Posted on 06/21/2005 4:27:46 PM PDT by Buggman
The Luke 21 Olivet discourse has the most understandable chronology of the 3 synoptics.
Luke makes clear that the 70 AD Destruction of Jerusalem is a starting signal. Then begins the spiralingly worse "birth pangs." These begin with a world in increasingly aggressive turmoil throughout the times of the Gentiles and proceeding to heavenly disturbances and a roaring sea.
It is an ever increasing intensity that is pictured. It is the increasing intensity of shear destructive power that is pictured. We truly have gone from being able to kill one at a time by a sword or arrow to a time when we discuss "weapons of mass destruction."
And the opening of space to be a platform for launching war on the earth is another escalation of the mind-boggling destructiveness that is available.
Men's hearts failing them in fear. And for good reason.
And a recapitulating spiral is a good notion to evaluate and on which to speculate. However, I always reserve the right to speculate, and I request that people indulge me and NOT assume my speculations to be ideas that I have elevated to the level of doctrine/teachings/beliefs.
It is necessary for me to evaluate fair ideas that come along and not simply to dismiss them.
[Q]uite apart from differences that could be explained as simply different perspectives on the same event—e.g. “the Abomination that causes Desolation standing in the Holy Place” vs. “Jerusalem surrounded by armies” as the sign that should lead the faithful to flee to the mountains—there are a number of details that demonstrate that while certainly intended as parallels, these are actually two separate speeches given at separate times with slightly different subjects. They were given in different places, the Olivet Discourse being given on the Mount of Olives for which it is named, while Luke’s version was apparently given in the Temple a few days earlier.1 They are given at different times, with the Olivet Discourse in Mark and Matthew being given after Yeshua had departed the Temple for the final time while in Luke, Yeshua continued preaching in the Temple afterwards for several days.2
Indeed, even in terms of the timeline of events that they present, the two have distinct differences. For example, the persecutions in Matthew come after the “birth-pang” signs, i.e. “all this is but the beginning of the ‘birthpains.’ At that time you will be arrested and handed over to be punished and put to death . . .” Contrast this with the parallel passage in Luke, where the persecutions precede the “birth-pang” signs: “But before all this, they will arrest you and persecute you . . .”3
Nothing in Scripture is placed there by accident. These subtle but very distinctive differences indicate that we should treat these discourses separately, and it is Luke’s that answers the question, “Rabbi, if this is so, when will these events (the destruction of the Temple) take place? And what sign will show that they are about to happen?” The question of when Yeshua would return is not asked at all, as He had not yet announced His departure.
It is in Matthew (and by extension, Mark) that the question at the heart of the book of Revelation is asked: “What will be the sign of Your coming, and of the End of the Age?” Yeshua’s answer continues.
|
Differences between the Temple and Olivet Discourses |
||
|
|
Luke's Temple Discourse (Lk. 21) |
The Olivet Discourse (Mt. 24-25, Mk. 13) |
|
Where |
In the Temple (Lk. 21:7 and 37) |
On the Mt. of Olives (Mt. 24:3) |
|
When |
Before going to the Mt. of Olives (Lk. 21:37) |
After departing the Temple for the final time (Mt. 23:38-39) |
|
The Question |
"Master, but when shall these things (the destruction of the Temple) be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?" (Lk. 21:7) |
"Tell us, when shall these things (the destruction of the Temple) be? and what shall be the sign of Thy coming, and of the end of the world?" (Mt. 24:3) |
|
When will the persecution happen? |
"But before all these (birth pang signs), they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake." (Lk. 21:12) |
"Then (after the birth pang signs) shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake." (Mt. 24:9) |
|
The Sign to Flee |
"And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh." (Lk. 21:20) |
"When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place . . . ." (Mt. 24:15) |
1 Mt. 24:3 and Lk. 21:5-7
2 Mt. 23:39 and Lk. 21:37
Lu 21:1 And having looked up, he saw those who did cast their gifts to the treasury -- rich men, 2 and he saw also a certain poor widow casting there two mites, 3 and he said, `Truly I say to you, that this poor widow did cast in more than all; 4 for all these out of their superabundance did cast into the gifts to God, but this one out of her want, all the living that she had, did cast in.'5 And certain saying about the temple, that with goodly stones and devoted things it hath been adorned, he said, 6 `These things that ye behold -- days will come, in which there shall not be left a stone upon a stone, that shall not be thrown down.' 7 And they questioned him, saying, `Teacher, when, then, shall these things be? and what [is] the sign when these things may be about to happen?'
The widow's mite story comes before this. It begins and it ends. It is a pericope entire unto itself.
This passage only says that "some were saying about the temple." The end of the passage says that he spent daytimes in the temple and nighttimes at Olivet.
The Matthew passage has an interesting twist:
1 And having gone forth, Jesus departed from the temple, and his disciples came near to show him the buildings of the temple, 2 and Jesus said to them, `Do ye not see all these? verily I say to you, There may not be left here a stone upon a stone, that shall not be thrown down.' 3 And when he is sitting on the mount of the Olives, the disciples came near to him by himself, saying, `Tell us, when shall these be? and what [is] the sign of thy presence, and of the full end of the age?'
The disciples come near to him to SHOW him the buildings of the temple. In other words, they were leaving the temple, but STILL there when Jesus pronounces the "not one stone left upon another" prediction.
Jesus takes up the subject AGAIN when they are at Olivet and the disciples question him.
Therefore, it is appears that having split times and locations in one story is not just possible, but actual. If it is possible to have a time gap in Matthew, then it is possible to have one in Luke.
Many pastors and commentators have been taught that the whole of Revelation and its related prophecies were fulfilled in a “spiritual” fashion in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. In believing so, they do indeed remove Revelation from relevancy, for not only does it contain no message for us today, ...
Interesting argument but totally specious. Unless you acknowledge that the futurist interpretation makes the entire book irrelevant for 1st century Christians.
... the exegesis (interpretation of the text) needed to defend that position is so poor that it is useless even to use as a part of one’s defense of the faith!
That has to be demonstrated, not just asserted. Especially in light of time texts such as "Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near." (Rev. 1:3)
This is entirely correct. It seems to me, Mr. Buggman, that you have missed a very fundamental precept. In trying to explain prophecy you have neglected to study the prophets, and because of that, your book will never make sense to anyone.
Given how little you've seen of my work so far (maybe 20 pages out of nearly five hundred), I'm curious as to how you came to this conclusion.
The theological problems posed by eschatology are numerous and complex. Adequate answers must take into account at least four considerations. First, the gospel prophecies were never intended to be understood with unimaginative literalness. Just as it is misguided to mine Genesis for scientific data about the physical universe, so too is it wrong to turn the similes and metaphors of NT eschatology into information about future cosmological states.
Salvation-history is not a pre-determined scheme so much as it is a dynamic relationship between God and his people. The Lord can shorten the interim period (Mk 13-20) or lengthen it. (Luke 13:6-9) His Grace means that history is open and that there can be no eschatological timetable. True prophecy accordingly, does not so much predict the future as isolate one possible course of events, one which can be communicated either as a warning, which may or may not, be heeded, or as a promise whose conditions may or may not, be met.
The heart of eschatology is not when or what, but Who, not a schedule or a plan, but a person. The role of the Gospels, culminating in, The Book of Revelation of Jesus Christ is to move us to contemplate the future not by giving us a blueprint, but by relating all to Jesus, Messiah and Son of Man.
For more reading: D.C. Allison, Jr. The End of the Ages has Come (Philadelphia; Fortress, 1985) GR Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God(Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1986); H. Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke (London: Faberand Faber 1960); C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments New York: Willett, Clark, 1937) E.E.Ellis, Eschatology in Luke FBBS 30; Philadelphia, Fortress, 1972); J Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus (2nd rev. ed.; New York: Charles Scibner's Sons, 1972) A.J. Mattill, Jr., Luke and the last Things (Dillsboro: Western North Carolina, 1979); N. Perrin, Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom (Philadelphia, Fortress, 1976); W. Willis, ed., The Kingdom of God in 20th Century Interpretation (Peabody, MA; Hendrickson, 1987)
Not at all. As I explain in chapter 1:
More importantly where you or I are concerned, this is a book for us. God gave it to Yeshua to give to Yochanan so that we—you and I personally—would know the things that are soon to take place. Unlike Daniel’s visions, which were sealed from that prophet’s understanding,[1] Revelation is not sealed from ours.[2] It was not sealed to the Reformers, or the Roman Catholic Church. Nor was it sealed to the first-century Community to which it was first delivered. From the moment that He gave it to us, God intended that we be able to read and understand this book. As Unger states, “It is mere pious chatter to say that God does not intend this book to be understood or that the symbolism and figures of the prophecy are incomprehensible.”[3]Therefore, even though the full fulfillment of Revelation was 2000 years in their future, Revelation was still very relevant to the First Century Church, for it still served as their roadmap to draw together and understand the rest of the Scriptures' disperate prophecies.That denies the approach of historicism, which says that the early Church could not understand it because they had not lived through the two thousand years of Church history that it prophesied of. It also denies the approach of Hal Lindsey, who says, “The encoded prophecies can be understood only when we prayerfully seek to decipher what in today’s vast arsenal of technical marvels fits best John’s 1st century description of them.”[4] I rather hold the opposite to be true. Instead of viewing Revelation as a mystery that can only be understood by some special key, whether that key be mystical insight or our arrival at a certain point in human history, I have actually come to understand that Revelation itself is the key to the prophecies of the rest of Scripture. It serves to tie together the many diverse prophecies of the Second Coming that are scattered, a verse here and a chapter there, throughout the other sixty-five books of Scripture. In fact, the unsealed book of Revelation serves to likewise unseal the visions of Daniel to our understanding. “John is to write and send out to the churches that which Daniel had been bidden to shut up and seal.”[5] However, just like a map key without the map doesn’t do one very much good and a key without a lock to open is useless, neither will Revelation do anything but confuse the reader who does not have a good grasp of the whole of the Bible, especially the Tanakh.
Not only is Revelation intended to be understood, it also promises a special blessing on the person who reads it and obeys its words. That’s an audacious claim, and one unique to any book in Scripture. But what does it mean?
The word translated “obey” or “keep” is tereo, which can mean either to guard (as when Yeshua prayed that God would “keep,” or protect, His disciples from the Evil One[6]) or to observe and follow, where we are told to obey the commands of the Father and the Son respectively.[7] Both are applicable here. This book does contain some very important commands for us to follow, especially in chapters 2 and 3. Moreover, the one who guards the words of Revelation in his heart will find the book unfolding and in turn being unfolded throughout the rest of his or her Scriptural studies. Some have estimated that there are over 800 allusions to the Tanakh in Revelation’s 404 verses—that means that there is an average of two allusions in every verse that one could look up! J. Vernon McGee described it as “a great Union Station where the trunk lines of prophecy come in from other portions of Scripture.”[8] You simply cannot study Revelation without coming away with a deeper knowledge of the rest of the Bible—if you are willing to take it seriously and let the Spirit teach you. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- References:
[1] Dan. 12:9
[2] Rev. 22:10
[3] Unger, Merrill F., The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, R.K. Harrison, ed. (Moody, 1988), “Revelation, Book of the,” p. 1077
[4] Lindsey, Hal, Apocalypse Code (Western Front, 1997), p. 37
[5] Barnhouse, Donald Grey, Revelation: An Expositional Commentary (Zondervan, 1971), p. 27
[6] Jn. 17:15
[7] cf. Mt. 19:17 and Jn. 8:51
[8] Quoted by Unger, ibid., p. 1078
That has to be demonstrated, not just asserted.
That would amount to trying to prove a negative. But since you asked:
Irenaeus’ interpretations of Revelation are decidedly consistent with modern premillennialism. Bear in mind that he wrote Against Heresies primarily as an apologetic work. If Revelation were really so manifestly a prophecy of Jerusalem’s destruction, wouldn’t the early Church fathers have recognized it and used it as a part of their witness? Yet history tells us that’s not what happened. Only centuries removed from the event was the “discovery” made of Revelation’s supposed intent to prophesy of Jerusalem’s destruction.To that, I'll add that it's not just Irenaeus who interprets Revelation in a futurist manner, but many other worthy fathers as well, like Hippolytus, Justin Martyr, Victoranius, etc.
Especially in light of time texts such as "Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near." (Rev. 1:3)
Joel 1:15 and 2:1 claim that the Day of the Lord is "at hand," and yet even if we understand the Day of the Lord to be the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, that still makes a difference of 800-900 years. Even if we say there are many days of the Lord and suppose Joel to be referring to Nebuchadnezzar's conquest, that's still a 200 year gap. Clearly then, "at hand" means something different in God's view.
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.In other words, God's time is not our time. He tells us that the Day of Judgment is "at hand" not to set times by our reckoning, but to impress on us a sense of urgency as we go about our Master's business.
--2 Peter 3:8-9
In view of all this, insisting on a rigid interpretation of "the time is near" while allowing for a very loose interpretation of everything else in Revelation to fit the preterist schema seems a bit inconsistant as a hermeneutic. Using that manner of interpretation, one can make the Bible say literally almost anything one wants.
And I suppose you have scriptures that support your theory?
Frankly I can deduce by your comments that you do not truly believe the first chapters of the Bible as being literally true. I think it would be safe to deduce that you believe that Adam was not a special creation, but a product of divinely guided evolution and that God could not possibly have created the heavens and the earth in the equivalent of 6 literal 24 hour days. I think in that case you have more faith in evolutionists than you do in scripture. Be that as it may.
For you to claim that the end time prophecies are not to be taken literally presumes much, since God clearly fulfilled every prophecy concerning Christ's first coming literally. As Buggman points out, if the prophecies of his first coming came to pass literally, why should we assume that the prophecies of his second coming would not come to pass literally.
Just so we know where you are coming from... Do you literally believe the story of Noah? Do you literally believe the story of Jonah?
Well, do you eat the Lord's flesh and drink his blood at Communion? I do not, literally.
It's a common mistake, but an error nonetheless. Again, Rev. 6:10 says, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?" They are told to wait, not that the judgment has begun. Ergo, there is no judgment of God through the fifth seal at least.
Not all the scholars in the world stack up against a single word of Scripture.
As for the fifth seal, this does not appear to be the age of grace.
This is precisely why I am not a Dispensationalist. Salvation has always been by grace received in faith rather than by keeping the Torah (Rom. 4), and even to the present age, the Messiah said,
"Think not that I am come to destroy the Torah, or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Torah, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."Your argument is a common one, but not one universally held, nor an insoluable one in the face of Scripture:
--Matt. 5:17-19
Barnhouse proposes that the cry of these martyrs proves that the Church has been previously Raptured. “Can it be considered for one instant that these souls who, of course, have left their old nature far behind, can be crying out for vengeance to God in Heaven in a time that is still in the age of grace? This is impossible.”[1] On the contrary, as Seiss writes, “Such a cry would be out of season, except in this place. But it is the time of judgment. The judgment throne is set. The judgment proceedings have commenced.”[2] These saints cry out for God’s justice for His name’s sake, even as Moses cried out for His mercy for Israel for the same reason.[3]Nor is it out of place to do so. “These saints are following the teaching of Sha’ul in Romans 12:19, ‘Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written, “’It is mine to avenge, I will repay,’ says the Lord.”’”[4] Indeed, did not Sha’ul himself say with confidence after Alexander the coppersmith turned on him, “The Lord repay him according to his works”?[5] There is nothing wrong with praying that justice and righteousness be done, as we can see by simply perusing a few of the Psalms. Nor is there any contradiction between praying for God to vindicate His righteousness at the same time that we pray for our enemies to find His mercy—and certainly not in a time when those enemies will put themselves outside of His mercy altogether, as we will see in chapters 13-14.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References:
[1] Barnhouse, Donald Grey, Revelation: An Expositional Commentary (Zondervan, 1971), p. 134
[2] Seiss, Joseph A., The Apocalypse: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation, (Kregel, 1987 reprint), p. 147
[3] Dt. 9:28
[4] Johnson, Alan F., Revelation (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 12, Gaebelein, Frank E., ed.) (Zondervan, 1981), p. 475
[5] 2 Ti. 4:14
Is that a no?
Do you put bible verses in a box and strap them to your forehead? Some do, I do not.
Ahh, even the conflicted Barnhouse says that at the fifth seal "the judgment proceedings have commenced." If this is not the age of grace, then the church has been taken out it would appear. The cry for judgment could very well be the cry for The Judgment. You have kept me up too long, a pox on your house.
So here it is again:
Just so we know where you are coming from... Do you literally believe the story of Noah? Do you literally believe the story of Jonah?
After you give your answer, then I will answer your question.
Further, the other detail differences would make Luke's version an extremely poor and inaccurate paraphrase of the Olivet Discourse, were it the same speech. I hold Scripture to a higher standard than that.
The widow's mite affair doesn't prove anything simply because it doesn't provide any time clues beyond appearing right before both Mark's Olivet Discourse and Luke's Temple Discourse.
Interestingly, for about three years, I held this view and couldn't find anyone else who expoused it. But a few weeks ago, Missler released a briefing pack agreeing with me. That doesn't make my view right, but it does mean that I'm not the only one who noticed these differences.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.