Featured THE MARK OF GOD AND BEAST

You are taking what Jesus said while at the Temple with the Olivet Discourse. I am not one looking for another Temple to be destroyed. That happened already in 70AD, and literally had nothing to do with the Olivet Discourse.


No one recorded that any disciples lived into their 80's or 90's. Not even Paul, One born "out of due season".

 

We don't know how old the disciples were when they followed Jesus, so we don't know how old they would have been when Jerusalem was sacked by the Romans. We do know that Jesus gave the Olivet Discourse shortly before His crucifixion, and that the Olivet Discourse is recorded in the synoptic Gospels between the early 50s (Mark) to late 60s (Matthew). This clearly describes the events of AD 70. Therefore, I believe it literally has everything to do with the Olivet Discourse.

Please explain what you think Jesus was talking about.

 

"And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?"

What is the sign of Jesus' coming? It is about the Second Coming. Jesus was already there. It was about the end of the NT church age, not the OT. Jesus did not have to talk about the virgin birth, nor teach them the Law. That all was past history.

 

The last question is more accurately translated "and of the end of the age". The "age" in question was the Old Covenant age. The disciples had just talked about how magnificent the Temple was, and Jesus dropped a bombshell on them by telling them it would be destroyed. To them, this was huge, almost unbelievable. Thus, they asked Him those questions. Especially in Luke's account of the Olivet Discourse, Jesus provided a very specific sign - "when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, you know its desolation is near". It's not that Jesus literally came in AD 70, but He figuratively "came" in judgment upon Israel. His literal Second Coming may still be 1,000 years in our future, or it could be tomorrow.

No, Jesus didn't have to teach them past history. However, He did quote from Daniel's prophecy in teaching them about the events that would culminate in Jerusalem's destruction. That prophecy fit perfectly with the Jewish Wars of AD 66-70.

So, since you believe He was referring to a future sign of His return, what do you think this "sign" will be? I'm sure it's connected to your "fig tree" view. Many Christians believe the "fig tree" refers to May 14, 1948, when Israel became a nation again. Is this what you are getting at?

 

The end of the age was the Cross. The next age would end at the Second Coming. There was no age that ended in 70AD. 70AD was not the birth of the NT age.

There is no overlap in ages if that is your point. There is only one sign of the Second Coming. That is the sign of Jesus actually in the air at the Second Coming.

The generation that sees the fig tree blooming will see all things mentioned in Matthew 24. But the fig tree is not a sign. The GT is not a sign. The AoD is not a sign. Jesus said the only sign (at least as Matthew recorded the OD) is the actual return. Those who see the actual sign will either be prepared or not. Like the 10 virgins. Some will be prepared. Some will not be prepared.

No, the fig tree is not a sign unless one calls it one. Jesus did say that generation would see everything, but obviously not all of that generation. Only some would be around to see it all. Life expectancy is higher than in the first century. 40 years is too short to kill off that generation by today's standards of living. Obviously 40 reasons why 1988 was the year was not correct. 40 years was not relative in the first century just like it is not relative today. But certainly 40 years after the Cross was plenty of time to kill several generations. As those who crucified Jesus did say they and their offspring for several generations would pay the price. I doubt that day they thought all of Israel would be destroyed and dispersed throughout the empire.

But to claim the whole NT was only good until 70AD is missing the whole point of the Cross and the NT. While Jesus was addressing His people, the NT and Revelation would apply to the church and the end of the NT age. Which has not ended, yet. The Second Coming is to restore Israel. It is also the moment the NT church age ends. 70AD did not restore Israel nor end the Church age. It is wrong of Preterist to claim otherwise, just like 1988 literally had no meaning whatsoever.

In Luke there is no sign mentioned. Jesus gives a list of events that would happen. In fact Luke does not even separate the OD from what Jesus said in the temple. Luke 21 is more relatable to 70AD than Matthew is because Luke mentions armies not the AoD. The argument is not about Jerusalem and the temple being destroyed. The argument is about the Second Coming and an age ending. Some want to spiritualize 70AD. It was not the Second Coming nor end of an age. It was not even a spiritual event. It was about carnal rebellious Israel who tried to revolt against more carnal wicked humans. These carnal offspring of those who wanted Jesus dead were reaping the rewards they claimed upon themselves for shedding innocent blood.

The whole point is that applying what was meant for physical Israel to that which applies to the spiritual church will not work. Knowing the difference is having wisdom, being spiritually discerned, and rightly dividing the Word of God.

 

Our views are so opposite of each other, I hardly know where to begin. Yes, I do believe there is an overlap. I agree that the Cross was the beginning of the end of the New Covenant, but it also marked the beginning of the end of the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant came to a final end in AD 70.

Where do you get the idea that Preterists claim the NT was only good until AD 70? The spread of the Gospel had just begun about 40 years earlier, and it still hasn't reached everywhere. I don't believe the 2nd Coming has anything to do with national Israel. Scripture makes it clear that the True Jew is of the Spirit, not the flesh. There is only one "people of God", which is of the Spirit.

You missed the signs in Luke 21. They were discussing the Temple in vs. 5-7. Then Jesus answered their questions in vs. 8-36. The reason Luke doesn't separate the OD from what Jesus said in the Temple is because what He said in the Temple was the beginning of the OD.
No, AD 70 was not the 2nd Coming, but it was when Christ "came" in judgment upon Israel.

We may have to agree to disagree, as our views are so different from each other. Blessings to you and yours, Brother.

 

Yes, a forty year overlap. The large type that lies within the struggle between the house of Saul and the house of David illustrates this very well. As Israel had two kings during this time, so the two covenants coexisted for forty years.

 

I'd never considered that parallel bit of history. Thank you.

 

House of Saul vs. house of David

 

So Matthew 24:34 should say:

"This generation will all have to pass away, before the Old Covenant is done away with."

That seems to be the opposite view of what I hold.

Luke 21 does mention the advancing armies, and many fled in 66AD. Still not about 70AD.

 

Matthew 24:34 says exactly what Jesus meant. The generation that saw all the things Jesus had been telling them did not pass away before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, which brought about the final end of the Old Covenant. Our views are very different, to be sure. I am fully convinced of my views, and I'm sure you are just as fully convinced of yours. We should agree, however, that the Scriptures are inspired but our views are not. Take care, Brother.

 

Neither will the generation that sees the blooming of the fig tree pass, until the Millennium reign of Christ begins.

 

I must respectfully disagree. I don't believe that there will be a "blooming of the fig tree" event, as it was just an illustration. It's been an interesting discussion. May God greatly bless you and yours.