Dear All,

I'm a new user here on the forum and I'm very interested with preterism. I need help from preterists about a verse of the Olivet discourse.

Mat 24:16

then let them that are in Judaea flee unto the mountains

Here is what opponent of preterism frequently claim about this verse:

Thomas Ice:

Moreover, as many commentators have observed, the biblical command to " flee to the mountains" (Matt. 24:16; Mk. 13:14; cf. Lk. 21:21) hardly agrees with the geographical setting of Pella in the low-lying foothills of the Transjordan valley on the other side of the River Jordan. Since Jerusalem is called " the Holy Mountain" (Psa. 48:1; cf. 87:1-2), " Mount Zion" (Psa. 74:2; 78:68-69), and is situated and surrounded by " mountains" (Psa. 125:1-2; cf. 48:2) " fleeing to the mountains" could not be interpreted as descending to a lower elevation and it is far more reasonable that " the mountains" of Jesus' reference would be those that immediately surrounded the city (i.e., the Judean hills, cf. Ezek. 7:15-16), since Jesus' command was not to flee from Judea but within it

Commentary on the gospel of Matthew - Gijs van den Brink:

It now becomes impossible to accept that this last phrase 'flee to the mountains' was written with reference to actual events , since the mountains of Judea were in fact already in enemy hands at the end of 67 AD

How to conciliate the preterist interpretation with those facts?

Thanks in advance for your help!

God bless!

Joe

I'm not a preterist, but it is generally accepted by most Bible expositors that it is indeed referring to Pella and/or Mt. Libanus to which many Christians fled after Gallus' advance on Jerusalem.

Originally posted by John Wesley

Then let them who are in Judea flee to the mountains - So the Christians did, and were preserved. It is remarkable that after the Romans under Cestus Gallus made their first advances toward Jerusalem, they suddenly withdrew again, in a most unexpected and indeed impolitic manner. This the Christians took as a signal to retire, which they did, some to Pella, and others to Mount Libanus.

Originally posted by John Gill

and it is remarked by several interpreters, and which Josephus (a) takes notice of with surprise, that Cestius Gallus having advanced with his army to Jerusalem, and besieged it, on a sudden, without any cause, raised the siege, and withdrew his army, when the city might have been easily taken; by which means a signal was made; and an opportunity given to the Christians, to make their escape: which they accordingly did, and went over Jordan, as Eusebius says (b), to a place called Pella; so that when Titus came a few mouths after, there was not a Christian in the city, but they had fled as they are here bidden to

flee into the mountains; or any places of shelter and refuge: these are mentioned particularly, because they are usually such; and design either the mountains in Judea, or in the adjacent countries. The Syriac and Persic versions read in the singular number, "into the mountain"; and it is reported that many of them did fly, particularly to Mount Libanus (c).

That is what I thought Z. Honestly I have never heard this objection before, and thus judging by the fact that it must be somewhat rare, I cannot assign it much credence at this point. I will let you know if I find anything further.

Originally posted by Joe_the_burger

Dear All,

I'm a new user here on the forum and I'm very interested with preterism. I need help from preterists about a verse of the Olivet discourse.

Mat 24:16

then let them that are in Judaea flee unto the mountains

Here is what opponent of preterism frequently claim about this verse:

Thomas Ice:

Moreover, as many commentators have observed, the biblical command to " flee to the mountains" (Matt. 24:16; Mk. 13:14; cf. Lk. 21:21) hardly agrees with the geographical setting of Pella in the low-lying foothills of the Transjordan valley on the other side of the River Jordan. Since Jerusalem is called " the Holy Mountain" (Psa. 48:1; cf. 87:1-2), " Mount Zion" (Psa. 74:2; 78:68-69), and is situated and surrounded by " mountains" (Psa. 125:1-2; cf. 48:2) " fleeing to the mountains" could not be interpreted as descending to a lower elevation and it is far more reasonable that " the mountains" of Jesus' reference would be those that immediately surrounded the city (i.e., the Judean hills, cf. Ezek. 7:15-16), since Jesus' command was not to flee from Judea but within it

Commentary on the gospel of Matthew - Gijs van den Brink:

It now becomes impossible to accept that this last phrase 'flee to the mountains' was written with reference to actual events , since the mountains of Judea were in fact already in enemy hands at the end of 67 AD

How to conciliate the preterist interpretation with those facts?

Thanks in advance for your help!

God bless!

Joe

A number of comments from different perspectives:

With regard to the first comment (in the quote above by Thomas Ice), W. D. Davies and C. Allison, in their ICC commentary on Matthew, commented that “the tradition of a flight to Pella” . . . “has been doubted.” They add this in a footnote: “Full discussion in J. Verheyden, De vlucht van de christenen naar Pella, Brussels, 1988. Verheyden concludes that Eusebius created the story out of Lk 21:20-2.”

A different perspective regarding the reference to Pella is provided by W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann in their Anchor Bible commentary, in which, commenting on Matthew 24:16-20, they wrote:

The sayings here were dramatically illustrated in the time of the war of A. D. 66-70 and again in the revolt of 130-135. How many Christians made their escape in the years before A. D. 70 we do not know. The tradition of Eusebius is that many Christians fled to Pella, and we have no reason to doubt the tradition. Archaeological discovery provides ample evidence for the destruction wrought on Jewish towns by Roman punitive expeditions during the war.

The fact — if it is a fact — that many Christians escaped to Pella (before, during, or after the war) does not necessarily mean that there was not a flight to the hills/mountains during that time.

In the Matthew volume of the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, commenting on Matthew 24:15-18, R. T. France wrote this (brackets added):

[...] Whatever the precise fulfillment of Jesus’ warning, it seems clear that from what follows that it is in the events of the Jewish War of AD 66-70 that he sees the reappearance of Daniel’s desolating sacrilege.

Its appearance is the cue for the urgent flight; those in the countryside of Judea must take to the hills as the Romans come to ravage the farmlands and villages. The man of leisure resting on his flat roof will have no time to collect his valuables, and the working-man in the field must do with his working clothes. It is a vivid picture of an urgent crisis. Eusebius (H. E. iii 5-3) tells us that before the siege some of the Jerusalem Christians, in response to ‘an oracle given by revelation’, fled to Pella in Transjordan. These words can hardly be that ‘oracle’ (Pella is not in ‘the mountains’, nor had anything yet happened to the ‘holy place’), but Jesus’ warnings may have inspired that later ‘oracle’.

— R. T. France, Matthew (TNTC)

One does not have to be a preterist to see that Matthew 24:16-18 was written regarding the circumstances in Palestine circa AD 66-70.

D. A. Carson (with whom I have had personal correspondence with regard to the fact that he is a premillennialist who rejects the preterist perspective), with regard to Matthew 24:16-19 wrote this comment:

The instructions Jesus gives his disciples about what to do in view of v. 15 are so specific that they must be related to the Jewish War. The devastation would stretch far beyond the city; people throughout Judea should flee to the mountains, where the Maccabeans had hidden in caves. Most roofs were flat (cf. Deut 22:8; Mark 2:4; Acts 10:9) — pleasant places in the cool of the day. Verse 17 implies such haste that fugitives will not take time to run downstairs for anything to take with them but run from roof to roof to evacuate the city as quickly as possible (cf. Jos. Antiq. XIII, 140 [v.3]). People in the fields will not have time to go home for their cloaks (see on 5:40) It will be especially dreadful (lit., “woe,” here like a compassionate “alas!”) for pregnant women and nursing mothers.

— D. A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 8 (Zondervan, 1982), page 501.

Carson allows 4 verses to relate to AD 70, but rejects a preterist reading of the rest of the discourse?

Thank you very much for your answers!

Luke 21:20-21

But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is at hand. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let those who are in the midst of her depart. Let those who are in the country not enter therein

those in the countryside of Judea must take to the hills as the Romans come to ravage the farmlands and villages.

The devastation would stretch far beyond the city; people throughout Judea should flee to the mountains, where the Maccabeans had hidden in caves

With the parallel verse of Mat 24:16 and the quotes of the rely of John Reece it become clear that those who must flee to the mountain are the people from countryside of Judea and not those who are in Jerusalem. From what I know, there were Romans and hostile Sicarii in the mountains near Jerusalem. But I don't know if there were Roman in the mountain who are near the countryside of Judea.

So the question is this: "Were the Romans in the mountains near the countryside of Judea?" If not the advice of Jesus to flee from the countyside of Judea was possible to follow. Can someone answer this question?

Originally posted by Armor of God

Carson allows 4 verses to relate to AD 70, but rejects a preterist reading of the rest of the discourse?

I’ll let Carson speak for himself:

In my understanding of the Olivet Discourse, the disciples think of Jerusalem’s destruction and the eschatological end as a single complex web of events. This accounts for the form of their questions. Jesus warns that there will be delay before the End — a delay characterized by persecution and tribulation for his followers (vv. 4-28), but with one particularly violent display of judgment in the Fall of Jerusalem (vv. 15-21; Mark 13:14-20; Luke 21:20-24). Immediately after the days of that sustained persecution characterizing the interadvent period comes the Second Advent (vv. 29-31; cf. Guthrie, NT Theology, pp. 795-96). The warning in vv. 32-35 describes the whole tribulation period, from the Ascension to the Second Advent. The tribulation period will certainly come, and the generation to which Jesus is speaking will experience all its features that point to the Lord’s return. But the exact time of that return no one but the Father knows (vv. 36-44). This structure works out in all three Synoptics (though with significant differences in emphasis), and the main themes developed have important ties with other NT books. The disciples’ questions are answered, and the reader is exhorted to look forward to the Lord’s return and meanwhile to live responsibly, faithfully, compassionately, and courageously while the Master is away (24:45-25:46).

— D. A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 8 (Zondervan, 1984), page 495.

So the question is this: "Were the Romans in the mountains near the countryside of Judea?" If not the advice of Jesus to flee from the countyside of Judea was possible to follow. Can someone answer this question?

Maybe some Judean rebels, who might say "join us or die". Romans would guard the way to the mountains but not be in them. (Thanks to JP for this anwer!)

This mean that it is possible to flee to the mountain if your are watchful.

"Jesus' command to flee to the mountains (v. 16) makes good sense; Palestine's central mountain range provided a natural refuge (as in 1 Sam 23:14; Ezek 7:15-16; Jos. War 2.504)." (IVP New Testament Commentaries)

Let's take a look to Jos. War 2.504 (the war of Jew" of Flavius Josephus). This happen in 66 AD just before the siege of Jerusalem:

"so Cestius took part of his forces and marched hastily to Zebulun, a strong city of Galilee, which was called the City of Men, and divides the country of Ptolemais from our nation; (504) this he found deserted by its men, the multitude having fled to the mountains"

If it was possible to flee from the Judean countryside to the mountains just before the siege of Jerusalem in 66 AD, it was possible too when Jerusalem was surrounded by the armies in the same year!

Thanks guys, since a well known critic such as Ice included this as an alleged problem for preterism, I will include this information on how it is refuted in my commentary.

Originally posted by Darth Xena

Thanks guys, since a well known critic such as Ice included this as an alleged problem for preterism, I will include this information on how it is refuted in my commentary.

I think it refers to Genesis 19: 17

And it came to pass, when they took them outside, that he said, "Flee for your life, do not look behind you, and do not stand in the entire plain. Flee to the mountain, lest you perish."

Rashi, http://www.chabad.org/library/articl...showrashi=true

Flee to the mountain Flee to Abraham, who dwells on the mountain, as it is said (above 12:8): “And he moved from there to the mountain.”

Lot didn't do so.

That is very interesting.

Joe what work is this quote of Ice found in? It doesn't seem like he is addressing preterism there at all but defending his own position in general.

Zguy do you have full cites for your quotes?

And Sylvius I didn't remember this (my memory sux) but I had that Genesis 19:17 connection in my piece. Thank you for reminding me of it though, cool allusion.

Okay I have found the source for the Ice quote

http://www.raptureready.com/featured...w24_25_14.html

and I note that Ice did not say this, he quoted Randall Price (see footnote three) so we have to be careful not to attribute someone else's words to Ice. Now that might be a distinction without a difference but it is worth noting, but Ice does quote it approvingly.

Now there is a huge problem though that Ice ignores. Price brings in Luke 21:21 as part of the "impossible that this was fulfilled in the first century" portion. Yet Ice believes that Luke 21:21 WAS a first century event (IIRC - I have to go find the debate book he did with Ken Gentry).

Also this "Since Jerusalem is called " the Holy Mountain" (Psa. 48:1; cf. 87:1-2), " Mount Zion" (Psa. 74:2; 78:68-69), and is situated and surrounded by " mountains" (Psa. 125:1-2; cf. 48:2)" is just plain retarded. I must be missing something - is Price claiming that because Jerusalem is FIGURATIVELY called a "mountain" that there cannot be flight to literal mountains, mountains which he appears to acknowledge in the next breath do exist?

What am I missing here?

Also this "Since Jerusalem is called " the Holy Mountain" (Psa. 48:1; cf. 87:1-2), " Mount Zion" (Psa. 74:2; 78:68-69), and is situated and surrounded by " mountains" (Psa. 125:1-2; cf. 48:2)" is just plain retarded. I must be missing something - is Price claiming that because Jerusalem is FIGURATIVELY called a "mountain" that there cannot be flight to literal mountains, mountains which he appears to acknowledge in the next breath do exist?

IMO He is saying that Jerusalem is on a hill (or mountain), and that Jerusalem is surrounded by the mountains because he want to show that the flight must be to those mountains who surrounded Jerusalem and not to Pella.

First let me say that I am pretty geographically ignorant when it come to that area, and I am willing for someone to educate me (I know some rudiments) but I can examine this logically. First his argument for Jerusalem being a "mountain" is from FIGURATIVE USES. That is just inane beyond belief. Second, he defeats his own argument by first stating why would one flee to a mountain from a mountain? (but that one isn't important) what is more important is this, Ice is using this quote from Price, so I am not really interacting with Price on his own, but with Ice's utilization of Price, and this is the kicker.

Ice CANNOT believe Price's argument is valid because Ice believe that Luke21:21 WAS fulfilled in the first century, so WHEREVER the first century believers fled to (whether or not he disbelieves the historical record that one of the places they went to was Pella - that is not clear to me what he thinks about that from this piece) - it was in fulfillment of this passage)

The only question remains is if Ice will seek first aid for that shot foot.