperbole and exaggeration for effect. It was part and parcel of that culture. We are being horribly anachronistic when we try to hyper-literalize such things. The Bible must tell us how to interpret the Bible even if it means we must topple the idol of “literalism” that we have erected today. Biblically literal means that we interpret things literally in the sense that they were intended to be understood.



If you were to say that “it is raining cats and dogs outside,” you would literally mean that it is raining very hard. I would not be taking you literal in a proper way if I insisted that you meant that canines and felines were whalloping down on our heads.






The Bible must tell us how to interpret the Bible even if it means we must topple the idol of “literalism” that we have erected today. Biblically literal means that we interpret things literally in the sense that they were intended to be understood.



Cyrus the King of Persia said, “The Lord, the God of Heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth.” Ezra 1:2; 2 Chron. 36:23



David writes, “All nations surrounded me.” Psalm 118:10



God “brought the fear of David on all the nations.” 1 Chron. 14:17



It is written of Hezekiah King of Judah “that he was exalted in the sight of all nations…” 2 Chron. 32:23



The Chaldeans are said to “march throughout the earth.” Hab. 1:6



“The people from all the earth came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph.” Genesis 41:57



“All the earth was seeking the presence of Solomon.” 1 Kings 10:24



“And all the nations shall ser him and his son, and his grandson until the time of his own land comes.” Jer. 27:7



Nebuchadnezzar addresses his decree as “the king to all the people, nations, and men of every language that live in all the earth.” Daniel 4:1

That should help. The American Indians were around back then. Were they involved? Nope. What about the aborgines? Nope.

[Rayado]

Yeah! Pearls for DeeDee for an excellent response, and another pearl for a really fast response. :woohoo:

:b_unripe: (<----That's me, newbie here, really happy for the response)

[dizzle]

Thank you!!!! And you drew the attention of the Preterist Princess herself. Me getting able to post stuff that i love is a rare experience these days.

[Rayado]

My pleasure. I've got some other questions about Preterism beyond your material on Preterism on this site and Tekton (but none right off the bat) that I might ask at a later time.

My compliments on a wonderful site, btw.

I kinda cannibalized/paraphrased your response in response to someone else (a fanatic dispensationalist I know) and this was the response I got:

"I feel you are mired down on triviality."

:eh:

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

I kinda cannibalized/paraphrased your response in response to someone else (a fanatic dispensationalist I know) and this was the response I got:

"I feel you are mired down on triviality."

:eh:
Translation:

It must be wrong because it is not futurism, but it make to much sense to refute. :grin:

[dizzle]

Wow, letting the Bible and historical context to guide our exegesis is trivializing? Hahaha.

[Rayado]

Faramir: exactly. :lol:

DeeDee: Apparently so. It was downhill from there. The discussion died a quick death after that.

The bad news is that the person I was discussing this with has me very concerned over her near-constant mishandling of Scripture--sometimes, as you saw, at the expense of the rest of the NT to the preference of the Gospels--well, I'm doing all I can to show the safe interpretations, even those of a futurist leaning. But Preterism is so rare where I'm from, that when I tell people I'm not a futurist (after explaining to them what that means) I usually get some really funny looks. :twitch:

[kofh2u]

Hi,
I am trying to understand exactly what it is that has been resolved?

Before the 1000 years reign, the Gospel must be preached over all the world, for sure.

So, we can assume that @ 70 AD that particular requirement had been satisfied, right?

Now when do we start the annual count?

It seems likely also that Matthew 24 speaks also of the return of Christ after the millennium, because Satan has been unchained.

And, particularly 24:30-31, that coming is associated with a sign in the heavens.

How do the people here explain this?

[Rayado]

Um, I'm really not quite sure what you mean by introducing the Millenium into the equation.

***DeeDee, Faramir, or Studyhound, please correct me if I get this wrong.***

From what I can tell the Millenium isn't referred to in the Mt 24 passage, and verses 30-31 are included in the events surrounding 70 a.d. by verse 34:

(including vs. 29-34 for context)

"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.'
"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. And 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.
"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

From what has been presented here the 'coming in the clouds' reference is logically and semantically connected with the 70 a.d. prophecies, when Jesus stated in v. 34 that the current generation would not pass away. Ergo, Jesus was not referring to the Millenium in Matt 24. DeeDee's got an article on Tektonics about the 'coming in the clouds with power & glory' that you might want to track down & read up on. :smile:

[GhostontheNet]

Um, I'm really not quite sure what you mean by introducing the Millenium into the equation.

***DeeDee, Faramir, or Studyhound, please correct me if I get this wrong.***

From what I can tell the Millenium isn't referred to in the Mt 24 passage, and verses 30-31 are included in the events surrounding 70 a.d. by verse 34:

(including vs. 29-34 for context)

"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.'
"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. And 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.
"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

From what has been presented here the 'coming in the clouds' reference is logically and semantically connected with the 70 a.d. prophecies, when Jesus stated in v. 34 that the current generation would not pass away. Ergo, Jesus was not referring to the Millenium in Matt 24. DeeDee's got an article on Tektonics about the 'coming in the clouds with power & glory' that you might want to track down & read up on. :smile:

You misunderstand why he adds the Millenium? He commented on on another thread that "1) I am not sure what a Preterist says." http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19837&page=1 . If he isn't familiar with preterist views on eschatology and is convinced by the argument in this thread, it leads to another issue to him. Equating the coming on clouds in Matthew with the second coming, he therefore comments that he doesn't think this could mean the second coming could occur after the Millenium. And as a personal speculation on my part, he isn't willing to give up (rightly so) the doctrine of a future second coming creating a dillemma, which is why he posted.

[dizzle]

Huh?
Sorry but that confused the heck outta me.

[kofh2u]

You misunderstand why he adds the Millenium? He commented on on another thread that "1) I am not sure what a Preterist says." http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19837&page=1 . If he isn't familiar with preterist views on eschatology and is convinced by the argument in this thread, it leads to another issue to him. Equating the coming on clouds in Matthew with the second coming, he therefore comments that he doesn't think this could mean the second coming could occur after the Millenium. And as a personal speculation on my part, he isn't willing to give up (rightly so) the doctrine of a future second coming creating a dillemma, which is why he posted.


1) I am the one confused. My apologies.

Probably this is so because, implicit in the first post here, is some subtle argument about whether the earliest preaching of the gospel in all the world was as early as 70AD. Am I right in this?

I see no reason to argue such a point. I do see great importance in that it did happen, continues to be happening, it is prophecy come true.

2) Yes, I am "not willing to give up (rightly so) the doctrine of a future second coming creating a dillemma, which is why"... I posted.

A) When was the 1000 years reign, according to preterism?

B) With Satan unchained, do we not expect another coming?

[studyhound]

1) I am the one confused. My apologies.



Probably this is so because, implicit in the first post here, is some subtle argument about whether the earliest preaching of the gospel in all the world was as early as 70AD. Am I right in this?



I see no reason to argue such a point. I do see great importance in that it did happen, continues to be happening, it is prophecy come true.



2) Yes, I am "not willing to give up (rightly so) the doctrine of a future second coming creating a dillemma, which is why"... I posted.



A) When was the 1000 years reign, according to preterism?



B) With Satan unchained, do we not expect another coming?



Let me take a swing at your 2 questions,



As for (A) Preterists can fall in to any of the three major Millennial views, A-mill, Pre-mill, or Post-mill. But for the most part Preterist fall in to the Post-mill and A-Mill camp.



Preterists tend to have differing views on the binding of Satan, whether it is past or still in the future.



A quick question, by “another coming” do you mean of Jesus or Satan?



:studyhound:

[dizzle]

Kof, just so that you know... in this area of the forum, you will only meet orthodox preterists. This means that we do not deny the future Second Coming. It is only a certain group that calls themselves preterists that hold to a very heretical eschatology that deny the Second Coming. We do not.

[Rayado]

Huh?
Sorry but that confused the heck outta me.
You & me both. But I think Studyhound did a pretty good job of answering the questions asked by kofh2u. But, getting back on track, within a (Orthodox) Preterist interpretation of Matt 24, was my post on track? (You know, the one with the disclaimer at the top, about five or six posts above this.)
:help:

[dizzle]

Yes and no you are on track. Yes about the coming on the clouds stuff, no about the millennium stuff. Let me explain. You are correct that Matthew 24 is not about the millennium but allusions are made such as the gathering of the elect. The Millennium was kicked off in the forty years or so after His death and the destruction of Jerusalem. The apostate Jews of the first century who rejected Christ were the first enemy to fall. The faithful Jews who accepted Him made up the seed of the Israel of God which includes all who believe.

[GhostontheNet]

Not hoping to knock the discussion off track, I just say I should mention for reference that I apologize for not explicitly mentioning whom I was speaking about (Kohfu). I hoped to clarify why he went into the question he did, and instead confused many. That is all, please continue discussion on the preaching of the kingdom.

[Rayado]

Yes and no you are on track. Yes about the coming on the clouds stuff, no about the millennium stuff. Let me explain. You are correct that Matthew 24 is not about the millennium but allusions are made such as the gathering of the elect. The Millennium was kicked off in the forty years or so after His death and the destruction of Jerusalem. The apostate Jews of the first century who rejected Christ were the first enemy to fall. The faithful Jews who accepted Him made up the seed of the Israel of God which includes all who believe.
Okie-dokie. As an immigrant from "Left Behind" futurism it's all still kind of new to me.

[dizzle]

No problem.