A Curious Omission

[thomas15]

Isn't Matthew 24 and 25 Jesus prediction of the fall of the temple? And isn't Revelation 19 describing the fall of Jerusalem?

Welcome to the Baptist Forum.

To partly answer your question, most English translations of the Holy Bible seem to indicate that Rev. ch 19 and proceeding chapters is the fall of Babylon. Since Babylon (and Neo-Babylon) was not a major force in the first century, the reader of Holy Writ has to look a bit deeper into the identity of this Babylon.

I don't mean to sound mean but could you not answer your own question?

 

[thomas15]

What passage do you have for this assertion that God will be under obligation "to some day future open the eyes of the Jews"? I can think of several to the contrary.

Interesting coming from an individual that thinks he is in a covenant relationship with God.

On another note, I took my bound copy of Phillip Schaff History of the Christian Church vol. 1 and was disappointed to see that page 653 is a discussion on Luke. Just at random I found this on page 853 (102) and I quote Schaff "There is no necessary conflict between faith and criticism any more than between revelation and reason or between faith and philosophy."

I personally think Schaff is useful and I have the 8 volume history and 3 volume work on creeds both hardbound. But Schaff was a liberal and his liberal bias is found all through the 8 volumes. Why a smart guy like you would use him to support your (conservative) theology is a bit of a mystery.

 

[Lodic]

I was cleaning up my office at work early this week and came across an old copy of BibSac. Picked it up and noticed it contained an article on preterism, a specific aspect of preterism. What has then followed is a few days of reviewing reconstructionalism in general and American Vision in particular.

Trying to boil it all down into it's essential parameter, to me it really comes down to how one views grace as in God's gift of grace resulting in salvation. Assuming that one takes the actual words of the Bible seriously and one believes that grace is a free gift (free as in free, free, free, free, free), an absolute free gift (gift, gift, gift, gift, gift) and one is willing to suffer being mocked for believing they are saved strictly because of their faith in the risen Christ, and no (as in no, no, no, no, no) works involved, preterism and for that matter reformed/replacement theology which is an essential part of preterism, evaporates into thin air, this in spite of the many proof texts offered and the tenacity and optimism of it's disciples.

One could take offense at the insinuation that Preterists do not take the actual words of the Bible seriously. However, I'm not looking for an argument, and I'm sure you didn't mean that the way it came out. I assure you that Preterists do indeed take every word of Scripture quite seriously, as I'm sure you do. It comes down to how we interpret those words, doesn't it?

Of course grace is a free gift. Not sure what point you were trying to make there. Our views of the "end times" do not affect our views of grace. What does this have to do with works?

What is your understanding of "Reformed/Replacement Theology", and why do you believe it is essential to Preterism? Do you believe there are two "peoples" of God - Israel and the Church (Christians)? Rather than "Replacement Theology", I believe that the True Jew is Spiritual Israel according to Romans 2:28-29, 9:6-9, 10:12-13, 11:1-6, and 11:25-27. Other proof texts for spiritual Israel include Galatians 2:14-16, 3:27, and 6:15-16. What proof texts have been offered that causes the Preterist view to evaporate?

 

[asterisktom]

"...not of works, lest anyone should boast".

If you want to partner with Jehovah and have an active part in obtaining and maintaining your free gift of salvation and if you want to avoid being made fun of by your professors, fellow university and seminary classmates and also your church, social and work friends, you will find a warm and cozy home in preterist/reconstructionalist theology. After all, everyone knows that simple faith in the actual words of the Bible is for the simple minded, people like me.

I have no idea where you are getting your idea about preterism from but it seems that you are getting the wrong information. Is it from BibSac? How do you even know what I believe about covenant? And you are saying that being preterist requires ignoring the simple words of the Bible? It was exactly all those simple words of the Bible that I finally could not ignore that led me to preterism.

 

[asterisktom]

Interesting coming from an individual that thinks he is in a covenant relationship with God.

On another note, I took my bound copy of Phillip Schaff History of the Christian Church vol. 1 and was disappointed to see that page 653 is a discussion on Luke. Just at random I found this on page 853 (102) and I quote Schaff "There is no necessary conflict between faith and criticism any more than between revelation and reason or between faith and philosophy."

I personally think Schaff is useful and I have the 8 volume history and 3 volume work on creeds both hardbound. But Schaff was a liberal and his liberal bias is found all through the 8 volumes. Why a smart guy like you would use him to support your (conservative) theology is a bit of a mystery.

I "think" I am "in a covenant relationship with God"? How am I to take this? Either you are doubting my salvation or, perhaps, you think that I believe in a Covenant of Works like some Reformed members here do? I don't.

Yes, Schaff is a liberal. But a liberal historian is a different animal than a liberal writer of Bible commentaries. He is a historian. Contrary to your insinuation I do not go to Schaff for theology. And in those areas when his liberalism became especially noticeable (in his later volumes) I just blip over those paragraphs. For that matter Josephus is not even a Christian but I get tremendous help from him in his historical accounts. But I ignore him when he writes of Vespasian being Messiah, or when he waxes eloquent on the mystical influences of the planets.

 

[thomas15]

I "think" I am "in a covenant relationship with God"? How am I to take this? Either you are doubting my salvation or, perhaps, you think that I believe in a Covenant of Works like some Reformed members here do? I don't.

Yes, Schaff is a liberal. But a liberal historian is a different animal than a liberal writer of Bible commentaries. He is a historian. Contrary to your insinuation I do not go to Schaff for theology. And in those areas when his liberalism became especially noticeable (in his later volumes) I just blip over those paragraphs. For that matter Josephus is not even a Christian but I get tremendous help from him in his historical accounts. But I ignore him when he writes of Vespasian being Messiah, or when he waxes eloquent on the mystical influences of the planets.

If I were trying to communicate that I''m doubtful your salvation I would have plainly said so.

Schaff is a historian, true, but he puts forth his liberal theological views quite often. This you know, at least I hope you know this.

 

[thomas15]

I have no idea where you are getting your idea about preterism from but it seems that you are getting the wrong information. Is it from BibSac? How do you even know what I believe about covenant? And you are saying that being preterist requires ignoring the simple words of the Bible? It was exactly all those simple words of the Bible that I finally could not ignore that led me to preterism.

The article in BibSac simply enabled me to focus my attention on preterism, reconstructionalism and so forth. I actually didn't re-read the article. However, I'm not ashamed to admit that I read Bib Sac, nor am I ashamed to admit that I find it instructional. There are times when I scratch my head wondering why they publish articles from non-dispensationailsts such as a series about 10 years ago on the ECFs by Thomas Oden. I also have Oden's 3 volume dogmatics on my shelf. Oden is no closer to dispensationalism than Berkhoff or Hodge which I also have. In fact I would be happy to give you a tour of my personal library which contains books from a wide variety of theologies (DeMar, Hanegrraf, Sproul and others). Perhaps even this well uninformed theological amateur is better read than you imagine?

 

[asterisktom]

The article in BibSac simply enabled me to focus my attention on preterism, reconstructionalism and so forth. I actually didn't re-read the article. However, I'm not ashamed to admit that I read Bib Sac, nor am I ashamed to admit that I find it instructional. There are times when I scratch my head wondering why they publish articles from non-dispensationailsts such as a series about 10 years ago on the ECFs by Thomas Oden. I also have Oden's 3 volume dogmatics on my shelf. Oden is no closer to dispensationalism than Berkhoff or Hodge which I also have. In fact I would be happy to give you a tour of my personal library which contains books from a wide variety of theologies (DeMar, Hanegrraf, Sproul and others). Perhaps even this well uninformed theological amateur is better read than you imagine?

I do not think you are an amateur, Thomas. It is just that, based on your writings, it does not seem that you understand my preterism. BTW, it is a minority view within the now-fractured preterist camp.

Your mentioning those books reminded me of my own library I had before we started traveling several years ago. It is convenient to have some of these same sets on my phone and laptop.

 

[thomas15]

I do not think you are an amateur, Thomas. It is just that, based on your writings, it does not seem that you understand my preterism. BTW, it is a minority view within the now-fractured preterist camp.

Your mentioning those books reminded me of my own library I had before we started traveling several years ago. It is convenient to have some of these same sets on my phone and laptop.

What we do here and I'm guilty of it myself is we debate around the fine points out on the edge of a particular position. We do this while forgetting the real issue at hand. In the case of preterism, it matters little if Camp A thinks Christians should observe the Law of Moses as opposed to Camp B who thinks that the big issue of the faith is is Babylon of Rev 19 Jerusalem or Rome or Iran or simply free market commercialism? None of this matters if at the core of the dispute is replacement theology or exactly who are the legal parties of the New Covenant. In other words we argue the outer frontier not the main issue.

We scratch our heads in wonder how a highly intelligent individual who knows the Bible still prefers paganism. Or New Age or Islam. In my view the absolute hardest thing God asks us to do is to simply trust and believe in His word, the Bible and yes the details matter. They matter. There is a reason why there is detail in the Bible, because the details really matter. And just because there is some allegory or passages difficult to understand we must pay attention to the details. It is true that Jesus accused the leaders of the Jews of searching the Law to find to find eternal life but His point being that they missed the main point of Moses (and OT) and that is the many details of who the Savior is and what the savior will offer.

And that is the problem preterism cannot overcome. It doesn't matter many believe it, how sincere those believers are or their collective IQ, how many books they have published or how well they are received at the faculty lounge, there are simply too many details in the Bible that describe the Second Coming and the resulting Kingdom and those details have not been realized yet.

I'm not accusing you Tom of anything but to simply write off entire passages of Scripture calling them allegory or spiritual head lessons without any kind of literal or even practical meaning is in my view a rehash of the "Battle for the Bible". As a general statement post mills think the church will eventually overcome all and usher in the kingdom but the Bible does not teach this. I personally don't know when the end of this age will take place but I know that when it happens it will not be pleasant and it will be literally impossible to miss. The only misunderstanding will be those who deny God in the face of God's wrath and judgement. It will be like it was in Egypt during the Exodus, some denied the source and ignored the solution but no one missed the reality. The end of this age will make the Exodus look like a picnic.

With that in mind, the most important thing in my view is the Bible and what it teaches about Jesus and His resurrection and God's grace. When it come down to it many here fall back to one of the historic confessions or the teachings of their favorite theologians to make their case and if someone here dares to take a firm stance on faith (in Christ and Him crucified) + absolutely nothing else = salvation, heads explode.

 

[asterisktom]

I appreciate the lengthy response here, Thomas. It helps me to understand just where you are coming from.

None of this matters if at the core of the dispute is replacement theology or exactly who are the legal parties of the New Covenant. In other words we argue the outer frontier not the main issue.

But are those really at the core of misunderstanding? I don't think so. In fact, further down in your post you came closer to the central issue.

In my view the absolute hardest thing God asks us to do is to simply trust and believe in His word, the Bible and yes the details matter. They matter. There is a reason why there is detail in the Bible, because the details really matter.

Here I think is the core issue, "to simply trust and believe in His word, the Bible". Obviously the details do matter. But I think we are looking at different details.

And just because there is some allegory or passages difficult to understand we must pay attention to the details. It is true that Jesus accused the leaders of the Jews of searching the Law to find to find eternal life but His point being that they missed the main point of Moses (and OT) and that is the many details of who the Savior is and what the savior will offer.

Yes, "that is the many details of who the Savior is and what the savior will offer." But also of what the Savior said. The details I think you are overlooking are the time statements, the many plain affirmations that Christ and the Apostles gave showing that the eschatological events were all to have happened sometime during the generation of those addressed in the first century. There are just too many of these indicators.

I have noticed that when people critique the preterist view they usually focus on our "far-fetched allegorical" interpretation of Revelation and the Olivet Discourse. Yet that is not the real heart of the matter. It was those time statements and the oft-ignored issue of audience relevance that finally convinced us.

I'm not accusing you Tom of anything but to simply write off entire passages of Scripture calling them allegory or spiritual head lessons without any kind of literal or even practical meaning is in my view a rehash of the "Battle for the Bible".

I think we both understand that, as a general rule, we must interpret the more obscure verses in light of the more clear. In this case we have the clear statements that Christ and the Apostles made, time statements especially, that should guide us in the understanding of books like Revelation (where both sides agree that there is some symbolism).

One example of a time statement is John saying this is the "last hour". Does it make sense that an hour should now be almost two thousand years? That the "last hour" should be longer than the entire 1,500 year Jewish economy?

It comes down to just believing the words of Christ. We both agree on this. How is it that our results are different?

 

[37818]

. . . the eschatological events were all to have happened sometime during the generation of those addressed in the first century. . . .

There are those who understand the plural pronoun can also refer to persons beyond the immediate audiance, such as in Matthew 3:11 or John 3:7. In the case of Matthew 24, Matthew 24:32-34, ". . . Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. . . ." Refering to Matthew 24:29-30, ". . . 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. . . ." Which of course has not yet happened.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Yes, "that is the many details of who the Savior is and what the savior will offer." But also of what the Savior said. The details I think you are overlooking are the time statements, the many plain affirmations that Christ and the Apostles gave showing that the eschatological events were all to have happened sometime during the generation of those addressed in the first century. There are just too many of these indicators.

If all the eschatological indicators were to have happened during the lifetimes of those addressed, how come we still have false prophets today (Matthew 24:5, 11)? How come we still have wars (v.6), famines, pestilences and earthquakes (v.7), persecution of Christians (v.9), lawlessness and cold-heatedness (v.12) and the continuing need to preach the Gospel to all the nations? Unless we understand that the Lord Jesus is answering more than one question (which, of course, He is), we have to conclude that He got it wrong. We also have to conclude that His command to 'Take heed, watch and pray' (Mark 13:33) has not applied to Christians for 1,950 years.

One example of a time statement is John saying this is the "last hour". Does it make sense that an hour should now be almost two thousand years? That the "last hour" should be longer than the entire 1,500 year Jewish economy?

If it were a literal 'last hour,' John would scarcely have had time to finish the rest of his letter. But whether you like it or not, 2,000 years have rolled by in John's 'Last hour.' So what did he mean? He means that there is only one appointment in God's diary that He has to keep. There may be others like sending revival to this country or that, but only one that He is utterly committed to: the physical return of the Lord Jesus Christ to the earth in power and glory.

It is generally believed that John ended his days on earth at Ephesus. Imagine him saying the the Christians there, "Well that's it, folks! History is over! There will be no more antichrists or false teachers, no more wars, persecutions, earthquakes, pandemics or famines! No need to watch and pray any more! We are in the new heavens and new earth where righteousness reigns. Didn't you see the stars falling and the signs in the sun, moon and stars? Didn't you see the sign of the Son of Man appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth mourning?" And they would say, "No. John. We didn't see any of these things," and in a few years time they would have seen more persecution than they had ever seen before, along with earthquakes, disease and famines, and false teaching from Marcion and others would have been worse than ever.

Hyper-preterism is, as someone else might say, as phony as a Ford Corvette.

 

[asterisktom]

There are those who understand the plural pronoun can also refer to persons beyond the immediate audiance, such as in Matthew 3:11 or John 3:7. In the case of Matthew 24, Matthew 24:32-34, ". . . Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. . . ." Refering to Matthew 24:29-30, ". . . 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. . . ." Which of course has not yet happened.

First of all, the phrase is "all the tribes of the land". Not the whole Earth. The use of the word "tribes" should make us think of the tribes of Israel. This is according to Biblical usage.

If you recognize that Revelation and the Olivet Discourse are apocalyptic literature then it is reasonable to compare it with the apocalyptic portions of the Old Testament. Fair enough? And in those Old Testament passages we have stars falling, hills melting with blood, much of the same imagery we have in similar NT passages.

"They shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory". Yes, certainly. It is not an invisible coming. But who are the "they"? It is still in the context of "this generation" - "this evil generation" (more on this point below).

Anyone who is familiar with Josephus' account knows this is exactly what happened:

"Besides these, a few days after that feast, … a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared: I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable; were it not related by those that saw it; and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals. For, before sun setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armour were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost; as the priests were going by night into the inner temple, as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said, that in the first place they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise: and after that they heard a sound, as of a multitude, saying, “Let us remove hence.”

Sepher Yosippon relates this:

"...Now it happened after this that there was seen from above over the Holy of Holies for the whole night the outline of a man's face, the like of whose beauty had never been seen in all the land, and his appearance was quite awesome. Moreover, in those days were seen chariots of fire and horsemen, a great force flying across the sky near to the ground coming against Jerusalem and all the land of Judah, all of them horses of fire and riders of fire."

Similar comments are from Tacitus, Suetonius, and others.

So, yes, it was seen.
It was not seen over all the Earth because it did not have to do with all the Earth.
It did not involve all the ages because it had to do specifically with "this generation".

Speaking of "this generation"...
Instead of trying to explain again concerning the use of that phrase in Matt. 24 it may be helpful to examine the phrase in other passages:

1."Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign: and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: for as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh shall rise in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonas and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here." - Matt. 12:38-46: (compare Luke 11:16, 24-36)

2. 'For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
'Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.' - Matt. 16:27, 28

3. "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. (Compare Rev. 16:6, 17:6)
Verily, I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation." - Matt. 23:29-36 (Note: this is the same phrase used in the end of the Olivet chapter, Matt. 24:32-34)

Luke has it:
"verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.'"

I hope you can see that the examples above relate to a specific generation - the ones who were living in the 1st century.

The idea that the phrase "this generation" refers to that first century is not just a preterist belief. The following authors are not preterist:

"The King left his followers in no doubt as to when these things should happen: ‘Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled.’ It was just about the ordinary limit of a generation when the Roman armies compassed Jerusalem, whose measure of iniquity was then full, and overflowed in misery, agony, distress, and bloodshed such as the world never saw before or since. Jesus was a true Prophet; everything that he foretold was literally fulfilled." - C.H. Spurgeon (1868): The Gospel of the Kingdom, p.218

"The phrase ‘this generation’ is found too often on Jesus' lips in this literal sense for us to suppose that it suddenly takes on a different meaning in the saying we are now examining. Moreover, if the generation of the end-time had been intended, 'that generation' would have been a more natural way of referring to it than 'this generation.’” - F.F. Bruce (1983): “The Hard Sayings of Jesus,” p. 227

 

[AustinC]

First of all, the phrase is "all the tribes of the land". Not the whole Earth. The use of the word "tribes" should make us think of the tribes of Israel. This is according to Biblical usage.

If you recognize that Revelation and the Olivet Discourse are apocalyptic literature then it is reasonable to compare it with the apocalyptic portions of the Old Testament. Fair enough? And in those Old Testament passages we have stars falling, hills melting with blood, much of the same imagery we have in similar NT passages.

"They shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory". Yes, certainly. It is not an invisible coming. But who are the "they"? It is still in the context of "this generation" - "this evil generation" (more on this point below).

Anyone who is familiar with Josephus' account knows this is exactly what happened:

"Besides these, a few days after that feast, … a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared: I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable; were it not related by those that saw it; and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals. For, before sun setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armour were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost; as the priests were going by night into the inner temple, as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said, that in the first place they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise: and after that they heard a sound, as of a multitude, saying, “Let us remove hence.”

Sepher Yosippon relates this:

"...Now it happened after this that there was seen from above over the Holy of Holies for the whole night the outline of a man's face, the like of whose beauty had never been seen in all the land, and his appearance was quite awesome. Moreover, in those days were seen chariots of fire and horsemen, a great force flying across the sky near to the ground coming against Jerusalem and all the land of Judah, all of them horses of fire and riders of fire."

Similar comments are from Tacitus, Suetonius, and others.

So, yes, it was seen.
It was not seen over all the Earth because it did not have to do with all the Earth.
It did not involve all the ages because it had to do specifically with "this generation".

Speaking of "this generation"...
Instead of trying to explain again concerning the use of that phrase in Matt. 24 it may be helpful to examine the phrase in other passages:

1."Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign: and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: for as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh shall rise in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonas and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here." - Matt. 12:38-46: (compare Luke 11:16, 24-36)

2. 'For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
'Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.' - Matt. 16:27, 28

3. "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. (Compare Rev. 16:6, 17:6)
Verily, I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation." - Matt. 23:29-36 (Note: this is the same phrase used in the end of the Olivet chapter, Matt. 24:32-34)

Luke has it:
"verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.'"

I hope you can see that the examples above relate to a specific generation - the ones who were living in the 1st century.

The idea that the phrase "this generation" refers to that first century is not just a preterist belief. The following authors are not preterist:

"The King left his followers in no doubt as to when these things should happen: ‘Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled.’ It was just about the ordinary limit of a generation when the Roman armies compassed Jerusalem, whose measure of iniquity was then full, and overflowed in misery, agony, distress, and bloodshed such as the world never saw before or since. Jesus was a true Prophet; everything that he foretold was literally fulfilled." - C.H. Spurgeon (1868): The Gospel of the Kingdom, p.218

"The phrase ‘this generation’ is found too often on Jesus' lips in this literal sense for us to suppose that it suddenly takes on a different meaning in the saying we are now examining. Moreover, if the generation of the end-time had been intended, 'that generation' would have been a more natural way of referring to it than 'this generation.’” - F.F. Bruce (1983): “The Hard Sayings of Jesus,” p. 227

You have to really stretch Josephus words and also narrow Jesus words in order to hold your position.
In Matthew 24 it is clear that the entire earth in all areas will know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus has come to destroy the unredeemed and to secure the earth for his elect. Yet, you downplay it and make it a nearly insignificant thing that makes Jesus seem weak and impotent.
Meanwhile, Josephus is referring to the call to flee Jerusalem as God is about to annihilate it via the Roman army. In Joshua 5 we see the Commander of the Lord's Army tell Joshua that he is neither for or against Israel, but is for justice. The chariots Josephus reports would be the army of God going before the Roman army to ensure Jerusalem is destroyed and the temple eradicated.
For more on this we read of the Lord's Army going before Judah into battle when it was reported of the chariots going through the trees to defeat Judah's enemies before Judah even fought the battle.
The hermeneutical juggling act you attempt is bad. Yet, it's your one trick in order to make your system seem plausible.

 

[David Kent]

Hyper-preterism is, as someone else might say, as phony as a Ford Corvette.

Oh, please don't you start saying that. He poats that on a number of different boards.

 

[David Kent]

Why would christians need to refer to the destruction of the temple whenPaul said more than once: "You are the temple of the Living God." The ECF as thr=ey are called, I prefer to call them ECWriters, said that in the book of Revelation the temple referred to the church, completely in line with the scriptures.

 

[37818]

First of all, the phrase is "all the tribes of the land". Not the whole Earth. The use of the word "tribes" should make us think of the tribes of Israel. This is according to Biblical usage.

If you recognize that Revelation and the Olivet Discourse are apocalyptic literature then it is reasonable to compare it with the apocalyptic portions of the Old Testament. Fair enough? And in those Old Testament passages we have stars falling, hills melting with blood, much of the same imagery we have in similar NT passages.

"They shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory". Yes, certainly. It is not an invisible coming. But who are the "they"? It is still in the context of "this generation" - "this evil generation" (more on this point below).

Anyone who is familiar with Josephus' account knows this is exactly what happened:

"Besides these, a few days after that feast, … a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared: I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable; were it not related by those that saw it; and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals. For, before sun setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armour were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost; as the priests were going by night into the inner temple, as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said, that in the first place they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise: and after that they heard a sound, as of a multitude, saying, “Let us remove hence.”

Sepher Yosippon relates this:

"...Now it happened after this that there was seen from above over the Holy of Holies for the whole night the outline of a man's face, the like of whose beauty had never been seen in all the land, and his appearance was quite awesome. Moreover, in those days were seen chariots of fire and horsemen, a great force flying across the sky near to the ground coming against Jerusalem and all the land of Judah, all of them horses of fire and riders of fire."

Similar comments are from Tacitus, Suetonius, and others.

So, yes, it was seen.
It was not seen over all the Earth because it did not have to do with all the Earth.
It did not involve all the ages because it had to do specifically with "this generation".

Speaking of "this generation"...
Instead of trying to explain again concerning the use of that phrase in Matt. 24 it may be helpful to examine the phrase in other passages:

1."Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign: and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: for as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh shall rise in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonas and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here." - Matt. 12:38-46: (compare Luke 11:16, 24-36)

2. 'For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
'Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.' - Matt. 16:27, 28

3. "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. (Compare Rev. 16:6, 17:6)
Verily, I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation." - Matt. 23:29-36 (Note: this is the same phrase used in the end of the Olivet chapter, Matt. 24:32-34)

Luke has it:
"verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.'"

I hope you can see that the examples above relate to a specific generation - the ones who were living in the 1st century.

The idea that the phrase "this generation" refers to that first century is not just a preterist belief. The following authors are not preterist:

"The King left his followers in no doubt as to when these things should happen: ‘Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled.’ It was just about the ordinary limit of a generation when the Roman armies compassed Jerusalem, whose measure of iniquity was then full, and overflowed in misery, agony, distress, and bloodshed such as the world never saw before or since. Jesus was a true Prophet; everything that he foretold was literally fulfilled." - C.H. Spurgeon (1868): The Gospel of the Kingdom, p.218

"The phrase ‘this generation’ is found too often on Jesus' lips in this literal sense for us to suppose that it suddenly takes on a different meaning in the saying we are now examining. Moreover, if the generation of the end-time had been intended, 'that generation' would have been a more natural way of referring to it than 'this generation.’” - F.F. Bruce (1983): “The Hard Sayings of Jesus,” p. 227

Too much argument. Did not address my argument on the use of the plural pronoun. Matthew 16:28 is Jesus speaking regarding His transfigration, Matthew 17:1-9.

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning

This thread will be closed no sooner than 4 am EDT (MON) / 1 am PDT (Mon)

 

[Lodic]

If all the eschatological indicators were to have happened during the lifetimes of those addressed, how come we still have false prophets today (Matthew 24:5, 11)? How come we still have wars (v.6), famines, pestilences and earthquakes (v.7), persecution of Christians (v.9), lawlessness and cold-heatedness (v.12) and the continuing need to preach the Gospel to all the nations?

Jesus never said that there would not be any more false prophets, wars, etc. after the events He was discussing. He did warn that those signs would precede the events He described, which they did.

If it were a literal 'last hour,' John would scarcely have had time to finish the rest of his letter. But whether you like it or not, 2,000 years have rolled by in John's 'Last hour.' So what did he mean?

John's use of "last hour" is the same as other "time indicators" in the NT. Of course these writers had plenty of time, as they were pointing to the nearness of the coming judgment on Israel.

It is generally believed that John ended his days on earth at Ephesus. Imagine him saying the the Christians there, "Well that's it, folks! History is over! There will be no more antichrists or false teachers, no more wars, persecutions, earthquakes, pandemics or famines! No need to watch and pray any more! We are in the new heavens and new earth where righteousness reigns. Didn't you see the stars falling and the signs in the sun, moon and stars? Didn't you see the sign of the Son of Man appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth mourning?" And they would say, "No. John. We didn't see any of these things," and in a few years time they would have seen more persecution than they had ever seen before, along with earthquakes, disease and famines, and false teaching from Marcion and others would have been worse than ever.

Your imagination is not based on sound Biblical exegesis. Jesus and the NT writers were not talking about the end of the world or the end of time. They were writing about the coming end of the old covenant Jewish religious system.

 

[AustinC]

Jesus never said that there would not be any more false prophets, wars, etc. after the events He was discussing. He did warn that those signs would precede the events He described, which they did.


John's use of "last hour" is the same as other "time indicators" in the NT. Of course these writers had plenty of time, as they were pointing to the nearness of the coming judgment on Israel.


Your imagination is not based on sound Biblical exegesis. Jesus and the NT writers were not talking about the end of the world or the end of time. They were writing about the coming end of the old covenant Jewish religious system.

See bold above.
Matthew 25 is a continuation of Matthew 24, which means that Jesus is indeed talking about the end of the world and the end of time. We see then that while partial fulfillment is in 70CE, that is clearly not the entire fulfillment as preterism contends.