It seems difficult to switch the meaning of some of the phrases in Mt 24 meant to refer to 70 AD - such as the eagles gathering where the corpse is - to the same phrases being used in Lk 17 to supposedly refer to a different occasion, the 2nd coming. Including the lightning (sun rays) which is used in Mt 24 to reference the style of the coming of the Son of Man in judgment, or the one on the house and in the field which is 70 AD language, or the "look there and here" which is what the false prophets will say leading up to 70 AD. Either Christ's second coming language sounds a lot like the 70 AD coming, or he is really talking about the 70 AD coming.
I have heard Steve's belief that Mt 24 splits between 70 AD, and the 2nd coming. The transition is made where Christ's reference to "that day" is seen to refer to the heaven and earth passing away. The problem with this, is that it necessarily makes the parallel passages of Lk 17 refer to the 2nd coming, and takes some of the phrases that find meaning earlier in Mt 24 regarding 70 AD, and re-purposes them in Lk 17.
I believe I have a possible solution.
Mt 24:34 - Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. - easy enough
v35 - Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. - Christ is not introducing a new day here, but is emphasizing along with the emphasis of "Truly" that what he has said will surely happen.
v36 - But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. - If the v35 sentence is seen to be a parenthetical emphasis regarding all Christ has said and/or supporting the word "Truly" then "that day" would go back to the next previous item discussed, the day the generation will pass away and all things have taken place.
A new reading could look like this: "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place (Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away). But of that day and hour..."
This would mean the signs are known that lead up to the "end" (Mt 24:3), but what is not known is when exactly the end will take place or be completed. In other words, we will know when "He" is near/at the door with judgment (Mt 24:33; Ja 5:9), but we will not know the day or the hour that "He" will come through the door with his judgment, and kingdom power.
The apparent benefit to this understanding is to align other seemingly parallel passages - the leading up to the destruction (judgment) of 70 AD coincides with the kingdom's coming as the pharisees had asked about (Lk 21:31), which is referenced in Mk 9:1 to be coming with power in that generation, which would seem to align with Mt 24:30 if it is considered in light of Dan 7:13.
Even more, it seems to make sense that 70 AD would better relate to the days of Noah and Lot - because while they (Noah & Lot) did not know when the day of final judgment would come, a warning was given and an escape was arranged for them, just like the church of Jerusalem. They didn't know exactly when the actual destruction would be completed, but they were given a heads up, and got to safety. It is easiest to to consider this with Noah, as he knew what was coming far in advance, was preparing, and was ready to go when it was time. In the same way, the church was told what was coming, and was told when to go (flee when the armies surround Jerusalem).
Additional support for Noah and Lot relating to 70 AD, is that in the days of Noah and Lot, the evil ones were taken off of the earth (killed), while Noah and Lot survived and were left on earth - more in line with 70 AD, where the evil ones are killed, but the church is left on earth.
Considering the idea that the coming of the kingdom did not have signs to be observed (Lk 17:20), this does not mean that the coming of the kingdom cannot coincide with a judgment that does have observable signs leading up to it. Just because Christ says you can see the signs of earthly judgment, but cannot see the signs of heavenly kingdom coming, does not mean they cannot be occurring together it seems. It is just that one is observable, and one is not.
Thoughts? Holes in my thinking? I know it is rough. This is part of my own study over the last couple of weeks, and I purposely do not read commentaries, because I want to work as freely as possible and come to as much of my own conclusion as possible. I did read Josephus and Eusibius, and I have heard some of Steve's lectures on Mt 24.
Mt 24:34-36 implications
-
robbyyoung
- Posts: 811
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:23 am
Re: Mt 24:34-36 implications
Jaydam,
I believe you are on the right track by placing yourself as an "observer", right alongside of the conversations recorded for us. I believe we need to work on "the nature" of events because the timing of the 2nd coming irrefutably rests in THAT generation. I don't know if you are familiar with Ed Stevens work but his historical and eschatological work on the 1st Century promises are amazing.
Here his info: http://www.buzzsprout.com/11633
God Bless!
I believe you are on the right track by placing yourself as an "observer", right alongside of the conversations recorded for us. I believe we need to work on "the nature" of events because the timing of the 2nd coming irrefutably rests in THAT generation. I don't know if you are familiar with Ed Stevens work but his historical and eschatological work on the 1st Century promises are amazing.
Here his info: http://www.buzzsprout.com/11633
God Bless!
Re: Mt 24:34-36 implications
As of now, I am more comfortable saying that I have decided some scripture attributed to the second coming - Mt 24:35ff and Lk 1720ff - really does not refer to his second coming.
I still believe the distinct second coming as related in Revelation, and as Paul describes, has yet to happen.
Rather than say, "These scriptures relating to the second coming have already happened, thus the second coming was fulfilled in 70 AD." I would prefer to say, "These scriptures were fulfilled in 70 AD, but don't actually relate to the second coming."
I still believe the distinct second coming as related in Revelation, and as Paul describes, has yet to happen.
Rather than say, "These scriptures relating to the second coming have already happened, thus the second coming was fulfilled in 70 AD." I would prefer to say, "These scriptures were fulfilled in 70 AD, but don't actually relate to the second coming."
-
robbyyoung
- Posts: 811
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:23 am
Re: Mt 24:34-36 implications
I'm sorry, it seems to me that you are conflicted and I can't make heads or tales of what you are saying. What specifically are you slicing and dicing to not be applicable to the original audience?jaydam wrote:As of now, I am more comfortable saying that I have decided some scripture attributed to the second coming - Mt 24:35ff and Lk 1720ff - really does not refer to his second coming.
I still believe the distinct second coming as related in Revelation, and as Paul describes, has yet to happen.
Rather than say, "These scriptures relating to the second coming have already happened, thus the second coming was fulfilled in 70 AD." I would prefer to say, "These scriptures were fulfilled in 70 AD, but don't actually relate to the second coming."
God Bless!
Re: Mt 24:34-36 implications
It seems that Jaydam, like myself, still believes some promises in scripture relate to a future second coming, but that it remains disputable which ones do and which ones don't. The ones that are most likely to be referring to AD70 are not talking about the second coming. How many scriptural statements may refer to AD70 remains a matter of inquiry.
Re: Mt 24:34-36 implications
Robby - you said that the timing of the 2nd coming irrefutably rests in THAT generation (<70 AD). My reply was to say that I cannot go there.
You and I might agree on much of what was fulfilled in 70 AD, but I don't believe it was the 2nd coming.
Leading up to my belief, here is my research trail:
-Mt 24 = (Event A + Event B)
-Where A is certainly 70 AD events, and B is 2nd coming events
-Lk 17:20ff = (Event C)
-Where C is 2nd coming coming events
-Thus, Event C should = Event B
Except I ran into the problem, Event C cannot just equal Event B, since parts of Event A are found in Event C
-Therefore, Event C should = (Partly Event A + Partly Event B)
Except C runs A and B indivisibly together talking about the same event. In C, A and B are not divisible.
-Therefore, knowing with certainty what A is (70 AD events), C shows me that A = B, so B must be 70 AD events
Conclusion: The final understanding must be C = A + B = 70 AD
So, I find that the relevant passages in Mt 24 and Lk 17 MUST NOT be about the 2nd coming, but the coming judgment and powerful kingdom appearance associated with 70 AD. You and I agree that the passages were fulfilled and when they were fulfilled, but I disagree with you that the fulfilling event was the 2nd coming. From other descriptions of the 2nd coming, I believe it is still outstanding.
Mt 24:35 is then Christ emphasizing the certainty of his words, as he wraps of the sign section of the coming 70 AD judgment, and moves into talking about how the exact day the sign are pointing to will not be known, like with Noah and Lot, but it will take the wicked out of the world, and leave the church on earth. Christ's emphasis would be no different than when I find a natural pause in a story I am telling my friends, and I chose to say something like, "I will swear on a stack of Bibles to the truthfulness of what I am telling you." If my next sentence was to begin, "About that day..." my friends would know I am not referencing some day that I am going to swear on a stack of Bible, rather they would go back to the next logical day according to the conversation. In Mt 24, "that day" would then be the day "these things" culminate on "this generation" and the Judge comes through the door (Ja 5:9).
You and I might agree on much of what was fulfilled in 70 AD, but I don't believe it was the 2nd coming.
Leading up to my belief, here is my research trail:
-Mt 24 = (Event A + Event B)
-Where A is certainly 70 AD events, and B is 2nd coming events
-Lk 17:20ff = (Event C)
-Where C is 2nd coming coming events
-Thus, Event C should = Event B
Except I ran into the problem, Event C cannot just equal Event B, since parts of Event A are found in Event C
-Therefore, Event C should = (Partly Event A + Partly Event B)
Except C runs A and B indivisibly together talking about the same event. In C, A and B are not divisible.
-Therefore, knowing with certainty what A is (70 AD events), C shows me that A = B, so B must be 70 AD events
Conclusion: The final understanding must be C = A + B = 70 AD
So, I find that the relevant passages in Mt 24 and Lk 17 MUST NOT be about the 2nd coming, but the coming judgment and powerful kingdom appearance associated with 70 AD. You and I agree that the passages were fulfilled and when they were fulfilled, but I disagree with you that the fulfilling event was the 2nd coming. From other descriptions of the 2nd coming, I believe it is still outstanding.
Mt 24:35 is then Christ emphasizing the certainty of his words, as he wraps of the sign section of the coming 70 AD judgment, and moves into talking about how the exact day the sign are pointing to will not be known, like with Noah and Lot, but it will take the wicked out of the world, and leave the church on earth. Christ's emphasis would be no different than when I find a natural pause in a story I am telling my friends, and I chose to say something like, "I will swear on a stack of Bibles to the truthfulness of what I am telling you." If my next sentence was to begin, "About that day..." my friends would know I am not referencing some day that I am going to swear on a stack of Bible, rather they would go back to the next logical day according to the conversation. In Mt 24, "that day" would then be the day "these things" culminate on "this generation" and the Judge comes through the door (Ja 5:9).
-
robbyyoung
- Posts: 811
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:23 am
Re: Mt 24:34-36 implications
Brother Jaydam, you've put a lot of thought into your careful review of the matter. Nevertheless, it seems to me, correct me if I'm wrong, much weight is given to the quote I've highlighted above. Would it be fair to say if your understanding of the "descriptions" of the second coming is in error, then nothing remains outstanding in "The Discourse"?jaydam wrote:From other descriptions of the 2nd coming, I believe it is still outstanding.
To further develop my point I would need to know what scriptures you are referring to in regards to the "Description of the Second Coming".
God Bless!
Re: Mt 24:34-36 implications
David Chilton was a prominent Partial Preterist who wrote a commentary on Revelation (among other things). When you say that Revelation was about the 2nd Coming (as opposed to the Olivet Discourse being so) It think it would be worth taking a look at his book to see just how little of Revelation refers to the 2nd Coming according to orthodox Partial Preterists. His book is the first link below.
http://www.rpts.edu/media/TheDaysofVeng ... hilton.pdf
I once heard a speech he gave where he talked about the sucker punch that made him realize he was wrong, and that the 2nd Coming had already happened. He said that he was on a plane to Australia to a conference where he was to give a series of lectures on his Partial Preterist book. For the long flight, he brought a copy of J. S. Russell's book, "The Parousia", presumably as a research effort in order to refute it. He said that he basically sat in a cold sweat after after finishing it once through because he realized he was wrong, and was about to have to fake his way through the conference until his head would stop spinning. He said he turned around right there and read it again to make sure. He ended up repudiating Partial Preterism because he realized that as you moved the pile of futurist 2nd Coming passages from your right hand to the past fulfillment pile in your left hand, at some point you look down and realize that there is nothing left in your right hand. That book linked here:
http://www.preteristcentral.com/pdf/pdf ... rousia.pdf
I challenge you and everyone else to read both of them. If you can only read one, read "The Parousia". Russell wasn't a Full Preterist because he believed the millennium was ongoing, the Gog and Magog war was still in our future, and that the final judgement was after that. Full Preterists believe everything is already fulfilled.
Doug
http://www.rpts.edu/media/TheDaysofVeng ... hilton.pdf
I once heard a speech he gave where he talked about the sucker punch that made him realize he was wrong, and that the 2nd Coming had already happened. He said that he was on a plane to Australia to a conference where he was to give a series of lectures on his Partial Preterist book. For the long flight, he brought a copy of J. S. Russell's book, "The Parousia", presumably as a research effort in order to refute it. He said that he basically sat in a cold sweat after after finishing it once through because he realized he was wrong, and was about to have to fake his way through the conference until his head would stop spinning. He said he turned around right there and read it again to make sure. He ended up repudiating Partial Preterism because he realized that as you moved the pile of futurist 2nd Coming passages from your right hand to the past fulfillment pile in your left hand, at some point you look down and realize that there is nothing left in your right hand. That book linked here:
http://www.preteristcentral.com/pdf/pdf ... rousia.pdf
I challenge you and everyone else to read both of them. If you can only read one, read "The Parousia". Russell wasn't a Full Preterist because he believed the millennium was ongoing, the Gog and Magog war was still in our future, and that the final judgement was after that. Full Preterists believe everything is already fulfilled.
Doug
Re: Mt 24:34-36 implications
I would agree that nothing remains to be fulfilled from the Olivet Discourse, because I see no reference to the 2nd coming in them.robbyyoung wrote:Brother Jaydam, you've put a lot of thought into your careful review of the matter. Nevertheless, it seems to me, correct me if I'm wrong, much weight is given to the quote I've highlighted above. Would it be fair to say if your understanding of the "descriptions" of the second coming is in error, then nothing remains outstanding in "The Discourse"?jaydam wrote:From other descriptions of the 2nd coming, I believe it is still outstanding.
To further develop my point I would need to know what scriptures you are referring to in regards to the "Description of the Second Coming".
God Bless!
As for the descriptions of the 2nd coming that I believe still remain to be fulfilled, that would include 1Th 4:16-17 and Rev 20:7 to the end of the book.
If the Lord's coming in 70 AD (from Mt) is to be perceived as his 2nd coming, then why is it only THAT coming that is considered his 2nd coming? From what I read in the Bible, the Lord has come many times (in judgment), therefore, his coming in 70 AD could really be seen as his 6th, 7th, or 8th coming. Why is it, out of all the times we hear of the Lord coming, we would choose to only count his personal appearance as a human being and the 70 AD event as his first and second coming?
Re: Mt 24:34-36 implications
I think you've hit on an important point, which is the confusing terminology used. It's a bit like WWI and WWII. WWI was The Great War until WWII came along. Now, there's some debate in historical circles about whether the 7 Years War, or some other 19th Century event, should really be called WWI.
The bottom line is that the phrase 2nd Coming isn't found in scripture. It's a phrase made up by theologians (possibly Tertullian around 200AD). To complicate the matter more, parousia and erchomai don't mean exactly the same thing (parousia has more of a flavor of an ongoing presence after a return, and erchomai simply means the arrival of someone), though they are both translated as "coming" in English.
What might help us stick to apples and apples is for you to define what you think the result of the 2nd Coming/return/parousia/erchomai is. Since there is disagreement on the timing and nature of it, maybe we can fine some common ground on what comes after it.
Doug
The bottom line is that the phrase 2nd Coming isn't found in scripture. It's a phrase made up by theologians (possibly Tertullian around 200AD). To complicate the matter more, parousia and erchomai don't mean exactly the same thing (parousia has more of a flavor of an ongoing presence after a return, and erchomai simply means the arrival of someone), though they are both translated as "coming" in English.
What might help us stick to apples and apples is for you to define what you think the result of the 2nd Coming/return/parousia/erchomai is. Since there is disagreement on the timing and nature of it, maybe we can fine some common ground on what comes after it.
Doug