This business of the wrath of God being or not being the great tribulation is significant I think and would benefit this general biblical interpretive discussion we're having.
Noblej6,
Yes, the role and timing of God’s wrath is significant. I’d like to discuss this further.
So just up to this point do we agree that the great tribulation and the wrath of God in this biblical story, is over before or very near the time of the parousia? Let's leave out the timing of that parousia for the time being. [quote:11d3f]
You bring up:
Matthew 13, Revelation 14 and Matthew 25. These are all great passages and I understand how you would place them together in your view. I would offer up to you an alternative method to consider.
I would suggest that we only compare passages that are:
1) on the topic of the end times
2) also discuss order and sequences
3) and also are more clear and detailed than any others.
I believe that God does have something specific to tell us regarding the End Times and that its answer is plain if we develop our core understanding by taking at face-value the parallels and alignments available in these core passages.
If God is clearly speaking about a certain topic then should not these passage agree if God’s Word is coherent? The problem is that many people come up with views that have at their core a passage that was never intended to be core to the doctrine or understanding they have developed. What we should do is allow the clearer passages interpret the less clear passages.
Matthew 13 and 25 are two such passages that are less clear than others. Though both do have some sort of sequence and both do strongly hint at their topic; Matthew 25 more so for it is still part of the Olivet Discourse. You have chosen good passages, but there are better ones.
I’ve found that there are only 6 or 7 that are the “cream of the cropâ€Â. Then there are hundreds that are about the End Times in some way or other, but are not on topic, have little detail or sequence and are generally ambiguous. In between those to ends of the spectrum are about 18-20 passages; you have named two of those in Matthew 13 and 25.
But I’ll say this again, the core understanding must be developed from the core verses; those 6 or 7. Those then form the basis and foundation of the “structure†of understanding. Then, passages such as Matthew 13 and 25 enhance the existing framework. These passages are interpreted in light of clearer passages. This is the methodology I propose in my book.
[quote:11d3f] Luke 21
I believe Luke 21:22 is about 70 AD and I do much of Luke 21.
The conversation as recorded by all three writers was started by a remark made as they came out of the temple
You’ll have to show that to me in Luke 21 because it is not there.
Partial preterism considers that Jesus came in a judgment of Jerusalem in 70 AD as I understand it and then there will be another coming sometime in the future where He will come to earth and resurrect the dead from the graves.
Partial prets do make a division in Matthew 24 between 70 AD and the 2nd Coming as you describe, do they not? My point is that a partial-pret adds a gap of thousands of years between 70 AD and this future simply to satisfy their view. I’m saying that there is no justification for making this separation or gap.
Secondly, I think that the hermeneutic is inconsistent for a partial-pret. In one instance, the “tribulation†of 70 AD that Jesus describes is “literal†and then with no indication of a break, rather despite the contrary evidence, the “coming in clouds†is then taken “figurativelyâ€Â. Do you see it? The “distress†and the “coming in clouds†are connected together by the transition “immediately after the tribulation of those days†in Matthew 24:29.
Thirdly, I would continue to make my case that the fig tree illustration was not lost on the disciples and it is clearly meant to be understood in context of the cursed fig tree as a reference to the Temple’s destruction and reconstruction. I would encourage you to consider the theme of “bearing fruit of repentance†going back to John the B and what Jesus experienced in the Triumphal entry with the waving of the leaves and what Mark records immediately after.
I don't get the intended conflict in the night-day idea, sorry.
Fourth, I think Luke 21 vs. Matthew 24/Mark 13 is very important. It is significant because of
Mark 4:34 and other verses in the Gospels that repeat this theme of Jesus teaching one thing publicly and then explaining it privately. Matthew 13 is another example. Luke 21 occurs after the cursing of the fig tree. He is teaching to those with hears that are hard of hearing and is finally declaring to them that 70 AD is the end of the line for them. This is the first time, that the disciples hear about the temple destruction and then Jesus talking about His 2nd Coming.
It could very well be allowed, that the OT allows for a figurative “coming in the clouds for judgment†that could apply to 70 AD, but I think that it more likely to be literal and prophetic in the same sense as the armies surrounding Jerusalem in Luke 21. For if there is one thing we know about prophecy, it is that seemingly non-prophetic passages have double meaning. The writer of Hebrews shows this over and over again. Psalm 22 is a perfect example of this and the crucifixion. Jesus fulfills the role of priest, prophet and king, so it is not out of the realm that His teaching is also prophetic.
So the question then would be, did Jesus know of a “third†future Temple era? And to answer that, we would start where Jesus started: Matthew 24:15. it just so happens that Jesus sends us to two passages in Daniel that fit the definition of Core, Primary passages to a “tâ€Â. So I would encourage that one start with the core passages to gain their understanding then go out from there.
So back to this Matthew 24/Mark 13 vs. Luke 21 issue, I think Mark 4:34 explains what happened quite well and this was an obvious pattern in Christs ministry that Luke was aware of and led to him adding Luke 21:37-38 at the end of Jesus teaching to show that what Luke is recording was taught during the day. Later that evening, four of the disciples came to Jesus privately to inquire about what He had said earlier about the destruction of the temple and his Coming. Like Matthew 13:36, they wanted to understand an earlier teaching. So, he explains to them the deeper truth this time mentioning nothing about Jerusalem, rather focusing on events that will abominate the temple. And the sense of the abominations, is found in Daniel.
I consider this verse from Acts to deal with the all nations aspect....
5Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven.
I assume the meaning of world in this case is the inhabited or Roman area meaning.
Do you think that the writer said to himself as he wrote that “I am only referring to the Roman world and not the whole world?†Do you think he made a distinction?
I believe the writer meant literally the entire world from his 1st Century perspective. Just because we know more than he, does not invalidate his intended meaning of “global or universalâ€Â.
From my perspective, this has been a very grievous and disingenuous argument from the preterist view. It takes a 1st Century statement and pours in 21st Century meaning.
I put a quite abit of weight on the 'this generation' verses yes. I think you will agree that if the 'this generation' is meaning you and me, the pret theory is totally debunked and has no meaning at all. However, the reverse is also true.
[/quote:11d3f][/quote:11d3f]
When I think of the “this generation†passages, particularly the three main ones in Matthew (10:23, 16:28, 24:34), I can honestly see how a different , non-preterist idea can be understood naturally.
;-) Mat 10:23 When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
Is in context of:
Mat 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent out, instructing them,
"Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans
And:
Mat 10:18 and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake,
to bear witness before them and the Gentiles.
I don’t think Jesus was being contradictory in His statements. I think He was being prophetic (10:40-41).
Since according to Matthew 28:19-20, spreading the Gospel is integral to the mission of the Church today just as was modeled in Matthew 10:5, I would say that 10:23 could easily be taken in a futurist sense and that it is not irrefutable proof to either view.
;-) Mat 16:28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."
Is in the context of:
Mat 16:15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
Mat 16:16 Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
And:
Mar 8:33 But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, "Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man."
Mar 8:34
And he called to him the crowd with his disciples and said to them, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.
And:
until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power."
Mar 9:2
And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. And he was transfigured before them,
Peter’s understanding of Jesus as the Messiah is a climax of the Gospel story. In order to give the disciples the full story, despite their fleshly attempts, Jesus shows Peter at the Mt of Transfiguration, just what Peter’s declaration means. That’s why Jesus gathers the crowd as Mark records; a crowd that could easily have been over a thousand. The key declaration to Jesus identity has been made, and so that the inner circle would have unmovable faith, Jesus shows them the Kingdom’s reality.
So again, this passage can be easily, and IMHO, seen to be about the key declaration to the ID of Jesus rather than 70 AD understanding, which Jesus wasn’t even hinting at and is not in the context.
;-) Mat 24:34 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.
Is in the context of:
Mat 24:32 "From the
fig tree learn its lesson : as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near.
Mat 24:33 So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates.
And:
Mar 11:13 And seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see if he could find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs.
Mar 11:20 As they passed by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered away to its roots.
Mar 11:21
And Peter remembered and said to him, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree that you cursed has withered."
Mat 21:20 When the disciples saw it,
they marveled, saying, "How did the fig tree wither at once?"
And the fig tree is in context of the Temple and the reception of the Triumphal entry:
Mar 11:10 Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David! Hosanna in the highest!"
Mar 11:11 And he entered Jerusalem and went into the
temple . And when he had looked around at everything, as it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the twelve.
(only Mark records that immediately after the “triumphal entry†Jesus went up to the Temple and looked around. What do you think He saw? What was he expecting to find after riding in on a donkey in fulfillment of Zechariah 9:9 as Matthew 12:5 records?)
And:
Mar 11:14 And he said to it, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again."
And his disciples heard it.
Mar 11:15 And they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold and those who bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons.
Keep in mind this was Jesus’ last week. The cursing of the fig tree and the Olivet Discourse all occurred between palm Sunday and the last Supper.
The fig tree illustration is critical and was not missed by His disciples. So you can see how a natural understanding of Matthew 24:34 in the context of this last week leads to an understanding about the Temple’s reconstruction/Isreal’s reestablishment.
