All,

Maybe you can shed some light on a couple of verses for me. Matthew 23 ends with "For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’” This comment, I believe, lends the disciples to ask, "what will be the sign of your coming?" Is that right?

If so, what do they have in mind when asking this question? For example, I do not believe they have what is often projected as the "second coming" in mind, namely, a 5'10" Jesus cloud surfing. Rather, they probably have a more down to earth nature to the question, at least in my mind. So, what do you believe the nature of this coming is from their perspective.

I realize the preterist see this "coming" related to Dan 7 and the Son's ascension to the Ancient of Days and the futurist hold to the cloud surfing Jesus, but what are the disciples asking?

Make sense?

What did Jesus mean in ch. 23 & what "nature" of the coming do the disciples have in mind?

Note: I am a preterist, but do not really grasp these verses.

Thanks,

Dynomite

Dynomite, I apologize for my lack of time. I do deal with that particular verse in my commentary. If you go to the Scripture Index you will be able to locate it somewhat easily.

First of all, I'm betting Jesus would be taller than that. After all, Kenneth Copeland teaches that God is 6'2"-6'3" and a solid 200lbs.

Seriously though, Dee Dee does a dandy of a treatment on Matthew here at her preterist site. It should help answer a lot of your questions.

Originally posted by Armor of God

First of all, I'm betting Jesus would be taller than that. After all, Kenneth Copeland teaches that God is 6'2"-6'3" and a solid 200lbs.

Seriously though, Dee Dee does a dandy of a treatment on Matthew here at her preterist site. It should help answer a lot of your questions.

This verse is often cross-referenced to the Gospel verses of Mt 21:9 Lu 19:37,38 Joh 12:13-15.

Here are comments from a few of the Church Fathers.

Origen: In like manner to all such as would not be gathered under His wings Christ speaks this threat; “Behold, your house is left unto you desolate;” i.e. your soul and your body. But if any one of you will not be gathered under the wings of Christ, from the very time when he shall have refused to be so gathered, (by a mental rather than a bodily act,) he shall no more see the beauty of the word, till repenting of his evil purpose he shall say, “Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord.” And the word of the Lord then comes with a blessing upon a man’s heart, when one is turned to God.

Jerome: “I say unto you, Ye shall not see Me, &c.” That is to say, Unless ye shall do penitence, and shall confess that I am He of whom the Prophets have spoken, the Son of the Almighty Father, ye shall not see My face. Thus the Jews have a time allowed for their repentance. Let them confess Him blessed who cometh in the name of the Lord, and they shall then behold Christ’s face.

Chrysostom.: Otherwise; In this He covertly alludes to His second coming, when surely they shall worship Him. “Henceforth,” means from the time of His crucifixion.

I'm speaking of 23:39 here.

Kid Dyn-o-mite,

The source of your answer is Matt 13:24-43. Matt 24:3, which follows promptly on your setup asks, "what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age." "The end of the age" is synteleia tou aionos, and is a technical term derived from Matt 13. (It is used NOWHERE else). It literally means the time when Jesus returns, destroys ALL the wicked, and rescues the saints.

Note:
1. The field is the kosmos, the entire world (13:38).
2. Jesus' angels will remove "all" stumbling blocks (13:41) and "those who commit lawlessness." This certainly did not happen in AD70.

Unless Jesus' "kingdom" is ONLY PHYSICAL JERUSALEM, the events in Matt 24, described by Jesus answering the technical question, are NOT AD70.

Ted

Kosmos is not always used universally either. The end of the age is not in fact a technical term derived from Matthew 13, it has its heritage in Jewish extrabiblical literature and is hardly monolithic. The context of Matthew 13 when compared to what was said of John the Baptist is primarily a first century context (and I would say continuing - but that is another discussion). If one wants to get technical "this generation" which is a specific New Testament phrase is much more a technical designation of the people then living.

DeeDee,

Please remember that the nearest context is Matthew, and we are looking at Matthew's language. Further, the term does not exist elsewhere in scripture, so we are obligated to use it the way Matthew does.

As for kosmos, I challenge you to find an unambiguous example in the NT that uses it in a geographic sense that isn't universal. In examining the LXX, I saw a number of uses applied to jewelry and adornment, and those aren't related to our question. But the typical expression is "from the foundation of the kosmos," speaking of the creation of the world.

Your approach requires the there be a geographic application of the word to just Jerusalem, since AD70 did NOT destroy the countryside. Let's be honest here. The limitation of kosmos to Jerusalem is artificial and distorts the clear language of scripture. I know we disagree, but it's time to get down to brass tacks.

Ted

Originally posted by Ted

DeeDee,

Please remember that the nearest context is Matthew, and we are looking at Matthew's language. Further, the term does not exist elsewhere in scripture, so we are obligated to use it the way Matthew does.

No that is reductionist. The context is the context in which Matthew was written, which is the Jewish beliefs of the time.

As for kosmos, I challenge you to find an unambiguous example in the NT that uses it in a geographic sense that isn't universal.

I will get that for you. I am in the middle of going through some notes right now for something else (an interview with a hyperpreterist) that is occupying my attention.

In examining the LXX, I saw a number of uses applied to jewelry and adornment, and those aren't related to our question. But the typical expression is "from the foundation of the kosmos," speaking of the creation of the world.

Your approach requires the there be a geographic application of the word to just Jerusalem, since AD70 did NOT destroy the countryside. Let's be honest here. The limitation of kosmos to Jerusalem is artificial and distorts the clear language of scripture. I know we disagree, but it's time to get down to brass tacks.

That is a mere assertion and a misunderstanding of idiom. To say that raining cats and dogs merely means a heavy rain is articifial and distorts the clear language of me. The question isn't what the words are on a page, we can all see that, and merely alleging "clear language" proves nothing. Further, however, with regards to Matthew 13, I see it as a continual process so the meaning of kosmos isn't important in either way (as they both fit in my view) but just wanted to point out it doesn't bear the weight you are placing. Overstating your case by assertion doesn't help it.

PS: Geographical references don't mean the actual land itself in any event but the contents of the land. The actual earth wasn't destroyed in the flood because it is still here.

DeeDee,

You are asserting "idiom" without support. Until you provide support for its idiomatic use, the only option open to us is the natural, physical reading.

Ted

Ted, you have already conceded "idiom" by your assertion that it is a "technical" term which is a rose by the same name. I did provide support in general, the undisputed fact that this term was used in extra-Biblical writings showing early Jewish belief. The phrase does not appear in a cultural void.