The Olivet Discourse Fulfilled

[Jac3510]

Well, PL, I had some time, so I figured I'd go ahead and respond to this . . . just so that my position will be represented on the boards, and all .

Matthew 24:3
.
.
The word for "world" (kosmos) does not appear here. Instead the word is Aion, which means "age".

I agree, but I wonder how this helps your case? In fact, it actually runs counter to your thinking. According to Postmillennialism (hereafter PM) and Amillennialism (hereafter AM), the Second Advent will bring with it the establishment of the New Heaven and Earth. Thus, if your interpretation is right, we should be looking at the end of the kosmos, not the end of the aion. Secondly, to make the point stronger, kosmos, in the NT, has the idea of the world as dominated by Satan. Is it not true that PMs and AMs consider the Second Advent the time at which Satan's rule is destroyed?

Needless to say, in Premillennialism (Hereafter PreM), we expect the ending of the aion . . . the “age”, not the world. We do not even expect the end of Satan's reign (kosmos). That will come at the Great White Throne Judgment, which is not found in this passage.

Thirdly, do you recognize the eschatological tone in the disciples' questions? They, being first century Jews, were conditioned to think that the Messiah would usher in a literal Messianic Kingdom. They have already been told about His death, and they now ask about His return. If this basic assumption was wrong, why did Jesus not address it as He had done previously? (c.f. Matthew 22:29-30)

Sign #1 - FALSE CHRISTS AND PROPHETS DECEIVING MANY: (Matt. 24: 5, 11, 24).
.
.
.
Josephus writes that many false prophets and false Messiahs appeared during the government of Felix (A.D. 53-60), deluding many. Such figures played a leading role in the Jewish revolt in late A.D. 66 that led to the Jewish War.

First Century Fulfillment:
“Now as for the affairs of the Jews, they grew worse and worse continually, for the country was again filled with robbers and impostors, who deluded the multitude… These works, that were done by the robbers, filled the city with all sorts of impiety. And now these impostors and deceivers persuaded the multitude to follow them into the wilderness, and pretended that they would exhibit manifest wonders and signs, that should be performed by the providence of God.” (Ant., XX, viii, 5-6)

I don't see a reference by Josephus here to apparent Messiahs. I'm not really making a case against what you are saying here, because I don't have a problem with a typological fulfillment (more on that below). But I assume you are working from the word “imposters” and the fact that they apparently did “wonders and signs.” And yet, is that not more in line, from the Jewish perspective, of a false prophet more-so than a false Christ? The Jewish expectation of the Messiah was one (or more) who would lead them into battle with the Romans and establish a political kingdom. Is this recorded by Josephus?

Sign #2 - WARS AND RUMORS OF WARS (Matt. 24: 6-7).
.
.
.
Wars and Rumors of Wars would not have been perceived as an unusual sign during most periods of world history, but during the pax Romana war was extremely rare. E.g., Epictetus writes that "Caesar has obtained for us a profound peace. There are neither wars nor battles" (Discourses 3:13:9) Josephus and Tacitus both write of the unsettledness of the empire leading up to A.D. 70.

I agree that the current trend in wars and earthquakes and all that isn't much of a sign. However, I also do not believe these verses that we are dealing with right now deal with the Church Age at all. They will not begin until AFTER the Rapture. It is of great interest that the Antichrist (in the PreM view) will establish a false covenant of peace with Israel for seven years. Thus, wars and rumors of wars would seem very problematic after all! As to the fulfillment you provided, again, I have no problem with the historical record. We will deal with the very important discussion of typological fulfillment later.

Sign #3 - FAMINES (Matt. 24:7).

Josephus writes that during Claudius' reign (A.D. 41-54) there were four seasons of great scarcity. In the fourth year of his reign, the famine in Judea was so severe that the price of food became enormous and great numbers died. (Acts 11:28). He also describes starvation and cannibalism during the final fivemonth siege of Jerusalem.

Again, I accept the famine claim as a myth as I do not believe any of these verses refer to the Church Age. But, again, under the PreM view, the false covenant of peace must be taken into account. The Antichrist is supposed to usher in a utopia, and Israel will believe it has found its savior. Such famines, then (which we will see are predicted elsewhere) will be disconcerting for the deceived Jew. As to your proposed fulfillment, I will again appeal to typology.

I won't quote the next section on earthquakes as the answers will be very similar to the above. Obviously, no covenant, false or not, made by man can prevent earthquakes, so that has no bearing here.

What I do want to do, at this point, is ask you what you think about Revelation 6? Has it already been fulfilled (I suspect you would say yes?). It is very interesting to note the deep correlation between these verses and the first four (and possibly five) seals of the tribulation. Note that the first seal is the Antichrist, as is the first prediction. The second seal is war, as is the second prediction. The third seal is famine, as is the third prediction. The fourth seal is death, which is clearly implied in Matt. 24. We also have the fifth seal, which is martyrdom, which is the next prediction in Matthew. Thus, it would seem that Rev. 6 and Matt. 24 parallel, and even further, that this part of the Olivet Discourse clearly refers to the first half of the Tribulation. I believe you consider the Tribulation passed, so you may not have a problem with this. But, you can also recognize that this now depends on our understanding of the Revelation. If it is yet future, then so also must Matthew be.

Sign #5 - PERSECUTION (Matt. 24:9-10)

Jesus predicts the coming persecution and martyrdom of the church, and Israel's impending judgment, adding: "I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation" (Matthew 23:32-36). The NT reports the intense persecution of Christians by the Jews in Acts 8:1 and 1 Thess. 2:14-16. Again, we need to remember that Jesus is taking to His Apostles. It is they who would experience these things.
.
.
.
Sign #6 - APOSTASY (Matt. 24:10-13)

Hebrews reflects Jews apostatizing and returning to Judaism (Heb. 2:1-3, Heb. 3:6, 14, Heb. 6:4-6, Heb.10:26-27). Gal. 5:4; 1 John 2:18-20, and 1 John 4:3, but especially 1 John 2:24, all of which report apostasy during the time of the apostles. Also 1 Tim. 4:1, 2 Peter 2:1-2 and 2 Peter 2:20-21.
.
.

I would just like to point out that this entire argument is based on the very shaky theological (not historical) notion that apostasy is impossible for the believer. You must believe that apostasy refers to those who “came close” to the truth, but then rejected it. Now, I understand and accept that a persons' theological biases and convictions will color the way they read a text, but I also want to point it out so that those who do not hold the same convictions will see that your “fulfillment” is not required by the text.

An alternative understanding is that those who “fall away” are those Jews who will be deceived by the Antichrist. They will then begin to turn over believers to his rule for martyrdom as per the fifth seal in Rev. 6, with which we've already established a connection.

Sign #7 - GOSPEL PREACHED IN ALL THE WORLD (Matt. 24:14):

The term "World" almost always used in a limited sense (See Luke 2:1). In both these cases, the term is used only to refer to the Roman Empire.

Matthew 24:14
And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."

I'm OK with much of this, but notice the phrase “then shall the end come.” You are going to have to equate “the end” with the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. But that's not at all what Jesus is talking about. Remember, the disciples had just asked what the sign of “the end of the age” would be. Now, I know you aren't a dispensationalist, so you can't possibly think this refers to “the end of the Jewish age” . . .

Sign #8 — THE ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION

Matthew 24:15-22
“When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.”

Compare Luke 21:20-24
"But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."

The Abomination of Desolation was the armed invasion of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD.

Here is going to be our strongest disagreement so far. First off, you cannot equivocally state that the abomination of desolation IS the Roman army based on these passages. Notice a few things. Matthew says that it shall stand “in the holy place.” Luke says Jerusalem (not “the holy place”) would be surrounded by armies. Secondly, Luke does NOT mention “the Abomination of Desolation.” He simply says that when the armies come, Jerusalem's desolation is near. Next, this interpretation cannot be reconciled with the wording of Daniel 9. There, the destruction of the city is explicitly mentioned by the “people of the prince who is to come.” (see below) This would be what Luke was referring to, NOT the abomination itself. Secondly, the abomination is tied to the breaking of the covenant, and it relates to sacrifices (and thus the temple). No such parallel is found here. The irony is that you understand the covenant to be made by Christ in the upper room. Was that covenant broken? Further, such a rendering is impossible, as Christ is not the prince of the people who are to come—the ones that destroyed the city. Now, no covenant was made with Israel in the first century, and, as such, the abomination of desolation (as referred to by Daniel) cannot be the reference in Luke. However, we can read Luke straightforward and it says what it says . . . when the armies surround Jerusalem, its desolation is near.

Now a straight reading simply says that the armies would come, so know the desolation would be near. After the destruction, the abomination would be set up in the holy place. Any tension can be easily resolved if we understand the Olivet Discourse to be typologically fulfilled in the first century, but awaiting future fulfillment during the tribulation. If we reject this view, we have a contradiction in Scripture that I don't think can be reconciled.

Sign #9 — SIGNS IN THE HEAVENS

Matthew 24:29
"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken".

We now get into some apocalyptic language and need to refer to the Old Testament. The darkening of heavenly bodies has always represented the fall of a kingdom. Consider Isaiah's prophecy concerning the fall of Babylon in Isaiah Chapter 13.
.
.
.
Matthew 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 in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."

More apocalyptic language. This is not about Christ's Second Coming, but His “coming on the clouds, an Old Testament symbol of judgement. Ex. In Isaiah's prophecy against Egypt, “the Lord rides on a swift cloud”. (Isaiah 19:1) Yet Egypt was destroyed by Sargon, the king of Assyria (Isaiah 20:1-6), not by a literal appearance of the Lord.

I'm OK with the apocalyptic language in the first part. However, your treatment of the coming of the Son of Man as apocalyptic is comical at best and a massive twisting of Scripture at worst. This is as clear a reference as you can get to the Second Advent. Again, go back to the context of the passage. In Matt. 23:39, Jesus said they would not see Him again until His return, a statement that is, again, clearly referring to the Second Advent. The disciples, hearing this and the decree of the destruction of the temple, ask of the sign of His coming. Here He is telling them.

Next, with this coming, “all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see him.” Again, this is a clear reference to the visual return of Christ. The fact that you have to take this figuratively should tell you something about your position.

A third reason this cannot be taken figuratively is in the phrase “immediately after the tribulation.” The word “immediately” is used ten times in Matthew. In all ten cases, it refers to that which immediately followed an event (not surprising, as that is what the word means). Now, this coming FOLLOWS the tribulation. What is this tribulation? It is a reference to all the things Jesus has been discussing . . . the wars, famines, martyrdom, etc. And it follows it immediately. You, therefore, cannot take this coming as a reference to judgment on Israel, because, for you, the judgment reached its pinnacle at the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple, and yet, this coming happens AFTER that.

Now, the clear, plain meaning of this passage is that following this tribulation, the Son of Man will return, as the disciples had asked Him about. If you reject that, then what you have is a discourse that NEVER mentions His return, and thus, Jesus NEVER answers the disciples' question.

Sign #10 — THE GATHERING OF THE ELECT.

Matthew 24:31
"And he shall send 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."

Obeying Jesus' warning in Luke 21:20-24, The Jewish Christians fled to Mt. Pella in Decapolis.
.
.
.

Again, this is absurd. Your fulfillment doesn't even mention the elect. You mention the church at Jerusalem running, and various Jews being sent throughout the empire. That is exactly the opposite of “gathered together.” Puritan . . . this passage teaches that “the elect” will be brought to one place, not spread throughout the land! Further, they will be brought together “from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.” In other words, from all over the world, these people will be drawn together. This has not happened. It will not happen until the Second Coming.

THE PARABLE OF THE FIG TREE.

Matthew 24:32-33
"Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors."

The Parable of the Fig Tree (Matthew 21:18-21).

Notice that it does not mention a “rebirth” of Israel. The “fig tree” was the Israel of the First Century, which was cursed so that “no fruit (would) grow on you ever again”.

More Apocalyptic Language
Fig Tree = THIS mountain = Jerusalem
Sea = Abyss = abode of demons (The “beast” rises out of the “sea” in Rev. 13.

This passage has absolutely no bearing on a “rebirth” of Israel. That happened during our age, and this entire discourse concerns only the Tribulation. The meaning of the parable is simple: just as the fig tree bears its fruit in season, the things discussed will happen in their season. Thus, when we see the “figs” (the signs discussed), we know it is the “season” (the Second Coming). Notice that this fits into the context of the disciples' question.

As for your equation of this fig tree parable with the fig tree of Matt. 21, I simply don't see a connection. Jesus already explained what that action meant in that same passage. Besides, that's a bad interpretation of that, anyway . . .

Matthew 24:34
"Verily I say unto you, This generation (genea) shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."

genea 1074: (42 occurrences.)
41 generation, 1 age (NKJV)

A common argument used by dispensationalists is that the word “generation” can also mean “race”, but this just doesn't hold water. The greek is "a genea", which means "this generation". The word appears 42 times in the Bible, and 41 of those times it is translated "generation", once it is translated "age". It never means race. If Jesus had meant race, He would have said "ethnos", not "genea". Besides, it is translated "generation" in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21, and in all reputable translations of the Bible. There is no getting around what Jesus said here. All of the events that He was speaking of were to happen within the Apostle's generation. This is the ONLY legitimate meaning.

Sorry, I disagree PL. First, as I have demonstrated elsewhere, the word can mean more than just “generation.” You rejected the argument by calling my sources “dispensational.” I have provided some six or so different lexicons that argue against your position. Besides, your argument about ethnos is incorrect, anyway. Jesus could NOT have used that word if He wanted to convey “race.” The reason is that ethnos never refers to the Jews (that I'm aware of). It always refers to Gentile nations. Thus, it is a theological stance on your part, no more and no less, to argue that this HAS to be a reference to the people living in those days.

Secondly, I refer you to an article entitled, “'This Generation' in Matthew 24:34: A Literary Critical Perspective” by Neil D. Nelson in the September '96 edition of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, p. 369-385. Nelson argues powerfully:

• A study of the use of he genea haute (11:16; 12:41, 42, 45; 23:36; 24:34) and genea with other descriptive adjectives (12:39, 45; 16:4; 17:17) used in the same sense reveals that the kind of people referred to are characterized as those who reject Jesus and his messengers and the salvific message they preach, who remain unbelieving and unrepentant, who actively oppose Jesus and his messengers through testing and persecution, and who will face eschatological judgment. The pejorative adjectives given to “this generation” (evil, adulterous, faithless, perverse; cf. 12:39, 45; 16:4; 17:17) throughout the gospels are qualities that distinguish those who are subjects of the kingdom from those who are not.
  .
  .
  .
  He genea haute in Matthew describes unbelieving, rejecting humanity, unresponsive to God and oblivious to the possibility of facing judgment. “This generation” that opposed the coming of the kingdom in Jesus' ministry stands in solidarity with those who reject and oppose God and his kingdom to the very end. Leon Morris says, “Right up to the time when all these things happen there will be people of the same stamp as those who rejected Jesus while he lived on earth.” While Jesus was addressing contemporaries in Matt. 11:16; 12:39, 41-42; 16:4; 17:17, in Matt. 23:36 his reference to he genea haute expands beyond his own contemporaries to include persecutors and murderers of the righteous from Abel to Zechariah to heralds of the gospel in the indefinite future (23:32-35). The context of the Olivet discourse indicates that the group described as he genea haute sees all the events (24:34) of 24:4-31. Therefore these are persecutors of Christ's disciples until the parousia. (p.375, 383)

Now, obviously you will reject this argument. I would highly recommend you pick up the article. Any library can get it for you for free via ILL if you don't have direct access. But, regardless, the point is that your interpretation is far from the ONLY interpretation.

Matthew 24:35-42
“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.”
.
.
.
When Titus and the Roman Army invaded Jerusalem in 70 AD, some of the citizens were taken (captive) and some were left (killed).

It's one thing to take the coming of the Son of Man as apocalyptic in what can be argued an apocalyptic context (as weak as that is), but it is quite another to argue that it also is apocalyptic here! Now, the reference is most definitely to judgment. That is what the Second Coming is all about. But for you to state that this does not refer to the Advent at all is simply ludicrous. I would strongly argue against this passage having any reference to the Rapture, as it is sadly often used to support. But, again, you are rejecting the plain reading of the text. All of the signs of the parousis are in this passage, so the burden is on you to show that this is not the reference. Secondly, your suggested fulfillment is seriously lacking. Jesus says this judgment will be like the judgment in the days of Noah. It was unexpected, and when it came, all were taken away. In the Flood account, those who were “left” were not killed. They were saved. Those who were “taken away” were taken away in judgment. The parallel has to be carried over. Two will be working together. One will be taken away in judgment. The other will be left (saved). The context is clear and this lines up with the rest of biblical interpretation (continue on through the judgment of the Sheep and the Goats).

CONCLUSION
David Chilton, in his book “The Great Tribulation”, gives us an excellent summary of the Olivet Discourse. “The only possible interpretation of Jesus' words which He Himself allows, therefore, is that He was speaking of the destruction of the Temple which then stood in Jerusalem, the very buildings which the disciples beheld at that moment in history. The Temple of which Jesus spoke was destroyed in the fall of Jerusalem to the Roman armies in A.D. 70. This is the only possible interpretation of Jesus' prophecy in this chapter. The Great Tribulation ended with the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70. Even in the (unlikely) event that another temple should be built sometime in the future, Jesus' words in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 have nothing to say about it. He was talking solely about the Temple of that generation. There is no Scriptural basis for asserting that any other temple is meant. Jesus confirmed His disciples' fears: Jerusalem's beautiful Temple would be destroyed within that generation; her house would be left desolate." (See Matthew 23:37-38). Contrary to the popular “paperback fiction” novels of our day, the Great Tribulation is history.

So, it's pretty apparent that the preterist view if FAR from the “only” (correct) interpretation. It has been shown to be severely lacking. Only by rejecting the plain meaning of the texts and mixing the meanings of various words and phrases can your position be sustained. Further, you will be forced to totally ignore Matthew 25, which lends further credibility to the PreM position.

So, as they say . . . try again

God bless

edit: I forgot to deal with the typological fulfillment aspect other than in passing. I have no problem with much of this prophecy being partially fulfilled in type in the first century. If you look up the qualifications Moses laid out on a prophet, one of them was that his prophecies come true. That obviously could not be tested in the prophecy came in the distant future, so you would have near fulfillments that would guarantee the fulfillment at a later date. Some of these near fulfillments would be in the prophets lifetime (as in the birth of Maher-shalal-hash-baz), while other fulfillments would be within a few generations (as in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes). Both of these were types fulfillments that would have future, fuller fulfillments (Christ and the Antichrist, respectively). This is very often referred to as the law of double reference, where the first, nearer, reference establishes the credibility of the second. We can go into a discussion on that if you want, although, if it is an interpretive method you are going to take major issue with, we may want to start a new thread.

[Locker]

edit: I forgot to deal with the typological fulfillment aspect other than in passing. I have no problem with much of this prophecy being partially fulfilled in type in the first century. If you look up the qualifications Moses laid out on a prophet, one of them was that his prophecies come true. That obviously could not be tested in the prophecy came in the distant future, so you would have near fulfillments that would guarantee the fulfillment at a later date. Some of these near fulfillments would be in the prophets lifetime (as in the birth of Maher-shalal-hash-baz), while other fulfillments would be within a few generations (as in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes). Both of these were types fulfillments that would have future, fuller fulfillments (Christ and the Antichrist, respectively). This is very often referred to as the law of double reference, where the first, nearer, reference establishes the credibility of the second. We can go into a discussion on that if you want, although, if it is an interpretive method you are going to take major issue with, we may want to start a new thread.

Is what you describe above is what is known as the spirit of prophecy-the typological fulfillment aspect of the word of God?

That is how I understand end time prophecy to be.

[Jac3510]

I'm not sure what you mean by the "spirit of prophecy." When I say a typological fulfillment, I am referring to a fulfillment that in some ways meets the criteria of the prophecy, but not in all. It foreshadows the fulfillment, so to speak.

There is some division among scholars as to the exact nature of this. Some appeal to a so-called law of double reference, in which a prophecy describes one event but simultaneously describes another. I'm not sure I hold to that myself, although I need to look more into it.

I also have to say that this is slightly different from a typological prophecy. In this case, an event or person foreshadows a later event or person. So, we see the bronze snake is a typological prophecy of the cross.

The reason for all this is simple: when you have a prophecy that will be fulfilled in the last days, a type (similar to the bronze snake) may be provided to show that such a fulfillment will happen. However, those living are expected to recognize that not every aspect of the prophecy was fulfilled, and thus, they are to look for the complete fulfillment in the future, in full confidence that such can and will happen. A great example of this is found in Daniel 11. The latter half of this prophecy was partially (or typologically) fulfilled by Antiochus Epiphanes, but he could not be the complete fulfillment because he did not meet some of the narrower requirements. Thus, the Jew in the second century BC should have seen Epiphanes and recognized him as a type of the one who would come in the Last Days, a man which we understand to be the Antichrist.

Hope that helps,

God bless

[puritan lad]

Jac,

I address your argument later. I'm finishing up an argument against full preterism first.

God Bless,

PL.

[puritan lad]

A Brief Analysis of the Errors of Hyper-Preterism

In response to Christian2 and other numerous inquiries regarding full or hyperpreterism, I've decided to layout arguments as to why it is a heresy. Hyperpreterism teaches that ALL bible prophecy was fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, including the Second Advent, the Resurrection, and the Final Judgment. The view is unorthodox to say the least.

I'll begin with a scriptural analysis, which will include prophesies from both the Old and New Testament that are obviously unfulfilled. I'll also address historical and cosmological arguments, and look at the ramifications of such teaching, if carried to their logical end.

The Second Advent

Acts 1:9-11
”Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, who also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.”

The text, particularly the phrase “in like manner”, demands a physical, bodily return of Christ. Most hyper-preterists have been greatly influences by James Stuart Russell's The Parousia, published in 1887. I won't go into the details of their commentaries on Acts 1:9-11 as you can read them for yourself here. Some, such as Randall Otto, want to interpret the phrase “gazing up into heaven” as mere “spiritual perception”. As Keith Mathison points out, nothing in this entire passage supports this. Mathison's complete analysis of the passage can be found here.

2 Peter 3:10
”But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.”

The above text is less convincing, and even some orthodox (partial) preterists associate this with 70 AD. Their argument hinges on the idea that, in the New Testament, the phrase “the day of the Lord” refers to 70 AD, and 2 Peter 3:10 uses apocalyptic language similar to the Olivet Discourse. However, similar language is just that, similar language. This language is used to describe many events in the Old Testament (See Isaiah's Prophecy against Babylon - Isaiah 13:1,10), so why would we used it to describe only one event in the New Testament? The same is true with “the day of the Lord”. There were many “days of the Lord” in the OT (See Isaiah 13:6,9), so why is there only one in the New?

I hold that Peter's prophecy must refer to the Second Advent, due to the context of this passage. Peter is dealing with scoffers of the Second Advent who ask, ““Where is the promise of His coming?” (2 Peter 3:4). Peter responds, “beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” (2 Peter 3:8). Such a statement would be unnecessary if the event Peter was describing would happen with a decade or so.

John 14:1-3
“Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me. In My Father's house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also.”

The promise that Jesus gave to his disciples is that he would “will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also.” This passage has led to some very interesting, albeit unorthodox, theories concerning 70 AD. Some, like Ed Stevens, believes that the church was literally raptured to heaven in 70 AD. Many other theories abound among hyper-preterists as to how this was fulfilled, but the result is that most of them deny that there were any Christians left on planet earth after 70 AD. They will reject the idea that the Apostle John lived on earth up until the reign of emperor Trajan. Of course, that makes any reference to church history moot. Consider the words of Ed Stevens.

”Maybe some Church Fathers made a mistake. Maybe our favorite theologians have made mistakes. I can abide with that. I can't abide with Jesus being a false prophet.”

Of course this assumes that Jesus prophesied the fulfillment of ALL prophecy by 70 AD, which He didn't. In order to take Steven's approach, one must reject the writings of any Christian who claims to have lived through 70 AD, such as Clement of Rome. Of course, one needs to explain how the church became re-established after 70 AD (if indeed it did). If the church was indeed raptured in 70 AD, then what does that do for Christians today? This problem gets even more obvious in dealing with the Resurrection.

The Resurrection

John 5:28-29
“Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.”

Both Partial and Full Preterism agree that, in opposition to Dispensationalism, there is but one resurrection. The righteous and wicked are raised up at the same time, just like John 5 states. The disagreement, however, is no minor one. Did the resurrection occur in 70 AD, or is yet future? Aside from the fact that there is no historical evidence of a resurrection in 70 AD, hyper-preterism faces the same dilemma as Dispensationalism in that it leaves at least one group of Christians without a resurrection, namely us.

Most hyper-preterists are forced to step way outside of orthodox Christianity (if they weren't there already) toward gnosticism when dealing with the resurrection. Max King and others deny the bodily resurrection. This is similar to the belief addressed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15.

1 Corinthians 15:12-19
”Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise. For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.”

Paul does go on to describe the resurrection in terms of a “spiritual body”, but it is clear that this Spiritual body has some continuity with the physical body. Jesus clearly promised to the literal resurrection of his followers (John 6:39-40, 44), stating that it would happen on the last day. Denying the physical resurrection clearly puts hyper-preterism outside of Christian Orthodoxy.

Others take a more unreasonable approach, claiming that the physical resurrection did in fact take place in 70 AD. Aside from the ramifications on the hope of modern saints, there needs to be an explanation as to why we still find bodies that pre-date 70 AD. Why, for example, was King Tut not bodily resurrected, since hyper-preterists believe that both the righteous and the wicked were resurrected in 70 AD. (King Tut's bodywas still in the grave when it was discovered.

Historical Issues

What are we to make of the churches historical writings concerning hyper-preterism? Clement of Rome, John, Josephus, Titus, Vespasian, Ignatius all lived through 70 AD. Were they resurrected and judged? If so, then it is amazing that they had no clue. The Christian church has ALWAYS taught a future Advent of Christ. You may, as Stevens did, assume that they were all wrong. The Second Advent, the Resurrection, and the Final judgment has all taken place, and every church father, including those who lived through it, all missed out on it. This is apparent from their writings as well as the Creeds and Confessions of the Church.

The Apostles Creed: "He shall come to judge the living and the dead."

The Nicene Creed: "He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end."

The Athanasian Creed: "From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead." (BTW: Athanasius was a preterist and a postmillennialist.)

Ramifications

If, in fact, all Bible Prophecy has been fulfilled, as hyper-preterism teaches, then what do we make of Christianity today? Have the Jews abandoned their false religion in favor of Christianity, thus bringing greater blessings to the gentiles (Romans 11:24-26)? What of God's law (Matthew 5:17-18)? What about the Lord's Supper (1 Corinthians 11:26)? Why are we still marrying and giving in marriage (Luke 20:35)? What of our resurrection and judgment? Has the great Commission been fulfilled (Matthew 28:18-20)? Is Jesus still sitting at the right hand of the Father (Psalm 110:1)? If not, where is He? Such a belief system tends to lead toward gnosticism and, in the case of the modern church, deism. Hyper-preterism is as ridiculous as it is unorthodox.

[Christian2]

puritan lad,

First let me thank you for your efforts.

It looks like you put a lot of thought into your position. I've printed it and will take a look and see if I have any additional comments or questions.

[SUGAAAAA]

Thanks alot Puritan Lad.


I noticed the quote from Ed Stevens

”Maybe some Church Fathers made a mistake. Maybe our favorite theologians have made mistakes. I can abide with that. I can't abide with Jesus being a false prophet.”


But did Jesus really say his coming and the ressurections will take place in that Generation? since no record of that happening exists, that would make it seem like Jesus gave a false prophecy.


I am reading Days of Vengeance by David Chilton, who also wrote in another book that Jesus predicted his Second coming to occur within that generation. Why did David go from partial to hyper-preterism?


and also, do you believe hyper-preterists are saved?

[puritan lad]

But did Jesus really say his coming and the ressurections will take place in that Generation? since no record of that happening exists, that would make it seem like Jesus gave a false prophecy.

No. He said that within the apostle's generation "they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." (Matthew 24:30,34). This is not the Second Advent. Coming on the clouds is something God does quite often (See Isaiah's prophecy against Egypt in Isaiah 19:1 and it's fulfillment in Isaiah 20:1-4). The coming here is the same coming described in Matthew 21:40, which is a clear prophecy of 70 AD.

I am reading Days of Vengeance by David Chilton, who also wrote in another book that Jesus predicted his Second coming to occur within that generation. Why did David go from partial to hyper-preterism?

Chilton was a partial-preterist for most of his life and wrote some amazing material. He had a several strokes toward the end of his life and had many health problems. He died a few years ago. Many think that his brain was seriously damaged. I don't know all the details, but he did convert to hyper-preterism in the end, and well as adopt a few other strange teachings. He may have even been excommunicated, but I can't say for sure.

and also, do you believe hyper-preterists are saved?

I don't have the ultimate decision on this, but for anyone who denies the future resurrection, as Jac pointed out, it doesn't look good.

[puritan lad]

Jac,
I'll save a little space by list here the multiple statements made by you that you provide no support for whatsoever. I guess you figure that if you repeat it often enough, people will believe it.

They have already been told about His death, and they now ask about His return.

Say who? They had just left the temple after hearing Jesus pronounce His judgment on Jerusalem and especially the temple. Read Chapter 23 again. Jesus clearly stated that those Jews listening to Him would fill up the measure of their father's guilt, and that all of those judgments would come upon “this generation”. The disciples questions were in response to Jesus clear statement that the temple would be destroyed. (Matthew 24:1-3). Nothing even hints at the idea that Jesus had the 21st century in mind.

It is of great interest that the Antichrist (in the PreM view) will establish a false covenant of peace with Israel for seven years.

Says who? Please provide scripture and expound.

I agree (regarding Matthew 24:3), but I wonder how this helps your case? In fact, it actually runs counter to your thinking. According to Postmillennialism (hereafter PM) and Amillennialism (hereafter AM), the Second Advent will bring with it the establishment of the New Heaven and Earth. Thus, if your interpretation is right, we should be looking at the end of the kosmos, not the end of the aion. Secondly, to make the point stronger, kosmos, in the NT, has the idea of the world as dominated by Satan. Is it not true that PMs and AMs consider the Second Advent the time at which Satan's rule is destroyed?

Not necessarily. Even those AMs and PMs who do believe in the end of the kosmos, it is irrelevant. The point here is that this prophecy is NOT about this.

no covenant was made with Israel in the first century

I guess that depends on your definition of Israel. Does God elect anyone based on race? The church, dear Jac, IS Israel. The NT could not be any clearer on that fact. (In fact, this was the case in the OT as well). I'll take the time to prove it if necessary.

What I do want to do, at this point, is ask you what you think about Revelation 6? Has it already been fulfilled (I suspect you would say yes?). It is very interesting to note the deep correlation between these verses and the first four (and possibly five) seals of the tribulation. Note that the first seal is the Antichrist, as is the first prediction. The second seal is war, as is the second prediction. The third seal is famine, as is the third prediction. The fourth seal is death, which is clearly implied in Matt. 24. We also have the fifth seal, which is martyrdom, which is the next prediction in Matthew. Thus, it would seem that Rev. 6 and Matt. 24 parallel, and even further, that this part of the Olivet Discourse clearly refers to the first half of the Tribulation. I believe you consider the Tribulation passed, so you may not have a problem with this. But, you can also recognize that this now depends on our understanding of the Revelation. If it is yet future, then so also must Matthew be.

I believe what John writes about Revelation. This was a prophecy written to the First Century Churches of Asia concerning things which must shortly take place, were near, and were about to come upon the whole world. They were expected to read, hear and keep the words of this prophecy (which would have been hard for them to do if it were concerning events 2,000 years into the future. Revelation 6 was fulfilled in 70 AD.

Note that the first seal is the Antichrist, as is the first prediction

Says Who? It is none other than Jesus Christ Himself. (Rev. 19:11-16, Hab. 3:8-11).


While you correctly make the connection between Revelation 5 and 6 and Matthew 24, you didn't make the connection of both books to Deuteronomy 28 and Ezekiel 2 (the sealed scroll), which clearly ties the judgments to Israel's Covenant. Here are the connections:

The Sealed Book (Rev. 5:1-5).
a. Written on both sides = Testament (Exodus 32:15).
b. Witness against Israel (Deut. 31:26).
c. Ezekiel tells of receiving a scroll containing a list of judgments against Israel (Ezekiel 2:3-10).

The Lamb Standing as Slain (Rev. 5:6-14).
a. The First Four Seals: Horsemen (Rev. 6:1-8).
b. White Horse Rider with a Bow = Jesus Christ (Rev. 19:11-16, Hab. 3:8-11).
c. Second Rider = War (Deut.28:25) (Matthew 24:6-7).
d. Third Rider = Famine (Deut. 28:15-21) (Matthew 24:7).
e. Oil and Wine = Church (James 5:14-15; 1 Cor. 11:25).
f. Fourth Rider = Death (Deut. 28:26).
g. Judgments against Israel (Ezekiel 14:21).
h. The Fifth Seal: Martyrs (Rev. 6:9-11).
i. Jerusalem was the murderer of the prophets (Matt. 23:29-37; Luke 13:33; Acts 7:51-52).
j. The Sixth Seal: De-Creation (Rev. 6:12-17).
k. Salvation compared to creation (2 Cor. 4:6; 5:17). Judgement is De-Creation.
l. Parable of the vineyard. (Matt. 21:33-45).
m. “and they (Israel) said to the mountains and to the rocks: Fall on us and hide us…”(Hosea 10:6-8, Luke 23:27-30).

An alternative understanding is that those who “fall away” are those Jews who will be deceived by the Antichrist. They will then begin to turn over believers to his rule for martyrdom as per the fifth seal in Rev. 6, with which we've already established a connection.

Maybe, if the books of Revelation or Matthew mentioned anything about antichrist, which they don't.

This is as clear a reference as you can get to the Second Advent.

So says you? What do you make of Isaiah 19:1? Did God literally hop on a cloud and ride down mainstreet in Egypt? I'll bet that was quite a sight.

Next, with this coming, “all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see him.” Again, this is a clear reference to the visual return of Christ. The fact that you have to take this figuratively should tell you something about your position.

Really? If, in fact you are correct, and Christ returns to split the mount of Olives in the Middle East, how will “every eye see Him”. I can't see the Mount of Olives Jac. Can you? I simply use scripture to interpret scripture. Check out Zechariah 12:10-14, a clear reference to Jerusalem only, the “House of David”.

Now, the clear, plain meaning of this passage is that following this tribulation, the Son of Man will return, as the disciples had asked Him about. If you reject that, then what you have is a discourse that NEVER mentions His return, and thus, Jesus NEVER answers the disciples' question.

It is you have Jesus never answering the question. The disciples asked Him, “When?” I hold that Matthew 24:34 is the answer. Your view never answers it.

Let me ask you this. Jesus said that the owner of the vineyard would come and “destroy those wicked men (the Pharisees) miserably” (Matthew 21:40-45). Did He do that or not? That is the “coming” in Matthew 24.

The meaning of the parable is simple: just as the fig tree bears its fruit in season, the things discussed will happen in their season. Thus, when we see the “figs” (the signs discussed), we know it is the “season” (the Second Coming).

Rather vague don't you think? The Parable of the Fig Tree is a parable concerning the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. I'll expound it for you if you like, but I'd hope that this would be obvious.

Sorry, I disagree PL. First, as I have demonstrated elsewhere, the word can mean more than just “generation.” You rejected the argument by calling my sources “dispensational.” I have provided some six or so different lexicons that argue against your position. … Any library can get it for you for free via ILL if you don't have direct access. But, regardless, the point is that your interpretation is far from the ONLY interpretation.

I'll agree that it isn't the only interpretation (the fact that Dispensationalism exists is proof of that). However, it is the only VALID interpretation. In Matthew 24:34, the Greek word for "generation" is genea. Genea in the New Testament always, always, always means "generation". Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament maintains that genea in Matthew 24:34 means "The whole multitude of men living at the same time." Arndt-Gingrich's Greek Lexicon defines the word as such, "basically the sum total of those born at the same time, expanded to include those all living at a given time. Contemporaries." Even in the examples given in your article, the word “generation” means the same thing that it always means. Christian scholars of the Greek language are painfully aware that skeptics like Bertrand Russell are right: Jesus was speaking of His generation, i.e. the people then living. Many futurists will attempt to explain away the word genea by saying that it actually means "race", not "generation". In fact, "race" is suggested as an alternate meaning in the margins of many Bibles. It is suggested that Jesus was really speaking of the Jewish race, that the Jewish race would not pass until they saw the fulfillment of the end. The fact is that "race" cannot be a possible meaning, and this is easily proved by looking at many other verses in the Gospel's that contain genea (for instance, see Matthew 1:17). Genea is always translated "generation", not "race". It's meaning is simple, and no reputable Greek scholar would suggest anything different, aside from mere theological desperation.

"This prophecy does not relate to evils that are distant, and which posterity will see after the lapse of many centuries, but which are now hanging over you, and ready to fall in one mass, so that there is no part of it which the present generation will not experience." - John Calvin

David Brown (1858)
"Does not this tell us plainly as words could do it, that the whole prophecy was meant to apply to the destruction of Jerusalem? There is but one way of setting this aside, but how forced it is, must, I think, appear to every unbiased mind. It is by translating, not 'this generation,' ...but 'this nation shall not pass away:" in other words, the Jewish nation shall survive all the things here predicted! Nothing but some fancied necessity, arising out of their view of the prophecy, could have led so many sensible men to put this gloss upon our Lord's words. Only try the effect of it upon the perfectly parallel announcement in the previous chapter: 'Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.. Wherefore, behold, I send you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall 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 upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zecharias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation' ... Matt. xxiii. 32, 34-36). Does not the Lord here mean the then existing generation of the Israelites? Beyond all question he does; and if so, what can be plainer than that this is his meaning in the passage before us? (David Brown, p. 435)

F.F. Bruce
"The phrase "this generation" is found too often on Jesus' lips in this literal sense for us to suppose that it suddenly takes on a different meaning in the saying we are now examining. Moreover, if the generation of the end-time had been intended, 'that generation' would have been a more natural way of referring to it than 'this generation. (The Hard Sayings of Jesus, p. 227)

Arndt and Gingrich
"Basically, the sum total of those born at the same time, expanded to include all those living at a given time, generation, contemporaries." (Arndt and Gingrich Lexicon, p. 152)

If these aren't good enough, listen to some of your own. Dispensationalist Gleason Archer suggests a possible copyist error, genea instead of genos. He writes, "...genea ('generation') was used as a synonym of genos ('race', 'stock', 'nation' , 'people'). This would then amount to a prediction that the Jewish race would not pass out of existence before the Second Advent." (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties pg 338-339). If that were the case, than the same copyist error took place in all three gospels, in all known manuscripts. Archer knows full well the meaning of genea and it's implications of the Olivet Prophecy. Why would he make the above suggestion? He explains, “Obviously these apocalyptic scenes and earth-shaking events did not take place within the generation of those who heard Christ's Olivet discourse. Therefore Jesus could not have been referring to his immediate audience when He made this prediction”. Dispensationalist C.S. Lewis is equally perplexed. He writes, "It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible." At least both of these guys are honest. I also like to use the words of Bible skeptics like Bertrand Russell in these cases. They have no theological oars in these waters, since they reject the Word anyways. They know full well what Jesus said. There is no valid way to make Matthew 24:34 say anything other that the plain reading without some serious literary gymnastics. Jesus was clear. All of the things that he prophesied were to take place within that generation. The real question is, “Do you believe Him?”

Only by rejecting the plain meaning of the texts and mixing the meanings of various words and phrases can your position be sustained.

You mean like “generation”?

I agree that 70 AD was a typology of the Second Coming (the judgment). However, the prophecy itself was fulfilled in 70 AD, including the Great Tribulation and the Abomination of Desolation. There is no reason to believe that these will happen again.

[Jac3510]

Haha, good job, PL. I line-by-lined your post and presented what I perceived to be strong difficulties in the majority of your interpretation. Rather than dealing with the difficulties, you have simply reasserted your various positions. I'll just refer the reader back to my examination of your interpretation. On a brief skimming, I found no less than sixteen difficulties/inconsistencies. I'll leave it to the reader to decide if a) they are serious enough to warrant response, and b) if you have defended your position well against them.

God bless

[puritan lad]

Jac,

I answered your objections. You didn't outline any real "difficulties". All you did was make blanket assertions (as dispies often do) without any evidence whatsoever. Such as...

They have already been told about His death, and they now ask about His return (ie. Second Advent).

It is of great interest that the Antichrist (in the PreM view) will establish a false covenant of peace with Israel for seven years.

no covenant was made with Israel in the first century

Note that the first seal is the Antichrist, as is the first prediction

This is as clear a reference as you can get to the Second Advent.

the word can mean more than just “generation.”

You gave absolutely nothing to support any of these assertions, including a single example of where "genea" means anything other than a literal generation.

Try again. If not, I'll agree to let the reader decide.

[bluesman]

Isaiah 2:2-4


2. "and it shall come to pass in the last days that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.
KJV


2."in the last days Jerusalem and temple of the Lord will become the world's greastests attraction and many people will flow there to worship the lord"
The Living Bible

3."Come everyone will say "let us go up the mountain of the Lord, to the temple of the God of Israel ; there he will teach us his laws, and we will obey them" for in the end days the world will be ruled from Jerusalem."
The Living Bible


4. "and he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people:
and they shall beat their swords into into plowshares and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore"
KJV

So unless I missed something Jesus our Lord, has yet to rule the world from Jerusalem. Then tune to CNN or your choice of world news to see that war is still well learnt.

Mike

[SUGAAAAA]

It is thought that the term "Last days" refers to the last days of the Old Covenant, not last days of the world.

[Jac3510]

It doesn't, Sug. May I suggest you look through all the reference to "the last day" and "that day" and "the Day of the Lord", etc.? All of these refer to the same time period, which is the end of the age.

[led]

#1-#6 are pretty simple. It's all been going on for a long time and will continue.

#7 - GOSPEL PREACHED IN ALL THE WORLD

- I'm with Jac3510 on this one. We're still here!

#8 - THE ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION
...Spoken of Daniel the prophet

Daniel gives an account of this.

Daniel 11:31-37
And forces shall be mustered by him, and they shall defile the sanctuary fortress; then they shall take away the daily sacrifices, and place there the abomination of desolation. 32Those who do wickedly against the covenant he shall corrupt with flattery; but the people who know their God shall be strong, and carry out great exploits. 33And those of the people who understand shall instruct many; yet for many days they shall fall by sword and flame, by captivity and plundering. 34Now when they fall, they shall be aided with a little help; but many shall join with them by intrigue. 35And some of those of understanding shall fall, to refine them, purify them, and make them white, until the time of the end; because it is still for the appointed time.
36"Then the king shall do according to his own will: he shall exalt and magnify himself above every god, shall speak blasphemies against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the wrath has been accomplished; for what has been determined shall be done. 37He shall regard neither the God of his fathers nor the desire of women, nor regard any god; for he shall exalt himself above them all. 38 but in their place he will honor a god of fortresses...

First we can establish that this was typologically fulfilled in the first century.

Paul writes in 2Thessalonians 2:1-4 Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him [i.e. rapture], that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.

Second we can see that the anti-christ is set up and will be revealed.
If he's been releaved, could you please tell me the name of the anti-christ.

#9,#10 Again with Jac3510 on this one. "This has not happened. It will not happen until the Second Coming."