ECT Matthew 24:30: Question For the Preterists

[nikolai_42]

Well, how do they explain that the great tribulation is already over by the time the Matthew 24:30 happens?:

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory" (Mt.24:29-30).​

If I understand your objection, it is that Jesus distinguishes Matthew 24:30 from the tribulation itself (by the "Immediately after the tribulation of those days..." phrase). In other words, where the appearance of the sign of the Son of man is identified with the destruction of Jerusalem, it can't be identified as the tribulation itself.

If that is your objection, I would say that the preterist says the tribulation itself led up to 24:30. Famines, earthquakes, false prophets etc... are all documented - and Josephus does detail almost unthinkable behavior such as cannibalism in those days before Jerusalem is destroyed. So the judgment that came upon Israel is associated with such tribulation of both body and soul that men do things that would not normally be done in times of relative peace and safety.

 

[Interplanner]

Nik,
pretty good. Notice that the setting changes at v30. It is worldwide after that. (Sometimes 'gea' is used before v29 and can mean just that area or land of Israel.).

 

[Interplanner]

JerryS,
you may choose to continue responding to Tet, but I don't see where you have responded to the 'allowance for delay' approach. It makes the most sense to me, and shows itself 3 ways.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

If I understand your objection, it is that Jesus distinguishes Matthew 24:30 from the tribulation itself (by the "Immediately after the tribulation of those days..." phrase). In other words, where the appearance of the sign of the Son of man is identified with the destruction of Jerusalem, it can't be identified as the tribulation itself.

The tribulation will already be over by the time when the events of verse 30 happen.

If that is your objection, I would say that the preterist says the tribulation itself led up to 24:30.

Then they would once again be wrong. As verse 29 says, the signs in the sky will not happen until the great tribulation is over.

And this passage clearly proves that the Lord Jesus will not appear until the signs in the sky will be seen:

"And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory" (Lk.21:25-27).​

 

[Jerry Shugart]

JerryS,
you may choose to continue responding to Tet, but I don't see where you have responded to the 'allowance for delay' approach. It makes the most sense to me, and shows itself 3 ways.

I responded but you did not respond to what I said:

According to the interpretation of the preterists the Lord Jesus said that the generation then living would see all the things mentioned by Him in the Olivet Discourse.

But according to you the generation then living did not see all of those things.

So either the Lord Jesus made a blunder or the word "translation" is not the correct translation!

 

[Danoh]

According to the interpretation of the preterists the Lord Jesus said that the generation then living would see all the things mentioned byHim in the Olivet Discourse.

But according to you the generation then living did not see all of those things.

So either the Lord Jesus made a blunder or the word "translation" is not the correct translation!

Not sure where you are on this, Jerry, being that though we both assert Mid-Acts Dispensationalism, we differ in our understanding of some things:

Its interesting that Preterists and Partial Preterists rightly come down hard against those Dispensationalists who look to modern history - 1948 - for what said Dispensationalists see as a confirmation of their view.

I am referring, of course; to Acts 2 Dispensationalists, as very, very few within Mid-Acts hold to 1948 or to any other event in history outside of those recorded in Scripture, for validation of Mid-Acts.

What's interesting is that the Preterists and the Partial-Preterists practice exactly what they come down so hard against what they erroneously conclude - as usual - is a view held by all Dispensationalists as to 1948.

For the Preterists and the Partial-Preterists heavily rely on what had been to Josephus in his day, current events proving his false conclusions about 70AD as supposedly valid.

Talk about the pot not only calling the kettle black, but smoking a bit too much of it, lol

 

[Arsenios]

Will the preterists answer the following question?:

When and how was this prophecy in "bold" fulfilled?:

"And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory" (Mt.24:30).​

Thanks!

A shame it is, I say...

That ONLY PRETERISTS may answer you...

So I will only whisper the Orthodox response:

Matthew 16:28 - 17:9

Keyword is: "some"

sssshhhhhhhh - Don't tell anyone!

We are off-topic here...

A.

 

[nikolai_42]

The tribulation will already be over by the time when the events of verse 30 happen.

One could make a case for the end of one being at the same time as the beginning of the other. Either way, when this sign appears, something else is underway that ends the events of the tribulation.

Then they would once again be wrong. As verse 29 says, the signs in the sky will not happen until the great tribulation is over.

And this passage clearly proves that the Lord Jesus will not appear until the signs in the sky will be seen:

"And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory" (Lk.21:25-27).​

Don't forget that this is describing things on a broad scale. I have to agree with the preterist here that this isn't simply an expression of nature in upheaval but consistent with OT prophetic patterns of using nature to symbolize governments, nations, armies, events etc... It's one failing of modern prophetic interpretation that there is a consistent demand for literalism that the text itself doesn't necessarily require.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

One could make a case for the end of one being at the same time as the beginning of the other. Either way, when this sign appears, something else is underway that ends the events of the tribulation.

By the time the signs are seen in the sky the tribulation will already be over:

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken" (Mt.24:29).​

So the end of the tribulation is not at the same time the beginning of the signs. Instead, the signs will not be seen until AFTER the tribulation is over.

Don't forget that this is describing things on a broad scale. I have to agree with the preterist here that this isn't simply an expression of nature in upheaval but consistent with OT prophetic patterns of using nature to symbolize governments, nations, armies, events etc... It's one failing of modern prophetic interpretation that there is a consistent demand for literalism that the text itself doesn't necessarily require.

The preterists themselves use a literal interpretation of Matthew 24 from Matthew 24:1 until Matthew 24:28 and then all of a sudden the Lord's words can no longer be taken literally.

Are we suppose to believe that this verse is describing men reacting to apocalyptic language and nothing else?

"And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth" (Lk.21:25-26).​

That idea is preposterous!

 

[Interplanner]

JerryS,
...or you don't know that there are partial preterists and other kinds.

Regardless, my 2nd question does not have to do with that. It is simply asking if you understand that an "allowance for delay" is expressed 3 ways? That's not an -ism question; it is a question about the text, or several of them on this same topic.

 

[Interplanner]

JerryS,
Since he said the one period of tribulation was unlike anything else, the next era (if it is longer than a day--I don't think it is) is not a tribulation. It is the final day of judgement.

For the 5th time, do you see the "allowance for delay" expressed in various ways in Mk 13, Mt 24, 2 Pet 3? That would be a delay between the awful period of turmoil in Judea and the final day of judgement.

 

[Interplanner]

Has any futurist or literalist ever figured out what happens when stars fall to the earth. It can only happen once.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

So I will only whisper the Orthodox response:

The "Orthodox" what approach?

The Orthodox preterism approach?

The Orthodox church approach?

 

[Interplanner]

He is Eastern Orthodox says his sidebar.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

JerryS,
Since he said the one period of tribulation was unlike anything else, the next era (if it is longer than a day--I don't think it is) is not a tribulation. It is the final day of judgement.

It will be unlike anything that will happen to Jerusalem. But the Lord's answer in the Olivet Discourse was in answer to this question:

"Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the age?" (Mt. 24:3).​

Earlier the Lord Jesus spoke the parable of the "tares of the field" where He described what would occur at the "end of the age":

"He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this age. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear" (Mt. 13:37-43).​

Here we can see that the Lord Jesus speaks of a harvest that will happen at the "end of the age." He also makes it clear that the harvest will take place in the field, and He says that the "field is the world."

There was no world wide harvest in the first century or since. Therefore, the Lord's words in the Olivet Discourse are not referring to anything which happened in the first century.

 

[Interplanner]

Actually Paul said twice that the whole world had been reached.

But aside from that, here are possibilities for the end of an age when you're referring to all the sacred buildings of Jerusalem coming down:
end of the law
end of the old covenant
end of Daniel 9's 490 years
end of Judaism
end of their current age before Messiah appears (cp Jn 12:34), leading to their age of the nations (when they thought the whole world would bow to Jerusalem and learn the torah, Mt 23).
end of the whole world

 

[Jerry Shugart]

So I will only whisper the Orthodox response:

Matthew 16:28 - 17:9

"There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom" (Mt.16:28).​

One of the meanings of the Greek word translated "coming" at Matthew 16:28 is "to appear" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

Therefore, the verse can be translated as follows:

"There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man appearing in his kingdom" (Mt.16:28).​

And the disciples did see Him appearing in His kingdom at the transfiguration:

"For, skilfully devised fables not having followed out, we did make known to you the power and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ, but eye-witnesses having become of his majesty --for having received from God the Father honour and glory, such a voice being borne to him by the excellent glory: `This is My Son -- the beloved, in whom I was well pleased;' and this voice we -- we did hear, out of heaven borne, being with him in the holy mount" (2 Pet.1:16-18; YLT).​

Therefore, Peter is speaking of seeing the Lord's "presence" and he also says that he was was an eyewitness of His "majesty". The word "majesty" is translated from the Greek word megaleiotes and that word means "greatness, magnificence...of the visible splendor of the divine majesty as it appeared in the transfiguration of Christ, 2 Peter i.16" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

Therefore we can understand that what happened on the Holy Mount fulfilled the Lord Jesus' words that some of His Apostles would witness His "appearance" or "presence" in His kingdom.

In each gospel that records the words of the Lord Jesus saying that some of His Apostles will see Him in the kingdom the events of the "transfiguration" immediately follow. On the holy mount "His face did shine like the sun, and His rainment was as white as the light" (Mt.17:2).

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Actually Paul said twice that the whole world had been reached.

Paul said nothing about a harvest coming to the whole world.

 

[Interplanner]

why wouldn't Col 1 and I Tim 3 mean just that?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

It happened in 70AD

Josephus wrote about it:

The problem for you is the fact that at the time when Josephus saw what he saw the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD had not yet happened. But this passage demonstrates that it will not be until the great tribulation is over when all thre tribes will see the coming of the Son of Man:

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory" (Mt.24:29-30).​

To see what Josephus said and when he said it go to this link:

http://www.preteristarchive.com/JewishWars/timeline_theological.html#Book_VI,_Chapter_V,_Section_2

Then scroll down to Book VI, Chapter 5, Section 3. And notice on this preterist site that we read, "The Signs Which Preceded the Destruction."