A Case for Futurism from the Early Church

[Guest]

Here’s my desperate attempt at the rebuttal:

First, it seems very unlikely that Luke 21 is a different discourse, given to an broader audience than the discourse described in Matthew 24 and Mark 13. This suggests that Jesus gave the same discourse, almost verbatim, twice the same day--once to His disciples, and once to the crowd (which included His disciples). None of the gospels tell us that He gave a rerun of the sermon to His disciples in private (though He could have done so, we cannot assume it from any of the evidence in the gospels).

This is no problem that he would give a similar discourse “almost verbatim” as you say. It is a pattern in the Scriptures; Matthew 13 is a case in point to address the missing evidence. Mark 4:34 also provides that pattern. It sounds as if to me you are not recognizing these connections that others appear to recognize.

Second, Luke does not affirm that the discourse he records was given in the temple. True, the events of chapter 20 through 21:6 occurred there, but there is no reason that Luke or the other writers must tell us of every movement of Jesus from one location to another...and, in fact, they do not. Matthew and Mark do not tell us anything about it being night when Jesus gave the discourse to the disciples recorded in those books. I have never gotten the impression that this was the case from studying them, so the idea that Luke 21 was uttered in the daytime is not in conflict with its identification with the discourse in the synoptic parallels. The last two verses of Luke 21 don't appear to be commenting on the venue of this particular discourse, but rather seem to be making a statement of Jesus' habits during the passion week in general.

Of course, I agree with you that excessive detail regarding the movements of Jesus might have been too much. And I find it nice that you do admit that Luke does not mention anywhere in his account that Jesus ever left the Temple. However, I disagree with you that you that “night” is not also implied with “private” particularly in how Luke phrased things in Luke 21:37-38. What I find more odd, is that Luke, whose method is set in Luke 1:1-4 would run these two teaching together. Furthermore, it is even more odd, that he feels that he has some sort of interpretive license to define what Jesus said at armies Jerusalem, when Jesus never once mentioned Jerusalem.

You say that it would be OK if Luke 21 was uttered in the day time, but how can this be said in light of Luke specifically saying the contrary in the same chapter at the end of the very discourse we are discussing? And I also find the response making Luke 21:37-38 a “filler” describing Jesus habits quite artificial when you originally said in your response that providing excessive detail regarding Jesus’ movements does not need to be in the narrative.

Third, the differences between the synoptic accounts of the discourse are not greater than the degree to which the authors differ in wording from each other, for example, in telling of the healing of the man with the withered hand, or the relating of the parable of the sower, or many other parallel material. Even the question of the disciples in Matt.24:3 and Mark 13:4 (which you and I agree to be parallels) is worded very differently between these two gospels.

I agree with you regarding certain narrative variations between the synoptic Gospels because it is largely due to the various view of people. I cited in my earlier response the example of Bartimaeus the blind beggar who Peter knew as recorded in Mark 10:46 and Matthew 20:29-34 did not know and simply mentioned that there were two beggars.

And I agree with you to the level of similarity between the questions asked and that you have a point here. But then, if we are willing to gloss over the differences where will it stop? I suppose you’ve got a great answer as to how the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD aligns with the abomination of desolation in 168 BC. For in Matthew 24:15 Jesus specifically connects these two things in your view and holds them up as critical to truly understanding what He is saying. So how are armies and the desolation of Jerusalem like slaughtering a pig on the altar or setting up a statue of Olympus Zeus to be worshipped?

But then I find it equally plausible that Mark and Luke both record the original questions asked and Matthew the refined questions asked. Why do I say this? For one, I’ve already noted that the disciples that come to ask privately are the inner three plus Andrew, Peter’s brother. I assume that the reason why Andrew is there in the first place, is because he asked the original question. And since Mark is a record of what Peter often taught in Rome, I find it quite sensible that Peter would emphasize on his brother’s original question.

Fourth, the idea that Luke 21 was uttered to the crowds, rather than to the disciples privately (as was the case of Matthew 24 and Mark 13) does not seem to be correct, as there is too much in Luke 21 that would apply exclusively to the disciples (e.g., Luke 21:12-19, 28), and not to the crowds at all.

As I mentioned before, it is quite clear that the crowds were quite mixed. Let us not forget the “triumphal entry” as the crowds hailed his arrival. Mark emphasizes the aspect of the crowd (2:4, 2:13, 3:7. 3:8, 3:9, 3:20, 3:32, 4:1, 4:36, 5:21, 5:24, 5:27, 5:30, 5:31, 6:34, 6:45, 7:33, 8:1, 8:2, 8:6, 8:34, 9:14, 9:15, 9:17, 9:25, 10:46, 11:18, 14:43, 15:8, 15:11, 15:15) making the acknowledgement of a private discourse with Jesus even more special. It would be quite hard not to teach to the crowds unless as they numerously times withdrew away as Luke 21:37-38 explains as well.

As I’ve mentioned before, there is no reason why to assume why Jesus would not say all of Luke 21 to the crowd. It has everything to do with His mission and explains what he has been publicly teaching all along. The question that should be asked is why would Jesus want to teach this privately and not publicly as Matthew and Mark specifically record?

Fifth, it would seem coincidental, to the point of strangeness, if the disciples had just heard Jesus give this discourse to the crowds (as per Luke 21), in response to the crowd's question: "When shall these things be? And what sign shall there be that these things are about to take place?" (Luke 21:7), and then they took Him aside and asked Him the exact same two questions (Mark 13:3-4), as if He had not just presented a full answer in their hearing.

I think I responded to this already as to why Mark would record Peter saying this and as to why Matthew’s record of the questions are refined and perhaps reflect “new” information: that all this is related to Jesus’ second coming that they first heard in Luke.

Sixth, the discourses related in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 do not have the character of an explanation of Luke 21, but rather of a mere restatement of the same material--if anything, in more obscure language. Therefore, I am not inclined to see the former as a private explanation of the latter.

So ultimately, you are saying that Luke’s account is more specific. I find that quite untenable considering that Matthew was a disciple and Mark is a record of Peter’s preaching while Luke is an investigative Gospel setting out to verify what they had been taught by the disciples in the first place . Of all these authors, Luke was likely the furthest from the actual sources. Mark actually records what Jesus may have said in Aramaic in a few places.

For you to make a statement like exposes the conflicts between these supposedly synoptic passages. I’ve already pointed out the differences between Luke 21:12 and Matthew 24:9. Is it before or is it after? Why does God allow both renditions in the Bible? Are we to guess at what Jesus actually said and what tense He meant? Of course we are to understand that individuals have different perspectives and they hear things differently, but differences such as before or after are pretty significant. The omission of mentioning Jerusalem in Matthew and Mark are also pretty significant.

As to specificity, I’m not even sure if one can say that Luke 21:20-24 is even on the same topic as Matthew 24:15-22. In one Jesus is talking about the desolation of Jerusalem and in the other Jesus is talking about the desolation of the Temple. One comes from the outside to destroy the inside, the other starts at the inside (the Temple) to go out and destroy what is outside as what happened in 168 BC as Daniel also foretold. These are all very different things; cutting times short is nothing like the time of the Gentiles.

Your work on this subject is commendable, but you and I may be bringing different sets of presuppositions to the investigation Thanks for sharing.

This is another thing we can agree on because this discussion inextricably continues on into a discussion of Daniel 9:24-27 and to whether it was about destruction or restoration and what that means and how events of the past are foreshadows of the future.

[_Steve]

Hi Cameron,

This is not an answer to your most recent post. This is an answer to your next-to-last post. I will answer your most recent post separately.

I have always found the question of the disciples in Acts 1:6 perplexing, as well as Jesus' initial response. However, difficult as its meaning may be to ascertain (I will suggest a possibility below), one thing I would not be able to agree with you about is your statement that Jesus' answer was

"...a sign of physicality. Just as He physically departed so will He physically return and by implication restore the physical kingdom."

Actually, it was two "men" [angels?] who made the prediction of the second coming. In Acts 1, Jesus made no reference either to His physical departure, nor His second coming. And had He done so, there is no reason to assume that such would imply a future physical kingdom. That is only an assumption imported to the text by premillennialism.

One thing that was conspicuous by its absence in Jesus' statement is any reference to "physicality" of the kingdom. After his comment about the confidentiality of the Father's timing, Jesus predicts the coming of the Spirit and the disciples' evangelization of the world, as if this is related to their question about the coming of the kingdom. This fits the amillennial view of the kingdom. Jesus seems to say, "The timing is not your concern--you need only concern yourselves with the methodogy." The methodology of the coming of the kingdom is evangelism, because the kingdom is one that is experienced spiritually by converts insofar as they embrace Christ as Lord. It is spiritual...hence the comment about the Spirit (Acts 1:8).

Jesus had earlier hinted at this, or stated it explicitly. Both He and John the Baptist had begun their ministries with the announcement that the kingdom of God was "at hand" (Matt.3:2/Mark 1:15). Throughout His ministry, Jesus said things like the following: "The kingdom does not come with observation..." (Luke 17:20) "Unless you are born again, you cannot see the kingdom..." (John 3:3). "My kingdom is not of this world..." (John 18:36). "The kingdom of God is in your midst..." (Luke 17:21). "The kingdom of God has overtaken you..." (Matt.12:28).

Paul affirmed the same doctrine: "The kingdom of God is...righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Rom.14:17). God "has translated us [already] into the kingdom" (Col.1:13).

Whether the disciples "got it" or not, in Acts 1, Jesus had certainly stated the doctrine frequently enough...and they eventually understood it. What is 100% absent from the entire New Testament is any affirmation that the Jewish expectation (and the disciples' early expectation) of a political kingdom was to be regarded as valid.

In His answer to the disciples, in Acts 1:6-8, Jesus said, "You will be my witnesses...to the uttermost parts of the earth." Thus He alluded to Psalm 2:8 ("I will give You [the Messiah]...the uttermost parts of the earth for your possession"). This is one of the most significant psalms concerning the kingdom. Jesus' allusion to it here seems to indicate that its fulfillment is in the mission of the disciples--not in a millennial kingdom to be established at the second coming.

Jesus did not deny (nor affirm) that God would "restore the kingdom to Israel." If His silence on this be taken as agreement with the proposition, it remains to be discovered 1) how Jesus conceived of "the kingdom," and 2) who Jesus understood to be "Israel." The entire New Testament may be consulted to answer these two points.

[_Steve]

Cameron,

The possibility of defending unlikely scenarios in exegesis is truly endless, as I am sure you will acknowledge. The challenge in biblical studies is to be as free as possible from unwarranted presuppositions and to go with the most-likely meaning or explanation of the biblical data. In my view, your arguments do indeed seem "desperate" (a term I use without wishing any offense, but simply because it is the way they genuinely strike me). They are unlikely in the extreme, and do not reflect the simplest harmonization of all the available material.

I will not answer all of your rebuttal points because I feel that they so fail to address my arguments adequately that my best rebuttal to you would be to let my original statements stand and to allow every reader to judge of the evidence individually. However, there are a few statements that you made which I would like to speak to.

In defense of your opinion that Luke 21 was a discourse given publicly, and that the discourse in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 was given privately to the disciples, you state:

"This is no problem that he would give a similar discourse 'almost verbatim as you say. It is a pattern in the Scriptures; Matthew 13 is a case in point to address the missing evidence. Mark 4:34 also provides that pattern. It sounds as if to me you are not recognizing these connections that others appear to recognize."

The examples of Jesus explaining things privately to His disciples are not even remotely like the case you are proposing. In the cases to which you allude elsewhere, Jesus had spoken to the crowds in parables. He then explained their meaning privately to the disciples. He did not simply restate the same material to the disciples privately, but He gave the interpretation. In the case that you are proposing, the material (Luke 21) was neither parabolic nor obscure. It required no private explanation, and Matthew and Mark do not provide anything resembling a clarification of it.

Parables actually are a more prominent feature in Matthew's version, which you identify as the private explanation of a public discourse recorded in Luke. Your thesis does not fit the data.

There is nothing in Matthew or Mark that fits the description of "an explanation" of any of the material in Luke 21. If anything, Luke is a little more clear, in that he paraphrases Matthew and Mark's phrase, "abomination that maketh desolate" (Matt.24:15/ Mark 13:14) with his own, "Jerusalem surrounded by armies" (Luke 21:20). That Luke's phrase is indeed a paraphrase of "the abomination of desolation" is seen in the fact that all the material leading up to and following the phrase in the respective passages is identical.

If we can assume that the differences between the parallels of the Olivet Discourse require us to see two of them as private explanations of the third, then the same assumption would require that, when all three synoptics give differing accounts of the parable of the sower, these are not parallels, but one is an explanation of another, given privately on a separate occasion. The problem with this thesis is that the parable and its explanation are both recorded together in each of the synoptic gospels. We don't have the parable in one gospel, and its explanation in another. There is simply no parallel in scripture for what you are suggesting.

You wrote:

" I disagree with you that you that 'night' is not also implied with 'private' particularly in how Luke phrased things in Luke 21:37-38. What I find more odd, is that Luke, whose method is set in Luke 1:1-4 would run these two teaching together."

Luke 21:37-38 is easily seen as an affirmation that Jesus spent each day (or at least a part of each day) of the passion week teaching in the temple, and that, at night, He and the disciples lodged in Bethany, on the slopes of Olivet--probably in the home of Lazarus and his sisters. It is entirely unreasonable to assume that every single moment of daylight was spent in the temple, since breaking for lunch or for necessary relief would readily be accommodated in the statement that He taught in the temple during the daytime.

Of course, Jesus could have given the discourse to His disciples after dark, without doing violence to any theory of mine, but the verses with which Luke 21 closes need not be forced to give this meaning. Even if the discourse recorded in Matthew and Mark was indeed given after dark to the disciples, there is no reason that the discourse in Luke 21 should be differentiated from that one.

Careful though he is, Luke neither tells us that Jesus had left the temple before giving this discourse (as I would affirm), nor that Jesus left the temple after giving the discourse (as you would affirm). The writers are not obligated to give so much detail, and the passage equally lacks the detail to support either your assertion or mine on this point. However, the other synoptics give us that detail.

You wrote:

"Furthermore, it is even more odd, that he feels that he has some sort of interpretive license to define what Jesus said at armies Jerusalem, when Jesus never once mentioned Jerusalem."

I am surprised to hear you make this statement, given the time and attention you have taken in examining the discourse. Judea and Jerusalem are in view in all three parallels. Jesus mentions those "who are in Judea" in Matt.24:16, Mark 13:14, and Luke 21:21.

Luke's version (again, more explicit that the others), in his parallel statement, identifies the location as Jerusalem and Judea (Luke 21:20-21).

Besides, Matthew and Mark (who don't record the word "Jerusalem") both mention "the abomination of desolation," which (all agree) refers to an event at Jerusalem!

Since the phrase refers back to Daniel 9:26-27 (which speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans), I see no basis for your saying that Matthew and Mark do not refer to Jerusalem.

You wrote:

"So how are armies and the desolation of Jerusalem like slaughtering a pig on the altar or setting up a statue of Olympus Zeus to be worshipped?"

You are confusing two different references in Daniel. In employing the term "abomination that maketh desolate," Daniel 11:31 speaks of the actions of Antiochus IV, in 168 BC. The reference in Daniel 9:27 does not. The latter passage speaks of a disaster in connection with the Roman destruction of "the city and the sanctuary" (Jerusalem and the temple) subsequent to Messiah's death (v.26).

Jesus predicts that the disciples will "see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel" (Matt.24:15/ Mark 13:14). He cannot be referring to Daniel 11:31, since (as we all know) that prophecy was fulfilled long before Jesus and the disciples were born. Jesus is referring to an event that some of His disciples would actually live to see—one which He says will be in their generation.

We must conclude that He is referring to Daniel 9:26-27, which is, of course, a prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70. This identification is confirmed by Luke in his paraphrase at Luke 21:20.

The desolation of the temple by Antiochus IV and the atrocity called by the same name, committed by the Romans, have something in common with each other: they both put an end to the use of the temple--making it desolate. It is not necessary, nor implied in Daniel, that the Romans would accomplish this result in the same manner as did Antiochus.

Futurists strangely assume that there will be another "Antiochus-type" desolation of the temple. Strangely, I say, since nothing like this is taught in any passage of scripture.

You wrote:

"As I mentioned before, it is quite clear that the crowds were quite mixed. Let us not forget the 'triumphal entry' as the crowds hailed his arrival."

The crowds on Palm Sunday, no doubt, consisted largely of those who believed Jesus to be the Messiah (judging from their songs and acclamations). In the temple, it was quite different. At Passover time, there were many pilgrims in Jerusalem who knew almost nothing about Jesus, as well as His sworn enemies.

Why would (and how could) Jesus say to these crowds things like "you will be persecuted and hated for my sake"(Luke 21:12, 17), and "you will testify of me" (v.13-14) and "when these things happen, your redemption draws near" (v.28)? He never addressed the multitudes elsewhere as if they were Christians. These would be sensible things to say to a group of disciples, but not to the Passover crowds in the temple, in my judgment. Your answer does not satify me. If it satisfies you, I will not object.

You wrote:

" The question that should be asked is why would Jesus want to teach this privately and not publicly as Matthew and Mark specifically record?"

We may ask many questions about Jesus' reasons for not saying more to the crowds, and for His frequently seeking privacy to commune with the twelve. We may have to live without answers, because the scriptures often give none. In any case, the information contained in the discourse would not be of value to the church until almost 40 years after it was committed to the disciples. This gave them adequate time to transmit it to the church before the crucial hour.

You wrote:

"As to specificity, I’m not even sure if one can say that Luke 21:20-24 is even on the same topic as Matthew 24:15-22. In one Jesus is talking about the desolation of Jerusalem and in the other Jesus is talking about the desolation of the Temple."

How can you make this distinction?

All three versions record that the discourse was given when Jesus had predicted the destruction of the temple, and was asked about when this would happen (Matt.24:1-3/ Mark 13:1-4/ Luke 21:5-7).

All three record His answer that it would occur in "this generation" (Matt.24:34/ Mark 13:30/ Luke 21:32).

How can you suggest that the topic is not the same in all three?

Again, your thesis does not provide the most likely harmonization of the material, in my judgment. Perhaps some, who employ different methods of assessing evidence than I do, will agree with you. They may do so with my blessing, but I will still assess evidence in the manner that commends itself as most reasonable to me.

[Guest]

Steve, I suppose the term "preterist" etymologically could be applied to someone who held a view of any prophecy in the Bible having already been fulfilled. But in practice, the word, to the best of my knowledge, has never been used to describe people's views concerning any prophecy except those of our Lord in the Olivet discourse.

I trust that everyone here is a seeker after truth and reality, and hasn't the slightest desire to "win an argument".

In my opinion, the passages from Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 are three different records of the same discourse Jesus gave.

As I see it, all three refer to events which did not take place in 70 A.D. I will "spell this out" in a future post.

In this post, I will simply give the relevant passages from all three under general headings.

Destruction of Temple

Matthew 24:1-2
Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered them, "You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down."

Mark 13:1-2
And as he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!" And Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down."

Luke 21:5-6
And as some spoke of the temple, how it was adorned with noble stones and offerings, he said,
"As for these things which you see, the days will come when there shall not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down."

Signs of Christ’s Coming and the Close of the Age

Matthew 24:3-8
As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?"

And Jesus answered them, "Take heed that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray. And you will hear of wars and rumours of wars; see that you are not alarmed; for this must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places: all this is but the beginning of the birth-pangs.

Mark 13:3-8
And as he sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately, "Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign when these things are all to be accomplished?"

And Jesus began to say to them, "Take heed that no one leads you astray. Many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am He!’ and they will lead many astray. And when you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed; this must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be earthquakes in various places, there will be famines; this is but the beginning of the birth-pangs.

Luke 21:7-11a
And they asked him, "Teacher, when will this be, and what will be the sign when this is about to take place?"

And he said, "Take heed that you are not led astray; for many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am He!’ and, ‘The time is at hand!’ Do not go after them. And when you hear of wars and tumults, do not be terrified; for this must first take place, but the end will not be at once." Then he said to them, "Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be great earthquakes, and in various places famines and pestilences;

Persecution of Disciples

Matthew 24:9
Then they will deliver you up to tribulation, and put you to death; and you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake.

Mark 13:9,11-13a
But take heed to yourselves; for they will deliver you up to councils; and you will be beaten in synagogues; and you will stand before governors and kings for my sake, to bear testimony before them.
And when they bring you to trial and deliver you up, do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say; but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit. And brother will deliver up brother to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death; and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake.

Luke 21:12-18
But before all this [signs in the heavens] they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors for my name’s sake. This will be a time for you to bear testimony. Settle it therefore in your minds, not to meditate beforehand how to answer; for I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which none of your adversaries will be able to withstand or contradict. You will be delivered up even by parents and brothers and kinsmen and friends, and some of you they will put to death; you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But not a hair of your head will perish.

Increase of Deception and Wickedness

Matthew 24:10-12
And then many will be tripped up, and betray one another, and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because wickedness is multiplied, most men’s love will grow cold.


Necessity of Endurance

Matthew 24:13
But he who endures to the end will be saved.

Mark 13:13b
But he who endures to the end will be saved.

Luke 21:19
By your endurance you will gain your lives.


Gospel to be Proclaimed Throughout the World and then the End

Matthew 24:14
And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world, as a testimony to all nations; and then the end will come.

Mark 13:10
And the gospel must first be preached to all nations.

At the Desolating Sacrilege, Those in Judea Must Flee the Great Tribulation to Come

Matthew 24:15-22
So when you see the desolating sacrilege spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains; let him who is on the housetop not go down to take what is in his house; and let him who is in the field not turn back to take his mantle. And alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days! Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a sabbath. For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be. And if those days had not been shortened, no human being would be saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.

Mark 13:14-20
But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains; let him who is on the housetop not go down, nor enter his house, to take anything away; and let him who is in the field not turn back to take his mantle.
And alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days! Pray that it may not happen in winter. For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never will be. And if the Lord had not shortened the days, no human being would be saved; but for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days.

Luke 21:20-24
But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it; for these are days of vengeance, to fulfil all that is written. Alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days! For great distress shall be upon the earth and wrath upon this people; they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led captive among all nations; and Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

Many False Christs and False Prophets Will Display Signs and Wonders

Matthew 24:23-25
Then if any one says to you, ‘Lo, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. Lo, I have told you beforehand.

Mark 13:21-23
And then if any one says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it.
False Christs and false prophets will arise and show signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect. But take heed; I have told you all things beforehand.

The Coming of Christ Will Be Not Be in Secret But Will Be Obvious to All

Matthew 24:26-27
So, if they say to you, ‘Lo, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go out; if they say, ‘Lo, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. For as the lighting (not “lightning”; this is a reference to the sun) comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of man. Wherever the body is, there the eagles will be gathered together.

After This Great Tribulation There Will Be Signs in the Heavens, and Christ Will Return

Matthew 24:29-31
Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken; then will appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory; and he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Mark 13:24-27
But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light,
and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.

Luke 21:11b, 25-27
...and there will be terrors and great signs from heaven... And there will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and upon the earth distress of nations in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the waves, men fainting with fear and with foreboding of what is coming on the world; for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then they will see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

Disciples Are to Watch For the Signs of the End of the Age and Christ’s Coming

Matthew 24:32-42
From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see all these things, you know that He is near, at the very gates. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. As were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they did not know until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of man. Then two men will be in the field; one is taken and one is left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one is taken and one is left. Watch therefore, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming.

Luke 21:28-33
Now when these things begin to take place, look up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near." And he told them a parable: "Look at the fig tree, and all the trees; as soon as they come out in leaf, you see for yourselves and know that the summer is already near. So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all has taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

But take heed to yourselves lest your hearts be weighed down with dissipation and drunkenness and cares of this life, and that day come upon you suddenly like a snare; for it will come upon all who dwell upon the face of the whole earth. But watch at all times, praying that you may have strength to escape all these things that will take place, and to stand before the Son of man.

[_Steve]

Hi Paidion,

The word preterist is descriptive of one's view of any particular prophecy that is viewed as fulfilled in the past. As I have repeatedly said, every Christian is a partial preterist (except those very rare fully-realized preterists) in that every Christian views a great deal of prophecy in the Bible as already fulfilled.

If someone is called a "partial preterist" or a "pretereist" without modifiers, more often than not, that person takes all or most of the Olivet Discourse and the Book of Revelation as having been fulfilled in the past.

It is more tenuous to take this view of Rev elation than of the Olivet Discourse, since Revelation is symbolic and subject to interpretation, while the Olivet Discourse does not use much symbolism except for a few verses near the end. Therefore, the subject matter of the discourse is unambiguous. It deals with the destruction of Jerusalem in the disciples' own generation.

Since every detail that Jesus predicted actually did occur before or in AD70, it seems very gratuitous to me to insist that we look beyond the obvious fulfillment for speculative fulfillments in the unknown (and unpredicted) future.

Thank you for putting those parallels up for us. I think many will find it helpful to see them together. I know I do.

I am interested in seeing your arguments about this. Everything you cited was fulfilled in the first century, with the possible exception of the last points, which you identified as the second coming of Christ.

It is indeed possible for me to see those verses as being about the second coming, without altering my preterist beliefs about the earlier material. On the other hand, I am not certain that those verses really are describing the second coming. Even these verses that are commonly applied to the second coming may be figurative and describing events that took place in AD70.

I discuss these two possibilities at this forum: http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.ph ... sc&start=0

[Guest]

Whether the disciples "got it" or not, in Acts 1, Jesus had certainly stated the doctrine frequently enough...and they eventually understood it. What is 100% absent from the entire New Testament is any affirmation that the Jewish expectation (and the disciples' early expectation) of a political kingdom was to be regarded as valid.

Heb 2:5 Now it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come, of which we are speaking.

How should I interpret this in a preterist understanding?

[_Steve]

Hi Cameron,

I have always interpreted the "world to come" to be a reference to the "new earth" (2 Peter 3:13). Jesus said that the meek will "inherit the earth" (Matt.5:5). In my opinion, the second coming of Christ will be accompanied by fire—whether literal or figurative, I can't say—though I have always thought of it as literal (2 Thess.1:8). This fire will purge the earth, as did the flood in Noah's day (2 Pet.3:6-7, 10, 12).

The result will be a new (or renewed) earth, where the redeemed of the Lord shall dwell for eternity. There will be no more curse (Rev.22:3/ Rom.8:21-22) and the redeemed of the Lord will live in it as "the Paradise of God" (Rev.2:7). As Adam and Eve reigned over the pristine creation (Gen.1:2, the saints will reign with Christ over this new creation (Rom.8:17/ 2 Tim.2:12). This will be "the world to come" referred to in Hebrews 2:5.

Actually, I see this just the same way now as I did before I was a preterist. Obviously, insofar as "preterist" means "fulfilled in the past," I do not take a preterist approach to these prophecies about the new earth. Since the prophecies of the davidic kingdom were fulfilled spiritually in the resurrection and ascension of Christ (Acts 2:30-36; 13:32-34), there is no reason to assume that the prophecies specifically related to that subject must be further fulfilled in the new earth (though nothing I am aware of would preclude Christ's sitting on an actual throne, if He chose to do so).

There are some preterists who consider that all of these prophecies were fulfilled in the past. They consider that the "new heavens" and "new earth" are a figurative reference to what Paul calls a "new creation," and which he identifies with those who are in Christ (2 Cor.5:17). Thus the passing of the "old heavens and old earth" refers (in their view) to the passing of the Old Covenant, especially in AD70. The creation of a "new heavens and new earth, then would be a reference to the church under the New Covenant—the New Creation.

This latter view has merit, but I don't think it answers all of the biblical data on the subject. For example, Paul places the renewal of creation at the same point in time as the saints' deliverance from the bondage of decay—i.e., the "redemption of the body," which I take to be the resurrection at the second coming of Christ (Rom.8:21-23).

It is because most "preterists" believe in the second coming of Christ as yet future that we are properly called (like all other Christians) "partial" preterists.

[Guest]

Whether the disciples "got it" or not, in Acts 1, Jesus had certainly stated the doctrine frequently enough...and they eventually understood it. What is 100% absent from the entire New Testament is any affirmation that the Jewish expectation (and the disciples' early expectation) of a political kingdom was to be regarded as valid.

Mat 8:11 I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven,

Might this suggest a literal Kingdom? I know Irenaeus at least thought this way.

[Guest]

Steve,
Thanks again for your perspective.
My biggest take-away in our discussion on Mark/Matthew verse Luke will be the point you brought up that Luke is not sufficiently different in structure to constitute an explanation. Related to that I will continue to wrestle with issues as to why you suggest Luke’s account is more clear when the opposite should be the case because he is was removed further from the source.

One item that I did not see you address, though I mentioned it twice was regarding Luke 21:37-38 and the missing reference at the beginning of Luke 21 to Jesus leaving the temple and the disciple coming to him privately. You said to the effect that it would be needless for Luke to keep track of all of Jesus’ movements such as leaving the temple or the disciples coming to Him privately while at the same time you say that Luke 21:37-38 is about Jesus’ movements and where and when He went. It seems to me you can’t have it both ways.

I’ll keep thinking through this and studying the issues.

BTW, I do find it interesting that you say Daniel 9:26-27 is about the destruction of Jerusalem when Daniel was praying for restoration and God answered Him about when Daniel’s people and city would be restored including a segment on its progress in the first 7 sets. I’m not saying that it does not say that there will be another destruction, but that I understand that the whole point of the 70 Sevens is regarding ultimate restoration, not destruction.

[_Steve]

Hi Cameron,

On the first of your last two posts, I understand Matthew 8:11 to be a prediction that not only the centurion but also many other Gentiles will embrace Christ, and thus participate in the kingdom of God, while many of the Jews ("children of the kingdom") will not. This has seen its fulfillment in the church over the past 2000 years.

Concerning your last post, I never made a big issue of Luke’s being more clear than the other synoptic versions of the Olivet Discourse. It was just an observation from my point of view—and not a very important one to me. Apparently, however, it is a major concern with you. You wrote:

“I will continue to wrestle with issues as to why you suggest Luke’s account is more clear when the opposite should be the case because he is was removed further from the source.”

I don’t see how Luke’s being further from the source than were Matthew and Mark would affect the relative clarity of his writing when recording the same event that they record. I am not referring to the relative accuracy or authority of the parallels, only the fact that Luke takes the trouble of paraphrasing some things that he wants to be sure will not be misunderstood.

This literary choice has little to do with closeness or distance from the sources (Luke was, after all, extremely close to the sources—Luke 1:1-4), but has more to do with the respective audiences to which the books were addressed. Matthew’s gospel was written to a Jewish audience, and so he would be more likely than Luke (who wrote to a Gentile) to retain the Hebraisms in Jesus’ teaching without explanation.

Mark sometimes explains Hebraic features of his narrative for the sake of his Gentile readers (e.g. 7:2-4). Even so, Mark, like Matthew, retains the Hebraic phrase “abomination of desolation” in his rendering of the Olivet Discourse.

Luke’s (probably) Roman reader Theophilus was probably unacquainted with such idioms, so Luke simply paraphrases and renders the same expression as “Jerusalem surrounded by armies.” Luke’s paraphrase is definitely more clear in this rendering than is the original expression, which the parallel accounts retain.

You also wrote:

"You said to the effect that it would be needless for Luke to keep track of all of Jesus’ movements such as leaving the temple or the disciples coming to Him privately while at the same time you say that Luke 21:37-38 is about Jesus’ movements and where and when He went. It seems to me you can’t have it both ways. "

I am not sure what more you would wish for me to say than what I have already said about the absence of detail about Jesus' movements in the gospels. I thought I had addressed this adequately the last two times you raised the point.

What, exactly, is the problem here? Why can't Luke include some details and omit others, like all other writers do? That Luke does not mention every individual change of location of his subjects seems clear enough. For example, Luke 9:51 tells of Jesus' departure from Galilee to Jerusalem "to be received up" (as if this were to be His last trip there) and passing through Samaria. However, Luke later includes material that (according to the other gospels) occurred in Perea (Transjordan). Luke never specifically mentions Jesus going to that region, but records things that Jesus did there (cf., Luke 18:15ff with Mark 10).

If Luke, while leaving some specific details out of his narrative, chooses to summarize the general patterns of Jesus' movements during the final week, what would be so strange about this? The gospels often give summary information about Jesus' travels and activities, without including detailed accounts of every instance (e.g., Matt.4:23-25). We might wish that no details had been omitted, but that is asking too much of any historical narrative. I see no problem with this. Do you?

Finally, you wrote:

“BTW, I do find it interesting that you say Daniel 9:26-27 is about the destruction of Jerusalem when Daniel was praying for restoration and God answered Him about when Daniel’s people and city would be restored including a segment on its progress in the first 7 sets. I’m not saying that it does not say that there will be another destruction, but that I understand that the whole point of the 70 Sevens is regarding ultimate restoration, not destruction.”

The entire prophecy of the “70 weeks” is confined to four verses of scripture: Daniel 9:24-27. Which line in these verses do you find predicting an ultimate restoration of Jerusalem? I see the death of the Messiah predicted, resulting in the end of the sacrificial system (vv.26-27). I see a rather unambiguous reference to the Romans and their prince destroying Jerusalem and the temple (v.26). Then there is that obscure passage that speaks of the “abomination that makes desolate” (v.27).

Luke identifies this expression also with the desolation of Jerusalem (Luke 21:20), but, even if you do not acknowledge this identification, I would think that you would agree that “abomination that makes desolate” speaks of something negative, NOT of a restoration of anything. I don’t see any part of any verse that looks like a positive prediction for Jerusalem’s future. Where do you see it?