Matt. 24:9-13/Luke 21:12-19 possible discrepancy?

Post by **_Derek** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 3:40 am

Steve (or anyone),
I may be missing something obvious here, but a brother has pointed out to me that in Matt. 24:9 after "nation shall rise against nation, famines, pestilences, etc..." it says "then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted etc." but in Luke 21:12 the parallel says "but before all these they shall lay there hands on you etc..." placing this persecution before the "nation against nation, famines, etc..." verse where Matt. has it after. Any ideas?
Thanks,
Derek

Post by **_Christopher** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 10:51 am

Hi Derek,

I don't see a problem here necessarily. I usually like to put the apparent contradiction at the end of the line of all possibilities. If it's possible to see it another way, then a contradiction is not a necessary conclusion. The bible has endured many, many of these challenges.

The word "then" does not necessarily need to be understood as after that (as suggested). One option, I think, is that it can be taken to mean at that time or in those days. Notice there is a sequence of 3 of those "then"s. I doubt that Matthew is listing things sequentially here. I think it's more the case that Jesus was just giving the 4 apostles signs to watch for. JMO.

Lord bless.

Post by **_Derek** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 3:09 am

Hey Christopher,
That is basically the way I see it. I just see the Lord telling them that "all this is going to happen" and not in a specific order. Each Gospel writer is telling his account/paraphrase of Jesus' words. All that's fine with me. Not for this brother however. Can you think of a verse or two that has "then" used in this way at the beginning of a sentence? (i.e. in those days, at that time, etc..) Maybe that'll do it.

Thanks brother,
Derek

Post by **_Christopher** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 5:22 pm

Hi Derek,

I think the greek word speaks for itself:

NT:5119
tote (tot'-eh); from (the neuter of) NT:3588 and NT:3753; then when, i.e. at the time that (of the past or future, also in consecution):

KJV - that time, then.

This word is used probably hundreds of times in the NT. How about just using some of the verses in that very chapter? (24:16, 21, 23, 40). In those verses, I see the most natural reading of that word to mean “at that time” rather than “after this”. Also, it’s use in 1Cor 15:54 almost demands that meaning IMO.

You're friend may not be convinced. But, again, I would say that nobody can charge the bible with a contradiction if there is a reasonable alternate explanation. I think this is definitely a reasonable explanation, so the argument for a contradiction is weak IMO.

Hope that helps.

Lord bless.

Post by **_Derek** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 7:27 pm

Thanks bro, that really helps. I didn't even think to look at the Greek for some reason.

I appreciate the help. Oh, and just for the record, this brother that isn't saying that there is a contradiction. He sees the discourse in Luke to be different than the one in Matthew and Mark. (even though Mark is much closer to Lukes version...go figure) He calls one the Olivet Discourse and one the Temple Discourse. He thinks it is only a contradiction if you take the position that I take. (that they are all the same, except maybe the last half of the Matt. account). I suppose he needs them to be different so that we can't interpret Matt/Mark with the clearer version in Luke, which inevitably leads to the conclusions that all of it is about 70AD (IMO anyway). Again, thanks brother!

Derek

Post by **_Christopher** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 11:31 pm

Oh, and just for the record, this brother that isn't saying that there is a contradiction. He sees the discourse in Luke to be different than the one in Matthew and Mark.

Oh, I get it. I should have figured. I know a pastor who tries to do the exact same thing. We've argued about this very point. What's funny though is that in his sermons he uses the part in Luke 21 about Jerusalem being surrounded by armies as the fulfillment the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, and then a few weeks later uses part of that very same passage as a parallel to Matt 24 to talk about the end of the world.

Luke 21 doesn't fit the dispensationalist paradigm very well so it's disregarded as the parallel to Matt 24. Even though it says the same thing almost word for word. Go figure.

I think someone tried to do that on this forum as well, but Steve handily debunked the attempt. I can't remember which thread it was though. Sorry.

Post by **_SoaringEagle** » Wed Feb 08, 2006 12:49 pm

The following websight touches on this. I think it would be beneficial, for he responds to skeptics who use these verses as contradictions. If nothing else is should be interesting. If you ever come across problematic passages, or have anyone you know ask about a specific contradition, this is one of the greatest websites I know dealing with such things.
http://www.tektonics.org/esch/olivet01.html

For another look at the same subject, check the following website out. It too, is incredibly great.
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qaim.html

Post by **_Derek** » Wed Feb 08, 2006 10:03 pm

Thanks Soaring Eagle. I am familiar with the Tektonics Website and the Think Tank. Great sites. I hadn't looked there though. Now I will. I have been checking out the Tektonics site for over a year and only recently discovered that he was a preterist! (I knew there was something I liked about him!)

Goes to show you how much material J.P. Holding has on there. Thanks.
Derek