Preterism and Matthew 23:39

True confession, I'm not professionally trained in theology, I'm just an interested laymen. I say this as an appology ahead of time if my comments are a little rough around the edges.

In Matthew ch 23, Jesus pronounces judgement (8 woes) on Jerusalem (that is the Jewish leaders) due to their unbelief in the Savior Jesus. Concluding his sermon, in Matthew 23 vs 37, Jesus specifically mentions Jerusalem and his love and heart felt desires for them. In vs. 38 he states that their house is being left you (them) desolate. and finally vs. 39 reads: "For I say to you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, 'BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!'"

A good question to ask preterists, who believe that Jesus returned in AD 70 when the Romans sacked the city is this: If Jesus returned in AD 70 and Jesus said beforehand that his return would take place when (or in concert with) Jerusalem accepting him as Lord and Savior (vs. 39 above), why then has Jerusalem been basically overrun with non-Christians and non-Jews since AD70? If Jerusalem is Babylon which has fallen (judged, according to preterists views) and yet the Lord is now ruling his kingdom from that city which he will do after he returns, why are even the Holy sites under Islamic control? Why is it not logical to conclude from Mat 23:39 that since Jesus returned in the first century that Jerusalem must have welcomed him, but for all their trouble they were judged anyway with no apparent later relief by God?

Could it not be argued that in vs 38, the curse of Jerusalem actually began at the time Christ preached the sermon: "Behold, your house is being left to you desolate". If the judgement began 40 years later (AD70), then would it make better sense for Jesus to say your house will (at a later time of my coming) be left to you desolate? What exactly did the second coming accomplish if for all practical purposes no one for about 1800 years knew that the event had already taken place?

According to those who believe covenant theology, a group that would include preterists, we are living in a time of the millennial reign of Christ, and in one way or another and in varing degrees the Church replaces Israel as the God's people, the church receiving the blessings of God while the Jews receive the curses. If AD 70 marked the return if Jesus in which he would have been welcomed by the city (vs 39) why then does the almost 2000 year curse continue? If not then for all of the Jews, then should not at least Jerusalem be exempt from this extended time of judgement?

 

So in other words Iconoclast, Jesus was just kidding or possibly using a special code language when he told the Jews that he would not appear in Jerusalem until they shouted "blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!" And of course according to the preterist account of things, the Savior's second coming was invisable, in apparent contradiction of Acts 1:11, so tell me why does the Bible give inaccurate details of the second coming?

How many times does a student of the Bible have to read Matt 23:39 to come to the understanding that Jesus is not going to appear to Jerusalem no matter what the the people who live in the city say or do? Why do you think Jesus changed his mind about the condition he placed on Jerusalem so that instead of his appearence coming at a time when the people of the city finally shout "blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord" to instead make the apparently new condition that his appearence would be invisable and spiritual and that practlically no one would see it or notice it?

Why do you suppose that it is fair game for preterists who insist that those Bible students who teach a pre-mil, pre-trib rapture of the church that can happen at any time without any warning (the secret rapture) are wrong while at the same time they (the preterist) teach Jesus returned in AD 70 and no one for approx 1800 years knew anything about it?

 

thinking and reflecting on the responses so far...

Iconoclast, I know that this may come as a real surprise to you but I have > 1 copy of the Holy Bible in my posession. I asked a few questions and you cut and pasted verses without any kind of exegesis. I would like to know if this is how you answer the questions your friends, neighbors and co-workers ask you? Do you just recite verses without any kind of context or background in normal practice?

Grasshopper, In my personal library I have numerous works from theologians representing various theological camps. What do you think I'm going to learn that is new to me from some web site link? Do you think it is effective in making your case to post links to your favorite internet web site instead of answering a few simple questions? Do you get your answers to your theological questions from the internet?

 

I live in Carbon County and work in the Lehigh Valley.

I think you misunderstand me, I have more than 100 Bibles in my collection. It is true that I don't know nothin about the Word of God but I believe that St. John means in Rev.9:18 that a third of mankind would be killed by this one judgement alone, so I don't know how a preterist, who thinks this is past history explains that with a stright face.

In order for me to read what you have cut and pasted, I would have to figure out the chapters they come from, read everything around it for context, this is not a big deal as these are well known verses but for what ultimate purpose? You haven't answered the bulk of my comments and none of your answers actually make sense from a Biblical perspective. In other words, you are discussing theology and I'm discussing the Bible.

 

Steve, I tried to word my comments about replacement____ in such a way, with enough room for wiggle so as to not offend those that are easy to offend. I guess I wasn't sucessful, so please accept my apology. Whatevere you want to call it, if Israel was ever in past history God's people and another distinct group now holds that position, I personally cannot think of a better term than replacement to describe the situation. But you call it what ever you like.

Steve, have you ever noticed from your study of the Bible that Covenant theologies covenants of works, grace and redemption are not really spelled out but that the Dispensations spoken of by the dispies show an ever so slight resemblance to the actual covenants (ex. Abrahamic, Moses, Davidic and New) that Jehovah God actually made with the two parties clearly defined and the terms clearly communicated? Think about it, if the dipsies were as thin skinned as many Covenant believers are with words to describe what they believe, the dipsies would be shouting that they are really the Covenant theologians and the strange thing is, they would be right.

 

There is no reason, from the Bible to think that John is talking about 1st century Jew's. The Bible says that for example in Rev 16:1 ...the whole earth.

What you are basically saying is that Jehovah God is either unable or unwilling to communicate to man accurate information. I think differently.

 

If it is that easy, why can't you answer a simple question with a simple answer?

 

I appreciate the offer. I have more than a few books by covenant writers, systematic theologies, commentaries and so forth. I really have enough information at my disposal to do more than just a summery research on just about any aspect of theology within mainstream thought.

My main issue with covenant theology is that I can't seem to find the actual covenants (works, grace, redemption) spelled out in the Bible. I see a covenant as an agreement with two parties involved. My main objection to covenant A-mil is that I have difficulties seeing the kingdom as described in the Bible being lived out by any church in my local area. I have been in a lot of churches but never one that I would consider to be on a par with the kingdom of Christ as spelled out in the Bible. If you know of such a church, please let me know so that I can join it.