The Olivet Discourse

by biblexaminer 24 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • biblexaminer
    biblexaminer

    Looking over your info Vander, I see you take an opinion that fosters Preterism. I am quite sure it would be incorrect to believe that at Mt. 24:23, Jesus is still talking about Jerusalem. He closed that discussion in verse 22. It was complete.

    Indeed, He has changed the focus onto the second question, concerning our day. This is confirmed by Mark and Luke. At Mark 13:21, for instance, Jesus, referring to the last days, warns that "Then also", in the last days, there would come false messiahs.

    Luke records this change with more brevity at Lu. 21:25. "Also" and refers to what John recorded in the Apocalypse. (Hence, the Olivet Discourse is also referred to as "The Little Apocalypse".)

    By confusing this, one relegates the Second Coming, which Jesus promised "every eye shall see" Rev. 1:7, to a non-event and that gives fuel to Preterism and also detractors.

    My Jesus will come. And He will come as He said he will at Luke 21:27 and His Sign, the Sign Of The Son Of Man, is HIS SIGN. As Jonah's sign was named after him, and Christ borrowed it, so Jesus sign belongs to the Christ, the sign of a blackened sky, (Mark 15:33) such as when He expired on our behalf. Mt. 24:29, Mr. 13:24, Lu. 21:25, Rev. 6:12.

    I eagerly await The Sixth Seal. Come Lord Jesus.

  • Vanderhoven7
    Vanderhoven7

    Biblexaminer: I am not a preterist. Like most people who read Matthew 24, I am a partial preterist. Part of Matthew 24 relates to the destruction of Jerusalem and part to Christ's parousia (second personal coming to earth). The question is where in the chapter to draw the line to separate both judgments.

    The one-time tribulation occurred between AD 66-70; it centered on Jerusalem, Judea, this people; flight to surrounding mountains, hopefully in warm weather and not on a Sabbath when the gates of the city would be locked and travel distance minimized.

    It was immediately after this localized tribulation that Jerusalem was set to fall and her temple and way of worship obliterated.

    29. IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE TRIBULATION OF THOSE
    DAYS SHALL THE SUN B E DARKENED, AND THE MOON
    NOT GIVE HER LIGHT, AND THE STARS SHALL FALL
    FROM HEAVEN, AND THE POWERS OF THE HEAVENS
    SHALL BE SHAKEN:

    It was immediately after the tribulation of those days that the sun would be darkened etc. And as pointed out earlier, the same kind of apocalyptic language was used by the Holy Spirit to describe the downfall of other nations.


    The Christian's hope and expectation, the second coming (parousia) is still future.

  • Vanderhoven7
    Vanderhoven7

    TIMES OF THE GENTILES:


    "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled." (Luke 21:32)

    The times of the Gentiles has to be kept in it's proper historical context. Jesus said that "all", including the times of the Gentiles, would be fulfilled before his contemporary generation had passed. Dispensationalists go outside the box of "this generation" in order to teach a futuristic view of Christ's coming. To do that they have to redefine both "the times of the Gentiles" and "this generation". Needless to say, their "1914 or 1948 generation" has proven to be more than just a little embarrassing.

    "And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh . . . and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." (Luke 21:20, 24)


    The times of the Gentiles referred to the treading down, or desolation, of first century Jerusalem, which Jesus called "the days of vengeance". In other words, it was God's mission for the Gentiles to bring judgment upon Jerusalem. This is consistent with past judgments upon Israel, when God brought Gentiles armies into their land to desolate it.

    The whole controversy centers on the duration of the treading down of Jerusalem. The Greek for "trodden" is pat-eh'-o (#3961 in Strong's Concordance), and it means "to trample down underfoot". The parallel to Lk.21:24 is seen in Revelation 11:2, which says:

    "But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot (pateho) forty and two months." Rev.11:2


    (Remembering that Revelation and Matthew 24 deal with the same event) The times of the Gentiles, or treading down of Jerusalem, entailed no more than a forty two month period of time, the exact duration of the Jewish-Roman War. This is in perfect harmony with Daniel 12:7, where the defining characteristic of "the time of the end" is said to be "the scattering of the power of the holy people", which we are told would be accomplished during "a time, times, and a half", or forty two months.

    The parables Jesus told are clear on this destruction and scattering of the Jews as well as who was the orchestrator of the events and the rationale behind it.



    Mar 12:9 What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do?
    H
    e will come (ἔρχομαι erchomai) and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others.


    Matthew 21:

    38 But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.

    39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.

    40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh (ἔρχομαι erchomai), what will he do unto those husbandmen?

    41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.

    42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

    43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

    44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

    45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.


    Luke 20:

    13 Then said the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence him when they see him.

    Luk 20:14 But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir: come let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.

    Luk 20:15 So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them?

    Luk 20:16 He shall come (ἔρχομαι erchomai), and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid.

    Luk 20:17 And he beheld them, and said, What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner?

    Luk 20:18 Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

    Luk 20:19 And the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on him; and they feared the people: for they perceived that he had spoken this parable against them.


    The Lord did come and destroy those husbandmen (leaders) using the Romans army when they destroyed Jerusalem and killed almost everyone in it. And He did leave their house desolate and gave the vineyard to others who would bring forth the fruit. The vineyard represents the kingdom.

    The timing on this is relevant:

    Mat 10:23
    But when they persecute you in this city, flee into the next: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone through the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come (ἔρχομαι erchomai).


    Luk 9:27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.

    Mat 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming (ἔρχομαι erchomai) in his kingdom.



    This coming in vengeance, would climax the tribulation and occur in the lifespan of Christ's own generation. (Matthew 24:34)

    Matthew 24:34

    Mat 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:

    Mat 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 (ἔρχομαι erchomai), in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

    - - - -

    Leola writes

    The word parousia does not necessarily denote both "an arrival and a consequent presence"; it commonly denoted just the arrival, such as a terminus or an end-point of a time period (such as a state of affairs continuing UNTIL someone arrives). It is trivially easy to find clear examples of this in Greek literature. The parousia itself would then be a sudden change of the situation as opposed to being itself a duration. That is how it is used in the synoptic apocalypse. It is used interchangeably with erkhomai, and is an event that occurs suddenly or unexpectedly. The comparison of the parousia to the Flood of Noah emphasizes the suddenness of the event that will END an ongoing state of affairs. What was arriving to those on the earth was the Flood itself; it wasn't "invisibly present" beforehand. And even if it was, what happened during those years long before the Flood that made the Flood go from "not present" to "present"? Don't you see the problem? "Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left" (v. 40-41). That pertains to the parousia, in analogy with the Flood, and it highlights the suddenness of the event; people would be in the midst of their daily activities when it happens, just as those before the Flood were in the midst of eating, drinking, and so forth. The arrival denoted by the parousia isn't invisible either; " For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. " (v. 27). Sure there would be a presence after this, but it isn't one unremarked upon by the world at large. It was going to be absolutely obvious, with a spectacle in the sky and with a loud trumpet call from the heavens."

    The "great tribulation" (days of vengeance) culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD was a localized coming ercmomai of Christ in judgment; an event which one could anticipate as to timing, and escape from on foot...weather permitting and after which the Jews who were not slain, would be carried off into all nations....all this in the lifetime of some in Jesus' audience (37 years removed) The parousia of our Lord however, was spoken of as future worldwide coming, impossible to escape by running anywhere, impossible to anticipate as to timing, where believers will be taken/removed from beds and workplace during normal times when people will be carrying on as usual just like in the time of Noah. No signs, no warning, no fleeing and worldwide.

  • biblexaminer
    biblexaminer

    Thanks.

    * I hope you are not thin skinned and take offense when others choose to have and express an opposing view. I am fact oriented. And I in no wise am any sort of Preterist.

    I came to the conclusion that you were a "partial Preterist" early on.

    Unfortunately, you are saying it both ways from my standpoint. And we can never have it both ways. *

    It is a matter of where you decide Jesus changed horses. Of course we each think the over is in error.

    In choosing the spot that you did you, you unfortunately relegate the Second Coming, which is described in very accurate detail as 'seen by all and quite glorious', to a non-event of the first century of which there is no record. It then becomes 'spiritualized' to the point that it evaporates and it undermines the Christian hope by telling a story of a 'parousia past'.

    Jesus contrasted the false teachers, just prior to His Second Coming (Mt 24:23-26),with the reality of His coming (Mt 24:27-31) it being, not hidden like some cowardly act, but glorious and for every eye to see, like lightening filling the entire sky from east to west.

    Jesus even twice makes mention of the subsequent 'taking away' of His chosen ones, what some call the 'rapture', during this monumental event. This did not happen in 70ce and if it all did, then Christians hold faith for nothing.

    How could one teach that the Second Coming took place as you tell it, in the first century, and then teach that it's also future? We cannot have it both ways.

    I noticed that you didn't show any reasons why my views above are in error. You have stated your views several times, but not demonstrated why mine are in error. I have tried to do this with your work. I feel I have.

    May I ask you to please refrain from cut-and-paste and respond to our conversation on a point by point basis. Having had discussions with others in the past, I've seen much of the information you cut and paste, much of which I find of no value. Please refer to the Scriptures instead of cut and paste, I have copies. Thanks so much

  • Vanderhoven7
    Vanderhoven7

    Hi,

    Hope I'm not too thin-skinned.

    Just for clarification: Please note that I said that the second coming ( parousia) did not occur in 70 AD. It is totally future and will include the rapture. I thought I was clear on that. Jesus informed the disciples not to expect His parousia during the siege of Jerusalem. That was not one of the things that would come upon "this generation".

  • biblexaminer
    biblexaminer

    Vander. Thanks for your continued interest in this topic. Your skin has some calluses.

    Looking over what you have posted, you have taken Mt. 24:29 out of context. In verse 27 we find the "coming of the Son of Man" described well, which you say is future, in verse 28 the 'rapture', which you say is future, and you apply 29 back to Jerusalem of the past, only to apply verse 30 to the future once again. I really don't think it's reasonable to arbitrarily select verses that way. It smacks of twisting Jesus' words to fit your pre-conceived ideas. And I feel sure that his disciples wouldn't have thought in this manner.

  • Vanderhoven7
    Vanderhoven7

    Biblexaminer,

    Looking over what you have posted, you have taken Mt. 24:29 out of context. In verse 27 we find the "coming of the Son of Man" described well, which you say is future, in verse 28 the 'rapture', which you say is future, and you apply 29 back to Jerusalem of the past, only to apply verse 30 to the future once again.

    Actually I am saying that verses 27 -30 are all on the subject of 67-70 AD. Jesus mentions His second coming parousia in passing to contradict those who would claim his secret presence on earth during the siege. Let me paraphase what Jesus said. "Don't expect a secret personal visit from me during the siege and onslaught. My future second coming to deliver you will not be secret; it will be a worldwide event not associated with what this current generation will face."


    26. WHEREFORE IF THEY SHALL SAY UNTO YOU,
    BEHOLD, HE IS IN THE DESERT; GO NOT FORTH:
    BEHOLD; HE IS IN THE SECRET CHAMBERS; BELIEVE IT NOT.

    Jews expected the Messiah to come suddenly from some
    unexpected quarter to deliver from Roman onslaught. Don't
    follow these pretenders (go not forth) to these desert places.
    The Messiah will not be holding up in some concealed house
    or chamber. Christians were not to expect a hidden personal
    visitation (coming/parousia) during the siege

    1. FOR AS THE LIGHTENING COMETH OUT OF THE
      EAST, AND SHINETH EVEN UNTO THE WEST; SO SHALL
      ALSO THE COMING OF THE SON OF MAN BE.

    This verse stands in contrast to the preceding verses. It contrasts
    Christ's Second Coming with His coming in judgment upon
    Jerusalem. The disciples were not to expect the parousia of Christ
    to deliver Israel during these difficulties. The personal second
    coming(parousia) would not occur in secret places like deserts or
    houses,. No one would need to be informed when this coming
    occurred. The second coming (parousia) would be a visible and
    worldwide event of great magnitude. Jesus here clarifies the
    distinction between his coming in judgment on Jerusalem at the
    close of the Jewish age and his second personal coming at the end
    of the gospel age.

  • biblexaminer
    biblexaminer

    Vander.

    Concerning what you said here.

    "Actually I am saying that verses 27 -30 are all on the subject of 67-70 AD. Jesus mentions His second coming parousia in passing ..."

    I'm sorry, as we see from those verses, Jesus is doing no such thing

    29 “Immediately after the suffering of those days ( supposedly Jerusalem 70ce) the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven and the powers of heaven will be shaken.

    30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, (in 70..?) and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, (in 70...?) and they will see ‘the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven’ with power and great glory. (In 70..?) 31 And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather (in 70..?) his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

    You are most definitely saying that the second coming was in 70ce while at the same time trying to say it's future.

    You are going to have trouble convincing Christians to believe the above verses were fulfilled in 70ce.

  • David_Jay
    David_Jay

    Here's a bit of a different take, based on critical scholarship (not my own).

    Referred to in many critical circles as the Eschatological Discourse, it is agreed upon by scholars that each of the Synoptics employ it in different manners, each with a slightly different purpose.

    The Marcan version is provoked by Jesus' disinterest in the Herodian edifices with the questions of the apostles due perhaps to a line of Jewish belief that the Temple would fall only in the end of days. The discourse occurs in the final section of Mark which deals with "revealing" the reason for the Messiah's coming, which according to the Marcan version is summed up in the events of the Passion. This makes the discourse part of the revelation of who Christ truly is, but it offers little beyond advocating a constant need for watchfulness in the end.

    Matthew's account (though believed to use Mark's as a source) does not occur as part of the Passion. Instead it acts as the finale to the ministry in Judea and Jerusalem. While in Mark the discourse centers mainly on the Temple due to the likely elementary belief of its survival until the end of history, Matthew's account seems to divide the two events more carefully into 1.) the destruction of the Temple, and 2.) the end of the age. In Matthew's account the demise of the Temple is typical of history's end, but the details about this end coinciding with the Parousia are described in language borrowed from Hebrew apocalypse, such as found in Daniel. The account ends with two parables which may or may not have been a part of the actual Olivet discourse. Matthew is well known for combining like material categorically over chronological order, so this is possible. The lack of connection with Mark's glorified Jesus and the parable conclusions suggest that an exegetical approach similar to apocalyptic deciphering was perhaps already being employed by this gospel's composition instead of expecting a literal Parousia of Christ being connected to the historical fall of the Temple (which had likely already occurred by Matthew's composition).

    The Lucan account is more like Mark's. The discourse is spurred on by the same and gives a similarly combined answer using the Second Temple's demise as a sounding board. But the "signs" of the end are interpreted more as symptoms of everyday life that are taken advantage of only by the false prophets and are set as a warning against being deceived into believing that Christ has returned. It ends with the Marcan view that actual interpretation is not as important as being vigilant at all times. Luke also ends Jesus' ministry with this discourse, as does Matthew, separating it from his account of the Passion.

    While different schools of thought exist, mainstream eschatology in Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, and Presbyterian exegesis favors none of the approaches that suggest a literal interpretation of history's end via this discourse. As the Marcan and Lucan endings suggest, vigilance is viewed as the final requiste taught by these accounts.

    Matthew's discourse suggests an even richer moral lesson, adding two parables to remind disciples not only of the importance of vigilance but of living out their discipleship each and every way through active participation in God's redemption of the poor, stating that their salvation would depend not on interpreting the "signs" of the discourse but finding Christ "in disguise" as the poor and marginalized who need to be ministered to.

  • wolfman85

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit