The Narrow Path Ministries

Yesterday Steve got a call from someone asking about the idea of double fulfillment of prophecy. Steve used Matthew 24 as an example many futurists point to. He mentioned how the Matt. 24 response was to the question of when will the temple be destroyed, but what I didn't hear Steve point out is that the 2nd part of their question was "what will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age?" It seems that if you take Matt. 24 strictly as fulfilled in 70AD then you are forced to completely leave off that part of the question or somehow explain how the the destruction of the temple somehow signalled the return of Christ and the end of the age. I can see "end of the age" being explained as "the end of the sacrifice" or the law, but what about His coming?

Jeff wrote:Yesterday Steve got a call from someone asking about the idea of double fulfillment of prophecy. Steve used Matthew 24 as an example many futurists point to. He mentioned how the Matt. 24 response was to the question of when will the temple be destroyed, but what I didn't hear Steve point out is that the 2nd part of their question was "what will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age?" It seems that if you take Matt. 24 strictly as fulfilled in 70AD then you are forced to completely leave off that part of the question or somehow explain how the the destruction of the temple somehow signalled the return of Christ and the end of the age. I can see "end of the age" being explained as "the end of the sacrifice" or the law, but what about His coming?

Not speaking for Steve or anyone in specific, but if I understand things correctly, the real hardline preterists say that Jesus came again through the Roman armies that destroyed Jerusalem.

Interesting, thanks for the post. If that's true, thats seems like taking alot of liberty with what the text actually says but maybe that's just me...

charleswest wrote: Not speaking for Steve or anyone in specific, but if I understand things correctly, the real hardline preterists say that Jesus came again through the Roman armies that destroyed Jerusalem.

Well, not quite. Orthodox (or Partial) Preterists will say that the coming in the Olivet Discourse is not Jesus coming again, that is His Second coming, but rather Jesus coming in judgement on Jerusalem. The vehicle of his judgement was the Roman armies. This is typical of the language of the OT prophets in describing judgment on the nations that existed at that time. See Isaiah 19:1 for an example of the Lord coming language in a temporal judgement.

alaskazimm wrote:

charleswest wrote: Not speaking for Steve or anyone in specific, but if I understand things correctly, the real hardline preterists say that Jesus came again through the Roman armies that destroyed Jerusalem.

Well, not quite. Orthodox (or Partial) Preterists will say that the coming in the Olivet Discourse is not Jesus coming again, that is His Second coming, but rather Jesus coming in judgement on Jerusalem. The vehicle of his judgement was the Roman armies. This is typical of the language of the OT prophets in describing judgment on the nations that existed at that time. See Isaiah 19:1 for an example of the Lord coming language in a temporal judgement.

Thanks for the clarification. That's what I was trying to remember...

By comparing the disciples' question as it is recorded in Matthew 24:3 with its parallels in Mark 13:4 and Luke 21:7, it seems evident that the disciples asked only two questions—one about timing and the other about a sign of the immediate fulfillment. Matthew, Mark and Luke agree in rendering the first question, "When shall these things be?" However, whereas Mark and Luke make the second question to be simply, "What sign shall there be that these things are about to take place?", Matthew elongates the second question, giving it as, "What will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age?"

Matthew, no doubt, preserves the actual words of Christ, with its Hebrew idioms, while Mark and Luke help out their Gentile readers by giving the meaning of the question sans idiom. Nonetheless, Mark and Luke's paraphrase clarifies what the disciples were asking in the second question. They were still concerned with the same "these things" as were the subject of the first question, namely, the destruction of the temple. That this might be referred to as the end of the [temple] age is not surprising. However, to refer to this as Christ's "coming" is more surprising to our western ears.

As Alaskazimm pointed out, the language of "coming" would be familiar to the Jewish disciples, from the Old Testament, as a typical way of speaking of God's intervention to judge. What would NOT have been in the disciples' minds, nor implied in their question, would be any reference to what we call the second coming of Christ. They would not have asked about this, since they knew nothing of it. Not knowing, at that time, that Jesus was going to leave the earth, they would not have entertained the concept of His returning from heaven to earth. That idea was unknown until Acts 1:10-11.

As always, thanks for the info Steve! Now I've got more to go study!

What would NOT have been in the disciples' minds, nor implied in their question, would be any reference to what we call the second coming of Christ. They would not have asked about this, since they knew nothing of it. Not knowing, at that time, that Jesus was going to leave the earth, they would not have entertained the concept of His returning from heaven to earth. That idea was unknown until Acts 1:10-11.

Unknown until the events of Acts 1:10, 11? Many people understand the following passage as Christ stating that He will come again and receive His disciples, receive them either in "the rapture" to take them to heaven, or receive them so that they might reign with Him here on earth during the future millenium.

John 14:3 "and if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to myself; that where I am, there you may be also." NKJV

True, many Christians do believe that He meant that. However, it is not likely that the disciples thought He meant that. We read these passages with hindsight, knowing that Jesus ascended and will return. In the upper room discourse, I believe, the disciples remained entirely confused about His meaning, and specifically said they did not know where it was that He said He would be going to. No doubt, when He died, a few hours later, they took that to be the fulfillment of His prediction that He was "going away," and, when He arose, they would most likely think that was the "return" of which He had spoken. One thing seems pretty clear, on the day of His ascension, they did not seem to know He was leaving again (Acts 1:6).

That was a good point that you made about them probably not understanding him that way Steve. Is it possible though that even though they didn't mean the question that way, that he answered it in a different way? It seems like the early disciples misunderstood what Jesus taught almost more than they correctly understood. In other words, they asked the question meaning "when you will come in judgment to reign" and Jesus answered it that way, but what they didn't realize is that this wouldn't happen until he returned.