Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Matthew 24


Genevanpreacher

Recommended Posts

  • Moderators

Now that we have 'vented' all over each other, has anyone considered the fact that the disciples asked more than one question here?

Read verse 3 -

 

And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us,  

(1)when shall these things be? and

(2)what shall be the sign of thy coming, 

(possibly 3) and of the end of the world?

 

As a 'partial preterist', it matters to me, that there is more here than is normally taught.

Rather like, in reference to the mark of the beast: Rev 14:9&11:

 

"And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,"

 

"And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name."

 

Notice, there are three requirements here:

 

1: Worship the beast

2: AND his image

3: and receiveth the mark (of his name)

 

I believe there may well be those who receive him mark, but repent, and don't worship. Or maybe those who are forced to receive the mark-if there is no worship, will it count against him?

 

People worry that babies will be given the mark against their will and their p[arents' will, and that it will send them to hell--I believe all three must be done to be counted against one. And even then, can they repent? Assuming its possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 144
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

Now that we have 'vented' all over each other, has anyone considered the fact that the disciples asked more than one question here?

Read verse 3 -

 

And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us,  

(1)when shall these things be? and

(2)what shall be the sign of thy coming, 

(possibly 3) and of the end of the world?

 

As a 'partial preterist', it matters to me, that there is more here than is normally taught.

 

Q1 clearly relates to what Jesus has just prophesied, speaking to the disciples, not the Jews: Mat. 24:1-3

These things in v.2 being the temple building they were admiring but these things in v.3 being the events prophesied. Jesus goes in great detail about future events, some are NOT signs of anything in particular, but will happen without prophetic significance. He does give signs by which they will know the destruction is soon to take place, & it is time to leave the city & area. Luke 21:20-21 interprets Mat. 24:15-16 making it clear that Roman army (with it's eagle standards) are the abomination prophesied. He further says it will be before this generation passes. Hebrews 3 indicates that will be within 40 years - soon running out - Repent TODAY!

 

Their questions 2 & 3 are based on assumptions, not the immediate prophecy, that need more examination. The questions aren't necessarily inspired, though the answers are.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Q1 clearly relates to what Jesus has just prophesied, speaking to the disciples, not the Jews: Mat. 24:1-3

These things in v.2 being the temple building they were admiring but these things in v.3 being the events prophesied. Jesus goes in great detail about future events, some are NOT signs of anything in particular, but will happen without prophetic significance. He does give signs by which they will know the destruction is soon to take place, & it is time to leave the city & area. Luke 21:20-21 interprets Mat. 24:15-16 making it clear that Roman army (with it's eagle standards) are the abomination prophesied. He further says it will be before this generation passes. Hebrews 3 indicates that will be within 40 years - soon running out - Repent TODAY!

 

Their questions 2 & 3 are based on assumptions, not the immediate prophecy, that need more examination. The questions aren't necessarily inspired, though the answers are.  

 

Good points. I hope others here are considering this also.

(Rightly dividing again, Covenanter!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Rather like, in reference to the mark of the beast: Rev 14:9&11:

 

"And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,"

 

"And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name."

 

Notice, there are three requirements here:

 

1: Worship the beast

2: AND his image

3: and receiveth the mark (of his name)

 

I believe there may well be those who receive him mark, but repent, and don't worship. Or maybe those who are forced to receive the mark-if there is no worship, will it count against him?

 

People worry that babies will be given the mark against their will and their p[arents' will, and that it will send them to hell--I believe all three must be done to be counted against one. And even then, can they repent? Assuming its possible.

 

Good example.

I have learned a lot over the years looking at significant details of 'what' is being said.

Sometimes people skim over the 'wording', just because we think we 'already know the scriptures',

but traditional modern teachings have 'lubed' our minds into the thought that there can't be

anything else to see, other than what the 'normal seminarian preacher' can teach.

And that stifles the Spirit of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Now that we have 'vented' all over each other, has anyone considered the fact that the disciples asked more than one question here?

Read verse 3 -

 

And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us,  

(1)when shall these things be? and

(2)what shall be the sign of thy coming, 

(possibly 3) and of the end of the world?

 

As a 'partial preterist', it matters to me, that there is more here than is normally taught.

 

What gives? You asked the OP, but you've avoided your own OP's question? Who do you believe Christ was directing his response to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Now that we have 'vented' all over each other, has anyone considered the fact that the disciples asked more than one question here?

Read verse 3 -

 

And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us,  

(1)when shall these things be? and

(2)what shall be the sign of thy coming, 

(possibly 3) and of the end of the world?

 

As a 'partial preterist', it matters to me, that there is more here than is normally taught.

When our pastor preached on this he clearly laid out the different questions that were asked, how Jesus answered them, the main views of these, how he understands all this and why.

 

After all that great preaching, one member who had become an "end-times prophecy is everything" extremist, complained to our pastor because he didn't put forth end-times charts like Van Impe or Hagee, and he didn't devote an entire month to relating this passage to Revelation and presenting his (the extremist)s personal views on the end-times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What gives? You asked the OP, but you've avoided your own OP's question? Who do you believe Christ was directing his response to?

 

Maybe you should reread my last comment (post #30)

OBviously his disciples present in this set of verses.

But he answered each question in a way that also referenced those who would be his disciples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I have a question here-

 

Just who is Jesus Christ, the ever living Son of God Almighty, God in the flesh, talking to in Matthew 24?

His disciples? The Jews? The Lost Tribes? Elvis? Us?

 

Who?

 

 

Concerning the original post --

 

In the direct circumstance of the immediate context and conversation as recorded in this passage, our Lord Jesus Christ was speaking privately to His disciples.  This is in accord with the statement of Matthew 24:3-4a -- "And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be?  And what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?  And Jesus answered and said unto them . . . ."  With a further consideration of the parallel passage in Mark 13, we find that our Lord Jesus Christ was actually only speaking privately to four specifically named disciples.  This is in accord with the statement of Mark 13:3-5a -- "And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately, Tell us, when shall these things be?  And what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?  And Jesus answering them began to say . . . ."

________________________________________________

 

Concerning our Lord's answer as it proceeded from Matthew 24:1-31 --

 

In Matthew 24:2 our Lord Jesus Christ spoke a prophetic utterance concerning the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem -- "And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things?  Verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."  In response to this prophetic utterance, some of the disciples approached the Lord privately and presented two questions unto Him concerning the events of the future.  Thus we read in Matthew 24:3, "And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be?  And what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?"  Now, the grammatical structure of these two questions does indicate that these are two grammatically separate questions.  With the first question, the disciples were asking for an indication of the specific timing when the "these things" that the Lord had just pronounced concerning the destruction of the Temple might occur.  With the second question, the disciples added a question concerning the signs by which they might discern the Lord's coming and "the end of the world."  Grammatically, by the fact that the employed the singular word "sign" to encompass both the Lord's coming and "the end of the world," it would appear that they considered these two elements of the future to be directed connected unto one another.  On the other hand, although their questions were presented as two distinct questions in grammatical structure, it is uncertain how closely they may have connected the events of these two questions in their thinking.  It is possible that the disciples directly connected the event of the Temple's destruction in the future with the event of the Lord's return and "the end of the world."  It is also possible that they simply took up the occasion of the Lord's prophetic utterance to ask concerning a matter of the future that was much more pressing upon their minds (since the Lord was already engaging in prophetic utterances).

 

What then do we find in our Lord's answer as presented in Matthew 24:4-31.  To me, it is worthy of note that throughout this passage our Lord's does not provide even a single element of information in answer to the disciples' first question concerning the timing for the destruction of the Temple.  Rather, our Lord focuses His entire answer on their second question concerning the sign of His coming and "of the end of the world."  In verses 4-5 our Lord immediately focuses upon the matter of His coming by warning His disciples not to be deceived by the declarations of false Christ's.  In verse 6 our Lord then speaks concerning the matter of the end, saying, "And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet."  Following this, in verses 7-14 our Lord presents an entire list of events and activities that would occur before the end would come and that would lead to the end.  Indeed, our Lord concluded this portion of His answer concludes with verses 13-14, saying, "But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.  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."

 

In the flow of this context, the relative adverb "when," with which Matthew 24:15 begins, signals the turning point in our Lord's answer concerning the sign of His coming and "of the end of the world."  From this point the Lord will be providing a specific answer to that question.  Indeed, again in verses 23-26 our Lord warns concerning the claims of false Christs.  Then in verses 27-31 (as a direct contrast to the false claims of the false Christs) our Lord prophetically presents the actual signs of His coming, saying, "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.  For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.  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 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.  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."

 

Some thoughts for consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Thank you, Scott & Geneva, for carefully reasoned posts to explain your understanding of the passage.

 

Like Geneva, I find it strange that you do not see the temple timing destruction in the Lord's answer. If we read Mat. 23 before 24, we see that Jesus is openly teaching the multitude, and to his disciples and then directly addressing the scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! He concludes that open address: Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.      

The same words are used in Mat. 24:34 to emphasise that the generation that saw their Messiah & rejected him would suffer the judgement of God. Luke 21:20-22 give specific signs of the imminent destruction - signs that were clearly understood, so that the Christians saw them & fled the city. 

 

It is easy & OBvious for us to see: what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? as a question about the second coming for final judgement, with all the rapture/trib/resurrection etc implcations. BUT, it is highly unlikely that the disciples had these questions in mind. Even after Calvary, the resurrection, & 40 days of instruction about things pertaining to the kingdom of God they still asked: Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

 

They clearly expected Jesus to declare himself king, rally his disciples & take over Israel & restore the nation to its splendor as in the days of David & Solomon. 

 

And the "coming" they were expecting according to his teaching would be a military victory over his enemies: 21:40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, 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.

 

That "coming" took place in AD 70. Paul was expecting the judgement on the Jerusalem Jews who rejected & opposed the Gospel:

14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: 15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: 16 Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost. (1 Thes. 2)

I do NOT see Jesus pronouncing perpetual judgement against the Jewish race (aka generation.) Forgiveness was declared for the repentant Jews, & many thousands welcomed the Gospel in Apostolic times. However true religion was no longer focused on the temple & Jerusalem but on Jesus himself & companies of believers everywhere, as he explained:

21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. (John 4)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I disagree. Compare this section of verses - [Luke 19:39-44] 

With this - [Matthew 24:2]

 

In my opinion describing, in Matthew 24, the following way - [Matthew 24:15-21]

Sounds like the same situation to me.

   And it is the same time in each book.
 
I would like to also add, in support of this statement - [Luke 21:20-24]

 

Brother Pittman,

 

When you presented your posting last night, I did not have the time to respond thereto.  It was my intent to deliver a response some time today as time might permit.  Since that time, you have edited your posting to add the passage from Luke 21:20-24 and Brother "Covenanter" has also presented his posting wherein he also brought forward the teaching of Luke 21:20-22.  This causes a small difficulty for me.  Do I now respond as I originally intended to your posting as it was originally delivered, without a consideration of your edited addition and of Brother "Covenanter's" posting; or do I attempt to respond unto all of these as a single unit?  First, I will acknowledge that there is a form of "dove-tail" between the passages that you originally included in your posting and Luke 21:20-24 (as added by you and presented by Brother "Covenanter.")  However, I do indeed intend in this posting to present my initial thoughts of response to your posting as it originally was presented (without a consideration of Luke 21:20-24).  On the other hand, I also do intend to provide a more thorough response concerning Luke 21:20-24 and its relationship to Matthew 24:1-31.  Also in this posting I intend to make some small parenthetical references to your addition and Brother "Covenanter's" presentation of Luke 21:20-24, which I shall present in a different color scheme for the purpose of recognition.  I pray that this method of presentation will be acceptable and understandable.

__________________________________________________

 

It appears from your posting that you would see an equivalency between the following three passages -- Luke 19:39-44; Matthew 24:2; and Matthew 24:15-21.  Even so, I wish to present some thoughts concerning the teaching of these passage and concerning the relationship of these passages to one another, wherein they do and wherein they do not present a direct connection to each other.

 

Luke 19:39-44 -- "And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples. And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out. And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation."

 

Luke 19:41-44 presents our Lord's grief over the city of Jerusalem, as per verse 41 -- "And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it."  Then in verses 42-44 our Lord delivered a pronouncement of judgement upon that city.  Throughout this pronouncement our Lord employed the third person, singular pronouns "thee," "thou," "thy," and "thine" a significant number of times.  Grammatically, the antecedent for these pronouns is found in the phrase "the city" as presented in verse 41.  As such, our Lord spoke unto and concerning the city of Jerusalem as a singular, personified individual.  What about the inhabitants of the city?  These our Lord referenced in verse 44 as the children of the city within "her."  (Note: I here employed the feminine pronoun "her" since that is the gender by which we usually personify a city.  I do recognize that our Lord Jesus Christ did not directly specify a gender in His personification.)   So then, what is involved in our Lord's prophetic ("For the days shall come upon thee . . .") pronouncement of judgment upon the city of Jerusalem?

 

1.  The enemies of Jerusalem shall surround the city with a military siege, as per verse 43.

2.  The enemies of Jerusalem shall conquer the city and tear it down to the ground, as per the opening line of verse 44.

3.  The enemies of Jerusalem shall lay the inhabitants of the city down to the ground with death, as per the second line of verse 44.

4.  The enemies of Jerusalem shall so tear down the city that no two stones of the city will remain one upon the other, as per the third line of verse 44.

 

 

Matthew 24:2 -- "And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

 

In Matthew 24:1 it is recorded that one of Jesus' disciples directed His gaze upon the physical wonderment of the Temple buildings.  Verse 2 records our Lord's response.  It is worthy of note that our Lord does not at all focus upon the physical wonderment of the Temple buildings, but rather upon the coming destruction of those very Temple buildings.  Specifically, our Lord prophetically proclaims the judgment that the Temple buildings would experience such destruction that no two stones of the Temple buildings would remain one upon the other.  

 

What then are the connections and differences between Luke 19:33-44 & Matthew 24:2.  First, the difference -- Luke 19:33-44 only speaks specifically concerning the city of Jerusalem, not concerning the Temple in Jerusalem; whereas Matthew 24:2 only speaks specifically concerning the Temple in Jerusalem, not concerning the city of Jerusalem.  However, it is to be acknowledge that in speaking concerning the city of Jerusalem, the statements of Luke 19:33-44 by definition must also include the Temple in the city of Jerusalem.  On the other hand, the connection -- Both passages indicate that the coming destruction of judgment will cause no two stones to remain standing one upon the other.  As such, I am compelled to acknowledge that these two passages are indeed speaking concerning the same event of judgment upon Jerusalem and the Temple therein.  (Thus far, I believe that we would be in agreement.)

 

 

Matthew 24:15-21 -- "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."

 

Throughout this passage we find one reference to the Temple in Jerusalem, through the phrase "in the holy place" as employed in verse 15.  Herein there is no reference to the destruction of that Temple, and no statement to indicate that no two stones would be remaining one upon the other.  Rather, there is a reference to some "abomination of desolation" that will "stand in the holy place" (prOBably, the Holy of Holies) within the Temple.  As such, this reference implies the necessity for the Temple itself to be standing (not destroyed) in order for this event to occur.  (Now, one might contend that the destruction of the Temple buildings will occur immediately after this event.  However, the actual statements of Matthew 24:15-21 make no direct statement concerning this.)  In addition, although Matthew 24:16-21 does instruct the inhabitants in the land of Judaea at that time to flee unto the mountains, there is no direct reference at all in this passage to the city of Jerusalem itself or to that cities destruction.  As such, a direct connection between Matthew 24:15-21 and Matthew 24:2/Luke 19:41-44 is lacking in the direct statements that they actually present.  

 

(Now, here is the point at which I must acknowledge the addition of Luke 21:20-24 into the discussion.  Indeed, I am compelled to acknowledge a direct connection between Luke 21:20-24 and Luke 19:41-44/Matthew 24:2.  Furthermore, I am compelled to acknowledge that Luke 21:5-ff stands as a parallel passage to Matthew 24:1-ff.  Thus I can understand that manner by which you have made the connection between Matthew 24:15-21 and Luke 19:41-44/Matthew 24:2, that is -- through their connection to Luke 21:20-24.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Thank you, Scott & Geneva, for carefully reasoned posts to explain your understanding of the passage.

 

Like Geneva, I find it strange that you do not see the temple timing destruction in the Lord's answer. If we read Mat. 23 before 24 . . .

 

Brother "Covenanter,"

 

With this posting I do not intend to deliver my response to the substance of your posting.  I do yet intend to do so; however, I will require a certain amount of time in order to present that response in the manner that I am presently considering.  On the other hand, I am making this posting in order to present a defense of my approach in my first posting and in order to present an acknowledgement of fault on my own part.  

 

First, my defense of self -- In my first posting, I was seeking first to answer the question of the original posting directly according to the context of Matthew 24.  That the direct audience for our Lord's teaching in Matthew 23 was both the multitudes (including the religious leaders of Judea) and Christ's disciples is to be acknowledges according to the Biblical record, as per Matthew 23:1.  However, that there is a change in direct the audience for our Lord's teaching from Matthew 23 to Matthew 24 should also be acknowledged according to the Biblical record, as per Matthew 24:3.  Furthermore, in my first posting I was seeking to present the focus of our Lord's answer unto the disciples' question (in Matthew 24:3) as it is recorded in Matthew 24:4-31.  That there are parallel passages to be considered in both Mark and Luke is to be acknowledged.  However, dealing with those parallel passages was the thrust of my posting.  Indeed, in the opening line of my second paragraph concerning Matthew 24:4-31, I did make the statement, "What then do we find in our Lord's answer as presented in Matthew 24:4-31.  To me, it is worthy of note that throughout this passage . . . ."

 

Second, my acknowledgement of fault -- In presenting my first posting concerning Matthew 24;1-21, I did recognize that there was a parallel passage in Mark 13; and I did take it into some small amount of consideration (since a significant amount of consideration thereto was not my primary purpose).  However, I did not at all recognize that there was a parallel passage in Luke 21.  This was a fault on my part, and I do acknowledge it as such.  In a future posting (as time will permit), I do intend to remedy this fault on my part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Holy is an adjective.

There can be no such thing as "Holies".

Try using the Scripture, instead of parroting men.

The Scripture calls it the "Most Holy Place".

The Scripture doesn't use the word "rapture", which in English is an abstract and not a concrete noun, so it couldn't possibly be the name of an event.
In fact, by definition, rapture is imagined.

Satan has more than one trick up his bejewelled sleeve, and extra-Biblical terms is one of them.

You've dashed your foot against a stumbling stone, and fallen into Rome's mire, Brother.

Of course, I'll be ridiculed and chided for this post, but, no matter.

The children of Light are watching,
His sheep hear His voice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What is translated by the King James as "the most holy place" is the Hebrew "qodesh qodesh" (holy-holy). 

The King James adds the word "place", which is NOT in the original Hebrew.

 

The construction "Holy of Holies" is a literal translation of a Hebrew idiom which is intended to express a superlative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...