jwarrend and Faramir discuss eschatology

[Faramir]

This thread is for me and jwarrend to discuss escatology one topic at a time.

I will let jwarrend pick the first topic, and when we agree that we have discussed it to our satisfaction (i.e. we understand each other and either agree or agree to disagree) then we will move on to the next topic.

The ball is in your court Jeff.

What shall we talk about first?

[Dee Dee Warren]

how did I not get invited to this thread (mumbles)

[jwarrend]

Since you expressed a preference to initially discuss Matthew 24, I'm fine with using that as a starting point (although I really do hope to get an answer as to what it means to a preterist for Satan to be bound, at least somewhere down the line...)

I'd like to focus in on verses 23-31, although if you feel that that verse range is too arbitrarily chosen, feel free to broaden it as needed. I am not willing to narrow the range.

Of this passage, I previously said:

Ok. For the purposes of this discussion, I'm willing to stipulate to the idea that prophecies, including those of Christ, can be hyperbolic or metaphorical. My interpretation of Matt 24 doesn't demand a literal reading per se. In other words, I don't claim that fulfillment can only be achieved if we literally have stars falling from heaven, Jesus riding on a literal cloud, angels literally blowing trumpets, etc.

I think I tend to a "plain reading" approach, but I may not mean that in the exact same sense that others do. I don't insist that the language used in Matt 24 literally be fulfilled exactly as stated, but I do insist that the overall sense of the passage must be met.

Starting at verse 23, the clear meaning of this passage, to me, is that Jesus' second coming will be unmistakable; it will be impossible to miss, and everyone in the world will be aware of it. I have read a little of JP's writings on this subject and I believe he interprets "coming in the clouds of heaven" to mean that Jesus is actually going to heaven to be glorified. This, to me, just cannot be teased out of this passage, unless it can be adequately explained why (a) this had to wait until 70 AD (and what was Jesus doing between 33 and 70 AD?) and (b) whether there's any reason to suppose that everyone in the world, or even anyone, actually noticed when this happened. Reading on, the passage speaks of the angels gathering God's elect. I don't know the preterist interpretation of this, but I don't think it would be that this event happened literally, not even approximately.

So I don't have a problem with saying that the "correct" way of interpreting the passage may not exactly be what the plain reading would suggest, but I do have a problem with saying that the "correct" interpretation is the exact opposite of what the plain reading suggest. If by "as lightning cometh out of the east and shineth even unto the west, so shall the coming of the Son of man be" and "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then shall all the tribes of earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory", Jesus actually meant "40 years after my death, I will be glorified in heaven, and no one on earth will actually witness this occuring", then I think it seriously calls into question the Bible's ability to communicate intelligibly about ANYTHING; a more transparent case of doublespeak I cannot imagine.

You are welcome to respond to all or part of this, or to offer any thoughts you might have on the passage in addition or instead. What I'm interested in is (a) when do preterists say this happened? (b) What do they say took place when this prediction was fulfilled? (c) Who witnessed the events?

I will, for the time being, stipulate to the "proper" interpretation of the timing verses being as preterists claim. I do not do so because I believe this to be correct, but because I believe it to be irrelevant to the questions I'm asking. I think you've adequately demonstrated already that preterists really, truly do think that the timing verses are important and require an early fulfillment, so I don't need to be convinced further of this point! I'd prefer to focus on what happened and when it happened, and not worry about why it had to have happened at that time. I hope this is agreeable.

Looking forward to your thoughts.

I don't mind if Dee Dee participates.

My availability to participate in the discussion may be scattershot, at least for the next few days, but I'll try to respond whenever I can.

-Jeff

[Dee Dee Warren]

Jeff, I have a question. First, thanks for letting me participate because it is these kinds o threads I enjoy rather than some of the juvenile nonsense that happens in the eschatology forum. My participation is also scattershot being concentrated on the weekends. My question is this - would you mind, even though I see you stipulated for the sake of argument to the timing verse, if I diverted unto the timing verse for a bit? The reason why is that some of my reasoning for the timing verse directly impacts the verses you had in question. If you think that too much, that's cool I can focus on those verses, but I would like to bring some things into the discussion on the timing verse.

[jwarrend]

My question is this - would you mind, even though I see you stipulated for the sake of argument to the timing verse, if I diverted unto the timing verse for a bit? The reason why is that some of my reasoning for the timing verse directly impacts the verses you had in question. If you think that too much, that's cool I can focus on those verses, but I would like to bring some things into the discussion on the timing verse.

Hmm. I think I'd really prefer to remain focused on the "action" verses rather than the "timing" verses, because that's what I feel I've not read a satisfactory treatment of. I've read a little of yours and JP's works, and I understand that you really do think that Matt 24 anticipates events that would take place in the near future. I'm not that interested in further argumentation along those lines. I don't insist that you avoid those verses entirely by any means; if they factor into your interpretation of the events of 23-31, by all means bring them into play. But I am not that interested in hearing about why these events had to have happened when you feel they did; I'm much more interested in hearing what the events were that actually met the description, and when they in fact happened. There's no part of that that can adequately be answered "they happened at time X because they had to have happened at time X" for the purposes of the questions I'm exploring.

It's hard for me to rule on exactly what I do and don't consider within the scope of the discussion without knowing exactly what you're going to say. (And obviously, Faramir has quite a bit of say as well as to what he considers of interest and of relevance) You're of course welcome to post whatever you think is pertinent, and at worst, if it's of no interest to me I'll simply say "I'm not interested in that" (and I almost certainly will say that to a lengthy exposition of why "soon" really means "soon", etc), but I'd hate to have you invest a lot of time unnecessarily.

Not sure if that actually clears anything up?

-Jeff

[Dee Dee Warren]

Okay, I will just throw this out there as the four-pronged approach I take to verse 34, and if you decide you want further clarification on any of these just ask, otherwise, we leave it at that.

PROOF NUMBER ONE: The phrase "this generation" everywhere else it is used in the NT refers to the generation then living, and the near demonstrative "this" makes it indisputable.

PROOF NUMBER TWO: The destruction the Temple then standing in AD70 limits the fulfillment of the rest of the passage to the same time frame.

PROOF NUMBER THREE: The other "near" temporal indicators in the Gospels support the first century referent for "this generation," specifically Matthew 16:27-28 and Matthew 10:23

PROOF NUMBER FOUR: The context of the Olivet Discourse is a clear first century Judean context, NOT the "end of the world" it is made out to in modern prophecy thought.

I will post some hopefully on your questioned verses this weekend if I can - this weekend may be a bit too busy though I am not sure (I want to be able to post some to Gavin's one question in the eschatology section)

[jwarrend]

Dee Dee,

Unfortunately, that post does qualify as exactly what I'm not interested in, so I won't challenge or engage any of these proofs. Maybe a better way of putting it is that, in my opinion, it only gets the preterist position with respect to this passage part of the way up the mountain of plausibility, and I'm interested in hearing how preterists get the rest of the way there. I understand that you just wanted to put it onto the table, and am simply posting this to request that you will not make reference back to these proofs as if the matter were now "settled". Again, the case I'm asking for must be made with no reference to the necessity of the events in question to have happened when they supposedly happened.

I can see how Proof #4 could be a sticking point, though. But I think that since I'm asking for what 23-31 predict, and how it came about, the necessity to lean on Proof #4 as an assumption may not be that much of an impediment to the discussion; it would just inform your opinion, but it shouldn't, I don't think, render the argument I'm asking you to provide tautological. So, I'll provisionally accept that one for now, while leaving the option to revisit it if it becomes necessary to do so.

One final thought; I've asked Faramir elsewhere whether preterism would exist without the time texts, and asked why, if preterism really is a statement that "this stuff already happened", why the timing verses (ie, "this stuff had to have already happened") are given such a prominent role in the preterist presentation. His response was basically that they are useful because they are a clear difference from the futurist reading, and, in his words, they are "devastating" to futurism. I'd just like to observe, mostly for his benefit, that even though I fully granted the preterist reading of the timing verses for this discussion, you were still unable to resist the urge to bring them out and argue for them!

-Jeff

[Faramir]

Since you expressed a preference to initially discuss Matthew 24, I'm fine with using that as a starting point (although I really do hope to get an answer as to what it means to a preterist for Satan to be bound, at least somewhere down the line...)

OK, We can start on Mt. 24 and then do Rev. 20 next.

But Armor of God (or maybe it was Hitch, not sure which) gave a breif explanation of my position, that Satan’s binding is in reference to his ability to deceive the nations. Now, I can give more detail, but what was posted in your thread in the eschatology is more or less my position on those verses.

I'd like to focus in on verses 23-31, although if you feel that that verse range is too arbitrarily chosen, feel free to broaden it as needed. I am not willing to narrow the range.

The range is fine. I may want to eventually bring in verses 1-3 (but will do my dead level best to avoide v. 34 and other “time text”. )

Of this passage, I previously said:

Ok. For the purposes of this discussion, I'm willing to stipulate to the idea that prophecies, including those of Christ, can be hyperbolic or metaphorical. My interpretation of Matt 24 doesn't demand a literal reading per se. In other words, I don't claim that fulfillment can only be achieved if we literally have stars falling from heaven, Jesus riding on a literal cloud, angels literally blowing trumpets, etc.

I think I tend to a "plain reading" approach, but I may not mean that in the exact same sense that others do. I don't insist that the language used in Matt 24 literally be fulfilled exactly as stated, but I do insist that the overall sense of the passage must be met.

Fine with Me.


I will briefely address your points below, then after I address your points give a brief explanation of my understanding of the verses in question. I am starting out brief (i.e. not a lot of detail) for a couple of reasons:

1. I can write “a lot” of detail on certain verses and tend to provide more detail than most people want.

2. I want the discussion to be driven by your questions, so instead of providing a ton of details all at once that you have to sift through, I think a brief thumbnail of my position which you can peruse and ask questions that you have will better suite our purpose.

Starting at verse 23, the clear meaning of this passage, to me, is that Jesus' second coming will be unmistakable; it will be impossible to miss, and everyone in the world will be aware of it.

Since you did not stipulate what in those verses make it clear that the events will be “unmistakable and “impossilbe to miss” and (where we are most likely to disagree the most) “everyone in the world will be aware of it”, I can only guess. So when I do my “verse by verse” I will explain what I think the verse means, and if I think I see something that you might see as a “clear meaning” of a highly visible world wide phenomena I will address that. If (more likely when) I make an incorrect assumtion, please let me know.


But I see nothing in the text that would nececitate a “world wide” audience.


Also, for clarification, preterist (at least not the orthodox variety) think that the “Second Coming” happened in AD 70. So when you use the phrase “Second Coming” realize that that event is still future and was NOT what I think Jesus was referring to in those verses.

This, to me, just cannot be teased out of this passage, unless it can be adequately explained why (a) this had to wait until 70 AD (and what was Jesus doing between 33 and 70 AD?)

I will explain this (or at least try) when I get to the relevant verses.

and (b) whether there's any reason to suppose that everyone in the world, or even anyone, actually noticed when this happened.

This assumes that the passage necesitates a “world wide” audience. I will show why I think it does not. And you can show why you think it does.

Reading on, the passage speaks of the angels gathering God's elect. I don't know the preterist interpretation of this, but I don't think it would be that this event happened literally, not even approximately.

Well, you are about to find out the (are at least one) preterist interpretaiton of that event.

So I don't have a problem with saying that the "correct" way of interpreting the passage may not exactly be what the plain reading would suggest, but I do have a problem with saying that the "correct" interpretation is the exact opposite of what the plain reading suggest. If by "as lightning cometh out of the east and shineth even unto the west, so shall the coming of the Son of man be" and "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then shall all the tribes of earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory", Jesus actually meant "40 years after my death, I will be glorified in heaven, and no one on earth will actually witness this occuring", then I think it seriously calls into question the Bible's ability to communicate intelligibly about ANYTHING; a more transparent case of doublespeak I cannot imagine.

I hope I can show you otherwise.

Now on to the text (all scripture ESV unless otherwise noted):

Mt. 24:23-25

Then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'There he is!' do not believe it. 24For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. 25See, I have told you beforehand. 26So, if they say to you, 'Look, he is in the wilderness,' do not go out. If they say, 'Look, he is in the inner rooms,' do not believe it.

I actually addressed this somewhat in another post in eschatology recently , so I will re-post what I said in that other thread and expound on what I did not address:

In her comentary on Mt. 24, our own Dee Dee warren list several contenders for this honor:

Dee Dee's Commentary on Mt. 24

Messianic Kings:
Menahem (grand)son of Judas the Galilean
John of Gischala son of Levi
Simon bar Giora of Gerasa

Messianic Prophets:
The Anonymous Samaritan
The Anonymous Egyptian (Jew)
An Anonymous "Imposter"
Jonathan the refugee

© source where applicable

Dee Dee references Glenn Miller's (a futurist IIRC) site as her source for these names.

And these are just a few names. Very little that was written in the first century survives to this day, and very little of what happened in the first century was recorded. So this small sample is likely just the tip of the ice burg. But even if these names were all we had, they are sufficient to fulfill the prophecy.

So we certainly have first century candidates for the false Messiahs. But since the question only asked about the “existence” of false prophets, and not the great signs and wonders, I did not address that aspect of it so I will now briefly address.

I had to edit out some of my comments because my post was over the TWeb charachter limit. But what I cut was basically the same as what is on this thread in which TWebber Etc. does an excellent job of explaining this. And Dee Dee’s commentary here.

Mt. 24:27-28

27

Mt. 24:27-28

For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.

Now I can see how someone with a predisposition to futurism can read verse 27 as demanding a “world wide” audience. But the reality is that lightning is not visible world wide, but it is clearly visible. So I agree with you that the text describes the “coming” (not the second coming, I will explain the difference later in this post) will be unmistakable; AND it will be impossible to miss. What I disagree with (and what I do not see in this passage is that “everyone in the world will be aware of it”.

Yes lightning is unmistakable, and impossible to miss, for those in close proximity. But I am totally unaware of lightning in Cuba. To say that this requires a “world wide audience” (not saying that you do, I do not know) is a clear “force fit” IMHO.

And just as lightning is unmistakable and imppossible to miss for those in close proximity, so were the the events of AD 70 unmistakable and impossible to miss.

Mt. 24:29

29

Mt. 24:29

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.

You stated earlier that you accepted the possibility of a metaphorical understanding of some of the verses. And I previously explained the use of astronomical symbols in the OT to represent political entities, especially the “fall of political” entities. In AD 70 Jerusalem fell. Political death. The same/similar language is used in the OT to describe the destruction of Babylon and Egypt as a result of God’s judgment. I will show at the end of this post (NO!! Do not sneak a peek at the end, that will spoil the fun )

I suspect that most of the disagreement and/or confusion comes from the following verse, so I will dissect it in more detail (and most of this will come from an article I did for TWeb on this one verse. Not my best work, but the editor [Trout] wanted an article and I had just written this so I let him publish it.):

Mt. 24:30a

30

Mt. 24:30a

Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man

Note here, that there is no mention of Jesus physically appearing, but a sign of the Son of Man. Where else in scripture do we see this language?

Daniel 7:13-14 (NASB)

I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. 14"And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one which will not be destroyed.

The first part of Daniel 7 mentions four beasts, parallel to the four beasts in Daniel 2. Most, even non-preterists, interpret these beasts as representing four kingdoms, with the last Kingdom being the Roman Empire. So, whenever this “Coming of the Son of Man” took place, it seems likely to have taken place during the Roman Empire. This fits very nicely with the preterist interpretation of Mt. 24:34.

Notice also that the “Son of Man” came UP to the ancient of days (God), not DOWN to earth. When did the Son of Man (Jesus) come to UP to God?

Act. 1:9

And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.

See also:

[font=Verdana]

Acts [/font

7:54-56] Now when they heard these things they were enraged, and they ground their teeth at him. But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56And he said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."

So the “Coming of the Son of Man” was not a coming down to earth, but a ‘coming’ up to God. (The ancient of Days).

Also note that the Greek word “sky”, is the same Greek word translated Heaven. A better translation of that verse would be: “Then shall appear the sign, of the Son of Man in Heaven…" (In fact, this is the order of the words in the Greek text.) In other words, the sign that the Son of Man is in heaven, which is exactly what Daniel 7 describes.

So what we have in the first part of Mt. 24:30 is a “sign” that Jesus is in fact the Messiah, and is in fact with God, in heaven, as declared in Daniel 7.

So what is the sign? (I’ll give it to you at the end of the post)

Mt. 24:30b

and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn,

Again, the translation from the Greek can be highly misleading here. Many translation say, “Nations”, instead of tribe. But the same Greek word can be used of both. The Greek word translated, “earth” can, and usually is, translated, “land”, and often refers to a limited area. And when you have, “tribes of the land” together in a phrase like that, it is almost certainly talking about the nati

on Israel. (Do a quick search of “the land”, in the OT to see how often that phrase is used to describe a specific nation and also specifically the nation of Israel.)

So we have all the tribes of Israel mourning.

Now I can see how a “plain reading” of this verse in English could be taken to mean a world wide event. But the text was not written in English nor was it written to a 21st century audience. A “plain reading” to a first century Jew, especially in the context (seeMt. 24:1-3) would be that “all the tribes of the earth” equals tribes of Israel.

Go to any online Bible search engine and type in “the land” and see how many times “the land” is used to describe Israel. And at least one verse (Ex. 20:12) that used “the land” to describe Israel is translated in the Greek Septuagint using the same Greek word (ge) that Matthew uses in v. 30. I suspect there are many more, but lack the time to do the digging.

So, we have the “sign” (not the actual coming) that Christ is in heaven, we have all the people of Israel mourning, next we have “and they” the “they” being “all the tribes of the earth” aka the people of Israel.

Mt. 24:30c

and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Later, in Mt 26:60-64, we see Jesus accused of saying He could destroy the temple, He responded:

Matthew 26:61-64

and said, "This man said, 'I am able to destroy the

Matthew 26:61-64

temple of God, and to rebuild it in three days.'"And the high priest stood up and said, "Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?" But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, "I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven."

Jesus uses the same language. “seated at the right hand”, and, “coming on the clouds”. He also says that you (Greek present tense, meaning: the people then and there) would see him. This is yet another reason to see this as a first century event.

So whatever this, “coming in the clouds” is all about, it is a first century event.

Where else in the bible do we see the phrase, "coming in clouds"?

Is. 19:1

An oracle concerning

Is. 19:1

Egypt. Behold, the LORD is riding on a swift cloud and comes to Egypt; and the idols of Egypt will tremble at his presence, and the heart of the Egyptians will melt within them.

This is a prophecy concerning God’s coming judgment against Egypt. God here is described as, “riding on a swift cloud”. Other verses that have God coming, “down” in judgment include: Gen. 11:5, Ex. 3:8, Ps. 18:9-14, Is. 31:4, Ezek. 21:9-10, and Micah 1:3-4.


In light of the statement of Jesus regarding the destruction of the temple in Mt. 24:1-2, his response to the question about His ability to destroy the temple in Mt. 26:64, the use of, “coming in clouds” to denote God’s judgment in Is. 19, and the other uses of the term, coming to denote God’s judgment in the OT, it is clear that the “coming on clouds” is referring to Jesus coming in judgment on apostate Israel, manifested in the destruction of the temple.

To sum up, Mt. 24:30 is: The sign that the Son of Man is in heaven; (The destruction of the temple.), causing the tribes of

Israel to mourn; which is Jesus, (Who is God) passing His judgment against apostate Israel.

On to the last verse:

Mt. 24:31

31And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

A little background is in order here. What we have in verses 4-29 are the signs that precede the destruction of the temple. In v. 30 we have the destruction of the temple itself. That leads us to v. 31, so whatever v. 31 is it happened after the destruction of the Temple.

The destruction of the Temple was significant in that the Temple was the Old Covenant system of sacrifice, which Jesus (the New Covenant) replaced. Not only did Jesus’ sacrifice make the temple sacrifices obsolete, but it also made the covenant available to “all nations” (as promised to Abraham).

Once again, the translations do not do the original language justice. The Greek word translated “angels” is actually the Greek word for “messenger”. There is not a separate word in New Testament Greek for Heavenly being messengers and human messengers. So the word “angelos” is used for both.

How do we know which is which? Context. If you assume a futurist position, it is “clear” that angelos in this context is angels. But that is begging the question. What if this passage is talking about human messengers? We have something all together different.

If this is talking about human messengers, then it is not a “gathering” as in a “scooping up” but more of an accumulation as in a harvest. As in, “the fields are white and ripe unto harvest”.

Since Dee Dee butted in…er I mean got invited to join this thread (j/k ) I will let her explain why the “gathering” is more of an assembling than what we normally think of as a gathering, since she does an excellent job of that in her Commentary on Mt. 24 (and I have to leave something for her )

So what we have is human messengers assembling “the elect”. And of course “the elect” are the saved? So when did this happen in AD 70?

Prior to this time, from the time of Solomon to AD 70, the worship of God was centered in Jerusalem. Even early Christianity was centered in Jerusalem (note that when Paul had an issue to resolve he went to the church in Jerusalem to get an official answer)


Prior to AD 70, Jerusalem was the center of Christianity as well as Judaism. The “fledgling” religion of Christianity was considered a sect of Judaism. After the destruction of the TempleChristianity was “on its own” so to speak.

In John 4 (I think) we have Jesus telling the Samaritan woman that the Jews are right, worship of God is in Jerusalem, but a time will come (and is now here) when God will be worshiped in spirit and in truth, not just in Jerusalem.

The significance of the destruction of Jerusalem is that from that point forward, there would be no central loci for worshiping God. God would send messengers out to the “four winds” to gather “the elect”. No longer would “the elect” have to come to Jerusalem.


When did that happen? It started in AD 70, and is still going on to this day.

Now we come to the end (did you wait or did you skip ahead).

Most of what I stated above gives “possible” first century fulfillments for these events. But not much was said that would give reason why they need to be first century event. But as promised, I will now show (from other verses) why the verses you cited need to be fulfilled in the first century.

First I would like to clarify what the “sign” in v. 30 was a “sign” of.

So what is that sign?

This question takes us back to the beginning of Matthew 24:

Matthew 24:1-2

Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered them, "You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down."

Here we have Jesus describing the destruction of the temple (Not some future temple, but rather the temple standing at that time. The temple that Jesus and the disciples had just left). This description prompts the following questions from the disciples:

Matthew 24:3

As he sat on the

Matthew 24:3

Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?"

It is clear that the disciples equated the sign of Jesus “coming”, with the destruction of the temple.

Why is this?

In John, we see Jesus saying, “destroy this temple, and I will raise it up in three days.” John tells us that Jesus was talking about His body. I think we all agree on this so far, right? In fact if we look at the trial narratives we see that this is one of the primary charges against Him.

Jesus claim to Messiahship and the destruction of the Temple are inter-related. When Jesus proclaimed that the temple was being restored, He was reiterating that He was now the temple, and that the temple in Jerusalem would no longer be a place of worship (Jn. 4:21 Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.)

If the temple had remained, it would have invalidated Jesus’ claims.


So the “sign” of Jesus being in heaven with the “ancient of days” was in fact the destruction of Jerusalem, more specifically, the temple.

So the discourse starts out in verse 1 with an event (not a time text, but an event) the destruction of the temple. Not just any temple, but the temple that was standing in AD 30. The same temple that the disciples and Jesus just left.

The event is the destruction of that temple; no other temple is in mind here. Not if you take a “plain reading” approach. To say otherwise would be to “force fit” a different temple in place of the one that Jesus was clearly talking about.

And that is a one time event. Once that temple is destroyed, it can not be destroyed again. And that one time event has already occurred, it occurred in AD 70. There is no dispute about that.

So we have at least one event that is unquestionable (well it is NOT unquestionable as some have said that Jesus was not talking about the temple that was destroyed in AD 70, but that is certainly not what one would get from a plain reading of the text), that is also known to have occurred in AD 70.

And it is this one known event that prompted the disciples questions that Jesus was answering. So the one known event is the “anchor” of all the discourse.

But wait, there is more. If you order preterism now, you will receive additional non-time text verses (OK that was a bit silly but I have been typing on and off for some time, I needed a little levity).

Not only do we have the known event of the destruction of the temple, we also have verses that would only make sense in a first century culture:

Mt. 24:17

Let the one who is on the housetop not go down to take what is in his house

Flat roof tops, while quite common in ancient Jerusalem are quite rare in the 21st century.

Mt. 24:20

Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath.

While Sabbatarian laws were practices by many Christian Jews (and some Christian gentiles) while Jerusalem was the center of Christianity, this is no longer a concern for Christians today.

So not only do we have a known event (the destruction of the Temple) that took place in AD 70, we have a description of the “tribulation” that precedes this known event, described in terms that were 1st century.

Finally you objected that the “second coming” (see the quotes, I do NOT place the second coming in AD 70 or in Mt. 24) was seen by the entire world.


I have demonstrated why I do not think that the verses that lead you to that are not “world wide” in scope (except for v. 31, which I do think is world wide in scope but is not part of the “coming” in AD 70, but after that).

But there are other indicators that the events in the discourse are local in scope.

First is the obvious one. The “known event”, the destruction of the temple was local in scope.

But there are other verses as well:

Mt. 24:16

16then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

Notice that the instructions to flee are limited to Judea. If this tribulation were a world wide event like some (not necessarily you) futurist say, then why specify “those who are in Judea”. And if it were world wide, what good would fleeing to the mountains do? The mountains are still in the world.

So we have a known event, the destruction of the Temple, which was a first century event and local in scope. This is the event that Jesus described, that prompted the questions from the disciples, that prompted the discourse. There is no reason (that I can think) why this should not be the “controlling event” for all the other events in this passage.

But absent that, we have other verses that are only relevant in a first century setting, and verses that indicate a local scope.

And I did not even mention the time text which says that “all these things” (including the “known event” shall come to pass” within a certain time (that will not be mentioned).

I am sure you will have a ton of questions, but I hope I laid a good foundation so you can understand a little about what preterism is beyond the basics.

And I hope I clarified that preterist would agree with that the Second Coming of Christ is unmistakable, and will be notice by the entire world. However, we do NOT see the “Second Coming” as the topic of Mt. 24.

Finally, I hope you can see why I was “brief” (brief took 11 pages on Word). Imagine how much you would have to have read if I had “cut loose”.

I look forward to your response.


:sig:

Edit to add: If you think by "brief" is long winded wait till Dee Dee gets going.

[jwarrend]

But Armor of God (or maybe it was Hitch, not sure which) gave a breif explanation of my position, that Satan’s binding is in reference to his ability to deceive the nations. Now, I can give more detail, but what was posted in your thread in the eschatology is more or less my position on those verses.

Ok. As you may have seen, I posted a response to Armor of God explaining what I felt that his/her reading raises quite a few more questions than it answers, at least for me. So, if and when we do take up that topic, feel free to just respond to what I've already written on the subject.

I will need some time to wade through your entire post, but I think for now a couple of quick points will suffice.

[color=black][font=Verdana]Since you did not stipulate what in those verses make it clear that the events will be “unmistakable and “impossilbe to miss” and (where we are most likely to disagree the most) “everyone in the world will be aware of it”, I can only guess. So when I do my “verse by verse” I will explain what I think the verse means, and if I think I see something that you might see as a “clear meaning” of a highly visible world wide phenomena I will address that.

I think that it is precisely the verse-by-verse approach that gets you into trouble. I think you have to read these verses as part of one running, coherent thought. I think what you do basically amounts to this:

v23: false Christs. Were there false Christs in 70AD? Sure, here are some candidates.
v29: astronomical language. Is there astronomical language in the OT? Yes!
v30: Jesus is riding on a cloud. Can we find someone on a cloud in the OT? Yes!
31: gathering the elect. Is that in the OT? Actually, no on this one. So, it must be an ongoing process...

etc.

And by analyzing each sentence individually, you're not putting them together and looking at what they mean collectively. So perhaps instead of calling my interpretation a "plain reading", I might call it a "holistic reading" -- the idea that when thoughts are connected in a piece of writing, you should read them as such.

We don't need to quibble over whether "all the tribes of the earth" refers to something worldwide or whether it just means the more restrictive "Israel". The business word in verse 30 is "see". It's "optanomai", Strong's 3700. I don't read Greek, but a cursory look at all the other NT instances of that word doesn't confer any other meaning upon it than the ordinary sense of "seeing" something. It seems that when Jesus says "[people] will see me in the clouds of heaven", you read it as "[people] will possess an awareness that I am seated in the clouds of heaven"; you appear to be reading "see" in a metaphorical sense, as in "I saw the light" or "I now see that Jeff is right about the problems with preterism". Is there precedent for optanomai being used in that sense?

Forget all that, though. Here's what I need an answer to.

Also, for clarification, preterist (at least not the orthodox variety) think that the “Second Coming” happened in AD 70. So when you use the phrase “Second Coming” realize that that event is still future and was NOT what I think Jesus was referring to in those verses.

Ok. Compare Matt 24:30-31, 1 Thess 4:16-17, Rev 14:13, and 1 Cor 15:51. Are these verses all talking about the same event, or not? If not, why not?

[color=black][font=Verdana]Now I can see how someone with a predisposition to futurism can read verse 27 as demanding a “world wide” audience. But the reality is that lightning is not visible world wide, but it is clearly visible.

I can nitpick your position to death in this same exact way, but doing so will be a huge waste of both of our time; can we agree on that? Jesus says "for as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the son of man". Jesus is not using the lightning as an indicator of the spatial extent of his coming, but rather, of its unambiguous, unmistakable character.

[font=Verdana]So what is the sign? ... So the “sign” of Jesus being in heaven with the “ancient of days” was in fact the destruction of Jerusalem, more specifically, the temple.

But v30 says "then will appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven". Are you saying that this should actually be rendered "then shall appear the sign that the Son of Man is in heaven"? I see no precedent for this reading.

RSV: Then will appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven...

KJV: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven...

NIV: At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky...

YLT:and then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in the heaven..

ESV: Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man...

The Message (just for fun...): Then, the Arrival of the Son of Man! It will fill the skies—no one will miss it.

The only way to read this passage, as far as I can tell, is that it is the sign that will be "in heaven", Strong's 3772, "ouranos", presumably equivalent to "the sky" here. The sign is what is in heaven; the sign is not an indicator that the Son is in heaven. I read one commentary that said the "sign in heaven" would be the smoke rising from Jerusalem! Needless to say, I didn't find that compelling, but at least it maintained fidelity to the actual verse.

I may comment on other parts of your response, or I may just wait for your response to this post, as the questions here are, I believe, foundational.

To clear a couple of things up in advance, though, I'm ok with your presentation on false Christs, and on the astronomical language, so in mymind, we don't need to discuss those aspects further, except insofar as they must be synthesized with the rest of the passage.

Thanks again for your post. It obviously took quite a bit of work, although there's enough cutting and pasting that it doesn't seem like you did it just for my benefit, so hopefully you didn't expend too much effort just on my behalf!

-Jeff

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dee Dee,

Unfortunately, that post does qualify as exactly what I'm not interested in, so I won't challenge or engage any of these proofs. Maybe a better way of putting it is that, in my opinion, it only gets the preterist position with respect to this passage part of the way up the mountain of plausibility, and I'm interested in hearing how preterists get the rest of the way there. I understand that you just wanted to put it onto the table, and am simply posting this to request that you will not make reference back to these proofs as if the matter were now "settled".

No problem, I don't "play" that way. I am interested in discussion not manuevering for "debate points" I can assure you.

One final thought; I've asked Faramir elsewhere whether preterism would exist without the time texts, and asked why, if preterism really is a statement that "this stuff already happened", why the timing verses (ie, "this stuff had to have already happened") are given such a prominent role in the preterist presentation.

My response would be because they rule out alternative explanations. They are often many feasible ways to read a verse in isolation. Only a really unreasonable hardcore preterist would deny that. So it is an important part of the context.

I'd just like to observe, mostly for his benefit, that even though I fully granted the preterist reading of the timing verses for this discussion, you were still unable to resist the urge to bring them out and argue for them!

-Jeff

The reason is because I think most preterists provide a shallow defense of the timing verses. It may not have come out in my points, as I only gave a summation, actually just conclusory statements as per your request, but I don't even "need" "this generation" to HAVE to mean the first century in the way it does in Proof number One for it to inevitably have to mean the first century, that is what I wanted to bring to the table. I can grant for the sake of argument, just like you have, to the futurist that "this generation" means "the generation that will see the signs" and still prove it is first century because the one non-repeatable event happened back then which irrevocably thrusts the whole enchilada back then. That may not have come across but hope you understand what I am driving at. The majority of that passage contains events that can happen many times in principle. The destruction of the Temple then standing can, by definition, only happen once. A future Temple is not that Temple.

Okay, no problem though, we move on. I just thought it really important you see that as, again, I am not your typical preterist, and part ranks with some of the argumentation used by some which I think doesn't explore things far enough.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Hopefully this weekend, I can flesh out some of the things you brought up in your response to Faramir.

[Faramir]

Ok. As you may have seen, I posted a response to Armor of God explaining what I felt that his/her reading raises quite a few more questions than it answers, at least for me. So, if and when we do take up that topic, feel free to just respond to what I've already written on the subject.

Yes, I saw that, and I have some answers (I can't promise you they will be convincing, but I have something).

I will need some time to wade through your entire post, but I think for now a couple of quick points will suffice.

I think that it is precisely the verse-by-verse approach that gets you into trouble. I think you have to read these verses as part of one running, coherent thought. I think what you do basically amounts to this:

v23: false Christs. Were there false Christs in 70AD? Sure, here are some candidates.
v29: astronomical language. Is there astronomical language in the OT? Yes!
v30: Jesus is riding on a cloud. Can we find someone on a cloud in the OT? Yes!
31: gathering the elect. Is that in the OT? Actually, no on this one. So, it must be an ongoing process...

etc.
And by analyzing each sentence individually, you're not putting them together and looking at what they mean collectively. So perhaps instead of calling my interpretation a "plain reading", I might call it a "holistic reading" -- the idea that when thoughts are connected in a piece of writing, you should read them as such.

I think both the "verse by verse" and the "holistic" approach are necessary.

I saved the "holistic" approach towards the end (though I did not do a "comprehensive" representation).

"Holistically" the passages talks about a local first century event. I showed that by providing a known event (the destruction of the temple) first century elements and local to Jerusalem elements. I ommitted the time text element but that is there too.

IMO, "holistically" Mt. 24 screams a preterist interpretation.

It is true that the verse by verse breakdown I did was the "minutae", but put it all together and it makes a very coherent whole IMO.

In fact, I have stressed the importance of understanding BOTH the minutae and the big picture in debates eslewhere.

Now the "whole" that we see may be different, but I think one of the strong points of preterism is that the parts and the whole fit together so well.

So I agree that the holistic approach is good, but not at the expense of the details.

And when studying Revelation the holistic approach is even more important. Which is why I want to save it for later. It takes more "background" explanation to explain the "holistic" components of Revelation.

We don't need to quibble over whether "all the tribes of the earth" refers to something worldwide or whether it just means the more restrictive "Israel". The business word in verse 30 is "see". It's "optanomai", Strong's 3700. I don't read Greek, but a cursory look at all the other NT instances of that word doesn't confer any other meaning upon it than the ordinary sense of "seeing" something. It seems that when Jesus says "[people] will see me in the clouds of heaven", you read it as "[people] will possess an awareness that I am seated in the clouds of heaven"; you appear to be reading "see" in a metaphorical sense, as in "I saw the light" or "I now see that Jeff is right about the problems with preterism". Is there precedent for optanomai being used in that sense?

Actually I think there is. I remember seeing some work on that, but can't remember where. However, I am not sure that it would make a difference.

In my interpretation the people literally "see" the destruction of the temple. They physically "see" the Roman armies carrying out God's judgment.

If I am right about the symbolism in those verses there is still a reality symbolized by the symbols for people to really see.

Forget all that, though. Here's what I need an answer to.

Ok. Compare Matt 24:30-31, 1 Thess 4:16-17, Rev 14:13, and 1 Cor 15:51. Are these verses all talking about the same event, or not? If not, why not?

Don't have time now to do a "verse by verse" other than to say I don't know about 1 Thes 4:16-17 (preterist are not in agreement on this and I have changed my mind several times), Rev. 14:13, don't know either have not studied that passage in depth. and 1 Cor. 15:51 is NOT the same as Mt. 24:30-31.

The "short" answer re the last verse is the context of 1 Cor. 15:51 is about the physical resurrection, both of Christ and our future physical resurrection.

The "long" answer is, that I will deffer to Dee Dee as this is like her favorite all time chapter, and that will give me time to get back to you on the rest of the verses.

I can nitpick your position to death in this same exact way, but doing so will be a huge waste of both of our time; can we agree on that? Jesus says "for as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the son of man". Jesus is not using the lightning as an indicator of the spatial extent of his coming, but rather, of its unambiguous, unmistakable character.

Like I said earlier, I was not clear on your position and was trying to address what I saw as potential question by you.

It seems like we agree on the use of lightning in that verse. I apologize if I misrepresented your position, and I thank you for bringing that to my attention, like I asked.

But v30 says "then will appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven". Are you saying that this should actually be rendered "then shall appear the sign that the Son of Man is in heaven"? I see no precedent for this reading.

RSV: Then will appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven...

KJV: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven...

NIV: At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky...

YLT:and then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in the heaven..

ESV: Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man...

The Message (just for fun...): Then, the Arrival of the Son of Man! It will fill the skies—no one will miss it.

The question is "what word does "in Heaven" modify, the Sign, or the Son of Man?

I think all but the NIV and the Message (the two least literal translations) support either position.

But what can not be denied is that it is the "sign" that appears in this section of that verse and not the "Son of Man" Himself.

I suppose the "smoke" billowing up from the ruines of Jerusalem could be "the sign" that was in the "sky", but I see no reason why the sign can't be
of "the Son of man in heaven"

The only way to read this passage, as far as I can tell, is that it is the sign that will be "in heaven", Strong's 3772, "ouranos", presumably equivalent to "the sky" here. The sign is what is in heaven; the sign is not an indicator that the Son is in heaven. I read one commentary that said the "sign in heaven" would be the smoke rising from Jerusalem! Needless to say, I didn't find that compelling, but at least it maintained fidelity to the actual verse.

I posted my comments above about the smoke from Jerusalem before I read this part of your post. I agree it is not very compelling, but I disagree that the "Sign" has to be in Heaven.

In fact, the comparision I made to Daniel shows that "the Son of Man" was "Up, to the ancient of day". So the conclusion would be that the "Son of Man" was supposed to be in Heaven, because that is what Daniel prophecied.

I may comment on other parts of your response, or I may just wait for your response to this post, as the questions here are, I believe, foundational.

Well I answered as best I could with a limited amount of time. I will try to get more as time allows (I should have a good of time tomorrow night, I hope).

To clear a couple of things up in advance, though, I'm ok with your presentation on false Christs, and on the astronomical language, so in mymind, we don't need to discuss those aspects further, except insofar as they must be synthesized with the rest of the passage.

Fair enough.

Thanks again for your post. It obviously took quite a bit of work, although there's enough cutting and pasting that it doesn't seem like you did it just for my benefit, so hopefully you didn't expend too much effort just on my behalf!

I enjoyed every minute of it. I did it for me. I love discussing theology (not just eschatology, but that is my best area) with others in a civil manner with other Christians. It keeps me sharp.

But you are right, a large portion was cut and paste. But most of the cut and paste was my own work (or where I cited Dee Dee).

So it was not a "huge" effort. But like I said I enjoyed it thoroughly.

:sig:

[jwarrend]

"Holistically" the passages talks about a local first century event. I showed that by providing a known event (the destruction of the temple) first century elements and local to Jerusalem elements. I ommitted the time text element but that is there too.

I think that the "local to Jerusalem" elements are extremely weak, roughly on par with a futurist saying "when were the big astronomical disturbances in 70 AD?"

Here's a question that may appear unrelated. (Dee Dee, you can answer this as well). I've asked before, but I don't remember if you responded or not. Do you think there are any OT messianic prophecies that Jesus did not fulfill?

So I agree that the holistic approach is good, but not at the expense of the details.

The problem I have is actually with the way you handle the details, which, I claim, causes you to completely lose the overall thought of what 23-31 is discussing. The importance of 23-24 cannot be overstated. It establishes the thought that false Christs will be prevalant prior to the events that will follow. Preterism simply notes that "yes, there were false Christs" and moves on with no regard to why Jesus felt the need to mention this detail. But it makes sense if you recognize that Jesus is saying "don't be led astray by these false Christs, because here is what it will actually look like when I come back." It just doesn't make sense for Jesus to say "don't be led astray by these false Christs, because when the temple is destroyed, the whole world will know that I am in heaven." Those thoughts just don't seem logically connected to me.

Actually I think there is. I remember seeing some work on that, but can't remember where. However, I am not sure that it would make a difference.

In my interpretation the people literally "see" the destruction of the temple. They physically "see" the Roman armies carrying out God's judgment.

Then why doesn't Jesus speak in those terms, or at least terms that come even remotely close to approximating that meaning? Why does he say "you will see the sign of the son of Man in heaven" instead of "you will see the destruction of the temple?" Why does he say "you will see the son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and glory" instead of "you will see Roman soldiers marching on the temple?" I don't think you can explain this away by simply saying "the Disciples would have known what he meant."

Don't have time now to do a "verse by verse" other than to say I don't know about 1 Thes 4:16-17 (preterist are not in agreement on this and I have changed my mind several times), Rev. 14:13, don't know either have not studied that passage in depth. and 1 Cor. 15:51 is NOT the same as Mt. 24:30-31.

The "short" answer re the last verse is the context of 1 Cor. 15:51 is about the physical resurrection, both of Christ and our future physical resurrection.

The problem with that is that I think it would be a hard sell to say that 1 Cor 15:51 and 1 Thess 4:16 are talking about two different events. But unfortunately, I think that there are strong enough similarities between Matt 24:31 and 1 Thess 4:16, taken in the context of Rev 14:13, that suggest a correlation between those passages as well, which WOULD make 1 Cor 15:51 and Matt 24:30-1 the same event. Perhaps what you mean is to say that in the preterist reading, they are not the same event.

It's funny. I'll disclose a little of my view and say that I do not at this time accept the notion of a "pre-Tribulation" rapture as being something that scripture teaches. So when formulating a contra-pre-Trib argument, I've had to argue that there is really only one second coming. It's funny that I seem to need to pull out similar arguments in a discussion with preterists.

The question is "what word does "in Heaven" modify, the Sign, or the Son of Man? I think all but the NIV and the Message (the two least literal translations) support either position.

The Sign, without a doubt. The ESV in particular seems to demand that reading. Is there some subtlety in the Greek that makes the passage disputable?

But what can not be denied is that it is the "sign" that appears in this section of that verse and not the "Son of Man" Himself.

But the very next clause does say that the tribes will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds. You pointed out OT cloud language that is similar. But do any of those verses contain language in which the individual on the cloud is seen or will be seen?

I posted my comments above about the smoke from Jerusalem before I read this part of your post. I agree it is not very compelling, but I disagree that the "Sign" has to be in Heaven.

On what basis? Where else can the sign be?

In fact, the comparision I made to Daniel shows that "the Son of Man" was "Up, to the ancient of day".

Can you really pick and choose in this way? Does the cloud imagery mean that we are supposed to think of Daniel, with the Son being glorified, or that we are supposed to think of the judgement passages? I don't think it can be both.

-Jeff

[Faramir]

I think that the "local to Jerusalem" elements are extremely weak, roughly on par with a futurist saying "when were the big astronomical disturbances in 70 AD?"

Then I guess we have to agree to disagree, I think the "local to Jerusalem elements are very strong. Especially in Lukes version of the discourse:

[verse=Luke 21:20-21]But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. 21Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it.[/quote]

Verse 20 lets us know that the desolation is near when Jerusalem is surrounded by armies. It instructs Judeans to "flee to the mountains".

Not only does Lukes version specify the City of Jerusalem. It tell the people to flee the city. With modern weapons of war, fleeing a city to the surrounding mountains will not do much good. But in ancient Jerusalem it would. So this indicate NOT only local to Jerusalem, but anceient. Compared with the "known event" of the destruction of the temple then standing, what else could it be.

But if that were not enough. History tells us as the Roman armies were approaching Jerusalem, the Christians living in that city (heeding the words of Christ) left and fled to Pella (among other places).

What good is advise to flee Jerusalem in the face of a world wide tribulation????

Here's a question that may appear unrelated. (Dee Dee, you can answer this as well). I've asked before, but I don't remember if you responded or not. Do you think there are any OT messianic prophecies that Jesus did not fulfill?

Off the top of my head, the passage in Isaiah where it talks about the lion and the Lamb lying down together. I have not really studied that passage (IOW, I may change my position quickly after additional study), so I can not really "argue" the point. But I think it is talking about a future event (or maybe an event that is taking place now but has yet to be completed).

There maybe more, but I have not done extensive research on this.

The problem I have is actually with the way you handle the details, which, I claim, causes you to completely lose the overall thought of what 23-31 is discussing. The importance of 23-24 cannot be overstated. It establishes the thought that false Christs will be prevalant prior to the events that will follow.

Yes it does. Finally something we can agree on.

Preterism simply notes that "yes, there were false Christs" and moves on with no regard to why Jesus felt the need to mention this detail. But it makes sense if you recognize that Jesus is saying "don't be led astray by these false Christs, because here is what it will actually look like when I come back." It just doesn't make sense for Jesus to say "don't be led astray by these false Christs, because when the temple is destroyed, the whole world will know that I am in heaven." Those thoughts just don't seem logically connected to me.

Then maybe that is beccause you do not fully understand the preterist postion. Because what you said, is NOT what I would say at all.

I would say, that Jesus said "these false prophets will come and will be a sign that the "known event" is about to happen, but don't be led astray by these false Christ", because they are false.

It seems "forced fit" to me to suggest that there needs to be a reason not to follow false Christ other than they are false Christ. I mean would it be OK to follow false Christ if it were not immediatly before the "second coming"? Surely not!!! Maybe you can clarify for me what you are trying to say, because it makes no sense to me. (probably my fault, no slam on you was intended).

What does not make sense to me is Jesus telling the disciples don't be led astray by false Christ that will not appear until you have been dead for 2000 plus years.

Then why doesn't Jesus speak in those terms, or at least terms that come even remotely close to approximating that meaning? Why does he say "you will see the sign of the son of Man in heaven" instead of "you will see the destruction of the temple?"

I thought I explained that. He was referencing Daniel AND He was answer the disciples question "when will these things be" asked about the destruction fo the temple.

But I take a more "holistic" approach to scripture . All of scripture is about God's relationship to His covenant people. The destruction of the temple was so much more than an old building being torn down. It had HUGE covenantal implications. (Read Hebrews for a glimps of the "shake down" between the temple economy and the New Covenant economy).

Christ was not Just saying you will see a building destroyed. He was saying (in OT terms so there would be NO mistake) that the temple being destroyed was a sign the He is the Messiah, Son of Man mentioned in Daniel 7. He already said in v. 2.

V. 30 is not about the tearing down of some mere building. It is about the huge covenantal change that the destruction of that building is a sign of. The covenantal seed promised back in Gen. 3 had arrived. The old ways were gone. Jesus was not simply saying the temple will be destroyed. He was saying the temple will be destroyed because this age is passing and a new age is coming.

Simply repeating what He already said in v. 2 hardly conveys the same thing.

You asked me why Jesus would not just say, "you will see the destruction of the temple?" I have to ask you, whay would he say just that, when He already said as much in v. 2?

Why does he say "you will see the son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and glory" instead of "you will see Roman soldiers marching on the temple?"

He was saying that the destruction of the temple was more than just an act of Rome, it was an act of God' judgment. (just as the armies of the Medes/Persians destroying Babylon was an act of God's judgment).

By saying that they will see Him (since He identified Himself with the Son of Man) 'coming in clouds' in judgment He was declaring Himself to be God.

You have the destruction of the temple signifying NOT ONLY the dramatic change in the relationship between God and His covenant people, but it is ALSO an act of judgment against the Jewish nation for rejecting and crucifying thier Messiah.



Verse 30 says SO MUCH using very few words, but just repeating "you will see the temple destroyed" would not come close to describing the significance of that event.

You are suggesting that Jesus should have just repeated Himself and said, "no stone will be left unturned".

I don't think you can explain this away by simply saying "the Disciples would have known what he meant."

You are right. But that is NOT what I did. I gave specific scripture references to explain why the Desciples would have known what Jesus meant.

I have shown from the actual text in question that Jesus was talking about a 'known event' that happened in the first century.

I have (in this post) shown the covenantal significance of this "known event".

I don't think you can explain this away by simply sayin "this is not what a 21st century reader would understand Jesus to be saying".

The problem with that is that I think it would be a hard sell to say that 1 Cor 15:51 and 1 Thess 4:16 are talking about two different events. But unfortunately, I think that there are strong enough similarities between Matt 24:31 and 1 Thess 4:16, taken in the context of Rev 14:13, that suggest a correlation between those passages as well, which WOULD make 1 Cor 15:51 and Matt 24:30-1 the same event. Perhaps what you mean is to say that in the preterist reading, they are not the same event.

I can see the similarites between 1 Cor 15:51 and 1 Thes 4:16. Which is why I tend to think they are the same event (though I have seen arguments for different events). I am not making the connection with Rev. 14:13 though.

I can even see "some" similarities between 1 Cor. 15:51, 1 Thes 4:16 and Mt. 24:30.

However, I think what you are doing by making them the same event is what you accuse me of doing. Failing to consider the holistic approach.

You are taking "similar verses" from different context and making them be the same thing.

The context of Mt. 24 is a "known event" the destruction of the temple.

The context of 1 Cor. 15 is the resurrection. (no mention of resurrection in Mt. 24)

The context of 1 Thes. 4 is the condition of the departed brethren (i.e. resurrection).

The "closest thing" to a "resurrection" in Mt. 24 is the "gathering of the elect". But that is NOT the same thing. To make them the same is IMO force fitting.

It's funny. I'll disclose a little of my view and say that I do not at this time accept the notion of a "pre-Tribulation" rapture as being something that scripture teaches. So when formulating a contra-pre-Trib argument, I've had to argue that there is really only one second coming. It's funny that I seem to need to pull out similar arguments in a discussion with preterists.

Well the pre-trib rapture is IMHO one of the weakest points of popular futurism. So this is a step in the right direction (at least from my POV).

Not sure what "similar" arguments you are 'pulling' I do not refer to the "coming in judgment" as "the second coming" or even "a second coming" it is not that kind of coming.

The Sign, without a doubt. The ESV in particular seems to demand that reading. Is there some subtlety in the Greek that makes the passage disputable?

According to some Greek scholars. I do not know enough Greek to say difinitively. (I have one year of college level Classic Greek, just enough to be dangerous).

But I do agree (I missed it the first time, my apologies) the ESV does demand your reading. And that is my favorite translation too.

But the very next clause does say that the tribes will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds. You pointed out OT cloud language that is similar. But do any of those verses contain language in which the individual on the cloud is seen or will be seen?

I don't know. (since the individual was God, I am pretty sure the answer is no). But I am not sure why it is relavent.

Can you please explain why the similarities have to match in regards to the "individual" being seen is makes a significant difference?

On what basis? Where else can the sign be?

If the sign is a sign that the Son of Man is in heaven, it could be anywhere.

Can you really pick and choose in this way? Does the cloud imagery mean that we are supposed to think of Daniel, with the Son being glorified, or that we are supposed to think of the judgement passages? I don't think it can be both.

Why not??? Can you really pick and choose to ignore OT scripture? Why wouldn't you think of the cloud imagery in Daniel when Christ uses the same language? Do you think it was a happy coincidence?

And why can't it be both. There are two seperate cloud references? One similar to Daniel one similar to Isiah.

Are the two OT cloud references to the same event??? Why can't the two cloud references in Mt. 24:30 be two events (or more accurate two aspects of one event)?

:sig:


P.S. again sorry for the typos, no time to spell check.

[jwarrend]

I only have time for a quick reply to a couple of points.

First, going back to v31 for a second:

Of this, you said:

On to the last verse:
The destruction of the Temple was significant in that the Temple was the Old Covenant system of sacrifice, which Jesus (the New Covenant) replaced. Not only did Jesus’ sacrifice make the temple sacrifices obsolete, but it also made the covenant available to “all nations” (as promised to Abraham).

But this happened immediately after Jesus' death and Resurrection; it didn't need to wait until the temple's destruction.

Once again, the translations do not do the original language justice.

Are you a Greek scholar? If not, then I think it's a bit presumptuous of you to claim that every single translation is wrong about this passage.

The Greek word translated “angels” is actually the Greek word for “messenger”. There is not a separate word in New Testament Greek for Heavenly being messengers and human messengers. So the word “angelos” is used for both.

That's right, it's "aggelos", Strong's 32. The problem is that it almost always means "angels" in most usage in the NT. The only exceptions are a single reference to John the Baptist in each of the Synoptics, a passage in Luke 7 where John sends his messengers to question Christ, and in 2 Cor 12:7 (and maybe a couple others I have missed). But out of 186 instances of the word in the NT, less than 10 read "messenger". So certainly it's not unreasonable to translate it as angels in v31.

How do we know which is which? Context. If you assume a futurist position, it is “clear” that angelos in this context is angels. But that is begging the question. What if this passage is talking about human messengers? We have something all together different.

And, I would argue, altogether at odds with church history.

Prior to this time, from the time of Solomon to AD 70, the worship of God was centered in Jerusalem. Even early Christianity was centered in Jerusalem (note that when Paul had an issue to resolve he went to the church in Jerusalem to get an official answer)

The word is "episunago", Strong's 1996, which means "to gather together", especially in the sense of "to gather together in one place". If pre-70AD Christianity was centered in Jerusalem but post-70AD Christianity spread outside Jerusalem, episunago seems like exactly the wrong word to use -- believers were definitely not "gathered together". I see no precedent for the "accumulation" reading in Strong's. Perhaps it's discussed in a different lexicon?

The other big problem for your reading is that it just didn't happen this way. Your need to make Jerusalem the focal point of pre-70 Christianity flies in the face of what actually happened. As you well know, there were successful missionary efforts to all parts of the Roman empire that resulted in a robust network of churches. The fact that the temple still stood did not prevent these missionary efforts from succeeding. So if you want v31 to just mean "Christians would go out and start evangelizing", you're left with the problem that this was already happening vigorously prior to 70 AD.

The significance of the destruction of Jerusalem is that from that point forward, there would be no central loci for worshiping God. God would send messengers out to the “four winds” to gather “the elect”. No longer would “the elect” have to come to Jerusalem.

Does the NT connote any sense that they had to prior to 70 AD? The priority of Jerusalem in the Acts era seems more likely due to the gathering of high-octane Apostles there -- Peter, James, John -- than because the temple was still standing!

Some remarks on Dan 7:

Christ was not Just saying you will see a building destroyed. He was saying (in OT terms so there would be NO mistake) that the temple being destroyed was a sign the He is the Messiah, Son of Man mentioned in Daniel 7.

But in Dan 7, the presentation of the Son of Man comes after the white throne judgement (or, at best, in the same time frame as), which I believe even preterists must conclude is still in the future. How could the cloud imagery of Dan 7 and Matt 24 be talking about the same thing?

He already said in v. 2.

No, He most definitely did NOT say anything of the kind! The connections between the temple being destroyed and the sign of Jesus' Messiah-ship exist entirely in the heads of preterists; it is NEVER made explicit.

Why not??? Can you really pick and choose to ignore OT scripture? Why wouldn't you think of the cloud imagery in Daniel when Christ uses the same language? Do you think it was a happy coincidence?

I hope so! If not, preterism must explain how the destruction of Jerusalem is equivalent to the white throne judgement of Dan 7:10; compare to Rev 20:12.

Sorry; no time for anything more today...

-Jeff