Interpetation of prophecy

[Steve Schwenke]

Biblical covenants are made by God as a promise of a special relationship. Some covenants are uncondition, such as the covenant with Noah - & all the earth. Nothing man can do can either violate or annul that covenant.

In Gen. 12 God declares his purpose for Abraham, further clarified in 22:18.

in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

18

And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast

ob

eyed my voice.

The covenant with Abraham in Gen. 15 was unconditional. It was a gift of the land of the Canaanite tribes. That covenant was declared to be fulfilled by Joshua:

23:

14

And, behold, this day I am going the way of all the earth: and

ye know in all your hearts and in all your souls, that n

ot

one thing hath failed of all the good things which the LORD your God spake concerning you; all are come to pass u

nt

o you, and n

ot

one thing hath failed thereof.

But this is where we get into the mutilation of Scripture.
1. What were the boundaries of the land that God gave to Abraham, and then later to Moses?

Deuteronomy 11:24 Every place whereon the soles of your feet shall tread shall be yours: from the wilderness and Lebanon, from the river, the river Euphrates, even unto the uttermost sea shall your coast be.
Deuteronomy 1:7 Turn you, and take your journey, and go to the mount of the Amorites, and unto all the places nigh thereunto, in the plain, in the hills, and in the vale, and in the south, and by the sea side, to the land of the Canaanites, and unto Lebanon, unto the great river, the river Euphrates.
Genesis 15:18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
Numbers 34:1-12 also go into great detail about the boundaries.

Here is the problem. I listed 3 references that identify the northern boundary as the Euphrates River. There is no record anywhere in the Book of Joshua of Israel ever going that far north under Joshua's leadership.
Hence, the promises to Abraham were NOT fulfilled in Joshua's day. All Joshua is telling them is that when they depended upon the Lord to deliver them, HE DID.
But even Joshua himself admits and writes that the Israelites did not COMPLETELY eradicate the Canaanites, as they were told. The book of Judges, Ruth, and I Samuel tell the tale of the continuing problems with those that were left in the land.

So, you are simply mistaken in assuming that the Joshua reference means the Abrahamic Covenant in regards to the land was fulfilled. It wasn't. All the facts and details are listed for us right there in Joshua and Judges.

The circumcision covenant in Gen. 17 required obedience.

14

And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is n

ot

circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covena

nt

.

The Sinai covenant, aka the OC is detailed in Lev. 26. That also required obedience. An obedience that was frequency violated, by individuals & the nation, & the judgments & reinstatements resulted. Ultimated perfect obedience lived by our covenant surety Jesus Christ realised that covenant & replaced it with the NC.

Yes, but the Mosaic Covenant was made with the NATION of Israel, not any particular individuals. Obviously, every individual had to do their part, but Deut. 28 makes it clear that God was looking for NATIONAL obedience. The OT demonstrates repeatedly that the way God deals with any given nation is far different than the way He deals with any given individual.

If the Covenanter believes that these promises are fulfilled in Christ, and that we are now the benefactors of this covenant, then where, pray tell, is our LAND? The OT Prophets (all of them) continually point to a FUTURE RESTORATION of a nation to their LAND, and these promises are directed at the PHYSICAL seed of Abraham.

As Joshua declared, the land promises to Abraham were fulfilled. Abraham, Isaac & Israel knew he would die without owning the promised land. He also knew by faith the greater, eternal heavenly promises. See Heb. 11:

9

By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange cou

nt

ry, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jac

ob

, the heirs with him of the same promise:

10

For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

16

But now they desire a better cou

nt

ry, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is n

ot

ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

So our promised land is the heavenly NH&NE. We are presently citizens of his heavenly kingdom, & live with the promise of teh NH&NE.

Joshua did not declare them fulfilled. You have imposed your system of interpretation on the text. They never conquered the land as far north as the Euphrates in Joshua's day.
But then you make a quantum leap in logic, and miss the entire point of the conversation.
If in fact, things are as you say - that the Abrahamic Covenant in regards to the land was fulfilled in Joshua's day, then why do the OT prophets AFTER Joshua keep telling us about a PHYSICAL kingdom on Planet Earth, with the Jewish people as the Head of the Nations?

The concept of a "spiritual" fulfillment is completely foreign to the OT. Therefore, when the Covenanters say that WE are the recipients of this promise, they can only do so AFTER they shred the OT of its normal, natural, literal meanings, and spiritualize everything away to mean something - anything - other than what it ACTUALLY SAYS.

So you side with the carnal literalist Corinthians who Paul had to explain spiritual truths to. He has quite a lot to say about the mystery. He makes it clear in Ephesians:

3

How that by revelation he made known u

nt

o me the mystery; (as I wr

ot

e afore in few words,

4

Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

5

Which in

ot

her ages was n

ot

made known u

nt

o the sons of men, as it is now revealed u

nt

o his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

6

That the Ge

nt

iles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

Is Paul shredding the OT?

This passage from Ephesians has absolutely NOTHING to do with the LAND! You have somehow imposed your theology into the phrase "the mystery of Christ," and somehow interpretted that to mean that all of the OT writings about the land, the Tribes of Israel, the city of Jerusalem, Mount Olivet splitting in half, the other Gentile nations serving Israel and observing the feast of Tabernacles, and hundreds of other verses, as all SPIRITUAL. Where do you get that idea from?
What Scripture do you have that spefically tells us that these hundreds of verses are not literal?
The question you should ask yourself is, "What is the mystery of Christ?"

Hint - it has nothing to do with spiritualizing/allegorizing ANYTHING from the OT.

Our "Covenant" brethren always get off track by thinking that Paul's use of Abraham's FAITH is therefore a fulfillment of the entire covenant. They are wrong on several counts: A. Paul never tells us that the Abrahamic Covenant is fulfilled in its entirety.

No, Jesus himself is the perfect fulfilment of the OC. Because of Calvary, we come into a NC relationship withGod in Christ - a covenant that cannot be violated.

You missed the point again. If what you say is true, then why didn't the Apostle Paul tell us directly and plainly that all of the physical promises made to the physical seed of Abraham (i.e. the Jews) have now been spiritualized into something not physical? Where are those verses and passages in the Bible that explicitly state this?
I agree that Jesus Christ fulfilled every letter of the OT Law. But that does not necessarily negate all of the promises of the land made to Israel. He is, after all, the KING of Kings, and the KING of the Jews.

If it is, then Revelation makes no sense whatsoever, because we are right back dealing with the 12 tribes of Israel, the Temple, etc. B. Paul says we are his SPIRITUAL seed, not his physical seed. Again, the covenant with Abraham was for PHYSICAL seed and LAND. C. Paul is merely using Abraham as an example of FAITH. Abraham believed what God told him. If you want to know what God told Abraham, read Genesis 15 - it has to do with PHYSICAL PROMISES of children and land!!! Abraham believed what God told him, and accepted it as fact. Paul uses this as an example of how we receive salvation. No works - just faith. Paul never says that we now get all the same promises that Abraham did. It is an example of faith - the kind of faith necessary for NT Salvation.

Merely ??? Read Gal. 3:

26

For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

27

For as many of you as have been baptized i

nt

o Christ have put on Christ.

28

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

29

And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Galatians 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Can you show me in Genesis 15 where Abraham received the "promise of the spirit?" All I read about was the promise of the LAND, which was NOT fulfilled under Joshua.

Again, you are imposing your system, and reading it into the text, when it is not there. Paul is contrasting works vs faith, and is using Abraham as an example. Paul never states in Galatians that we REPLACE Israel as a Nation. He never states that we get the promises made to Abraham. He is dealing with a SPIRITUAL SUBJECT, and demonstrating the inadequacy of works. Abraham received his covenant by faith, and so do we. It does not say that we get the exact same promises and rewards as Abraham. Abraham was promised PHYSICAL SEED, PHYSICAL LAND. We never are promised those things.

3. The Mosaic Covenant - a conditional covenant with the NATION of Israel (not the individuals, but the nation), based upon their acceptance of the terms by faith. Deut. 28 is extremely clear that this covenant is a "two-edged sword." If they obey, the Nation of Israel would be blessed. If they broke their end of it, God's curses would come down in buckets. But wait!!! There's more!!! 4. The Davidic Covenant - an unconditional covenant with David - II Samuel 7 2 Samuel 7:16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever. Does that verse, and its accompanying passage actually mean what it says? I believe it does. THe Covenanter simply denies any LITERAL interpretation of it, and wants us to believe that Christ has ALREADY fulfilled this prophecy, and that Jesus Christ is now currently reigning over the earth RIGHT NOW.

The promise to David was fulfilled in type by Solomon, in his building of the temple, but clearly refers to Christ & his building of the true spiritual temple with the redeemed as living stones.

16

And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

A literal understanding is simply that David's line would continue for ever. The line continued, but not the kingdom. Either the promise was broken with the Babylonish captivity, after which there were no more kings, or God's intention was that his promise should be fulfilled in Christ. Matthew & Luke make it very clear that Jesus was born into David's family line of a virgin mother. Peter tells the Jews that Jesus, by his resurrection & ascension sits on David's throne. (Acts 2) James declared Jesus to be the rebuilt tabernacle - restored family line - of David. (Acts 15)

29

Men and brethren, let me freely speak u

nt

o you of the patriarch David, that he is b

ot

h dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us u

nt

o this day.

30

Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that

of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

31

He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ,

that his soul was n

ot

left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

32

This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

It's my bed time - I may offer further answers.

And here you prove my point. Your system cannot handle the literal interpretation of the passages, so you impose your ideology into them to make it "fit."
It doesn't fit.
If David is resurrected at the 2nd Coming of Christ, and sits on a throne ruling over Israel, and that reign never ends, then it is entirely proper and appropriate to refer to that reign as FOREVER.
"The Bible NEVER defines "tabernacle" as a "restored family line." That is a pure invention on your part. It is nowhere in the text.
Ezekiel 37:24 is crystal clear - David will sit on the throne of Israel. Jesus Christ will rule over the entire world.

[Steve Schwenke]

Actually, it was Rick who said he didn't know or care about most of the history.

As to Calvinism and missions, I've read a great many books on missions and Calvinists were among the most missions minded, even anti-Calvinists back in earlier times admitted as such.

Spurgeon called himself a traditional or true Calvinist and always spoke against fasle Calvinists (hyper-Calvinists...though he had a different name for them I don't recall off hand).

True Calvinists, such as Spurgeon, were very much mission minded and were very much into soul winning. They still are today. There is a church in this region today that is Calvinist and they are very mission minded and the most soul winning church around. There is an area pastor, who is Calvinist, on a local radio station that preaches the Gospel and calls sinners to repentance. The idea that true Calvinists are not soul winners is false. There are those who are hyper-Calvinists who believe all who are to be saved will simply be saved when ever God decides for them, but as Spurgeon and so many others have stated, that's not true Calvinism and that's not what they see in Scripture.

In any event, the point wasn't to defend or attack Calvinism, simply to point out the idea that Calvinists are not soul winners or mission minded is false.

There are many facets to our wonderful Christian history, as well as our Baptist history, which is why I suggest folks take the time to read and learn. It's not all as cut and dried as many would think. For Americans who might not be interested in Baptist history outside America, the history of Baptists in America is very interesting from colonial times to present.

In any event, I was wondering how long Liberty Baptist Church has been in Amarillo and where it's located. My wife is from in and around Amarillo.

Look, I know Rick well enough to know that he has a handle on history. The problem is that people can use historical facts to prove anything they want to by manipulating them. People treat history and the Bible the same way. They have pre-conceived ideas, look for things that support their ideas, and then tell everyone, "See??? I told you I was right!"
Sometimes people like me and Rick get tired of the "historical arguments."

And we can always split hairs over semantics - what is a dispensationalist? What is a Calvinist? What is an Arminian? And we would all have different answers I am sure.

LBC was started in 1993. I came out 3-1/2 years ago.

[No Nicolaitans]

Matthew 24:21
For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.


Again I ask, "If 70 A.D. was when all was fulfilled, how do you explain this verse?"

There were worse tribulations before and after what transpired in 70 A.D. These words spoken by Jesus aren't confined to Israel only...since Jesus is the one who brought up "since the beginning of the world". There was no Israel for thousands of years after the beginning of the world, and the flood happened long before even the call of Abram.

Again I ask, is Jesus a liar?

[John81]

Look, I know Rick well enough to know that he has a handle on history. The problem is that people can use historical facts to prove anything they want to by manipulating them. People treat history and the Bible the same way. They have pre-conceived ideas, look for things that support their ideas, and then tell everyone, "See??? I told you I was right!"
Sometimes people like me and Rick get tired of the "historical arguments."

And we can always split hairs over semantics - what is a dispensationalist? What is a Calvinist? What is an Arminian? And we would all have different answers I am sure.

LBC was started in 1993. I came out 3-1/2 years ago.

I was simply going by what Rick said. If Rick knows more than he said that's fine.

No doubt some folks look to history and either attempt to distort it or make their pet view fit history. That's not proper historical study and I'm against such. The actual study of history to discover the truth is much more interesting, as well as Christian, than false pursuits.

You hit a very important point with regards to what is this and that. Lables tend to be too broad but unless we distinquish what we are talking about how will we know? There are a few different views of dispensationalism (for example), so if one really wants to discuss such they first must determine which branch of dispensationalism they hold to because it makes a big difference as to how many dispensations one believes there are and just what each means.

Hopefully, at least when it comes to discussions among Christians, we can trust that what each says of themselves is true. If one says they are "this" type of Calvinist or "that" type of dispensationalist or of "this" eschatological view or "that" standing regarding rapture, etc., then we should accept that and not try telling one another we don't believe them, that we believe we know what their views are better than they do. If you tell me you believe in eternal security, of what point is there in me arguing that you obviously mean something else?

Thank you for sharing about Liberty Baptist church. My wife had not heard of that church there but she had left Amarillo by 1993. Living in Hedley for a time, then New Mexico and Arkansas.

I like your post #91 for it's comparative nature, use of Scripture and ease for studying the matter.

Do you believe David and Solomon had control of the entire land God promised to Israel?

[John81]

Matthew 24:21
For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.


Again I ask, "If 70 A.D. was when all was fulfilled, how do you explain this verse?"

There were worse tribulations before and after what transpired in 70 A.D. These words spoken by Jesus aren't confined to Israel only...since Jesus is the one who brought up "since the beginning of the world". There was no Israel for thousands of years after the beginning of the world, and the flood happened long before even the call of Abram.

Again I ask, is Jesus a liar?

Perhaps it would help to rightly divide the Olivet Discourse between those things Jesus was speaking to the near future and distant future.

The OIivet Discourse is Jesus answering more than one question from His disciples. The first portion of the Discourse deals with that which was to occur in 70 A.D. while the second portion deals primarily with things that will happen at an unknown future date.

From the descriptions of things that will occur in the future, it seems to clearly indicate that happening will be obvious and so open that all will know it's occuring. The things mentioned have not yet occured, and they didn't occur in 70 A.D., so they are yet future. While the event will catch most (all?) by surprise, it will be a very open event that no one will miss seeing.

This is a very basic outline and it might help to expand upon this verse by verse if anyone is willing.

[Covenanter]

It is extremely offensive to suggest that Jesus could be lying. The inference is that either the Olivet prophecy means exactly what NN says it means or Jesus was lying. I could make a similar assertion regarding "this generation." No. Let us discuss these prophecies, knowing that Jesus speaks the truth, & while we may disagree, we respect each other as fellow believers who do believe the Scriptures.

No interpretation system is "literal." If it were literal, there would be no need for interpetation as all would be clear, & discussion would be superfluous.

I maintain that the OT must be understood by the NT use of it, so that the OT prophecy is fulfilled in Christ, & prophecy relating to Israel's glorious future is speaking of the NH&NE. If Israel wants to enjoy the blessings promised, they must find them in Christ in this Gospel "disp." And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.

The disps insist that OT prophecy stands apart from the NT, so that all the prophecies relating to Israel are yet for a future millennial disp between the second coming &the NH&NE. Some OT prophecy was specific for Jesus' first coming & saving work but the bulk of OT prophecy is not for the present Gospel age. All it does is provide material for sensational events Christians will be raptured out of so they have a grandstand view. The result is that the glorious earthly reign of Christ; the glorious "mil" future for Israel is a period where an incredible mixture of glorious resurrected saints live with unbelievers. Their mil ends in a world wide rebellion with Israel besieged. Multimple "comings" raptures resurrections, judgemnts ensue. The whole prophetic future is utterly confused.

The kingdom comprises children of God & children of Satan, & the great separation comes when Jesus returns.

37

He answered and said u

nt

o them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;

38

The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;

39

The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

40

As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

41

The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

42

And shall cast them i

nt

o a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

43

Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Edited January 21, 2012 by Covenanter

[Covenanter]

Perhaps it would help to rightly divide the Olivet Discourse between those things Jesus was speaking to the near future and distant future.

The OIivet Discourse is Jesus answering more than one question from His disciples. The first portion of the Discourse deals with that which was to occur in 70 A.D. while the second portion deals primarily with things that will happen at an unknown future date.

From the descriptions of things that will occur in the future, it seems to clearly indicate that happening will be obvious and so open that all will know it's occuring. The things mentioned have not yet occured, and they didn't occur in 70 A.D., so they are yet future. While the event will catch most (all?) by surprise, it will be a very open event that no one will miss seeing.

This is a very basic outline and it might help to expand upon this verse by verse if anyone is willing.

Jesus predicts the destruction, & his disciples ask about it, with the questions:

Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

Do these questions indicate an accurate understanding of Jesus' teaching, so that the answer can be neatly classified, or were the disciples confused, & therefore asked? He has, of course, been making dire predictions & warnings against the Jewish leaders ever since his triumphal entry, fulfilling Zec. 9. He had spoking of coming to destroy the husbandmen.

40

When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do u

nt

o those husbandmen?

41

They say u

nt

o him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard u

nt

o

ot

her husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.

42

Jesus saith u

nt

o 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 u

nt

o you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

Is the end of the world the destruction of the planet? "World" has many uses, & often refers to people. The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world (κόσμος) is gone after him. Is the Gk word αἰῶνος significant? The end of the OC age?

The disciples are asking about Jesus coming to destroy the temple & the Jews who rejected him, & to end the OC age & set up his eternal kingdom over believing Israel.

I hope all agree that taken as a whole, vs 4-34 are referring to the prophesied destruction, but for a few verses that suggest his second coming in glory. 4-26 clearly refer to the destruction, & historical records show that the Christians saw the signs & fled the city before the destruction. Comparison with Luke 21 makes the prophecy clear.

Vs 35 on are a general warning regarding the second coming - without warning signs. We have to be faithful, watching & praying. Mat. 25 gives examples of faithful servants of their Master.

The specific questions have been repeatly raised as absolute objections to the AD 70 understanding. Understanding, NOT interpretation.

16

Then let them which be in Judaea flee i

nt

o the mou

nt

ains:

17

Let him which is on the housetop n

ot

come down to take any thing out of his house:

18

Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his cl

ot

hes.

19

And woe u

nt

o them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!

20

But pray ye that your flight be n

ot

in the wi

nt

er, neither on the sabbath day:

21

For then shall be great tribulation, such as was n

ot

since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Is Luke writing of a different occasion?

21

Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mou

nt

ains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let n

ot

them that are in the cou

nt

ries e

nt

er therei

nt

o.

22

For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

23

But woe u

nt

o them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.

It is not possible to read these Scriptures literally without seeing their fulfilment in the events preceding the destruction. NN is arguing with Jesus, not with me. To suggest that Jesus was lying is extremely offensive.

I'll look at other "difficult" aspects of the prophecy later. Edited January 21, 2012 by Covenanter

[Invicta]

1. I think Rick has a pretty good handle on history.
2. The Calvinists did NOTHING for missions. The English Baptists of the early 1800's were dying because their staunch Calvinism. When William Carey attempted to persuade some Baptist preachers that it was their duty to send people out to foreign lands to preach the gospel to those heathen, he was told to sit down and shut up.

Eh? What? Sorry - what was that you said about the Calvinists being missionaries and soul-winners????

3. John Calvin himself was not soul-winner or missions supporter. The only "soul-winning" he did was with the edge of a sword.

I have several books here on my shelf about Baptist history and church history, and several of them detail the history of dispensational teaching. It did NOT start with Darby. He merely took what was being taught and put it in writing. If you remember your Baptist history so well, you would remember that not only did they hunt US like dogs, but they also burned ALL of our writings along with our bodies.
But this does not mean we weren't teaching it all along - it only means that our enemies attempted to erase all traces of our existence.

Spurgeon was a moderate Calvinist - not a "thoroughbred." "Hyper-calvinists" are basically fatalists. And they are not missions-minded or soul-winners. They believe that the "elect" will be saved without our help.

There are not many hyper Calvinists about. They are mostly Gospel Standard Baptists, over here.

Most Baptists who are Particular Baptists are Grace Baptists and they have a useful mission work via the Grace Baptist Mission. Most General Baptists, which includes every General Baptist Church that I know of would be ecumenical.

My great grandfather's sister was a member of a particular Baptist Church in Norwich. She later emigrated to Australia and soon became the first missionary of the Queensland Baprtist Missionary society, and served in India, now Bangla Desh, for over 30 years, She returned to Oz only two or three times, and to England only once, due to ill health. She eventually retired in India, but when her health declined, she was brought back to Oz by the QL baptists, but died before she could rejoin her family. Another member from the same church also went as a missionary from England to Calcutta, and he baptised some of her converts. Edited January 21, 2012 by Invicta

[No Nicolaitans]

1. "World" has many uses, & often refers to people.


2. NN is arguing with Jesus, not with me.


3. To suggest that Jesus was lying is extremely offensive.

1. You're correct; in that, "world" has different uses. However, in Matthew 24:21, "world" means...world. It is the Greek word "kosmos" which means...orderly arrangement, the world, including its inhabitants (by implication).

Here's the verse again...Matthew 24:21
For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world (kosmos) to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Jesus is saying that when the "great tribulation" comes, it will be worse than any before it, and it will be the worst ever...in the world.


2. I'm not "arguing" with you or anyone else...especially not Jesus. I simply asked a question...to which no answer has still been given. Here's my question again...
If all was fulfilled in 70 A.D., how do you explain this verse (Matthew 24:21)? In light that there have been far worse tribulations before and after 70 A.D.


3. I'm in no way suggesting that Jesus was lying, for he is God, and it's impossible for him to lie; however, according to preterism, if all was fulfilled in 70 A.D., then that would mean Jesus lied; therefore, that is extremely offensive...

• 
  Again I ask the question, is Jesus a liar?
  

Edited January 22, 2012 by No Nicolaitans

[Covenanter]

NN please read Scripture & compare Luke with Matthew.
When Jesus speaks, who are you to argue with him & postulate other tribulations?

[No Nicolaitans]

NN please read Scripture & compare Luke with Matthew.
When Jesus speaks, who are you to argue with him & postulate other tribulations?

Okay...

I'm familiar with both accounts in Matthew and Luke.

There has been no postulation on my part. It's evident that part is still future.

Again, I'm not arguing with you or anyone else...especially Jesus. It's somewhat interesting that another in this thread has been very abrasive toward you and your beliefs, but I simply asked a couple of questions (to which, I still haven't received answers); however, you have deflected (what appears to be) ire toward me.

No problem...I won't ask the questions again. As far as my participation, this thread is...



I trust you'll have a nice day. :) Edited January 22, 2012 by No Nicolaitans

[Covenanter]

What is truly literal?

1. Accepting that Jesus is prophesying the signs leading up to the destruction which he has just prophesied, or
2. rejecting the idea that Jesus is actually talking about the AD 70 destruction because we do not think some of the details lterally happened at the time.

Mat. 24 is framed by this generation:

23:

36

Verily I say u

nt

o you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

24:

34

Verily I say u

nt

o you, This generation shall n

ot

pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Postulating a future generation of Jews - who clearly had nothing to do with the actual rejection of their Messiah - is not a literal interpretation.

I know we need to face the literal difficulties of 24:27-31 but in the obvious literal context of the AD 70 destruction we must seek to understand what would occur at the time.

[Steve Schwenke]

What is truly literal?

1. Accepting that Jesus is prophesying the signs leading up to the destruction which he has just prophesied, or
2. rejecting the idea that Jesus is actually talking about the AD 70 destruction because we do not think some of the details lterally happened at the time.

Mat. 24 is framed by this generation:

23:

36

Verily I say u

nt

o you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

24:

34

Verily I say u

nt

o you, This generation shall n

ot

pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Postulating a future generation of Jews - who clearly had nothing to do with the actual rejection of their Messiah - is not a literal interpretation.

I know we need to face the literal difficulties of 24:27-31 but in the obvious literal context of the AD 70 destruction we must seek to understand what would occur at the time.

Sure it is, if only we can see that not everything in Matthew 24 was LITERALLY fulfilled in 70 AD. The verses you post simply mean this: The generation that sees these things BEGIN will see them END. It will all come to pass quickly - within the same generation of people. The same generation that sees this "great tribulation" will ALSO see the return of the Lord.

Did this happen in 70 AD?
Matthew 24:15 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:)

If it did, then why does John prophesy of it again?
Revelation 13:6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.

Notice here that the 2nd Coming of Christ is tied into these prophecies - it is all part and parcel of the same events, i.e. the "great tribulation" culminated by the return of the Lord.
Matthew 24:27 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.

When did this happen?
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:

And if this has already been fulfilled, then again, why does John prophecy this as future?
Revelation 8:10 And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters;
Revelation 8:12 And the fourth angel sounded, and the third part of the sun was smitten, and the third part of the moon, and the third part of the stars; so as the third part of them was darkened, and the day shone not for a third part of it, and the night likewise.

In your zeal to demand that "this generation" means the generation alive at Jesus' first coming, you simply overlooked the preceding verse. Notice:
Mt 24:33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
Mt 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Notice that it says ALL these things - which includes ALL things, i.e. the return of Jesus Christ.
Did that happen in 70 A.D.???
The answer is a resounding NO.
This only leaves us with ONE possible answer - this is all ONE prophecy and it is yet future!

In Christ,

[Invicta]

Would somebody who believes that all prophecy is literal, please tell me how all of the following verses have, or will be, fulfilled?


Dan 8:8 Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.
9 And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.
10 And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.

[Invicta]

Here's the verse again...Matthew 24:21
For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world (kosmos) to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Jesus is saying that when the "great tribulation" comes, it will be worse than any before it, and it will be the worst ever...in the world.

Again you are misquoting scripture. It does not say "worse" it says, "such as."

Does it occur to you that in a terrible seige, when the curses of Deut 28 came to pass, when the famine was so severe that women ate their own babies, that the daily sacrifice continued, until it ceased, not for want of sacrifices, but of priests to offer it,

There was truly no tribulation such as that.