Matthew 24
June 25th, 2007 by JohnO
In our discussion of preterism I was asked to post about my understanding of Matthew 24. This passage is hotly debated on this subject, and in eschatology in general. I’m essentially going to give running commentary as I read the verses.
v2 - Jesus makes the remark that the Temple will be torn down.
v3 - The disciples probe for more information asking three questions: when will this happen, what is the sign of your coming, and the end of the age. I don’t quite understand “your coming” from their perspective - since this is before his death and resurrection, let alone his ascension. Perhaps in writing they felt it appropriate to add this bit to the question in retrospect?
v4-14 - The description of birth pangs, the command of endurance, and the fact that the Gospel will go to the whole world before the end comes
v15 - The abomination of desolation (Dan 9) is obviously the spark to the end
v16-22 - The reaction to the abomination is to flee to the mountains and hills, not stopping for anything. The tribulation is coming as a result of the abomination. This tribulation is going to be worse than anything anyone has ever seen. If it isn’t stopped all the saints would be killed, yet for the sake of the saints it will be cut short.
v23-26 - Another warning against false Messiahs
v27 - Jesus says that lightning goes from the east to the west, the coming of the Son of Man will be. This is directly contrasted with a secret/unknown/invisible coming in the preceding verses. The plain indication is that he will be seen when he comes. Acts 1 further emphasizes this fact, that he will be seen in his return.
v28 - the reference to corpses is found in other Scriptures as well, Rev 19.17,21 and Ez 39.4. The birds of the air will be fed with the defeated corpses
v29 - Immediately after the tribulation the moon will be darkened, and the stars will fall, and the heavens will shake. This is a reference from Joel 2
v30 - The Son of Man will appear in the sky coming on a cloud. All the earth will mourn because of this event. Jesus will come with great power and glory (References to Dan 7.13 and others have found references to Zech 12.10-14 though I must confess I don’t really see it)
v31 - With the sound of a trumpet the angels will go and gather the saints from all the world. Reference Zech 2.6 about the casting to the four winds. This is obviously a reference to a return from exile for all of the saints.
v32-33 - Use these signs of the times to recognize when I am about to come.
v34-35 - Rest assured all these things will take place
v36-51 and the next parable in 25 - All tell us that we don’t know when Jesus is coming.
v25.31 - Jesus will come with the angels and he will sit on his throne (Reference Zech 14.5)
v32-33 - Separation of Judgment (Referencing Ez 34.17). This passage in Ezekiel has a high-coloring of restoration and peace of Israel.
My understanding of the events of AD70 are simple, I don’t think AD70 fulfills all of these verses. Plainly the birth pangs are in affect even before AD70. The abomination is the biggest fact. The abomination is a man or his image in the holy of holies as a reference to his deity. The only possible explaination is that AD70 and Titus or Flavious (I’ve heard both) are this abomination. Yet, their army destroyed the temple, not took it over for the deification of their emporer. Futhermore in this passage, the abomination begins the tribulation. The persecution of Christians occurred before AD70. In this passage, leaving Judea is the reaction to the abomination. Many many people had left in the years prior to AD70 because of the revolt. So the events of AD70 are backwards. The abomination of desolation (if it even occurred, there don’t seem to be facts to support it), is the result of persecution and the people leaving - not the other way as the passage describes. Secondly, the “gap” problem of Dan 9 is still a problem for preterists in regards to AD70. Without a gap, there should have been an event between 37-40AD. There is no such event in history that fulfills that time period. So we both have to allow a gap. The passage in Daniel talks about seven periods of sevens. The term does not imply that they are all consecutive in the first place. The grouping determines the consecutive periods. The grouping plainly states that 69 weeks are consecutive. And after that group is completed - the Messiah will be cut off, which is exactly what happens at the death of Jesus.
I’ll make a comment about v34 since I know you will. I understand generation to be “this evil generation”. The current evil age in which we live. Jesus says that a sign will be given to this generation - the sign of Jonah, that Jesus would raise after three days. Isn’t that still the sign to people today? Isn’t the resurrection still the overwhelming proof of Christianity, and Jesus’ message?
The only option I’m left with is expecting further events to unfold around this prophecy - especially when Jesus continually tells us that we won’t know when he comes. I am not boxed in to a close date. AD70 appears to be backwards in light of this passage. Furthermore - the world was not mourning at AD70 they were rejoicing at the suppression of the revolt in Israel. No one saw Jesus. Jesus never came with angels to sit on the throne promised to him (Luke 1.35). The return from exile motif, and the restoration aspect from Ez 34 are not fulfilled at all. Israel is still being removed from their land as they are forced to give up settlements. Israel is still a prey for their enemies, whereas Ez 34 says they will no longer be! After AD70 they certainly did not return from exile - they were exiled even further! It resulted in the center of Judiasm to move from Jerusalem to Babylon where Jews hadn’t even come back from the first exile. It results in the disciples being scattered into Gentile lands.
I hope this lends to a profitable discussion. Two interjections before we begin. One, I find no indication anywhere in Scripture of a “Jewish age”. The age to come, to all Jews is the age of restoration. There is nothing in the words of Jesus to think otherwise. Before this idea can impact our thoughts we must prove it is a valid idea from the NT and the times of the writers. Two, regarding the “spiritualization” of promises like the “throne of David” - no where in the NT is this ever taken as metaphor or allegory. To a Jew, this means to be King over Israel - just like “Son of God” (John 1.49, 2 Sam 7, 1 Chron 17). Before this idea can impact our thoughts we must prove it is a valid idea from the NT and the times of the writers.
JohnO, another great post. I appreciate your careful reasoning. I disagree with the Praeterist view of the Olivet prophecy. I do not believe it was fulfilled completely in the 1st century. But I also disagree with the Futurist view which puts it all in the unknown future.
Putting the three gospel records together, we find the same consistent message.
First Christ warned that there would be tribulation in the days of the disciples (Matthew 24:20-22, Mark 13:19-20, Luke 21-20-23,).
But he then warned his return would not come during these troubles, despite false claims to the contrary (Matthew 24:23-26, Mark 13:21-23), for there would first be the times of the Gentiles, which included the destruction of Jerusalem and the scattering of the Jews (Luke 21:24).
Christ went on to teach that his return would not be until after those tribulations, including the times of the Gentiles (Matthew 24:27, 29-31, Mark 13:24-27, Luke 21:25-28).
I have put together some reading material on the interpretation of the Olivet prophecy here:
http://www.thechristadelphians.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=2151
JohnO wrote: I understand generation to be “this evil generation”. The current evil age in which we live.
So if I understand you correctly you are saying “this generation” means “this evil age.” Since Matthew 24 is about the end of the age, Jesus would effectively be saying: Truly I say to you, this evil age shall not pass away until the end of the age comes. That doesn’t make any since. It goes without saying that the current evil age will make it until the end of the age. Also, what scriptural evidence do you have that “genea” (generation in greek) can mean aion (age in greek). Look at the way genea is used in Matthew chapter 1.
JohnO: The only possible explaination is that AD70 and Titus or Flavious (I’ve heard both) are this abomination.
Actually there are other explanations as to what is the abomination of desolation. One could have been the statue that the emperor Caligula tried to erect at the gates of the Temple. Or it could have been the fact that the Jews were killing each other and leaving dead bodies inside the temple before the Romans even laid siege to Jerusalem. In any case, the abomination of desolation definately refers to an event which took place during the second temple period because that is the temple that the disciples and Jesus were refering to in the beginning of chapter 24. They were not refering to some supposed 3rd temple that the disciples would have had no idea about.
JohnO wrote: The return from exile motif, and the restoration aspect from Ez 34 are not fulfilled at all.
All of the restoration prophecies happened. Thats what the books of Ezra and Nehemiah are about.
JohnO: Furthermore - the world was not mourning at AD70 they were rejoicing at the suppression of the revolt in Israel.
Mt. 24:30 “and then all the tribes of the land (greek=ge) will mourn,” All of the tribes of the land of Israel did mourn in 70 AD.
JohnO: Two, regarding the “spiritualization” of promises like the “throne of David” - no where in the NT is this ever taken as metaphor or allegory. To a Jew, this means to be King over Israel - just like “Son of God”
I completely agree with you that to sit on the throne of David=to be King of Israel. The problem is that Christ was already crowned king of Israel. (Jn. 19:14,19)
JohnO: Jesus says that a sign will be given to this generation - the sign of Jonah, that Jesus would raise after three days.
Actually the sign of Jonah is more proof to the importance of 70 AD. Jonah was three days in the whale and then preached that Nineveh was going to be destroyed in 40 days. Christ was 3 days in the earth and he gave the Jewish nation 40 years to repent. Mt. 12:41 “The men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation at the judgment, and will condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.” However after 40 years the Jews did not repent and Jerusalem was overthrown. Also, notice how Christ uses the term “this generation” above. “This generation” always refers to the people to whom Christ was speaking.
God bless you
Karl,
I have no problem with AD70 being a judgment.
This, nor the bodies of dead Jewish men, can be the abomination of desolation. The abomination takes place in the holy of holies.
I did not say that ‘generation’ = ‘age’. Merely that this evil generation of people continues. I agree that it isn’t the plainest explanation possible, but it best suits the rest of the evidence.
Jesus was crowned the King as a mockery by the Romans. He never did sit on the throne of David in Jerusalem. Furthermore, as I understand it, since Jerusalem was destroyed the throne of David wasn’t standing. Yet they had full expectation of a restoration. Why couldn’t they have the same expectation with a fallen temple?
The restoration prophecies are blatantly not fulfilled at all. The restoration prophecies call for peace and justice. Under Ezra and Nehemiah, neither occurred. As I stated Ez 34, which Jesus references as future to him, Israel would no longer be a prey. Today they are preyed upon.
Anthony Buzzard wrote a brief article on “this generation” on his website.
click here to read it
Hi Karl,
>
In any case, the abomination of desolation definately refers to an event which took place during the second temple period because that is the temple that the disciples and Jesus were refering to in the beginning of chapter 24.
>
It definitely refers to an event which took place during the 2nd Temple period. It refers to the Roman armies which made it as far as the Temple grounds and then withdrew unexpectedly, providing an opportunity for flight before the final destruction.
This is how the prophecy was understood by some of the earliest Christian expositors.
Karl, you should also reflect on the fact that even after Christ’s resurrection, neither his disciples nor he himself considered the Kingdom to have been restored (Acts 1:6-7), and Peter was preaching under inspiration shortly afterwards that Christ had still not taken his place on the throne of David, but was currently waiting at the right hand of his Father for that time to come (Acts 2:30, 32-35).
Fortigurn wrote: Peter was preaching under inspiration shortly afterwards that Christ had still not taken his place on the throne of David, but was currently waiting at the right hand of his Father for that time to come (Acts 2:30, 32-35).
I read those verses in Acts that you posted here and they say the opposite of what you are saying. “And so, because he was a prophet and knew that GOD HAD SWORN TO HIM WITH AN OATH TO SEAT one OF HIS DESCENDANTS ON HIS THRONE, 31 he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ,
Peter’s whole argument here is that because Christ was raised from the dead he is the Christ, which means King of Israel, which means he is sitting on the throne of david.
God bless you
Hi JohnO.,
you wrote:
Your understanding of Jesus’ words “THIS generation” as being a reference to our generation today (and many all generations since the time of Christ, or even before, as well as generations after ours) is a typical wrong understanding caused by the fundamental mistake of not recognizing to whom these words in Scripture were addressed. How could Jesus be meaning a generation living 2000 years later when he spoke to his disciples and spoke of THIS (and not “that future”) GENERATION” ???
As for the sign of Jonah … again, this sign was a particular sign for Jesus’ contemporaries, not to other people living centuries later. It was Jesus’ generation that was given that sign …. all generations afterwards were not given the sign, unless you want to tell us that the resurrection of Jesus happened in each subsequent generation anew?? Yes, the resurrection of Christ is a cornerstone of the Christian doctrine … but it is NOT a sign given to Christians as it was a sign to Jesus’ contemporaries (”THIS generation” from his perspective).
By the way, the sign of Jonah included more than just the resurrection after three days and three nights … as Karl pointed out above, a vital element concerning THIS generation was that the men of Niniveh would rise up in judgment against THIS generaiton because they repented after Jonah’s preaching for 40 days and THIS (Jesus’) generation did not repent and believe the preaching of the Son of man (someone greater than Jonah) even in the 40 year period given them … and subsequently the prophesied doom came upon them.
This is not what I said. Jesus said that “this generation” killed the prophets. The Pharisees had never killed a prophet - they hadn’t been one before John the Baptist for centuries. I said that “this generation” means “this evil generation” which spans before Jesus, during the time of Jesus, and today. Please read this article
I would argue that the sign of resurrection is not only the cornerstone of the faith - but also the most persuasive factual evidence of the faith.
I have no problem with understanding the judgment of 40 years later to Jonah’s experience. But obviously the writer of the gospel never thought to include it as important. Only the resurrection.
Hi Karl,
“I read those verses in Acts that you posted here and they say the opposite of what you are saying. “And so, because he was a prophet and knew that GOD HAD SWORN TO HIM WITH AN OATH TO SEAT one OF HIS DESCENDANTS ON HIS THRONE, 31 he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ,”
That is not the opposite of what I said.
“Peter’s whole argument here is that because Christ was raised from the dead he is the Christ, which means King of Israel, which means he is sitting on the throne of david.”
That is not what he says. He says nothing about Christ sitting on the throne of David now. He specifically says that Christ is waiting at the right hand of God until his enemies are made his footstool. Is David’s throne in heaven?
You didn’t deal with the quote from Acts.
Fortigurn said: That is not the opposite of what I said.
Fortigurn previously said: Peter was preaching under inspiration shortly afterwards that Christ had still not taken his place on the throne of David, but was currently waiting at the right hand of his Father for that time to come (Acts 2:30, 32-35).
Acts 2:30-35 says nothing about Christ waiting in heaven until he can be seated on David’s throne at some future date. Rather it says that Christ was made (past tense v. 36) Lord and Christ. The fact that he is called Christ here means that he already is the king of Israel.
Fortigurn said: He specifically says that Christ is waiting at the right hand of God until his enemies are made his footstool.
After Christ puts all his enemies under his feet he delivers up the kingdom to God the father. It doesn’t say anything about an earthly dictatorship in Israel. 1 Cor. 15:24 then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.
Fortigurn said: Is David’s throne in heaven?
Probably not. But the real question is: Is David’s throne on earth? If it is, I would like to see it.
God bless you
Fortigurn said: “neither his disciples nor he himself considered the Kingdom to have been restored”
Re. 1:6 and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father—to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.
Notice the past tense: has made
JohnO: This, nor the bodies of dead Jewish men, can be the abomination of desolation. The abomination takes place in the holy of holies.
Who says that the abomination of desolation takes place in the holy of holies? Who says the bodies of dead men aren’t the abomination of desolation? By Torah and also by modern orthodox jewish law, the dead body of a human is most unclean thing there is. Is it not an abomination to kill men in God’s temple and spill there blood where offerings are made?
Josephus writes: For Eleazar, the son of Simon, who made the first separation of the zealots from the people, and made them retire into the temple … these seized upon the inner court of the temple and laid their arms upon the holy gates, and over the holy fronts of that court. And because they had plenty of provisions, they were of good courage, for there was a great abundance of what was consecrated to sacred uses, and they scrupled not the making use of them … [and they] slew moreover many of the priests, as they were about their sacred ministrations … yet did they still admit those that desired to offer their sacrifices … many persons who came thither with great zeal from the ends of the earth, to offer sacrifices at this celebrated place, which was esteemed holy by all mankind, fell down before their own sacrifices themselves, and sprinkled that altar which was venerable among all men, both Greeks and Barbarians, with their own blood; till the dead bodies of strangers were mingled together with those of their own country, and those of profane persons with those of the priests, and the blood of all sorts of dead carcasses stood in lakes in the holy courts themselves.”
Fortigurn said: (Concerning the Abomination Of Desolation {AOD}) It definitely refers to an event which took place during the 2nd Temple period. It refers to the Roman armies which made it as far as the Temple grounds and then withdrew unexpectedly, providing an opportunity for flight before the final destruction.
I think that this is a good interpretation of the AOD. Especially when you compare the different gospel accounts. Matthew says: “When you see the AOD… let him who is in Judea flee to the mountains.” Luke says: “When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies… then let him who is in Judea flee to the mountains.” It would seem that the AOD and the Roman armies are synonymous, or at least intricately connected.
In any case, we at least agree that it refers to events in the 1st Century.
Hi Karl,
>
Acts 2:30-35 says nothing about Christ waiting in heaven until he can be seated on David’s throne at some future date.
>
Sure it does. He’s sitting at the right hand of God until his enemies are made his footstool. Look at Psalm 110, where this comes from.
>
Rather it says that Christ was made (past tense v. 36) Lord and Christ. The fact that he is called Christ here means that he already is the king of Israel.
>
The fact that he is called ‘Christ’ means that he is annointed. He was annointed at his baptism. That made him the annointed king, not the reigning king. David was annointed years before he took the throne.
>
Fortigurn said: Is David’s throne in heaven?
Probably not. But the real question is: Is David’s throne on earth? If it is, I would like to see it.
>
David’s throne *was* on earth, and both David and Solomon sat on it. It isn’t on earth now, because the kingdom doesn’t exist right now. It has to be restored, and Christ made it clear to his disciples (even after his resurrection), that the time for its restoration was yet future (see the Acts quote I provided).
>
Re. 1:6 and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father—to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.
Notice the past tense: has made
>
Yes, he has made us a kingdom. This says nothing about Christ already sitting on the throne of David ruling over the restored kingdom of Israel.
Ho John O.,
you wrote above:
sp then you do include our generation in “this evil generation”, or do you not mean that with your “and today”? However, Jesus was not speaking to those who lived before him, nor to those who live today, but to people who were his contemporaries, was he not? How do you come up with the idea that “generation” spans people before and after hom?
Also, who are then this “generation”? if the term does not mean what one would also call “contemporaries” (a normal meaning of the word “generation”), what does tje term mean?
Fortigurn wrote: Sure it does. He’s sitting at the right hand of God until his enemies are made his footstool. Look at Psalm 110, where this comes from.
Psalm 110:1Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”
2 The LORD will stretch forth Your strong scepter from Zion, saying,
“Rule in the midst of Your enemies.”
I suppose that you are taking this reference to Zion to indicate a future dictatorship with the capital in Jerusalem.
He. 12:22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem,
God bless you
Wolfgang, the term means contemporaries, and can also mean additional members. As I said previously please read the article that both Sean and I linked to.
Karl,
The abomination is clearly a thing, it is “set up”. In AD70 the sacrifice was taken away - but because the temple was destroyed. The abomination was not set up in the temple, because there was no more temple.
Hi Karl,
>
I suppose that you are taking this reference to Zion to indicate a future dictatorship with the capital in Jerusalem.
>
Absolutely.
>
He. 12:22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem,
>
I’m afraid this is not re-interpreting Psalm 110. It’s using ‘Mount Zion’ and ‘Jerusalem’ as a figure of the covenant body in Christ. Still no reply on the Acts passages I see.
JohnO, I believe the ‘abomination of desolation’ in Daniel 8, Daniel 11 and Daniel 12 refers to the image Antiochus IV Epiphanes set up in the Jewish temple during the Seleucid era. Christ referred instead to the ‘abomination which makes desolate’ in Daniel 9 (not Daniel 8, 11 or 12).
I don’t believe that 2 Thessalonians is speaking of the abomination of desolation either, or of the 2nd Temple. I believe it’s speaking of the church.
Fortigurn wrote: JohnO, I believe the ‘abomination of desolation’ in Daniel 8, Daniel 11 and Daniel 12 refers to the image Antiochus IV Epiphanes set up in the Jewish temple during the Seleucid era. Christ referred instead to the ‘abomination which makes desolate’ in Daniel 9 (not Daniel 8, 11 or 12).
Well said.
Fortigurn wrote: It’s using ‘Mount Zion’ and ‘Jerusalem’ as a figure of the covenant body in Christ.
Exactly.
Fortigurn wrote: Still no reply on the Acts passages I see.
I could not have have said it better: Mount Zion and Jerusalem are figures of the Covenant body in Christ. That’s why the passage in Acts 2:30-36 is all in the past tense. Jesus has been made Lord and Christ. Not, Jesus will be made Lord and Christ.
God bless you
#
1. Matt. 10:23 - “Truly I say to you, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes.”
2. Matt. 16:28 - “Truly I say to you, there are some who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”
3. Matt. 24:34 - “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” (Jesus’ use of “this generation” throughout the gospels always refers to his contemporaries: 26:36; 11:16; 12:39, 41, 42 and 45; Luke 11:50-51; 17:25; Mk 8:38)
4. Matt. 26:64 - “You [the high priest] will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven.”
# The Book of Revelation’s predictions indicating Christ’s imminent return
1. SHORTLY, QUICKLY: ταχει, tachos and en tachei mean “quickly, all at once, with all speed, without delay.”
1. 1:1 - “…things which must shortly take place”
2. 2:16 - “Repent, or else I will come to you quickly”
3. 3:11 - “Behold, I come quickly!”
4. 22:6 - “…things which must shortly take place.”
5. 22:7 - “Behold, I am coming quickly!”
6. 22:12 - “Behold, I am coming quickly.”
7. 22:20 - “Surely I am coming quickly.”
2. NEAR AT HAND (εγγυς, engus)
1. 1:3 - “The time is near.”
2. 22:10 - “The time is at hand.”
3. ABOUT TO, ON THE POINT OR VERGE OF (μελλει, mello, mellei)
1. 1:19 - “Write … the things that are about to take place.”
2. 3:10 - “… the hour of trial … is about to come upon the whole world.”
# Other New Testament indications of Christ’s imminent return
1. Rom. 13:11-12 - “You know what hour it is, how it is full time now for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed; the night is far gone, the day is at hand.”
2. 1 Cor. 7:29-31 - “Brethren, the appointed time has grown very short; from now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the form of this world is passing away.”
3. 1 Cor. 10:11 - “On [us] the ends of the ages have come.”
4. Phil. 4:5 - “The Lord is at hand.”
5. James 5:8-9 - “The coming of the Lord is at hand. … Behold, the Judge is standing at the door.”
6. 1 Pet. 4:7 - “The end of all things is at hand.”
7. 1 Jn. 2:18 - “It is the last hour … we know that it is the last hour.”
Why go do all sorts of mental gymnastics to try to bring all of these things into our day? It is clear these prophecies were meant for the 1st Century. Why do we have to allegorize these verses? How about interpreting these passages literally?
God bless you
Hi Fortigurn,
That last list of verses wasn’t really addressed to you since you seem to believe at last some of the prophecies in the NT were fulfilled in the 1st century. Obviously, were are not going convince each other about the interpretation of Acts 2. Are there any other verses in the NT that you believe clearly teach a literal kingdom in Jerusalem?
God bless you
This passage is trouble for both of us. Because it is said when he sends the disciples out to preach. This is well before his crucifixion. Yet they return to him, and Jesus has not come as the Son of Man. This one doesn’t help either of our cases.
In Matthew 17 Peter and John see him coming in his Kingdom. It is a vision. I definitely agree that Jesus expected them all to see the Kingdom in all it’s glory - but he repeatedly states over and over that he truly doesn’t know the season.
Please see the article I’ve linked, and now mentioned for the 5th time.
Concerning Revelation - it is written after 70AD. So one cannot say that Jesus returned in 70AD - surely no one records seeing him descend on a cloud then either. This is apocalyptic literature - all apocalyptic literature regardless of the time it was written states that the end is incredibly near.
I repeatedly agree at the immanence! Yet “all things” have not ended. The hours have not stopped. The clock continues to turn. Jesus has not returned. He is not sitting in Jerusalem. The disciples are not sitting on thrones governing the twelve tribes. Abraham and Jesus didn’t sit at banquet in the Kingdom of God. The faithful before us have not been bodily resurrected. The lion does not play with the lamb, nor a child on the hole of an asp. What am I to say? I await all these things.
Again, as Sean has stated - all you’re doing is talking about the timing verses. You haven’t said a word concerning the nature of the Kingdom. All you’re saying is that “something happened, because all these verses said something was going to happen soon” - but haven’t defined what.
Praise God! It’s good to hear about the work you are doing for the kingdom.
God bless you
My last comment was susposed to be posted on another topic.
JohnO wrote: In Matthew 17 Peter and John see him coming in his Kingdom.
Matthew 17 says nothing about kingdom or coming.
JohnO: Please see the article I’ve linked, and now mentioned for the 5th time.
I read it. I don’t know why the author is running around in circles to find some meaning of the word “genea” just to hold on to some eschatological view. The plain meaning of “genea” (also the Hebrew word Dor) is generation. If Jesus meant age he would have said “aion.” If he meant a class of poeple he would have said “genos.” Read how genea is used in Matt. 1:17.
JohnO wrote: Concerning Revelation - it is written after 70AD.
Revelation was written before 70 AD. That’s why John is told to measure the temple. Check out this e-book: http://www.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/2206_47e.htm
The dating of Revelation after AD is based on a single unclear statement by the church father Irenaeus.
JohnO: I repeatedly agree at the immanence!
That’s great, but immanence is not the meaning of words like: quickly, at hand, or about to take place.
JohnO: “Jesus has not returned. He is not sitting in Jerusalem. The disciples are not sitting on thrones governing the twelve tribes. Abraham and Jesus didn’t sit at banquet in the Kingdom of God. The faithful before us have not been bodily resurrected. The lion does not play with the lamb, nor a child on the hole of an asp.”
You take all of these things literally, but simple words like “quickly,” “near,” and “about to take place” somehow don’t have a literal meaning.
JohnO: “You haven’t said a word concerning the nature of the Kingdom.”
I’m open to ideas, but whatever it is, it occurred (at least in some sense) in the 1st Century. Re. 1: 6 and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father—to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.”
We should get Rick to post his article about the Kingdom on here. Can we do that?
God bless you
JohnO: So one cannot say that Jesus returned in 70AD - surely no one records seeing him descend on a cloud then either. This is apocalyptic literature.
Much of apocalyptic literature is not meant to be taken literally. Isaiah 19:1 were “the Lord is riding on a cloud and about to come to Egypt.” This is a prophecy concerning the judgement about to come upon egypt at that time. To you believe that the LORD literally came to Egypt on a cloud? And if he did where is the the historical proof? Or did he come in Judgement?
“Coming” is a term that refers to judgement without necessarily being a physical manifestation:
Rev 2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.
Rev 3:3 Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.
The coming refered to in these passages refers to a coming in judgement for the churches’ unfaithfulness. In like manner Christ came to jerusalem to judge it for its unfaithfulness in 70 ad.
Josephus records that before the fall of Jerusalem, it’s inhabitants saw “chariots and troops of soldiers in their armour running among the clouds and surrounding cities.” Jewish Wars VI:v:3
If they saw armies couldn’t they have also seen the commander of the armies of heaven?
God bless you
More apocalyptic literature: Then the earth shook and quaked; And the foundations of the mountains were trembling And were shaken, because He was angry.
Smoke went up out of His nostrils, And fire from His mouth devoured; Coals were kindled by it.
He bowed the heavens also, and came down With thick darkness under His feet.
He rode upon a cherub and flew; And He sped upon the wings of the wind.
He made darkness His hiding place, His canopy around Him, Darkness of waters, thick clouds of the skies.
From the brightness before Him passed His thick clouds, Hailstones and coals of fire.
The LORD also thundered in the heavens, And the Most High uttered His voice, Hailstones and coals of fire.
He sent out His arrows, and scattered them, And lightning flashes in abundance, and routed them.
Then the channels of water appeared, And the foundations of the world were laid bare At Your rebuke, O LORD, At the blast of the breath of Your nostrils.
Psalm 18:-15. When did all this happen? Ps. 18:1 “A psalm of David… who spoke the words of this song in the day that the LORD delivered him from the hand of all his enemies and from the hand of Saul.”
Yet when we read in Samuel about Saul and David, never do we see the LORD riding on a cherub, sending out arrows nor a fire from his mouth devouring. Rather this is figurative language describing David’s deliverance.
Jesus coming to the churches in judgment is not his second coming. Furthermore, “seeing” Jesus in heaven, is not his coming as you say “could” have happened - but no evidence that it even did. Everyone fully expected Jesus to visibly come, despite the language surrounding it:
Notice what is coming when Jesus visibly comes to the earth: fire, glory, honor, the dead raised, and the Kingdom! Just as Jesus was bodily resurrected - so he will be seen bodily on the earth again. This was the full expectation of the early Christians.
JohnO: Jesus coming to the churches in judgment is not his second coming.
I agree with you. In the same way he threatens to come and judge the churches in Revelation, he came and judged Israel in 70 AD. Israel was after all, a church. Acts 7:38 8 “This is the one who was in the church (ekklesia) in the wilderness together with the angel who was speaking to him on Mount Sinai.
Is the term “second coming” in the bible? If Jesus came in Judgement in 70 AD it would not preclude a “second coming” later in time when he judges the dead. All I’m saying is that passages that give clear indicators that they were for the 1st century (Mt. 24 for example) should be understood in the time frame that they were meant for. In that respect, I am not a full preterist.
Nor do I believe that the Kingdom of God is fully manifested on earth currently. However, It seems that the kingdom of God should be understood in terms of covenant. Israel was given the covenant and the kingdom. (Ex. 19:5-6) Because of their disobedience, a new covenant is made and the kingdom is taken from them (Mt. 21:43) and given to the Apostles (Re. 1:6).
In any event, we all serve the One true God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. God bless you all.
Hi Karl,
>
I could not have have said it better: Mount Zion and Jerusalem are figures of the Covenant body in Christ.
>
They are in that passage of Hebrews. But they are not figures everywhere in the Bible. Mount Zion is a real mountain - just go to Israel and see. Jerusalem is a real city - just go to Israel and see.
>
That’s why the passage in Acts 2:30-36 is all in the past tense. Jesus has been made Lord and Christ. Not, Jesus will be made Lord and Christ.
>
No one here doubts that Jesus was made Lord and Christ. That isn’t the issue. The issue is whether or not he is currently sitting on the throne of David and ruling over the kingdom restored to Israel. That’s the Acts passage (in chapter 1), which hasn’t been dealt with yet.
>
Are there any other verses in the NT that you believe clearly teach a literal kingdom in Jerusalem?
>
Plenty. Aside from the Acts 1 and 2 passages I’ve already quoted, there’s Matthew 6:10; 19:28; 25:31-32, Luke 1:32-33; 22:30, Acts 3:19-21, not to mention several places in Revelation.
Your appeal to the apocalyptic literature is fine - we all know that stars won’t literally fall, the moon literally turn to blood, etc.
But the problem is that you can’t reconcile the other parts of these passages with 70 AD. There was no restoration of the Kingdom of Israel (Acts 1:6-7). Nobody saw him come (Matthew 24:30, Mark 14:62, Revelation 1:7).
He didn’t return as the disciples had seen him go (Acts 1:11). The disciples didn’t sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:28), and nor did Christ sit on a throne judging the nations (Matthew 25:31-32). He didn’t sit on the throne of his father David (Luke 1:32-33).
The holy city Jerusalem didn’t come down from heaven (Revelation 21:2), and God did not dwell with men (Revelation 21:3), wiping away all their tears (Revelation 21:4).
And so it goes on.
Fortigurn wrote: They are in that passage of Hebrews. But they are not figures everywhere in the Bible. Mount Zion is a real mountain - just go to Israel and see. Jerusalem is a real city - just go to Israel and see.
The issue is whether or not he is currently sitting on the throne of David and ruling over the kingdom restored to Israel. That’s the Acts passage (in chapter 1), which hasn’t been dealt with yet.
We are using different methods to understand prophetic passages. You are taking a purely literal approach when you see something like “Mount Zion.” I am using passages like Hebrews 12:22 as a key to understand what Mount Zion meant for the apostles.
There is no literal throne of David. “Just go to Israel and see.” It was probably destroyed when the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem. To sit on the throne of David means that someone holds the same position as David did as king of Israel. Christ is ruling over the kingdom restored to Israel., the new Israel according to the spirit. Re. 1:6 and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father—to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.
Jesus gives no details about the nature of the kingdom in Acts 1. He only says that the Apostles are not to know the time.
Fortigurn wrote: Nobody saw him come (Matthew 24:30, Mark 14:62, Revelation 1:7).
Mt. 24:30 “And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory… 34 “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.
Re. 1:7 BEHOLD, HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him;
When I read this verses I realize that that generation and those who pierced saw him. I take Jesus at his words. Josephus mentions that signs were seen in the heavens during the destruction. I believe that those in the first century saw Jesus just as he said they would.
I do believe in a “2nd coming” at some time in the future and perhaps Acts 1:11 is talking about that. I’m not sure, but to try to put Matthew 24 in the future is not possible. 1) Jesus says it all will take place during that generation 2) there are no mention of any 2000 year gaps in Matthew 24.
God bless you
Hi Karl,
>
We are using different methods to understand prophetic passages. You are taking a purely literal approach when you see something like “Mount Zion.” I am using passages like Hebrews 12:22 as a key to understand what Mount Zion meant for the apostles.
>
No, I am distinguishing between literal and figurative speech. When Paul uses Mount Zion in Hebrews 12:22, he says plainly that he is using it as a figure. That does not give us warrant to interpret ‘Mount Zion’ as a figure everywhere in the Bible.
>
There is no literal throne of David. “Just go to Israel and see.” It was probably destroyed when the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem.
>
I certainly agree. This is why it must be restored in order for Christ to sit on it.
>
To sit on the throne of David means that someone holds the same position as David did as king of Israel.
>
Well yes, it means ruling over the same kingdom, in the same way. We can test what the Scripture means by this, by looking at the reign of Solomon. Solomon was said to be sitting on the throne of his father David. Does this mean Solomon was ensconced invisibly in heaven, while the kingdom was dissolved, the Jews scattered into various nations, and earthly governments ruled? No.
>
Christ is ruling over the kingdom restored to Israel., the new Israel according to the spirit. Re. 1:6 and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father—to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.
>
That is not the kingdom *restored* to Israel. As you say that’s a completely new kingdom.
>
Jesus gives no details about the nature of the kingdom in Acts 1. He only says that the Apostles are not to know the time.
>
On the contrary, the apostles ask when he will *restore* the kingdom *to Israel*, and he tells them that they are not to know the time of that. But you say that he wasn’t going to restore it at all.
>
When I read this verses I realize that that generation and those who pierced saw him. I take Jesus at his words. Josephus mentions that signs were seen in the heavens during the destruction. I believe that those in the first century saw Jesus just as he said they would.
>
Not even Josephus says that anyone saw Jesus at his coming. There is absolutely no evidence for your claim.
>
I do believe in a “2nd coming” at some time in the future and perhaps Acts 1:11 is talking about that.
>
Yes it is.
>
I’m not sure, but to try to put Matthew 24 in the future is not possible. 1) Jesus says it all will take place during that generation 2) there are no mention of any 2000 year gaps in Matthew 24.
>
I suggest you read all three gospel records of the Olivet prophecy. Luke describes the gap explicitly. Then you can see how it fits into Matthew 24.
Hi Fortigurn,
where does Lk 21 describe “the gap” you see in the Olivet discourse? I see no gap in either of the three gospel records which give the information about that teaching concerning the “end of the age” …
What I do see is this: The popular futurist view of the so-called “end times” start out by saying that the disciples asked 3 questions concerning 3 different (basically unrelated) items … Doing so, a wrong premise is established, because by comparison of the three gospel records we can easily recognize that the questions asked relate all to only one majjor matter => what would happen when “these things (destruction of the temple at Jerusalem)” at the coming of the Son of man at the end of the age.
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Hi Wolfgang,
Try Luke 21:24. You can see there not only the gap, but the fact that Christ’s return takes place *after* the events of 70 AD, *after* the destruction of Jerusalem and the scattering of the Jews. This is fatal to the Praeterist argument that the coming of Christ took place *at* 70 AD.
I’m not a Futurist, so I’m not in the least concerned by your criticism of their ‘three questions’ idea.
Hi Fortigurn
I tried Lk 21:24 …. but see no gap (of 2000 years or more) described there. Which words or expressions supposedly describe a gap in that verse? And, where woiuld that gap fit in into the Mt 24 / Mk 13 record of the Olivet discourse?
Alsp, not being a futurist, when then did this supposed gap come to its end and the coming of the Lord occur, if not in connection with the other events Jesus spoke of in the Olivet discourse?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Hi Wolfgang,
There is no gap in Luke 21:24. There is no gap in the Olivet prophecy at all. It’s continuous. Luke speaks of 70 AD (Luke 21:20-23), then speaks of the exile of the Jews into all the nations, which took place subsequent to 70 AD (Luke 21:24), saying that this scattering of the Jews ‘among all nations’ and Jerusalem being ‘trampled down’ would continue ‘until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled’.
That is a description of what happened to the Jewish people as a result of 70 AD, and it remains a description of them which is current. It is only *after* those times are fulfilled that Christ returns, meaning that the return of Christ described later certainly didn’t take place in 70 AD.
In Matthew’s account, Matthew 24:21-27 is the counterpart to Luke 21:21-24. Christ appears immediately after the tribulation which started in 70 AD, and continues to his return. The events in Matthew 24:21-27 parallel Luke 21:21-24, and Mark 13:24 parallels Luke 21:24.
I know I’ve used the word ‘gap’ previously, but as I’ve explained in my last post, there isn’t really a ‘gap’. It’s referred to as a ‘gap’ by Futurists and Praeterists when they speak of this interpretation, but Historicists don’t see it as a gap.
Hi Fortigurn,
with your type of historicist interpretation, are there then still folks from about 2000 years ago well and alive now, seeing that they would remain alive according to the words of Jesus and see the Son of man and his coming? how can “this generation” (Jesus’ contemporarise) still be around almost 2000 years after Jesus predicted what would befall them due to their unbelief and rejection of the Messiah?
Hi Fortigurn,
You wrote: There is no gap in Luke 21:24. There is no gap in the Olivet prophecy at all. It’s continuous. Luke speaks of 70 AD (Luke 21:20-23), then speaks of the exile of the Jews into all the nations, which took place subsequent to 70 AD (Luke 21:24), saying that this scattering of the Jews ‘among all nations’ and Jerusalem being ‘trampled down’ would continue ‘until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled’.
That is a description of what happened to the Jewish people as a result of 70 AD, and it remains a description of them which is current. It is only *after* those times are fulfilled that Christ returns, meaning that the return of Christ described later certainly didn’t take place in 70 AD.
I wouldn’t have a problem with this interpretation except for what Jesus says in Luke 21:32.
32 “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all things take place.”
I would assume that “all things” means all of the things that he just described including the signs in the heavens and the coming of the Son of Man. At least that’s the way I read it.
God bless you
Karl,
Perhaps you know the answer to this. Why does my NASB put a footnote in Mat 24.32 indicating that “generation” could be translated “race?”
Wolfgang and Karl, I believe the ‘generation’ thing has already been addressed. The generation to whom Christ spoke had all those things come upon them. But he had no way of knowing the time of his return, so there was no way that he could have assured them that they would still be alive at his return. Even Paul wasn’t alive before 70 AD.
So the issues for you are:
* Luke 21:21-24
* The fact that the Olivet prophecy describes Christ’s return as taking place after 70 AD
Sean wrote: Perhaps you know the answer to this. Why does my NASB put a footnote in Mat 24.32 indicating that “generation” could be translated “race?”
My understanding is that it used to mean “race” in some writings outside of the NT. As far as I know, every instance that it is used in the NT (and most in the OT also) it means “generation.” Check out the way its used in Matthew 1:17, Ex 1:6 (LXX), Ex. 20:5 (LXX).
God bless you
Strong’s defines genea as follows:
A generation; by implication, an age (the period or the persons):— age, generation, nation, time.
Even E. W. Bullinger defines it as:
Birth; race, descent; offspring. It denotes an age or generation from the point of view of race (as aion does from that of duration).
There are also the citations from Anthony Buzzard’s article:
From the Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, Vol. 1, p. 444:
“Genea — expresses the idea of kinship, those of the same lineage who are born about the same time…or more generally an ‘age’ or lengthened period of time…Finally (d) the word is used, as often in the OT (Deut. 32:5, 20; Ps. 12:7, 24:6, etc.), with a moral connection as in Phil. 2:15 and Acts 2:40. In the latter passage the word has an eschatological coloring. ‘This crooked generation’ is the present, swiftly transient period of the world’s history, which is leading up to the day of judgment and the New Age.”
Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, Vol. 1, p. 639:
“That genea (rendered generation) does express ‘the current age’ of ‘the world period’ is obvious in the Gospels (Luke 16:8, Matt. 24:34 and less clearly Matt. 23:36).”
Comment by Cranfield (Gospel of Mark):
genea renders the Hebrew dor = seed, family and people. “Probably here — ‘whoever is ashamed of me in this adulterous and sinful generation’ (Mark 8:38) — generation means ‘age,’ ‘period of time,’ which is the primary meaning of the Hebrew dor, the word it most often represents in the LXX, and a possible meaning of genea. The whole phrase, ‘this generation,’ is contrasted with ‘when he shall come with his holy angels’ and so is roughly equivalent to ‘in this time’ (10:30) which is contrasted with ‘in the coming age.’ The time meant is the time before the Parousia. But it is not thought of simply as a period of time; the thought of the men living in it and of their character is also present and prominent — hence the adjectives adulterous and sinful” (p. 284).
This is a good example. Mark 8:38 reads, “Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” Is this only speaking of those who were ashamed of him at the time he was on earth?
Hi Mark,
You wrote: Mark 8:38 reads, “Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” Is this only speaking of those who were ashamed of him at the time he was on earth?
I believe he was directly speaking to that generation. However, this does not mean that we can’t apply his words our day, also.
I wrote this earlier: My understanding is that it used to mean “race” in some writings outside of the NT. As far as I know, every instance that it is used in the NT (and most in the OT also) it means “generation.” Check out the way its used in Matthew 1:17, Ex 1:6 (LXX), Ex. 20:5 (LXX).
Previously I wrote that most times in the OT it is used to mean generation, not race or age. After having looked some verses quoted from the Dr. Buzzard’s article, I’ve never seen an instance in the OT where genea MUST mean “age” or “race.” In some passages it MAY BE INTERPETED that way, but there are many passages both OT and NT where it must be interpreted as generation. For example: Matthew 1:17, Ex 1:6 (LXX), Ex. 20:5 (LXX).
If you have a clear example where “genea” must mean age or race I would like to see it. I’m not trying to say that there are not any, but if there are, they are probably very few.
God bless you
Karl
My point was not that it “must” be interpreted that way. It was that it “can” be interepreted that way, and doing so would explain why Jesus said “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.”
He wasn’t saying “this age won’t end till this age ends” obviously - I agree that would make no sense. What he was saying was that the signs would indicate that the end of this “generation” or “age” was near, because the end won’t come until we see those signs.
Matt. 24:
32 “Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near;
33 so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door.
34 “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.
Hi Mark,
You wrote: My point was not that it “must” be interpreted that way. It was that it “can” be interepreted that way, and doing so would explain why Jesus said “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.”
My main point was that it is extremely rare for “genea” to be translated as “age” or “race.” Also I don’t believe there is any warrant for interpreting it as such anywhere in the Gospels. I would still like to see a clear example in biblical texts where “genea” clearly means age or race. Again, I’m not trying to say that I have checked them all out and know there are not any, but that they are very rare if they even do exist.
I think the best way to explain why Jesus said: “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” is because he meant that all those things would take place before that generation passed away. That is the clear meaning of the text. This would also explain why words like quickly, at hand, and about to happen are frequently used in the NT.
1. Matt. 10:23 - “Truly I say to you, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes.”
2. Matt. 16:28 - “Truly I say to you, there are some who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”
4. Matt. 26:64 - “You [the high priest] will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven.”
# The Book of Revelation’s predictions indicating Christ’s imminent return
1. SHORTLY, QUICKLY: ταχει, tachos and en tachei mean “quickly, all at once, with all speed, without delay.”
1. 1:1 - “…things which must shortly take place”
2. 2:16 - “Repent, or else I will come to you quickly”
3. 3:11 - “Behold, I come quickly!”
4. 22:6 - “…things which must shortly take place.”
5. 22:7 - “Behold, I am coming quickly!”
6. 22:12 - “Behold, I am coming quickly.”
7. 22:20 - “Surely I am coming quickly.”
2. NEAR AT HAND (εγγυς, engus)
1. 1:3 - “The time is near.”
2. 22:10 - “The time is at hand.”
3. ABOUT TO, ON THE POINT OR VERGE OF (μελλει, mello, mellei)
1. 1:19 - “Write … the things that are about to take place.”
2. 3:10 - “… the hour of trial … is about to come upon the whole world.”
There are at least 3 views of eschatology going around here: futurism, preterism, and historicism. I was raised futurist but since that time I have changed my position to preterism because I believe it is the only view that takes the time factors like those mentioned above seriously. Are you futurist? Do you attend the Living Hope Church?
God bless you.
Hi Fortigurn,
you wrote above:
not sure what you are saying here …. in one sentence you seem to say that the generation to whom Christ spoke had all those things come upon them, but then in the next sentence you seem to say that this was not the case in that Christ could not even have assured them that those things would come to pass during the time of that generation … now, which is it?
It seems to me that Christ very well KNEW the approcimate time of his coming and the end of the age when the city and temple would be destroyed => namely, it would be “soon”, “before his generation would pass away”, “while some who heard him were still alive”, etc … What Jesus explicitly said he did not know was the more exact day, hour or season: Unfortunately, you and others seem to take his words concerning these specifics and make them mean that Jesus did not know anything in terms of time concerning when those things would happen.
Jesus did not claim that all the people of his generation would be alive at his coming … another misunderstanding on your part. He talked about his generation not passing away, that is, those things would happen before the last of his contemporaries would have died. Another place, he spoke of “some” who heard him (not “all” who heard him) who would see these things.
It should be obvious that Jesus did know the general time frame when these things concerning the end of the age and the coming of the Son of man would take place … it was going to be SOON, BEFORE THIS GENERATION HAS PASSED! It was only the details of day, hour and season that he indeed did not know.
Hi Mark,
you mentioned above:
The signs mentioned by Jesus would indicate that the end of the age, the end of “this generation” was near …. Jesus did not say that the signs would indicate to some distant future generation that its end was at hand! Jesus also did not mention that the end would not come until WE see those signs.
… he was NOT talking to US, was he?
Then you continued with this reference:
Jesus uses the example of people looking at a fig tree and recognizing that summer is close, near, when the branches put forth leaves. Then he emphatically points out to them, that they (not some distant future generation) should recognize the nearness of his coming when they saw those things and further empohasizes again that it would certainly be within the time frame of “this (not some undetermined distant futre) generation that all these things would take place. Indeed, those signs did come to pass and that generation in the 1st century did see them …
The problem folks today have is that they interpret the signs in a particular way and say that the signs have not come to pass (in the way they assume it should or will happen) and then they need to re-interpret “this generation”. So they take “these signs and their own ideas of how they are to happen” as their basis for interpreting the rest of the words of the Lord …. instead of taking the rest of the otherweise rather clear words of the Lord and re-evaluating their own ideas of how these signs happened.
Hi Wolfgang,
* No, I didn’t say ‘Christ could not even have assured them that those things would come to pass during the time of that generation’, I said he couldn’t tell them the time of his return
* I’m afraid that your supposition that Christ *did* know the time of his return is contradicted by Mark 13:32, which does not say ‘I can’t tell you the exact day, but I certainly know when I’m coming back’ - Christ disclaims all knowledge with the very forceful ‘neither the day nor the hour’ (that does not mean ‘I know the approximate time, but not the fine details’, it means ‘I don’t know at all’)
* I didn’t claim Christ said everyone in that generation would be alive at his return, my point was that he couldn’t say that generation would see his return if he didn’t know when he was going to return (and he didn’t)
Issues still outstanding:
* Luke 21:21-24
* The fact that the Olivet prophecy describes Christ’s return as taking place after 70 AD
Hi Fortigurn,
nothign outstanding from my side … what is there outstanding for you?
There is no mention of any time of thousands of years between any of “all these things” which Jesus talked about. Neither is there therefore any idea mentioned that Christ’s coming would take place after the events connected with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in the Olivet discourse.
I thought I had mentioned that already in some previous note …. maybe it was in a different topic on the blog?
PS: so that others like me don’t as easily misunderstand what you did say, perhaps you can express more clearly instead of making statements that appear to say one thing but then supposedly do not say what they seem to say ?
Hi Fortigurn,
are you sure you got that right with the “neither” ?? I just read the following in the English Bible I had handy here (KJV):
There is nothing about “neither the day nor the hour” …. Now, if one considers the whole matter and the various time related statements made by Jesus concerning when these things would happen and when the Son of man was to come, it should be fairly obvious that it would happen during the period of time indicated by “this generation”, that is, during the time before all of that generation had passed away.
Btw, do you think that the apostle Paul was correct when he wrote in 1Co 15 and in 1Th 4, that Christ was to come during the lifetime of at least some of those believers at Corinth and Thessalonica who received his letters originally were still alive? Do you think that the 1st century Christians were correct in believing that not all of them would have fallen asleep by the time the Lord would return? Or were they perhaps mistaken and had misunderstood what the Lord and the apostles had taught concerning that matter?
Fortigurn wrote: * I’m afraid that your supposition that Christ *did* know the time of his return is contradicted by Mark 13:32,
I’m afraid that your supposition that Christ did not know the approximate time contradicts Mk. 13:30.
Fortigurn wrote: Christ disclaims all knowledge with the very forceful ‘neither the day nor the hour’ (that does not mean ‘I know the approximate time, but not the fine details’, it means ‘I don’t know at all’)
That’s your interpretation but it’s not what it says. It simply says that he doesn’t know the day or the hour. No one is claiming that he knew the day or the hour, only that he knew the approximate time. (i.e. before that generation passed away)
Hi Wolfgang,
* You haven’t actually addressed the fact that Luke describes 70 AD, then the dispersion of the Jews into all nations ‘until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled’, and then *after* that time, the return of Christ
* Nor have you dealt with the fact that the Olivet prophecy says that Christ’s return comes *after* 70 AD - Christ taught that his return would not be until *after* those tribulations, including the times of the Gentiles (Matthew 24:27, 29-31, Mark 13:24-27, Luke 21:25-28), and the passage in Luke is one of the most clear
* To make it even more clear, I’ll point out that Matthew 24 says Christ returns ‘AFTER the sufferings of those days’ (70 AD), Mark says ‘AFTER the suffering’ (70 AD), and Luke says ‘They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led away as captives among all nations’ (70 AD), and puts Christ’s return AFTER this event
* Mark 13:32 says that no man knows the day *or* the hour of Christ’s return, so that means they don’t know the day *or* the hour - neither the day, nor the hour, is simply another way of saying this
* For your benefit I’ll try to be clearer in this post and others I make
* No, Paul was not right in his statement in 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Thessalonians 4 that Christ was to come in the lifetime of at least some of those believers at Corinth and Thessalonica - he wasn’t even right when he said he would be still alive either, as you must acknowledge
* Since not even Christ knew the time of his return, we can be sure Paul didn’t, though he had a hopeful expectation of it in his life - but throughout his epistles we find that he gradually comes to the realisation that it just wasn’t going to happen, and he finally learned that it wouldn’t happen at least until after the fall of Rome
* No, the 1st century Christians were not correct if any of them assumed that they would be alive at the return of Christ
Karl, in this post I’ve addressed what you have written also (Mark 13:30 says nothing about Christ’s return, it’s talking about the things for which there were early warning signs - the events of 70 AD - whereas there are no early warning signs of Christ’s return).
Hi Fortigurn,
you wrote:
are we then to believe that what he wrote concerning this matter was not inspired of God? or was he falsely inspired by God?
You continued:
Were they taught incorrectly? did they not understand what they had been taught by the Lord and his apostles?
Also, why is it that so many futurist and historicist folks preach that the early Christians had a correct hope in that they believed Christ was to come soon and even while some of them were still alive … even preach, that we should have the same kind of fervent hope that Christ could come any day in our day and time?
Hi Fortigurn,
you wrote:
there is no reason to deal with what you claim, aside from mentioning that what you make of these scripture records to claim that Christ would return after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple is not found in those passages in the first place.
The great tribulation happened exactly as mentioned, and the somewhat miraculous escape of those Christians from Jerusalem who adhered to the Lord’s words also happened as prophesied … and yes, Christ’S return in judgement as predicted happened immediately after that tribulation!
You fabricate a “theologically necessitated gap” in the Olivet discourse where there is none … it’s fairly simple to see when one takes off those historicist glasses which suggest a futurist return of Christ …
Luke 21:24 “…they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles *until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.*”
What part of this do you not see?
If the great tribulation and Christ’s return happened exactly as predicted, then the following things must have also happened:
Daniel 7:
13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
Daniel 12:
2 Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.
Micah 4:
1 But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it.
2 And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
3 And he shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
Isaiah 11:
1 ¶ Then a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse, And a branch from his roots will bear fruit.
2 The Spirit of the LORD will rest on Him, The spirit of wisdom and understanding, The spirit of counsel and strength, The spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD.
3 And He will delight in the fear of the LORD, And He will not judge by what His eyes see, Nor make a decision by what His ears hear;
4 But with righteousness He will judge the poor, And decide with fairness for the afflicted of the earth; And He will strike the earth with the rod of His mouth, And with the breath of His lips He will slay the wicked.
5 Also righteousness will be the belt about His loins, And faithfulness the belt about His waist.
6 And the wolf will dwell with the lamb, And the leopard will lie down with the young goat, And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; And a little boy will lead them.
7 Also the cow and the bear will graze, Their young will lie down together, And the lion will eat straw like the ox.
8 The nursing child will play by the hole of the cobra, And the weaned child will put his hand on the viper’s den.
9 They will not hurt or destroy in all My holy mountain, For the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD As the waters cover the sea.
10 Then in that day The nations will resort to the root of Jesse, Who will stand as a signal for the peoples; And His resting place will be glorious.
Revelation 11:
15 Then the seventh angel sounded; and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever.”
Revelation 20:
1 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand.
2 And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years;
3 and he threw him into the abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time.
4 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.
The prophecies of the coming Messiah and his Kingdom were understood by the Jews for hundreds of years to be literal and eschatological in nature (i.e., relating to the last days). If they are meant to be understood figuratively, as you say, somewhere Jesus must have told his followers so. But his disciples understood the Kingdom of God to be a literal Kingdom at the end of the age (Matthew 19:28; 20:21; Mark 10:35-37). Where exactly is it revealed to us that the Kingdom prophesied for hundreds of years was to be understood as figurative and not literal?
Hi Mark,
You wrote: Micah 4:
1 But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it.
2 And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law (Torah) shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
So do you believe that Torah is still in effect?
God bless you.
Depends on what you mean by “Torah.” God said that he would raise up a prophet like Moses, and his words would be the standard by which we are judged. Jesus spoke commandments, and it is his words that communicated God’s heart and desire. That is why he is The Word made Flesh. In that sense it is still, and will be, in effect.
But if you mean do we have to keep the letter of the Law given through Moses, Paul explains why that is no longer reqired.
However, none of that has to do with the point of quoting that passage, which was that the house of the Lord will be established and exalted, and the nations will look to it to learn God’s ways. This is foretelling of one of the things that will happen in the future Kingdom of God, and it has obviously not happened yet.
Mark wrote: But if you mean do we have to keep the letter of the Law given through Moses, Paul explains why that is no longer reqired.
I’m just saying that if you believe those verses are to be interpreted literally then the Torah has not passed away.
You wrote on another post: The prophecies in the OT about the Kingdom were understood by Jews for hundreds of years to be literal, physical, and eschatalogical (referring to the end times).
The Torah in the OT was understood by Jews for hundreds of years to be eternal.
Like I said, it depends what you mean by Torah. The Torah is the books of Moses, the Law of God, which included the prediction of Moses that an ultimate prophet would rise up. But it also includes the Old Covenant laws, which the prophets said were given to the children of Israel and not the fathers (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) according to Deut. 5:3 and Neh. 9:13-14. The covenant made to Abraham and the fathers is the foundation of everything else God did for Israel, and later the Church.
What is no longer valid is the specific Old Covenant laws given through Moses to the children of Israel. They pointed to the Messiah but were not perfect, because they could not change the heart. God promised a New Covenant which has to do with God putting His spirit and His words in His people’s hearts so that they can walk in His ways. Jesus ratified it with his blood, and it is now partially fulfilled but not completely.
But none of that changes the basic meaning of the Kingdom of God as a literal, physical Kingdom in the future. That is when the New Covenant will be completely fulfilled, and when the real heart of the Law (which Jesus taught was living in love from the heart) will be the standard. All the nations will look to Zion to learn the ways of God.
When things were changed from the old Covenant, it was specifically stated and taught. Jesus taught many differences between the letter and the heart of the law, as far as how to live in God’s will. Paul spoke of specific differences between the Old and New Covenants, regarding laws and observances. We cannot just make a blanket statement that EVERYTHING in the Old Testament is changed. We can only say that about those things which Jesus and/or Paul SAID were changed. And there is nowhere in the New Testament where the meaning of Kingdom of God is changed from a literal to a figurative kingdom.
Mark wrote: We cannot just make a blanket statement that EVERYTHING in the Old Testament is changed.
I’m not saying that everythiing has been changed. But our understanding of the Jerusalem and Zion have been changed by the New Covenant.
Regarding Abraham: Heb 11:10 for he was looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God.”
Eph. 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.
Heb. 12:22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels,
Mark wrote: We can only say that about those things which Jesus and/or Paul SAID were changed. And there is nowhere in the New Testament where the meaning of Kingdom of God is changed from a literal to a figurative kingdom.
Re. 1: 6 and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father—to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.
>
I’m not saying that everythiing has been changed. But our understanding of the Jerusalem and Zion have been changed by the New Covenant.
>
The New Covenant replacing the Old Covenant had to do with God’s promise to put His spirit and words in the hearts of His people, and to cleanse us of sins. It is only partially fulfilled now and will be completely fulfilled in the coming Kingdom of God on earth. See the article I wrote about it here: http://www.godskingdomfirst.net/KingdomCome.htm#covenant
However, nothing in the New Covenant, whether in Jesus’ words or Paul’s, redefines the long-prophesied Kingdom of God as a figurative or spiritual, rather than a literal, kingdom on earth. At most (and this is an important distinction), there is a hidden, partial “seed-form” fulfillment of the kingdom for now, but not INSTEAD of the future literal kingdom.
>
Regarding Abraham: Heb 11:10 for he was looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God.”
>
Exactly! And what was promised to Abraham? Land, progeny, and material abundance, in addition to spiritual blessings. He never owned the land during his lifetime, and the OT promises of the Kingdom on earth will be the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises! It will be a literal city (new Jerusalem). (BTW, when it refers to a “heavenly” city in Heb 11:16 & 12:22, it means that heaven is its source or origin, not that it is “in heaven” when we go to it.)
>
Eph. 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.
>
This is the description of what we have now - the Kingdom in its hidden, partial “seed” form. Jesus spoke of it in his parables. But nowhere in the NT does it say that this concept has REPLACED the old idea of the kingdom on earth. Our hope is still the same as that of Israel. Ephesians chapter 1 mentions “inheritance” three times (verses 11, 14, and 18). Chapter 2 speaks of how the Gentiles were once aliens, and “strangers from the covenants of promise.” But now they are brought together with the Jews, with no more separation. Chapter 3 continues with the point that the Gentiles are now “fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel.” What are the promises that were made to the Jews which the Gentiles now get to partake of? The same Abrahamic promises I mentioned before (See Romans 4 and Galatians 3).
>
Heb. 12:22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels,
>
As I mentioned elsewhere, this verse is about the difference between the Old and New Covenants, but does not negate the hope of the coming kingdom of God on earth.
>
Mark wrote: We can only say that about those things which Jesus and/or Paul SAID were changed. And there is nowhere in the New Testament where the meaning of Kingdom of God is changed from a literal to a figurative kingdom.
Re. 1: 6 and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father—to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.
>
That verse says we’re a kingdom. It doesn’t say we are only a figurative kingdom, or that there is not a literal kingdom coming in the future. In fact the very next verse says:
Re. 1:7 BEHOLD, HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen.
The references in the NT that speak of the kingdom being present now do not negate the future kingdom to come. They represent the hidden, partial fulfilment that is here now, as Jesus spoke of in his parables. I wrote about this in more detail here:
http://www.godskingdomfirst.net/KingdomCome.htm#mysteries
This is a very important distinction for it allows for the hidden or “spiritual” aspects of the kingdom that are present now, without negating all the hundreds of prophecies about a literal kingdom on earth in the future.
Mark wrote: However, nothing in the New Covenant, whether in Jesus’ words or Paul’s, redefines the long-prophesied Kingdom of God as a figurative or spiritual, rather than a literal, kingdom on earth.
Heb. 12:22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels,
Re. 1: 6 and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father—to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.
Mark quoted: Re. 1:7 BEHOLD, HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen.
When will those who pierced him see him?
>
When will those who pierced him see him?
>
As the verse (Rev. 1:7) says, “BEHOLD, HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him.”
This fits with the many other references to the return of Christ.
And when does that happen?
-When “the fulness of the Gentiles is come in” -Romans 11:25
-When “the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled” -Luke 21:24
-When Israel comes to say, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord” - Matt. 23:37-39
-When the Lord saves Israel from an attack by many nations, at which time the Messiah returns, God pours out His spirit, and Israel’s blindness is lifted, which blindness Paul says in Rom. 11:25 will last until the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled.
Zech. 12:
8 In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them.
9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.
10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
Until that time, the Kingdom is in its hidden form, and the Church proclaims that Kingdom. Don’t gloss over this distinction.
Mark wrote: And when does that happen?
-When “the fulness of the Gentiles is come in” -Romans 11:25
-When “the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled” -Luke 21:24
-When Israel comes to say, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord” - Matt. 23:37-39
-When the Lord saves Israel from an attack by many nations, at which time the Messiah returns, God pours out His spirit, and Israel’s blindness is lifted, which blindness Paul says in Rom. 11:25 will last until the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled.
So I guess your saying that those who pierced him will see him some time in the future. But aren’t they who pierced him all dead already?
>
So I guess your saying that those who pierced him will see him some time in the future. But aren’t they who pierced him all dead already?
>
I think it’s fairly obvious that is referring to Israel as a people, as shown by the other verses I referenced. What do YOU think the verse means?
Hi Mark,
what do you mean with
?
Is there a certain time referenced by this statement? do you mean it has to do with something like “when the last passenger has entered the plane” the doors are shut and the flight departs or “when the last player of a team has come on the field” the game can begin? If so, when would it be that “the last Gentile has come in (come in into what?)”?
What does Rom 11:25
Ho Mark,
you also write
what is “the time of the Genbtiles” mentioned in Lk 21:24? what does it mean that it is “fulfilled”? would the immediate context of Lk 21:24 provide info concerning this statement about HOW “the time of the Gentiles be fulfilled”?
Mark wrote: “I think it’s fairly obvious that is referring to Israel as a people, as shown by the other verses I referenced. What do YOU think the verse means?”
Modern Israel didn’t pierce him. Rather it was that generation of Jews and Romans that was alive in John’s day that pierced him.
Karl,
>
Modern Israel didn’t pierce him. Rather it was that generation of Jews and Romans that was alive in John’s day that pierced him.
>
When did “all the nations” come against Jerusalem in John’s and Jesus’ day? When did God “seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem?” When did they mourn after looking on him whom they had pierced? Zechariah 12:8-10 was not fulfilled at that time.
Wolfgang,
>
what is “the time of the Genbtiles” mentioned in Lk 21:24? what does it mean that it is “fulfilled”? would the immediate context of Lk 21:24 provide info concerning this statement about HOW “the time of the Gentiles be fulfilled”?
>
Yes, it would.
25 “There will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth dismay among nations, in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the waves,
26 men fainting from fear and the expectation of the things which are coming upon the world; for the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
27 “Then they will see THE SON OF MAN COMING IN A CLOUD with power and great glory.
But you have already said that you think this has already happened. I don’t see how you can think that the Son of Man came in the clouds without it having been widely seen. We are told that “every eye shall see him” (Rev. 1:7). We are also told that when he comes he will rule over the nations and there will be no more war. We are also told that there will be perfect peace and prosperity, and that the even the animals would live together in peace. How can you think that this has already happened? What would be a “spiritual” fulfillment of no more war, and the earth restored to its original paradise state?
The only basis you have presented for such an idea has been the fact that Jesus said “this generation shall not pass” and we have already demonstrated that smarter linguists than you or I recognize that this phrase can mean the current evil age.
The prophecies are clear, and Jesus’ proclamation is clear. He also taught in his parables that there would be a hidden seed form of the Kingdom, which would be like a nobleman going away to a far place and then returning. The authority and responsibility his servants are given on his return depend on how faithful they are in his absence. This clearly describes the phase of the kingdom that we are in now.
You have yet to present any scripture that refers to the kingdom being present now which demonstrates that the spiritual aspect of the kingdom has REPLACED the hope of a literal kingdom on earth.
Hi Mark,
I suppose it depends on how one understands “coming in the clouds” as well as “widely seen”?
Do you think the person Jesus in the shape of a man will fly on a cloud through the skies? if so, do you think that a person flying “in” the clouds can be seen?
how widely (from how far away) can a man riding on a cloud be seen?
I’d hope that the above questions cause you to think and recognize that it is obvious that the passages are not meant to be understood literally of the man Christ Jesus flying on or in a cloud through the skies and then landing at Jerusalem …
I’d further say that the passages describe what in the meantime indeed has happened … in that the Lord did “come” in judgment and it was widely “seen” (recognized). The events involved in the judgment of old earthly Jerusalem were no secret matter … there are rather descriptive records by the historian Jospehus that inform us that “the Son of man’s coming” was “widely seen”.
Is this what we are told in Scripture or is it what we are told by a certain theological school of thought as an interpretation of a number of scriptures? Why do we want to accept such interpretations as correct when (a) they flat out contradicts other statements related to the same topic, such as the many time references, and (b) are not necessarily the only possible understanding / interpretation of those verses?
There are no other scriptures to be presented … you and others read the same scriptures but don’t seem to recognize or care much about how an interpretation of them as referring to an earthly political nature of the kingdom derived from a literal understanding of certain passages cause in fact a dilemma to many other scripture verses …
Mark wrote: When did “all the nations” come against Jerusalem in John’s and Jesus’ day?
In 70 AD.
Mark wrote: When did God “seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem?”
During the times of the Maccabees.
Mark wrote: When did they mourn after looking on him whom they had pierced?
When Christ came in Judgement upon Jerusalem.
Mark wrote: Zechariah 12:8-10 was not fulfilled at that time.
Zech. 12:12 “The land will mourn, every family by itself; the family of the house of David by itself and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself and their wives by themselves; 13 the family of the house of Levi by itself and their wives by themselves; the family of the Shimeites by itself and their wives by themselves;
Whatever Zecheriah is refering to, it already happened because none of these houses even exist anymore. I would still like to know how those who pierced Christ are going to see him when he comes in future?