How do preterists explain why/where they break up the Olivet Discourse?

[fab413]

So I consider myself a partial preterist (which is not the point of this thread), but one question I've always wrestled with is the rationale for breaking up the Oliver Discourse into parts that were fulfilled in 70ad, and the parts that were not. Most partial preterists think that Matt 24 through Matt 25:30 were fulfilled, but not the rest of Matt 25 which is the view I take. But I don't see a clear break in the text that would lead me to believe Christ is talking about 2 separate events.

So for the preterists you know, or for yourself, how do you explain why and where you break the Olivet Discourse into what has been fulfilled, and what is the Second Coming? What's your rationale for it?

 

[arapahoepark]

Jesus answers the first question: "When will these things be?" through verse 35.
The second question, about his coming, is answered at verse 36. Jesus speaks of signs within the generation for the former but the opposite for the latter.
RT France in his Matthew commentary has the best defense of this reading. It convinced me.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

So I consider myself a partial preterist (which is not the point of this thread), but one question I've always wrestled with is the rationale for breaking up the Oliver Discourse into parts that were fulfilled in 70ad, and the parts that were not. Most partial preterists think that Matt 24 through Matt 25:30 were fulfilled, but not the rest of Matt 25 which is the view I take. But I don't see a clear break in the text that would lead me to believe Christ is talking about 2 separate events.

So for the preterists you know, or for yourself, how do you explain why and where you break the Olivet Discourse into what has been fulfilled, and what is the Second Coming? What's your rationale for it?

Jesus answers the first question: "When will these things be?" through verse 35.
The second question, about his coming, is answered at verse 36. Jesus speaks of signs within the generation for the former but the opposite for the latter.
RT France in his Matthew commentary has the best defense of this reading. It convinced me.

I think I have to say from the start (per the OP's question) I'm not preterist, and only "partial-preterist" in the sense that I do think the NT makes predictions about certain near term judgment due the rebellious remnants of the Old Covenant.

Trent (I believe) is referring to chapter 24; and this is similar to the position I take as well. The break is marked by a word subject to a variety of translations, here "but." Not the strongest adversative conjunction (such as ἀλλά, alla), but a minor one (δὲ, de) and common. It's use points to distinction from the previous statement, which can take a variety of forms but contrast is certainly one of them.

It may be suitable to add that the following Mt.25 parables do not simply follow the earlier passage chronologically. So, definitely with the second (Talents) there is temporal backtracking into the present age, not a pure focus on the crisis of judgment at the close. The previous parable of the Virgins has an even greater emphasis on the present. The final Sheep and Goats parable places all the emphasis on final judgment.

So, the disciple's questions are answered in ch.24; while ch.25 is full of parabolic illustration that is generally progressive temporally, but by no means simply continues a prophetic timeline out of ch.24. The three parables overlay the previous chapter's answers, illustrating the principles at work in Jesus' teaching.