olivet discourse

[Preach]

There seem to be three main preterist interpreatations:
1) There is a transition verse somewhere that transitions from our Lord's discussion of AD. 70, and His discussion regarding the endof the world.
2) There is a blending throughout the discourse of two streams of thought. One stream is the destruction of Jerusalem, and the other is the end of the world.
3) Milton Terry's position is that the entire discourse speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem.

Any thoughts? It seems that a straightforward reading of the passage seems to set forth a one subject discourse. How would the disciples have understood the Lord's words?
Thanks,
Bobby

 

[openairboy]

Originally posted by Preach
How would the disciples have understood the Lord's words?
Thanks,
Bobby

In the preterist scheme the answer to this question seems to be contingent upon which of the aforementioned interpretation you buy into.

openairboy

 

[cornelius vantil]

i am more in line with milton terry interpretation of the passage. if you compare the different passages where the the discourse occurs in the other gospels, the consern univerally is the destrcution of jerusalem, not his final return in judgment. also look at the coming language in matt. 25 it is the same as matt.24 which Jesus said will occur before "this generation" will pass away.

 

[Covenant Joel]

I'm not totally decided in what I think on this subject, but there does seem to be a shift from verse 36 on. Up to verse 35, "those days" is used. After that, there seems to be a shift to "that day," which may indicate that he is shifting from the A.D. 70 situation to the Second Coming. Keith Mathison takes that position. I think Gary DeMar does as well, but I could easily be mistaken on him.

Joel