The Olivet Discourse in Mt 24 & Lk 21

[evangelist6589]

I am studying this great passage & reading several books which highlight it. In Erwin Lutzer's new book "The King is Coming" he says that the discourse will not be fully fulfilled until the tribulation. Perhaps my understanding was wrong on this passage, but I thought the discourse was written for gentile Christians, however according to him the discourse is for the jews. Perhaps I am not understanding something here. Biblical Prophecy has to be the most complex of all the theological fields of study, and this shows by the vast amount of disagreements. It certainly is more complex than debating over evangelism methods, or debating over the doctrine of Limited Atonement.

 

[Grasshopper]

Perhaps my understanding was wrong on this passage, but I thought the discourse was written for gentile Christians, however according to him the discourse is for the jews. Perhaps I am not understanding something

Jesus is speaking to the Disciples. Notice the pronoun "you" throughout the passage.

 

[AresMan]

I am studying this great passage & reading several books which highlight it. In Erwin Lutzer's new book "The King is Coming" he says that the discourse will not be fully fulfilled until the tribulation. Perhaps my understanding was wrong on this passage, but I thought the discourse was written for gentile Christians, however according to him the discourse is for the jews. Perhaps I am not understanding something here. Biblical Prophecy has to be the most complex of all the theological fields of study, and this shows by the vast amount of disagreements. It certainly is more complex than debating over evangelism methods, or debating over the doctrine of Limited Atonement.

In order not to be confused, you need to understand dispensational teaching. Lutzer's view seems to fit with standard dispensational thought. Classic dispensationalism (Darby, Scofield) would claim that Daniel's 70th week was immanent at the time and Jesus was speaking to these disciples as if they themselves would experience the "Great Tribulation" very soon. When Israel rejected their Messiah, God stopped the "prophetic clock" and introduced a "mystery" dispensation (the Church--the Body of Christ) where Jew and Gentile are equal and saved by grace (not by law-keeping). Therefore, the "Gentile church" is a parenthesis inserted neatly between the 69th and 70th weeks of Daniel's prophecy. Everything before and after this parenthesis is for Israel. The events of the Olivet discourse were put on hold when the "mystery church" was introduced.

The whole ministry of the Church and its secret, pre-tribulation rapture were not revealed anywhere until Jesus inaugurated the Church at Pentecost and revealed its mystery truths to the Apostle Paul later.
Mid-Acts dispensationalists (Stam, O'Hair, Baker) would say that the program of Israel actually continued with Pentecost until the stoning of Stephen, when Israel rejected the "renewed" "offer" of "the kingdom" and God introduced the Body of Christ with Paul as the first member. Therefore, the mysterious "dispensation of grace" did not begin until Paul's conversion.
Acts 28 dispensationalists (Bullinger, Welch) would say that the program of Israel continued until Paul's imprisonment in Acts 28:28 when he said that he now turned to the Gentiles. Paul's "Acts Epistles" (Romans, 1,2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1,2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy) were written to Gentiles grafted into Israel (Rom 11:26) and saved through Israel according to the prophecies of the Old Testament. Paul's "Prison Epistles" (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon) were written to Gentiles in the Body of Christ, which was the "mystery" church. Therefore, the mysterious "dispensation of grace" did not begin until Paul's imprisonment in Rome.


I used to be moderately "progressive dispensationalist," but am no longer dispensational at all.

 

[AresMan]

Jesus is speaking to the Disciples. Notice the pronoun "you" throughout the passage.

Exactly. It was indeed for Israel. The question is, is it now future or past?

 

[Yeshua1]

I am studying this great passage & reading several books which highlight it. In Erwin Lutzer's new book "The King is Coming" he says that the discourse will not be fully fulfilled until the tribulation. Perhaps my understanding was wrong on this passage, but I thought the discourse was written for gentile Christians, however according to him the discourse is for the jews. Perhaps I am not understanding something here. Biblical Prophecy has to be the most complex of all the theological fields of study, and this shows by the vast amount of disagreements. It certainly is more complex than debating over evangelism methods, or debating over the doctrine of Limited Atonement.

have to remember that Jesus answered all 3 questions asked him by Apsotles..

And that His discourse had all answered intertwined together, so that some of it was indeed fulfilled by titus in 70 AD, while others are conditions until His Coming back, while others describe events right at His second Coming!

Also remember the element of predictive prophecy, in that there is usually a partial fulfillment of a prophecy in imediate time/situation, but also there is to be a fuller/completefulfillment in the future!

example would be isaiah prophecy of a son was literally fulfilled at time of his prophecy, but also was referring to the Son of God to come!
same way, out of Egypt I have called My son, referred orignally to exodus of Isreal, but also referenced jesuscoming to/from Egypt!

So some things could be happening at that time, as a type foreshadow of things to come!

 

[Greektim]

I am studying this great passage & reading several books which highlight it. In Erwin Lutzer's new book "The King is Coming" he says that the discourse will not be fully fulfilled until the tribulation. Perhaps my understanding was wrong on this passage, but I thought the discourse was written for gentile Christians, however according to him the discourse is for the jews. Perhaps I am not understanding something here. Biblical Prophecy has to be the most complex of all the theological fields of study, and this shows by the vast amount of disagreements. It certainly is more complex than debating over evangelism methods, or debating over the doctrine of Limited Atonement.

Curious, evangelist####, do you see Matt 24:30 referring to the 2nd coming??? This will tell a lot about how you view the OD. For instance, it is hard seeing this as 2nd coming when realizing Jesus is alluding from Daniel 7:13 which appears to refer to ascension.

 

[kyredneck]

Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished. Mt 24:34

Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, until all these things be accomplished. Mk 13:30

Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all things be accomplished. Lk 21:32


And even now the axe lieth at the root of the trees: every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Mt. 3:10

But when they persecute you in this city, flee into the next: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone through the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come. Mt 10:23

Verily I say unto you, there are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Mt 16 :28

Therefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: some of them shall ye kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city: that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of Abel the righteous unto the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. Mt 23: 34-36

But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus said unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven. Mt 26:64

 

[Yeshua1]

when the end times events come to pass, will be quick, and the jews alive at that time shall indeed be the 'final generation"

 

[Yeshua1]

Exactly. It was indeed for Israel. The question is, is it now future or past?

When jesus returns at his second coming, either

he ushers in the final state, new heaven new earth, Final judgement, saints glorified all sinners in lake of fire OR

he raises up glorified saints,ushers in His 1000 year reigning upon earth

Since NEITHER happened in Isreal, still future!

 

[Yeshua1]

Are you now into "new Covenant theology?"

 

[evangelist6589]

If you are not Dispensationalist then I cannot accept your interpretations.

In order not to be confused, you need to understand dispensational teaching. Lutzer's view seems to fit with standard dispensational thought. Classic dispensationalism (Darby, Scofield) would claim that Daniel's 70th week was immanent at the time and Jesus was speaking to these disciples as if they themselves would experience the "Great Tribulation" very soon. When Israel rejected their Messiah, God stopped the "prophetic clock" and introduced a "mystery" dispensation (the Church--the Body of Christ) where Jew and Gentile are equal and saved by grace (not by law-keeping). Therefore, the "Gentile church" is a parenthesis inserted neatly between the 69th and 70th weeks of Daniel's prophecy. Everything before and after this parenthesis is for Israel. The events of the Olivet discourse were put on hold when the "mystery church" was introduced.

The whole ministry of the Church and its secret, pre-tribulation rapture were not revealed anywhere until Jesus inaugurated the Church at Pentecost and revealed its mystery truths to the Apostle Paul later.
Mid-Acts dispensationalists (Stam, O'Hair, Baker) would say that the program of Israel actually continued with Pentecost until the stoning of Stephen, when Israel rejected the "renewed" "offer" of "the kingdom" and God introduced the Body of Christ with Paul as the first member. Therefore, the mysterious "dispensation of grace" did not begin until Paul's conversion.
Acts 28 dispensationalists (Bullinger, Welch) would say that the program of Israel continued until Paul's imprisonment in Acts 28:28 when he said that he now turned to the Gentiles. Paul's "Acts Epistles" (Romans, 1,2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1,2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy) were written to Gentiles grafted into Israel (Rom 11:26) and saved through Israel according to the prophecies of the Old Testament. Paul's "Prison Epistles" (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon) were written to Gentiles in the Body of Christ, which was the "mystery" church. Therefore, the mysterious "dispensation of grace" did not begin until Paul's imprisonment in Rome.


I used to be moderately "progressive dispensationalist," but am no longer dispensational at all.

 

[evangelist6589]

Curious, evangelist####, do you see Matt 24:30 referring to the 2nd coming??? This will tell a lot about how you view the OD. For instance, it is hard seeing this as 2nd coming when realizing Jesus is alluding from Daniel 7:13 which appears to refer to ascension.

Oh yes indeed I do. I am not Reformed in my eschatology. They "spiritualize" too often which leads to their unbiblical interpretations.

 

[Greektim]

Oh yes indeed I do. I am not Reformed in my eschatology. They "spiritualize" too often which leads to their unbiblical interpretations.

Ok... again "unbiblical" is an opinion. You keep using the term as pontification. And if you have a problem w/ spiritualization, then you are also accusing the apostles of it as well, b/c they certainly used the OT in such a way. Read Matthew 2 if you doubt me. "Figural" is probably a better term, btw. See my tag for my biblical support for reading the text the way I do.

But this is not spiritualizing at all. Read Daniel 7:13, if in fact you ever did (very apocalyptic and much of it is seen in the OD). The "coming" is to God not to earth. Jesus uses the same language. Wouldn't it seem natural, nay even literal to see Jesus referring to his ascension or something like it?

 

[AresMan]

If you are not Dispensationalist then I cannot accept your interpretations.

Wow, talk about a mantra.

Do you accept that I understand dispensationalism enough to be able to criticize it? I also have family members who are hyperdispensationalists (Paul's epistles only). I understand the differences among the following:
Acts 2

Classic [Darby, Scofield, Chafer]
Revised/Modified [Ryrie/Walvoord/Pentecost]
Progressive [Blaising/Block/Saucy]​

Pauline

mid-Acts (9-13 [Stam/Baker/O'Hair] [both "in" and "out" varieties]
Acts 28 [Bullinger/Sellers/Welch]​

I understand their arguments against other systems and even against each other. I know what passages of Scripture they use and how they understand them differently from each other.

Has it ever occurred to you that dispensationalism is a NEW thing? It is an invention of John Nelson Darby in the 1830's. Before this, there was no dispensationalism. Not a trace of it is found anywhere from the early church fathers until Darby (or partially by some near contemporaries). Should this not raise a red flag? The only reason it became popular and mainstream is that of Scofield's reference Bible having his notes along with the text of Scripture.

Do not confuse historic premillennialism (chiliasm) with dispensational premillennialism. They are worlds apart. If you read the early church fathers, you would observe that the two most common views were historic premillennialism and amillennialism.
Both understood that the Church is the ontological fulfillment of Israel.
Both understood that the Second Coming of Christ was future and immanent.
Neither believed in a future seven-year tribulation.
The difference was simply in the understanding of the millennium. The premillennialists believed that the millennium would be a literal reign with Christ on earth at His coming. The amillennialists believed that the ministry of the church on earth with Christ ruling from heaven is the millennium, and that the final judgment would happen when Christ returned visibly.

You can be premillennial without being dispensational.

 

[OldRegular]

I am studying this great passage & reading several books which highlight it. In Erwin Lutzer's new book "The King is Coming" he says that the discourse will not be fully fulfilled until the tribulation. Perhaps my understanding was wrong on this passage, but I thought the discourse was written for gentile Christians, however according to him the discourse is for the jews. Perhaps I am not understanding something here. Biblical Prophecy has to be the most complex of all the theological fields of study, and this shows by the vast amount of disagreements. It certainly is more complex than debating over evangelism methods, or debating over the doctrine of Limited Atonement.

The Bible speaks to the Church, both Old and New Testaments. In the Revelation as recorded by the Apostle Paul we read:

Romans 15:4. For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

The disciples of Jesus Christ constituted the visible Church at that time, therefore, in the Olivet Discourse Jesus Christ is speaking to the Church at that time and for all time.

Matthew 24:1-3.
1. And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
2. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
3. 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?

Jesus Christ addresses the questions posed by the disciples [the Church] and Matthew records it for our [the Church's] benefit:

1. When shall these things be? The things are those mentioned by Jesus Christ in verse 2, the destruction of the Temple!

2. What shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

Part of the Olivet Discourse addresses the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. The remainder addresses the visible return of Jesus Christ in power and glory at the end of time.

There is no pre-trib rapture, no "7 year" great tribulation, no new temple, no renewal of bloody temple sacrifices, no Jewish earthly millennial kingdom; just the Great White Throne Judgment and the New Heavens and New Earth eternally.

Lutzer's interpretation of the Discourse must be faulty because it is based on the faulty doctrine of dispensationalism.

 

[OldRegular]

Has it ever occurred to you that dispensationalism is a NEW thing? It is an invention of John Nelson Darby in the 1830's. Before this, there was no dispensationalism. Not a trace of it is found anywhere from the early church fathers until Darby (or partially by some near contemporaries). Should this not raise a red flag? The only reason it became popular and mainstream is that of Scofield's reference Bible having his notes along with the text of Scripture.

Do not confuse historic premillennialism (chiliasm) with dispensational premillennialism. They are worlds apart. If you read the early church fathers, you would observe that the two most common views were historic premillennialism and amillennialism.
Both understood that the Church is the ontological fulfillment of Israel.
Both understood that the Second Coming of Christ was future and immanent.
Neither believed in a future seven-year tribulation.
The difference was simply in the understanding of the millennium. The premillennialists believed that the millennium would be a literal reign with Christ on earth at His coming. The amillennialists believed that the ministry of the church on earth with Christ ruling from heaven is the millennium, and that the final judgment would happen when Christ returned visibly.

You can be premillennial without being dispensational.

Very well said AresMan. Your remarks about dispensationalism are correct! Also, the distinction between dispensational premillennialism and classic or historic premillennialism is the difference between dark and light. {I would say night and day but dark and light is more accurate.} Classic premillennialism, amillennialism, and postmillennialism hold the Biblical view of the purpose of the Incarnation and the Church; dispensationalism does not!

 

[Iconoclast]

when the end times events come to pass, will be quick, and the jews alive at that time shall indeed be the 'final generation"

JF,
Kyred posted several times in post 7....it says "this generation".....not a final generation. Of course to maintain the pre mill system a person has to lift those verses out and make them speak of a terminal generation as you are doing....

hint.... read it as if Jesus meant it for them that he was speaking to....
let THIS mean this! I read those books and did this very thing for years without even thinking of any other way.

Question-

Could you give an accurate amill view to someone?

Could you give an accurate post mill view to anyone?

Or would it be a caricature. I am not asking you to believe the other views.I am asking can you sketch out the views accurately?

 

[Iconoclast]

Oh yes indeed I do. I am not Reformed in my eschatology. They "spiritualize" too often which leads to their unbiblical interpretations.

people claim that....but it is not so!

20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
22 And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it.

23 And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: go not after them, nor follow them.

24 For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day.

25 But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation.

 

[Greektim]

JF,
Kyred posted several times in post 7....it says "this generation".....not a final generation. Of course to maintain the pre mill system a person has to lift those verses out and make them speak of a terminal generation as you are doing....

hint.... read it as if Jesus meant it for them that he was speaking to....
let THIS mean this! I read those books and did this very thing for years without even thinking of any other way.

Question-

Could you give an accurate amill view to someone?

Could you give an accurate post mill view to anyone?

Or would it be a caricature. I am not asking you to believe the other views.I am asking can you sketch out the views accurately?

A true test... well done.

 

[kyredneck]

If you are not Dispensationalist then I cannot accept your interpretations.

"For the time will come when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables."