The Preterists and Matthew 24:34

[john w]

You're wrong.

Here is what Paul said:

(2 Thess 2:3) Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.

As we see, Paul knew certain things had to happen first.

Paul continued:

(2 Thess 2:4) He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

So, these things did not happen in Paul's life. Paul knew the Great Rebellion that began in 66AD had to take place before the return of Christ Jesus.

Paul died before 66AD

Plagiarized from his "AD 70-ism" teacher, J. Stuart Russell.

 

[Aaron the Tall]

Here...

I don't understand what you think the verse is saying.

Isn't the condition that the generation must still be living in order for all those things to happen?

Just as in the other verse, some standing there must still be alive in order for Jesus to come in His kingdom?

 

[musterion]

I don't understand what you think the verse is saying.

I've already said it multiple times: there was a condition that had to be met before what He described could come to pass. Since what He described - as many here have abundantly demonstrated - has not taken place, that condition must not have been met. And, in fact, it was not. Still hasn't been.

Isn't the condition that the generation must still be living in order for all those things to happen?

No.

First, that generation did not see events unlike anything seen before or since. That's what He said, and I believe Him. Far greater atrocities in scope, calamity and number of deaths took place in the 20th century alone. AD 70 isn't even close.

Second, making the fulfillment dependent upon their not dying would be nonsense; no one can control how long they may live. No, there was something else that it all hinged upon. Something very simple. Something else was preached quite clearly from John the baptizer up through Peter. That was the sole condition of Israel fulfilling its Kingdom destiny promised as far back as Moses.

Just as in the other verse, some standing there must still be alive in order for Jesus to come in His kingdom?

If the condition had been met, there would have been.

 

[musterion]

By the way, Aaron. Are you partial or full preterist?

 

[Aaron the Tall]

So you believe that the kingdom mentioned by the Lord Jesus at Matthew 13 is in regard to the kingdom that only those who have been born again can enter?:


You have some strange ideas, my friend, because it is obvious that these who will be taken out at the harvest are born again:

Do you believe Israel was a type of "Kingdom of God" on earth? In what sense did the Pharisees and Israel HAVE the Kingdom during Jesus life if Jesus said the Kingdom would be taken from them?

Whatever type of Kingdom status the Jews had at that time before Jesus' was crowned King of the Kingdom - apply that sense to the Kingdom of Mt 13.

Certainly, Israel was a type of Kingdom of God on earth. While the Jews may not have been members of the born-again type Kingdom that was coming, they were the heirs to the coming Kingdom. They were positionally established as members of the upcoming Kingdom.

First of all, the passage does not say that the "sons of the kingdom" will be cast out of the kingdom spoken of earlier. And obviously the "sons of the kingdom" are unbelievers who were not born again so they were never in the kingdom spoken of at verse eleven.

Just "unbelievers"? Why are they called sons of the kingdom? The commentators call them Jews who were heirs of the Kingdom. They were in God's Kingdom of Israel and were part of God's Kingdom plan - and that status was going to be taken from them. In that sense they were in the Kingdom and were removed from it.

That is right. And you failed to mention anything about my remarks concerning the events which will happen after the great tribulation is over:

Here we see that signs will be seen in the sky AFTER the great tribulation is 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).​

And the following passage describes men reacting to those signs in the sky and being in fear of things which will be coming on a much larger area than Israel, and which will take place after the great tribulation is over:

"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 (oikoumene)" (Lk.21:25-26).​

I'll read over some of those verses some more. It could be that the sun darkening and heaven shaking in Mat 24:29 that occur after the tribulation is strictly cataclysmic language speaking of God's judgement. Indeed Jesus seems to be quoting directly from the Isaiah passage I referenced where that same language is used figuratively.

The signs mentioned in Luke 21 are not strictly associated with any timeline - be they literal or figurative. Jesus could be elaborating on the heavenly signs he mentioned would take place before the tribulation (Luke 21:10). Either way, there were heavenly signs that were seen before and during the destruction of Jerusalem.

Gary DeMar had this to say about the meaning of the Greek word oikoumene:

"The case can be made that 'oikoumene' is used exclusively for the geographical area generally limited to the Roman empire of the first-century and the territories immediately adjacent which were known and accessible to first-century travelers. When first-century Christians read the word 'oikoumene,' they thought of what they knew of their world" [emphasis mine] (Gary DeMar, "The Gospel Preached to All the World, Part 3 of 4; The Preterist Archive).​

Certainly there was never a harvest which came on the area which the Christians knew as their world after Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD.

If the harvest is on one hand the removal of the Jews from their place as heirs of the Kingdom - signposted by the destruction of the temple - and on the other hand the spreading of the gospel and the gathering of true believers into the Kingdom - then there was a harvest at and after 70AD.

May I kindly ask that you refrain from copying and pasting that same bit into so many of your posts while there are many other questions that keep going unanswered?

 

[Aaron the Tall]

I've already said it multiple times: there was a condition that had to be met before what He described could come to pass. Since what He described - as many here have abundantly demonstrated - has not taken place, that condition must not have been met. And, in fact, it was not. Still hasn't been.

No.

First, that generation did not see events unlike anything seen before or since. That's what He said, and I believe Him. Far greater atrocities in scope, calamity and number of deaths took place in the 20th century alone. AD 70 isn't even close.

Second, making the fulfillment dependent upon their not dying would be nonsense; no one can control how long they may live. No, there was something else that it all hinged upon. Something very simple. Something else was preached quite clearly from John the baptizer up through Peter. That was the sole condition of Israel fulfilling its Kingdom destiny promised as far back as Moses.

If the condition had been met, there would have been.

So, you are drawing conditions into that verse that are not specifically contained in the verse?

Shouldn't the condition be limited to the words within the verse?

Nobody can control how long they live, but the condition in that verse is not about what man must do - the only condition in that verse is that the things must happen before they died. If they didn't happen before they died then Jesus' reputation is on the line - and Jesus knows it.

If the tribulation is going to have a higher death count than any other time in history, what do you make of Jerry's comment that the tribulation is limited to Israel and will be primarily perpetrated on the Jews?

How do you think the flood of Noah compares to the great tribulation in number of deaths?

What about the final judgement, where the wicked are slain at Christ's coming? Won't there be more deaths at that point?

I am a partial preterist.

 

[musterion]

So, you are drawing conditions into that verse that are not specifically contained in the verse?

He also didn't say that all He foretold would happen only if that generation didn't pass.

Concentrate, Aaron: what was the one thing Israel was told to do all through the Gospels -- the one thing that all else depended on?

the only condition in that verse is that the things must happen before they died. If they didn't happen before they died then Jesus' reputation is on the line - and Jesus knows it.

Then He blew it because all that He said would come to pass, didn't. Come up with an alternate explanation.

If the tribulation is going to have a higher death count than any other time in history, what do you make of Jerry's comment that the tribulation is limited to Israel and will be primarily perpetrated on the Jews?

Jerry and I are more or less on the same side here so my discussion isn't with him. It's with preterists (excluding Tet).

How do you think the flood of Noah compares to the great tribulation in number of deaths?

Christ said "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be." Take it or leave it.

What about the final judgement, where the wicked are slain at Christ's coming? Won't there be more deaths at that point?

"For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be." Again, take it or leave it.

I am a partial preterist.

So what was NOT fulfilled in AD 70? And do P.P.s consider full preterists like Tet to be gravely wrong? Just curious.

 

[musterion]

Also, Aaron...

Christ did not make their not passing away the condition. The uncertainty is on "all these things" taking place, which itself depended on something which, you are correct, He did not reference in this passage.

 

[Interplanner]

Here is a way to detangle Mt24. The original expectation, even of Christ (not the Father) was that everything would happen in that generation. The Judean things certainly did, but at v29 there are worldwide things and Judea is no longer mentioned. But there was an allowance made that the worldwide end could be delayed. It is there in the 'only the Father knows' (the final day) and in the parable of the attentive servants in Mk 13 in which there are four options to the final day.

So, 1st: NT eschatology is either about 1st century Judea OR the worldwide judgement day now known to be distant future from the time of Mt 24 (it could have been right after). NT eschatology does not mix these.

2nd, 2 Pet 3 is therefore in defense of the faith in that it explains the reason for the delay: the grace of God. Otherwise the 'coming' in the passage has to be about Messiah's 1st coming. I don't think that's what he meant. He meant people scoffing that there would be a 2nd coming in judgement. He allowed for it to be very soon, and very far off.

 

[Aaron the Tall]

Also, Aaron...

Christ did not make their not passing away the condition. The uncertainty is on "all these things" taking place, which itself depended on something which, you are correct, He did not reference in this passage.

So, do you believe that any time an is used in the NT to set up some kind of conditional statement, that the condition is always the Jews repentance?

 

[Aaron the Tall]

He also didn't say that all He foretold would happen only if that generation didn't pass.

Concentrate, Aaron: what was the one thing Israel was told to do all through the Gospels -- the one thing that all else depended on?

The coming of the Kingdom was never said to be conditional upon the Jews believing it in the Gospels. The only condition was whether or not they would be a part of it when it did come. The good news was that the Kingdom of God was at hand, because the time was fulfilled - no conditions given.

Then He blew it because all that He said would come to pass, didn't. Come up with an alternate explanation.

Or your Western literalism can't make sense of what Jesus said would come to pass. I've given OT examples of symbolic language used to describe judgement and destruction. That is the reference point that Jesus' hearers would have been familiar with.

Christ said "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be." Take it or leave it."For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be." Again, take it or leave it.

Ezekiel 5:9 “because of all your abominations, I will do among you what I have not done, and the like of which I will never do again.”


Take it or leave it - or accept that sometimes even God speaks in hyperbole.

So what was NOT fulfilled in AD 70? And do P.P.s consider full preterists like Tet to be gravely wrong? Just curious.

I am more familiar with dispensationalism (since that is where I came from) than full preterism - but I think they are mistaken in their understanding of some of their core-doctrinal verses - for example, Luke 21:22. I believe a literal resurrection is a core doctrine of Christianity - so I certainly don't agree with full preterists on this point.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

For Shugart,
There is a simple observation about the NT that can clear up a lot about relating 1st century Judean events with worldwide events: the worldwide events were indeed expected right after the great revolt in Judea, but with the allowance that there could be a delay.

There is nothing which even hints of a delay concering the events which will happen immediately after the great tribulation is over. Let us review that:

Here we see that signs will be seen in the sky AFTER the great tribulation is 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).​

And the following passage describes men reacting to those signs in the sky and being in fear of things which will be coming on a much larger area than Israel, and which will take place after the great tribulation is over:

"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 (oikoumene)" (Lk.21:25-26).​

There was never a large harvest that happened on a large mass of land after Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD.

Well know preterist author Gary DeMar had this to say about the meaning of the Greek word oikoumene:

"The case can be made that 'oikoumene' is used exclusively for the geographical area generally limited to the Roman empire of the first-century and the territories immediately adjacent which were known and accessible to first-century travelers. When first-century Christians read the word 'oikoumene,' they thought of what they knew of their world" [emphasis mine] (Gary DeMar, "The Gospel Preached to All the World, Part 3 of 4; The Preterist Archive).​

There is nothing that even hints of a delay after the end of the great tribulation until the time when men are in fear of the things coming upon an area of land that Christians understood to be their world.

And this is a parallel passage describing the events of Luke 21;25-26:

"...the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth... And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains. And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?" (Rev.6:12-17).​

From the end of the great tribulation unto these events there is nothing which even hints of a delay of any kind. And since these events did not happen after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD it is clear that all of these prophecies remain in the future.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Nowhere in the NT does it say Jesus comes back to planet earth.

What about the OT? Who is being spoken of here:

"For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God" (Job.19:25-26).​

 

[musterion]

The coming of the Kingdom was never said to be conditional upon the Jews believing it in the Gospels.

Who said the condition was that they had to believe in the Kingdom? I didn't. I don't see anyone who did. That was already found in their Scriptures. So in one word, Aaron, during the Gospel period what was the primary thing all Israel was told more than once to DO?

Or your Western literalism

Now you're getting anti-intellectual on us. Another bad sign.

Ezekiel 5:9 “because of all your abominations, I will do among you what I have not done, and the like of which I will never do again.”

Take it or leave it - or accept that sometimes even God speaks in hyperbole.

So God was exaggerating (being purposefully untruthful) just to make a point? I'm starting to fear for you, Aaron.

I am more familiar with dispensationalism (since that is where I came from)

That's what Tet claims but it's clear from his rantings he has no clue what disp's actually believe -- he only parrots misrepresentations of it or ignores what we say when we try to explain where he's been misled. I'll wait to see what you actually understand of disp'ism, particularly the mid-Acts variety. So far, I see nothing.

but I think they are mistaken in their understanding of some of their core-doctrinal verses - for example, Luke 21:22.

Okay, here it is...

because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled.

1. What do disp's believe about that verse?
2. Why do you disagree with it?
3. What is the correct understanding of it?
4. Why?

I believe a literal resurrection is a core doctrine of Christianity - so I certainly don't agree with full preterists on this point.

That's good. So by all means, do us all a favor and, preterist to preterist, challenge Tet to a debate on it. That's just one of TOL's many services you're welcome to avail yourself to. I know we'd all be fascinating to see it, no joke.

 

[Aaron the Tall]

Question for Jerry.

IN Daniel 2 we read

"Daniel Interprets the Dream


In Daniel 2:44 where it says God will set up a Kingdom. Has this been fulfilled? Or do you see this as a future event?

In that prophecy, God said Kingdom would be established during the 4th Kingdom, with Babylon being the first. The Roman Empire was the 4th Kingdom. I'd be interested to hear how folks interpret this differently - or how they think the Roman Empire is still around today.

Same thing in Daniel 7. The Kingdom comes during the reign of the 4th beast, the 1st being Babylon. The 4th beast is the Roman Empire.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Do you believe Israel was a type of "Kingdom of God" on earth?

No!

In what sense did the Pharisees and Israel HAVE the Kingdom during Jesus life if Jesus said the Kingdom would be taken from them?

"Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof" (Mt.21:43).​

First of all, at that time the kingdom of God remained in the future, as witnessed by the words of the Lord Jesus here:

"And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh. And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand"(Lk.21:27-31).​

That is why the Lord Jesus used the future tense when He said that the kingdom will be taken from the traditional leadership of Israel.

Whatever type of Kingdom status the Jews had at that time before Jesus' was crowned King of the Kingdom - apply that sense to the Kingdom of Mt 13.

That is impossible since they had no kingdom status at the time when the Lord Jesus described what would happen at the end of the age at Matthew 13.

In fact, the Apostles had been with the risen Christ for forty days while He taught them the things concerning the kingdom. And they knew that they did not at that time possess the kingdom because they asked the Lord Jesus the following question:

"When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6).​

All you are trying to do is to invent a kingdom which belonged exclusively to the Jews while the Lord walked the earth. But no such kingdom existed at that time. the kingdom which He was referring to at Matthew 13 is the "Universal Kingdom" mentioned here:

"Thine, O LORD is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O LORD, and thou art exalted as head above all" (1Chron.29:11).​

With that in mind let us look at the world wide harvest that is described at Matthew 13:

"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", the "end of this 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 after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. And in the Olivet Discourse the Lord Jesus Himself speaks of this world wide harvest:

"And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth" (Lk.21:34-35).​

 

[Aaron the Tall]

Who said the condition was that they had to believe in the Kingdom? I didn't. I don't see anyone who did. That was already found in their Scriptures. So in one word, Aaron, during the Gospel period what was the primary thing all Israel was told more than once to DO?

Ok, to be exact - they were told to repent and believe the Gospel. That was the condition they had to meet to be part of the Kingdom, not the condition that had to be met to usher in the Kingdom.

What was the Gospel message Christ was preaching? Not his death burial and resurrection. The Good News was that the Kingdom was at hand. It wasn't conditional good news - it was true time fulfilled about to happen good news.

Now you're getting anti-intellectual on us. Another bad sign.

???? Western understandings = intellectual? Do you think you can completely understand the Bible with out recognizing that much of it was written to a Jewish audience who may not have seen things the same way we do?

So God was exaggerating (being purposefully untruthful) just to make a point? I'm starting to fear for you, Aaron.

It's not something I'm super comfortable with, but there it is. How would you understand Ezekiel 5:9?

More examples of hyperbole:

Speaking of King Hezekiah, “After him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor any that were before him.” (2 Kings 18:5) But in 2 Kings 23:25 we read about King Josiah that “like unto him was there no king before him, . . . neither after him arose there any like him.” The Bible is either lying or we have here a hyperbole.

Okay, here it is...1. What do disp's believe about that verse?
2. Why do you disagree with it?
3. What is the correct understanding of it?
4. Why?

That verse is a key full preterist verse - that is why I brought it up. I'm sure I agree with disp's on that verse.

That's good. So by all means, do us all a favor and, preterist to preterist, challenge Tet to a debate on it. That's just one of TOL's many services you're welcome to avail yourself to. I know we'd all be fascinating to see it, no joke.

Maybe after I'm done mopping the floor with you jokers! Mwa ha ha ha! :shut:

 

[tetelestai]

If the condition had been met, there would have been.

(Mark 13:30 KJV) Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

The Greek word "an" is not in the above verse like it is in Matt 24:34 and Luke 21:32

Therefore, your entire little subjunctive mood theory is false.

 

[tetelestai]

You must enjoy demonstrating your ignorance because you do it all the time. The word "rapture" came from the Latin Vulgate and it answers to the words "caught up":

"Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord" (1 Thess.4:17; KJV).​

I know what it means.

Paul is simply stating in 1 Thess 4:17 that when believers die, they are instantly in the presence of the Lord. The believer is immediately "caught up" to Heaven to be with the Lord.

Paul is not describing what Darby invented, and what Dispensationalists claim is a "rapture"

 

[tetelestai]

As I am sure you noticed, the only way that tet can win an argument on this thread is by misrepresenting the beliefs of others.

STP, heir, and John W all adhere to "soul sleep"

Soul Sleep was invented by E. W. Bullinger.

While STP, heir, and John W are Acts 9 and Bullinger was Acts 28, they mostly believe all of Bullinger's other doctrines.

For example, they, like Bullinger, claim every event in the book of Revelation is still the yet future. This includes the seven churches. They claim the seven churches never happened yet.