One left & one taken

[Robin]

Matthew 24

Jesus uses a mixture of language that refers to both the destruction/judgment of Jerusalem and to the progress and final conclusion of all things including His triumphant return.

This style of prophetic speech is consistent with all OT prophet addresses. The precedent is solidly set in the OT.





Robin

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Robin
Matthew 24

Jesus uses a mixture of language that refers to both the destruction/judgment of Jerusalem and to the progress and final conclusion of all things including His triumphant return.

This style of prophetic speech is consistent with all OT prophet addresses. The precedent is solidly set in the OT.

Robin

Why, exactly, do you think there is anything in Matthew 24 that still waits to be fulfilled? What in Matthew 24 wasn't fulfilled already in 70 A.D.?

Please be specific.

 

[Herald]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by Robin
Matthew 24

Jesus uses a mixture of language that refers to both the destruction/judgment of Jerusalem and to the progress and final conclusion of all things including His triumphant return.

This style of prophetic speech is consistent with all OT prophet addresses. The precedent is solidly set in the OT.

Robin

Why, exactly, do you think there is anything in Matthew 24 that still waits to be fulfilled? What in Matthew 24 wasn't fulfilled already in 70 A.D.?

Please be specific.

While not providing answers, here are my questions:

1. What does Jesus mean when He says in Matt 24:6, "...but the end is not yet" and in 24:14, "...then the end will come"? What "end" is Jesus referring to?

2. Was the destruction of Jerusalem the greatest tribulation that had ever taken place in the history of mankind up to that time? We are lead to believe that in vs. 21,22. This passage seems very apocolyptic. Having read Josephus' account of the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, vs. 21,22 would be overkill.

3. Did the Son of Man come at A.D. 70? If not, how do preterists reconcile vs. 27-51?

Questions that beg to be answered.

 

[biblelighthouse]

I'll have to take some time thinking about your first question. But here are my thoughts on your other 2 questions, just off the top of my head:

Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis

While not providing answers, here are my questions:

2. Was the destruction of Jerusalem the greatest tribulation that had ever taken place in the history of mankind up to that time? We are lead to believe that in vs. 21,22. This passage seems very apocolyptic. Having read Josephus' account of the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, vs. 21,22 would be overkill.

See this brief article, which specifically mentions verse 21:

http://www.biblelighthouse.com/eschatology/esc-hyperbole.htm

Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis

3. Did the Son of Man come at A.D. 70? If not, how do preterists reconcile vs. 27-51?

Yes, the Son of Man did come at A.D. 70. He came on the clouds in judgment. This language (along with Revelation 1:7) is hardly different from Isaiah 19:1 --

"Behold, the LORD rides upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall be moved at his presence, and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it."

Did God literally and physically ride into Egypt on a cloud, hundreds of years before the incarnation of Christ? I don't think so! Rather, this is standard, biblical, picturesque language for judgment God was sending. Likewise, Christ Himself came on the clouds in judgment in A.D. 70. And His coming wasn't any more physical and literal than God's coming to Egypt in Isaiah 19:1.

But what about the physical future coming of Christ? Of course I do believe in that, and of course that hasn't happened yet. But without Matthew 24 and Revelation 1, etc., what's my rationale for believing in it? Simple -- Acts 1:9-11 are very clear about the *physical* and *visible* future coming of Christ.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

 

[non dignus]

Why, exactly, do you think there is anything in Matthew 24 that still waits to be fulfilled? What in Matthew 24 wasn't fulfilled already in 70 A.D.?

Please be specific.

Mt 24:30 "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 on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."

Since the disciples asked Jesus when the end of the world would be, I assume He would answer that question somewhere in the discourse. If verse 30 is figurative then there would be no end to making other passages figurative.

Also I hesitate to bring a lot of extra-biblical knowledge to bear on this. Do we interpret the Bible by Josephus or Josephus by the Bible?

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

We must first prove that the "end of the world" is to be taken literally before we should attempt to prove that Jesus said how it would happen.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by non dignus

Mt 24:30 "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 on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."

Again, look at Isaiah 19:1 (and numerous other similar OT passages). Did God literally come on the clouds to Egypt? No. But did He send VISIBLE judgment upon them? Certainly!

Likewise, Jesus did not literally come on the clouds to Jerusalem. But He DID send VISIBLE judgment upon them in 70 A.D.! Just read Luke 21! Jesus is quite clear, especially there. He was talking about the destruction coming via the Roman armies. Thus, we don't even NEED Josephus!

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

The word "earth" can be translated "land" I do believe, as in "region." This passage could be saying "all the tribes of the land (Israel) will mourn when Jerusalem is destroyed"...

 

[Herald]

Yes, the Son of Man did come at A.D. 70. He came on the clouds in judgment. This language (along with Revelation 1:7) is hardly different from Isaiah 19:1 --

Having be cloistered within dispensationalism since 1979, I have never heard of this view before. I am in no position to comment on it since I have never studied the preterist view critically. It is something I will investigate prayerfully through the scriptures.

I'll have to take some time thinking about your first question.

Joe, may I add something to your "thinking"? One of my many faults is to think solely within my theological paradigm. In fact, I wonder whether any of us actually think outside of our hermeneutic. Perhaps this is why two people can look at the same text and come away with vastly divergent interpretations. Is it possible to critically examine the text without bias? If not, can we mollify our bias? I believe it must be possible to some degree. How else did I abandon Arminianism for Calvinism? To what else can I attribute my recent lack of faith in dispensationalism? My point? When you "think" about my first question (from my previous post), you have two choices: 1. Think how to reconcile my question within your current hermeneutic. 2. Search the scriptures for the answer contextually. We would assume that the two are one in the same, but from my personal experience that is not always the case.

But what about the physical future coming of Christ? Of course I do believe in that, and of course that hasn't happened yet.

Joe, I am glad to hear you believe that, for I believe without a second coming there is no hope for the elect. The eternal state would be an impossibility.

See this brief article, which specifically mentions verse 21:

I read your article (and it was very well written by the way). Cogent argument. But I could not disagree more. While I believe the bible does contain hyperbole, I cannot not support that regarding the verses in question. I believe the words of our Lord were specific, intentional and measured. Had our Lord restricted His comments on the coming tribulation just to that current generation, I could see your point. But He specifically said it was a tribulation that was greater than anything the world had ever seen or would ever see. That is a qualifying statement that, in my humble opinion, transcends hyperbole.

Lastly, may the Lord grant us grace in our discussion, so that, even if we disagree, we do so as brothers united in Christ seeking His glory.

[Edited on 11-3-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]

 

[Herald]

Also I hesitate to bring a lot of extra-biblical knowledge to bear on this. Do we interpret the Bible by Josephus or Josephus by the Bible?

David, my reference to Josephus was in order to gain understanding of the actual destruction of Jerusalem. By no means do I believe that extra-biblical data can be used to interpret scripture. Extra-biblical data may be helpful in allowing the exegete to understand culture and customs, but it cannot influence interpretation.

 

[Anton Bruckner]

Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis
but it cannot influence interpretation.

What if the extra biblical data is from the culture and the time period where a specific Bible Book was written? Wouldn't it help to clarify how certain phrases and words were used, thereby assisting one to a proper interpretion of the scriptures?

I remember taking an English Lit class in college where the Prof condemned Jesus when He told the man, "Let the dead bury the dead".

Back to Josephus. I have to credit his work with giving me a good grasp of how the 1st century Jews lived, as well as the Romans and Greeks. I also have to credit his work with giving me a proper understanding of how Jews saw themselves in relation to their neighbors and their neighbors in relation to them, and I also was able to grasp the gravity of the Zionism of the Pharisees by seeing how totally self righteous the Jews were in how they considered themselves special to God without need for repentence.

After I saw this, then I was able to see how radical Christ seem in their midst and how much a threat they perceive Him to be, because He totally rejected political aspirations i.e blame the Romans for our plight, and put the responsibility squarely upon the individual to repent, then to let God vindicate them. This gives perfect understanding to the scripture when they responded, "We are not born of fornication".

[Edited on 11-3-2005 by Slippery]

 

[Herald]

What if the extra biblical data is from the culture and the time period where a specific Bible Book was written? Wouldn't it help to clarify how certain phrases and words were used, thereby assisting one to a proper interpretion of the scriptures?

Keon, extra-biblical data can be subjective. It is not subject to the same scrutiny of scripture. By its very nature is not inspired, iinerrant or infallible. Our understanding of culture and terminology may aide our cognitive understanding of the text, but it does not influence interpretation. Scripture only has one interpretation. I would agree that believers war over what that interpretation is, but that does not alter the divine intent of scripture. Our prayer should be that God gives us insight into the true meaning of the text. And lest we think we are alone in that quest, God has given us the teachings of the apostles and 2000 years of church history to lean on.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis

I read your article (and it was very well written by the way). Cogent argument. But I could not disagree more. While I believe the bible does contain hyperbole, I cannot not support that regarding the verses in question. I believe the words of our Lord were specific, intentional and measured. Had our Lord restricted His comments on the coming tribulation just to that current generation, I could see your point. But He specifically said it was a tribulation that was greater than anything the world had ever seen or would ever see. That is a qualifying statement that, in my humble opinion, transcends hyperbole.

Then, by your own standards, wouldn't Ezekiel 5:9 "transcend hyperbole" just as much, in just the same way?

In Ezekiel, God speaks judgment upon Israel before He has them carried off into captivity to Babylon. And God says, "œbecause of all your abominations, I will do among you what I have not done, and the like of which I will never do again" (Ezekiel 5:9).

How is that language any "weaker" than what Christ said in Matthew 24?

Ultimately if Ezekiel 5 and Matthew 24 were both equally non-hyperbolic, then they would be in contradiction . . . but that is of course an impossibility.

 

[Anton Bruckner]

Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis


Keon, extra-biblical data can be subjective. It is not subject to the same scrutiny of scripture. By its very nature is not inspired, iinerrant or infallible. Our understanding of culture and terminology may aide our cognitive understanding of the text, but it does not influence interpretation. Scripture only has one interpretation. I would agree that believers war over what that interpretation is, but that does not alter the divine intent of scripture. Our prayer should be that God gives us insight into the true meaning of the text. And lest we think we are alone in that quest, God has given us the teachings of the apostles and 2000 years of church history to lean on.

While the Bible is inerrant, it was written within a particular culture using the particular language of that culture.

To read the Bible in a vacuum would only lead to misinterpretations a la the Jehovah Witnesses believing Jesus to be created using the term, "First Born" to justify their stance. This is where works from the particular culture provides great assistance, in that they will help to clarify certain erroneous preconceptions we bring to the text.

Without this we would succumb to ultra literalism like Dispensationalists that use their contemporary culture as a means to evaluate eschatological passages thereby giving us a rebuilt roman empire, and an antichrist coming out of the United Nations, merely because they have assumed that Matthew 24's apocalyptic language should be taken literal hence the impossibility of it occuring within the generation of Christ.


And I do agree with you that we should pray that God give us true insight into the text, but God will give us true insight into the text by giving us the tools necessary to make sense of the text, these tools being investigative techniques and the evidences of the literature of antiquity.

[Edited on 11-3-2005 by Slippery]

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by non dignus

Why, exactly, do you think there is anything in Matthew 24 that still waits to be fulfilled? What in Matthew 24 wasn't fulfilled already in 70 A.D.?

Please be specific.

Mt 24:30 "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 on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."

Since the disciples asked Jesus when the end of the world would be, I assume He would answer that question somewhere in the discourse. If verse 30 is figurative then there would be no end to making other passages figurative.

Also I hesitate to bring a lot of extra-biblical knowledge to bear on this. Do we interpret the Bible by Josephus or Josephus by the Bible?

A few things, Joseph....

First, Scripture MUST interpret Scripture (I'm sure you'd agree.)

Paul's counsel to the troubled Thessalonians (who were being plagued by false teachers claiming the 2nd Advent had already occurred- 2 Thess. 2) must comport with Jesus' teaching.
1 Thess. 4:13-18

The Coming of the Lord
But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. Therefore encourage one another with these words.

How can Paul ask to encourage each other with these words unless it's really about an unmistakable event; cosmic; global; loud; visible?

Is it THE coming or "A" coming of the Lord? Is there more than one Second Advent?

To harmonize the whole of both Testaments...one must consider carefully, the style of prophetic language; the "layering" semi-realized eschatological events; "double-fulfillment" Etc.

The nature of prophetic language is discovered by reading the OT in light of the NT; in context and considering the progressive order of Redemptive history.



r.

 

[Herald]

Ezekiel 5:7-17 7 Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: Because you are more turbulent than the nations that are all around you, and have not walked in my statutes or obeyed my rules, and have not even acted according to the rules of the nations that are all around you, 8 therefore thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I, even I, am against you. And I will execute judgments in your midst in the sight of the nations. 9 And because of all your abominations I will do with you what I have never yet done, and the like of which I will never do again. 10 Therefore fathers shall eat their sons in your midst, and sons shall eat their fathers. And I will execute judgments on you, and any of you who survive I will scatter to all the winds. 11 Therefore, as I live, declares the Lord GOD, surely, because you have defiled my sanctuary with all your detestable things and with all your abominations, therefore I will withdraw. My eye will not spare, and I will have no pity. 12 A third part of you shall die of pestilence and be consumed with famine in your midst; a third part shall fall by the sword all around you; and a third part I will scatter to all the winds and will unsheathe the sword after them. 13 "Thus shall my anger spend itself, and I will vent my fury upon them and satisfy myself. And they shall know that I am the LORD- that I have spoken in my jealousy- when I spend my fury upon them. 14 Moreover, I will make you a desolation and an object of reproach among the nations all around you and in the sight of all who pass by. 15 You shall be a reproach and a taunt, a warning and a horror, to the nations all around you, when I execute judgments on you in anger and fury, and with furious rebukes- I am the LORD, I have spoken- 16 when I send against you the deadly arrows of famine, arrows for destruction, which I will send to destroy you, and when I bring more and more famine upon you and break your supply of bread. 17 I will send famine and wild beasts against you, and they will rob you of your children. Pestilence and blood shall pass through you, and I will bring the sword upon you. I am the LORD; I have spoken."

I see no problem in differentiating between Mat. 24 and Ezk. 5. Joe, I am not an O.T. scholar, but there are some things that make me take pause and consider.

In 2 Kings 25, Israel was still in the land when Jehoiachin surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar. It was in the fifth year of Jehoiachin's imprisonment in Babylon that Ezekiel wrote his prophecy. It seems that Ezekiel wrote his prophecy before the events of 2 Kings 25. 2 Kings 25 details Nebuchadnezzar's siege of Jerusalem after Jehoiachin was taken to Babylon. 2 Kings 25 describes the situation as dire, "2 So the city was besieged till the eleventh year of King Zedekiah. 3 On the ninth day of the fourth month the famine was so severe in the city that there was no food for the people of the land." This would be in keeping with Ezk. 5 and the description of what would happen to Israel. When Israel was fully conquered (after the 2 Kings 25 events), it can truly be said that the nation was scattered (Ezk. 5:12). As far as I can tell, Ezk 5 was fulfilled in 2 Kings 25.

Joe, I am trying to work this out myself. Like I said, I am not an O.T. scholar. I am also far distanced from dispensationalism. That said, I am not afraid to label scripture literal when it is literal, and there are times when the scripture is literal.



[Edited on 11-4-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Since no one has responded to my comment, I'll go ahead and say what I mean:

The "end of the world" doesn't have to mean the "end of the physical world", but the end of the world AS THEY KNEW IT, which occurred during Christ's first advent and the subsequent destruction of Jerusalem, in my opinion.

 

[Herald]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
The "end of the world" doesn't have to mean the "end of the physical world", but the end of the world AS THEY KNEW IT, which occurred during Christ's first advent and the subsequent destruction of Jerusalem, in my opinion.

Yes, it could mean that, but I don't think an accurate interpretation of the text bears that out. Of course this is where preterists would base part of their interpretation. For either side it is not a convincing argument.

 

[non dignus]

" Did God literally come on the clouds to Egypt? No. But did He send VISIBLE judgment upon them? Certainly!"

Yes there was visible judgment in Egypt but Mt 24:30 speaks of seeing Christ Himself as in 'every eye shall see Him', not 'every eye shall see it'.

The reference to Is 19:1 broadens my perspective, thank you. We agree Isaiah is using a figure of speech. But is Jesus employing the same kind of language in the Olivet Discourse? I don't think so. Rather, He is giving sober advice to his disciples so they can avoid catastrophy and death.

In extracting the meaning of this difficult passage, why use the OT first when Acts 1:9-11 is a newer text illuminating the idea of His coming with clouds. Shouldn't we prefer the simpler explanation using similar NT text first, and then later, the OT prophetic texts?

The word "earth" can be translated "land" I do believe, as in "region." This passage could be saying "all the tribes of the land (Israel) will mourn when Jerusalem is destroyed"

OK. I'll go for that, but the very next verse in Mt 24 seems to describe the general resurrection:
31. And he shall send forth his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Since Jesus seems to be enumerating the seven seals of Revelation, it seems vv 29-31 would fit nicely as the sixth seal and thus the final culmination.

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Did God literally come on the clouds to Egypt? No.

Exodus 14:21---25

Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and the LORD drove the sea back by a strong east wind all night and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. And the people of Israel went into the midst of the sea on dry ground, the waters being a wall to them on their right hand and on their left. The Egyptians pursued and went in after them into the midst of the sea, all Pharaoh's horses, his chariots, and his horsemen. And in the morning watch the LORD in the pillar of fire and of cloud looked down on the Egyptian forces and threw the Egyptian forces into a panic, clogging their chariot wheels so that they drove heavily. And the Egyptians said, "Let us flee from before Israel, for the LORD fights for them against the Egyptians."

It's best to read chapter 14 entirely.....YES, the LORD did physically appear in a fiery cloud to judge Egypt! (Chapter 15 expounds this.)

Selah


Robin

 

[Herald]

Originally posted by Preach
Matthew 24 talks about one person being left in the field and one taken. I was wondering what the different interpretations on this verse are. Thanks. I am especially looking for the partial preterist view.
"In Christ",
Bobby

Well, I think you got more than you bargined for with this thread!

 

[Robin]

The pre-incarnate Christ was in the pillar of fire and cloud and exacted death and judgment on unbelievers in the OT (Jude 5.)

But then when Christ rises and ascends, Scripture insists He will return in the same way he goes: visible and caught-up in a cloud (an awesome sight, I imagine!)

Acts 1:6-9
The Ascension
So when they had come together, they asked him, "Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth." And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, and said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven

The angels assert Christ will return ONCE more and in the same manner he left.

Both events were literal, visible and awesome sights to those present. There was NO doubt at each event that God was acting/manifesting in a supernatural way.

Just a few more reasons I think preterism is inconsistent with Scripture, btw.



r.

 

[Robin]

Matthew 26:63--65

And the high priest said to him, "I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven." Then the high priest tore his robes and said, "He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy.

Apparently, the high priest thought Jesus' reference meant something different than the sack of Jerusalem. Blasphemy is what he thought --- as Jesus was making reference to the Divine attributes.

For what it's worth,

R.