Jesus' "You will hear" about these things - different futurist perspective

[seanD]

I thought I'd make a thread to clarify this because this subject has been brought up a lot to me in eschatological debates.

Preterists need not reply since we already know "coming" in the OD to them represents the 70 A.D. war. This is not what futurists believe. Futurists essentially believe "coming" is Jesus' return.

Since this didn't happen in the first century, the OD should be viewed as a split prophecy (or double fulfillment), one that includes the fall of the temple (first century), and the other that includes his return (yet to be future). Although, there might be futurists that believe a third temple will be built and destroyed. But this isn't the subject of the thread.

When Jesus said "you will hear" about these things and goes on to describe a turbulent time and specific detailed events that take place during that time, futurists have a tendency to claim that those events are increasing (percentage-wise) in our generation as proof that we're heading to the end times.

This is a mistake and here's why.

The reason I no longer hold this interpretation is that a generation comparing current events to prior generations in order to accurately assess a clear distinction would be extremely difficult -- if not impossible. How can we even in our generation of exceptional access to data and information gauge whether earthquakes, for example, have increased against data that didn't exist even a hundred years ago? It simply can't be accurately gauged even by us.

However, the perception of increase is the only thing that would make it distinguishable, thus a "sign." The perception of events he described (other than the destruction of the temple) is unique ONLY to our generation with our communication technology, and I think that's what Jesus was referring to. His hear of these troubling things I believe was significant. Something has to make "You will hear" distinguishable because every generation, including the generations prior to Christ experienced the things he described and heard about those things happening. Most of what he described are just natural events that have occurred over the course of human civilization.

So it's only really meaningful to believe that Jesus' "You will hear" meant the perception of these events will increase. In fact, perception would increase to such a magnitude that it will not only be unique with that particular generation, but it will cause unique forms of collective anxiety from hearing about these events so rapidly and widespread unlike any other generation prior.

In short, "this generation" he described would suffer a unique symptom of what I call NIO (negative information overload), and that generation is at least a generation subsequent to not just the internet, but the total fruition of social media which is what we've had since about 2000.

So, with the exception of the temple destruction, these events happening can't be the "sign" (the specific word they used when they asked Jesus of his coming) because they were happening before and during Christ's first appearance. Our perception of these events increasing was the sign because it is the only thing that separates our generation apart from all previous generations.

[Rushing Jaws]

[One Bad Pig]

An interesting argument, but you might want to check out past exegesis of the first part of Matthew 24 (e.g., John Chrysostom, Augustine, the time leading up to the end of the first millennium, the Reformation, etc.); people have often been confident that the return of Christ was imminent based on what was going on around them.

[seanD]

OBP, I think you're missing the main point of the thread. It doesn't matter that past generations have been wrong. That isn't the point. No other generation would have been able to perceive ("you will hear") such events on a scale anywhere close to this generation. Not just the scope of the events themselves, but on a global collective level. Now, there could be future technology that increases this perception scale beyond anything we can imagine even beyond this generation. In fact, there could be a time that everyone in the world is literally locked into the internet like something out some dystopian Matrix movie. That's always possible.

Rushing Jaws, I'm not sure I get what you're arguing. Is this what they call "Full Preterism"?

[One Bad Pig]

OBP, I think you're missing the main point of the thread. It doesn't matter that past generations have been wrong. That isn't the point. No other generation would have been able to perceive ("you will hear") such events on a scale anywhere close to this generation. Not just the scope of the events themselves, but on a global collective level. Now, there could be future technology that increases this perception scale beyond anything we can imagine even beyond this generation. In fact, there could be a time that everyone in the world is literally locked into the internet like something out some dystopian Matrix movie. That's always possible.

Yet, as even you acknowledge, the events themselves aren't really happening on a more frequent basis, so we're back to perception. Other generations in the past have perceived the same apparent increase in events; what does the scale of the perception have to do with anything when the perception is no less inaccurate?

I'm not sure what RJ is trying to argue, but it doesn't look like full preterism.

[seanD]

Yet, as even you acknowledge, the events themselves aren't really happening on a more frequent basis, so we're back to perception. Other generations in the past have perceived the same apparent increase in events; what does the scale of the perception have to do with anything when the perception is no less inaccurate?

I'm not sure what RJ is trying to argue, but it doesn't look like full preterism.

I didn't say the events aren't happening with more frequency, I said we can't accurately gauge this, including and especially the first century. Perception of the events is important because it's the only factor that distinguishes what and how "you will hear" about the events. It also distinguishes the negative effect it will have on a collective level.

[Darfius]

Good idea. Goes along with the notion of "the whole world" gazing on the dead bodies of the two witnesses. God knows how the preterists interpret that. It probably varies amongst each one, like most of their "theology".

[seanD]

Good idea. Goes along with the notion of "the whole world" gazing on the dead bodies of the two witnesses. God knows how the preterists interpret that. It probably varies amongst each one, like most of their "theology".

I think that's one of the main exclusions of all previous generations, especially the first century.

Remember, many if not most of the disciples who later became apostles were either martyred or weren't even in Palastine at the time of 70 A.D. war. They were off in other regions preaching the gospel. Though there is an ECF source that says the Christians that stayed there apparently fled to Pella, there's no indication from that source (at least from what I remember) who they were and how many there were.

Moreover, just because there may have been some Christians that stayed in Palastine and may have heard of earthquakes, wars, tribe against tribe, famines, pestilence (and this is highly debatable that even first century Christians in Israel alone had the means to hear about all these events at once), that doesn't mean the Christians in other countries heard about these things. In fact, there's no possible way they could have.

So even in the scope of preterism, which limits much of the OD to only first century Christians prior 70 A.D., this is a problem, much more so from a futurist perspective.

Our generation is the only generation where most if not all Christians would hear the news of these events at the same time. So it's not just the perception of the accumulation of these events that is of greater magnitude, but access to this information of these events is far more widespread.

[One Bad Pig]

Moreover, just because there may have been some Christians that stayed in Palastine and may have heard of earthquakes, wars, tribe against tribe, famines, pestilence (and this is highly debatable that even first century Christians in Israel alone had the means to hear about all these events at once), that doesn't mean the Christians in other countries heard about these things. In fact, there's no possible way they could have.

You're dismissing the perception of first century Christians because it doesn't fit with your modern notion of what they should have perceived?

Our generation is the only generation where most if not all Christians would hear the news of these events at the same time. So it's not just the perception of the accumulation of these events that is of greater magnitude, but access to this information of these events is far more widespread.

Again, no. Our perception is based on access to a greater magnitude of information regarding events. This still fails to address the fact that, in the past, there was a perception based on known/remembered events that they were in the last times. "This time, we're for really in the last times" rings especially hollow when pretty much all evidence from people in the past who thought they were in the last times is ignored or outright dismissed. Ignorance is not a virtue.

[seanD]

Our perception is based on access to a greater magnitude of information regarding events.

Yes, and this why I believe this is the "sign" Jesus was referring to and what he specifically meant by "hear." I left out the rest of your post because I have no idea what your point was.

[Rushing Jaws]

An interesting argument, but you might want to check out past exegesis of the first part of Matthew 24 (e.g., John Chrysostom, Augustine, the time leading up to the end of the first millennium, the Reformation, etc.); people have often been confident that the return of Christ was imminent based on what was going on around them.

[Rushing Jaws]

Good idea. Goes along with the notion of "the whole world" gazing on the dead bodies of the two witnesses. God knows how the preterists interpret that. It probably varies amongst each one, like most of their "theology".

7When they have finished their testimony, the beast that comes up out of the abyss will make war with them, and overcome them and kill them. 8And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which mystically is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified. 9 Those from the peoples and tribes and tongues and nations will look at their dead bodies for three and a half days, and will not permit their dead bodies to be laid in a tomb. 10And those who dwell on the earth https://biblehub.com/nasb/revelation/11.htm

[Rushing Jaws]

OBP, I think you're missing the main point of the thread. It doesn't matter that past generations have been wrong. That isn't the point. No other generation would have been able to perceive ("you will hear") such events on a scale anywhere close to this generation. Not just the scope of the events themselves, but on a global collective level. Now, there could be future technology that increases this perception scale beyond anything we can imagine even beyond this generation. In fact, there could be a time that everyone in the world is literally locked into the internet like something out some dystopian Matrix movie. That's always possible.

Rushing Jaws, I'm not sure I get what you're arguing. Is this what they call "Full Preterism"?

[Darfius]

7When they have finished their testimony, the beast that comes up out of the abyss will make war with them, and overcome them and kill them. 8And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which mystically is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified. 9 Those from the peoples and tribes and tongues and nations will look at their dead bodies for three and a half days, and will not permit their dead bodies to be laid in a tomb. 10And those who dwell on the earth https://biblehub.com/nasb/revelation/11.htm

"And those who dwell on the earth" don't represent those who dwell on the earth? Not only is the way you talk annoying, but you're an idiot. Of course it's a problem for preterism, as is every claim that only Jews in 1st century Israel had to give an accounting of themselves to God. And before you waste any more of my time being a verbose moron, the word used for "earth" is the same word used to describe the extent of God's dominion in verse 4. So those who dwell on the whole earth are aware of--and celebrate--the death of the two witnesses, because they seent it.

[seanD]

So getting this thread back on track, I'll reiterate.

As a futurist, stop looking at the events as the sign. The fact Jesus used "you will hear" is significant because it puts special emphasis on perception. However, it isn't ONLY the magnitude of information that makes our generation unique -- that's just the effect.

It's HOW we receive it that should be the main focus; the technological method we use that makes it unique and distinguishable. The reason this must be the sign is that Jesus said it will somehow serve as a sign ("Tell us, when shall these things be, and what shall be the sign of your coming..."). A sign is something that marks an event unique and that can be distinguished from something else, in this case, one particular generation (his "this generation will not pass away until...") from previous generations.

The events themselves he described can't possibly be the signs because they've always happened and are happening now and the frequency can't be distinguished between generations, which is why the church has been wrong over and over again with each passing generation. I don't believe Jesus would give us a specific sign that would easily prove to be so faulty with each generation, so we as futurists must be interpreting the wrong thing as the sign. Both the perception of events and how we perceive it is the single factor in the OD (other than the temple destruction) that can be starkly differentiated between generations, and this distinction is in fact irrefutable.

Jesus also emphasized an element of anxiety about the events in the equation, and this is also entirely unique from prior generations, not just how vast and simultaneous the anxiety effect can happen because of the rapid information, but probably the magnitude of the psychological effect it can have -- hearing about this negative information over and over everyday (the latter is much more speculative, but I do base it on some evidence of reports of measured increase in societal despair).

In short, wars and rumors of wars and natural disasters are not signs because they're not unique, the sign is how efficiently we receive this information (how we "hear" it) -- so far removed from generations just 20 years ago -- and the resulting effects of that reception of information.