Posted on 07/19/2005 7:07:09 AM PDT by topcat54
From Gary DeMar's multi-part response to Ed Hindson's article in the May 2005 issue of the National Liberty Journal on the topic of "The New Last Days Scoffers".
When Jesus answered His disciples' questions about "when these things" related to the temple's destruction would be and what signs would indicate His coming, He said, "this generation will not pass away until all these things take place" (Matt. 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32). "This generation," therefore, is the timing key. If we can know what the Bible means by "this generation," we can determine the timing of the events Jesus describes. Every time "this generation" is used in the Gospels, it always refers to the generation of people who were alive when Jesus spoke. "This generation" never means a future generation. Thomas Ice, an associate professor of Religion at Liberty University and the Liberty Theological Seminary, in a radio debate with me, admitted that each use of "this generation" in the Gospels, except the one used in Matthew 24:34, refers to the generation to whom Jesus was speaking. In his written debate with Kenneth L. Gentry, Ice writes: "It is true that every other use of 'this generation' in Matthew (11:16; 12:41-42, 45; 23:36) refers to Christ's contemporaries, but that is determined by observation from each of their contexts, not from the phrase itself." This means that seventeen times it means Jesus' contemporaries, and one time it means a future generation. William Lane disagrees:
"[T]his generation" clearly designates the contemporaries of Jesus (see on Chs. 8:12, 38; 9:19) and there is no consideration from the context which lends support to any other proposal. Jesus solemnly affirms that the generation contemporary with his disciples will witness the fulfillment of his prophetic word, culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem and the dismantling of the Temple.
Like he does with Acts 2:16, Ice must add words to Matthew 24:34 to get it to say what he needs it to say. For example, in Charting the End Times, Ice and LaHaye reconstruct Matthew 24:34 to read this way: "The generation that 'sees' these things will not pass away till all is fulfilled." In the LaHaye Prophecy Study Bible, of which Ed Hindson is one of the editors, the verse is given this treatment: "[T]he future generation that will live to see all the signs listed in the previous verses fulfilled in their lifetime" will not pass away until all is fulfilled. The near demonstrative "this" is removed, and from 5 to 19 words are added to make the verse refer to a future generation. And this is interpreting the Bible literally? Hindson writes the following in the Liberty Bible Commentary:
[T]he previously listed signs will continue to multiply throughout the Church Age and reach their ultimate climax at the end of the age in the generation of those who will live to see the entire matter fulfilled in their lifetime.
There is nothing in the entire context of the Olivet Discourse that says anything like this. Dr. Hindson is reading his dispensationalism into the chapter. William Sanford LaSor writes, "If 'this generation' is taken literally, all of the predictions were to take place within the life-span of those living at that time." D.A. Carson takes a similar position: "[This generation] can only with the greatest difficulty be made to mean anything other than the generation living when Jesus spoke. . . . [T]o make 'this generation' refer to . . . the generation of believers alive when eschatological events start to happen, is highly artificial." There you have it. If Matthew 24:34 is interpreted literally, it refers to the generation to whom Jesus was speaking.
Matthew 24:33 tells us as much: "even so you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door" (Matt. 24:33). The first use of "you" certainly refers to Jesus' first-century audience. So why wouldn't the second use of "you" refer to the same audience? Hindson comments that this verse "has caused some to speculate that these predicted events only relate to the coming destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, within the disciples' lifetime." He doesn't explain why this is not what it means except to reference commentaries by John Walvoord and R.C.H. Lenski whose explanations are convoluted and do not deal with the way "this generation" is used elsewhere in the Gospels.
You will notice that Matthew 24:34 expressly states that it's "this generation" that will not pass away until all the things listed in the previous verses take place. How significant is the use of "this" rather than the non-specific definite article "the" that is substituted by Hindson, LaHaye, and Ice? The use of "this" in the NT tells us that what's being identified is near either in time or distance. By changing "this" to "the," the entire meaning of the verse changes. Instead of a specific generation, it now reads as if it could be any generation. "This" is a near demonstrative, and as the name suggests points "to someone or something 'near,' in close proximity." Near demonstratives "appear as the singular word 'this' and its plural 'these.' The distant demonstratives, as their name suggests, appear as 'that' (singular), or 'those' (plural)." The near demonstrative "this" is used nearly 950 times in the NT, and it always refers "to something comparatively near at hand, just as ekeinos [that] refers to something comparatively farther away."
You won't get any argument from me. But at the risk of sounding argumentative, if Revelation consist of symbolism, how would you know if was or wasn't fulfilled or what bits of it was fulfilled? I think that is the underlying problem.
FWIW, DeMar loves to attack pre-mills as if they were all dispensationalists. The Fathers were pre-mills and not dispensationalists.
How so? Jesus said "Look at the fig tree, and all the trees. When they are already budding, you see and know for yourselves that summer is now near. " (Luke 21:29). If the "fig tree" in context is Israel, what does "all the trees budding" represent from Scripture?
Of course the context gives the answer. Jesus has just given His disciples a list of events that would precede the destruction of the Temple, including their own personal tribulation and persecution ("delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons"), earthquakes, famines, and pestilences, wars, Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, etc. These events are the visible "budding of the fig tree". By these events the disciples in Jerusalem in the 1st century would know that "summer" (the destruction of the temple) was near. "These things which you see -- the days will come in which not one stone shall be left upon another that shall not be thrown down." (Luke 21:6)
You know, it always amuses me how the preterist will insist on woodenly literal, singular interpretations of vague statements like "soon" and "quickly" and "this generation," all of which can mean something other than the one meaning that preterism assigns to them, but then feels free to allegorize away every last one of God's other promises in order to hold on to his tradition.
"Woodenly literal"?? We do admit that such phrases must have some meaning in context (does "soon" ever mean "in a thousands years or so"?), and the meaning is best understood have giving specific bearing as to the chronology of the passage.
The analogy of faith helps us to determine the proper interpretation, as opposed to some abritrary "literal" rule.
There is absolutely nothing in Scripture to support the theory that Luke 21 is discussing different events than either Matthew 24 or Mark 13. The harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke is understood by recognizing the audience of each gospel. Luke is more Greek oriented, and the texts assume the subject is not as familiar with Hebraisms.
"Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed." (Luke 1:1-4)
| "Therefore when you see the 'abomination of desolation,' spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place" (whoever reads, let him understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house. And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes." (Matt. 24:15-18) | "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her." (Luke 21:20,21) |
This is, for example, why Matthew bothers to mention flight on the Sabbath and other such Jewish customs.
Jesus was being a bit disingeneous with His dissciples if He uses almost identical language to discuss very different events.
Furthermore, since nearly all of the events of the Olivet Discourse would seem to take place within Daniel’s Seventieth Week, such an interpretation makes this phrase seem almost redundant and unnecessary.
Not if the 70th week and "this generation" coincide with 1st century events, which seems to be the most likely explanation.
The view of Luke as a different discussion is an arbitrary one.
Thank you for demonstrating that you did not actually read and consider my whole post before responding. If you had, you would have noted that I make a distinction between the Olivet Discourse (which is the primary passage in discussion here) and Luke's record, which by all indications was given in the Temple before Yeshua left it for the last time.
In the Olivet Discourse, Yeshua says, "Now learn a parable of the fig tree," which refers to Israel (as demonstrated by Lk. 13 and the strange incident in which He cursed a fig tree for not producing fruit in Mt. 21:19-20). In Luke's Temple Discourse, He says instead, "Behold the fig-tree and all the trees." He's making a slightly different point here, and thus I would agree that Lk. 21 has the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in view, per vv. 20-24.
So seeing them to be separate but related discourses, the first publicly-given discourse (Luke's) being primarily about the destruction of Jerusalem and the latter (Matthew and Mark's) being primarily about the events immediately before the Second Coming, I consider the proper meaning of genea to see if it restricts the Second Coming to an event that must occur within a 40-year "generation" as preterism insists. It does not.
"Woodenly literal"?? We do admit that such phrases must have some meaning in context (does "soon" ever mean "in a thousands years or so"?), and the meaning is best understood have giving specific bearing as to the chronology of the passage.
In answer to your question, we have numerous prophecies of the Day of the Lord in the Tanakh that say that it is "at hand," such as those of Joel 2 and Isaiah 13. Even if we assume these to be "little" days of the Lord fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem and Babylon (never mind that the latter has never yet happened in the manner prescribed by Isaiah and Jeremiah; that's a discussion for another day), we've still got the prophets proclaiming that the Day of the Lord is "at hand" centuries before the actual event.
Kefa answered your objection long ago:
First, knowing this, that there will come in the last days scoffers walking according to their own lusts and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation. . ."Note that Kefa is not simply saying that Jerusalem would be destroyed by fire, but that the very heavens and elements (earth) would be so destroyed. To the best of my knowledge, and since we're still here and the present world has not been utterly swept away like the antideluvian world was swept away by the Flood, we're still awaiting the Day of the Lord. So yes, there's definitely Biblical support on multiple fronts for the idea that "soon" and "at hand" and other such statements can encompasse centuries, a delay given by the grace of God so that more may enter His Kingdom first.But, beloved, let not this one thing be hidden from you , that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow concerning His promise, as some count slowness, but is long-suffering toward us, not willing that any of us should perish, but that all of us should come to repentance. But the Day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a rushing noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat. And the earth and the works in it will be burned up.
Then, all these things being about to be dissolved, what sort ought you to be in holy behavior and godliness, looking for and rushing the coming of the Day of God, on account of which the heavens, being on fire, will melt away, and the elements will melt, burning with heat? But according to His promise, we look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. Therefore, beloved, looking for these things, be diligent, spotless, and without blemish, to be found by Him in peace.
--2 Pt. 3:3-4 and 8-14
Preterism depends upon a meaning of certain words that they are not invested with by Scripture. It also depends on shoehorning prophecies into "fulfillments" that they don't quite fit (sorry, but the Olivet Discourse by no means describes what actually happened in 70 AD), and mis-dating the Revelation despite all of the evidence that puts its authorship in the 90s rather than in the 60s.
Futurism, on the other hand, allows for the comparison of Scripture-to-Scripture before seeking fulfillments, acknowledges the "soon" but "not for a long time" tension throughout the prophetic Scriptures, doesn't have to ignore dating evidence, and doesn't depend on any single interpretation of certain words like genea where at least five reasonable interpretations exist.
Thus, I remain a futurist.
This is a TarBaby of a subject!
;^)
He mentioned the general and then focused on the specific. The "other trees" don't need to mean anything.
It strikes me that entire denominations are built upon the differences in folks' minds as to whether X,Y, or Z verse is to be taken literally or figuratively. And then, beyond that, they apply literal and figurative as they wish and not according to any consistent pattern.
I take Rev 3:20 as history. What criteria allows it to be viewed as prophecy?
Either he is, or he's misquoting the Lord. I'm opting for the former. We've been over this before, but here we go again:
Luke’s discourse is often mistaken as a paraphrase of the same Olivet Discourse as is contained in Mt. 24-25 and Mk. 13. But quite 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. 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.These contradictions cannot be reconciled as Luke giving a paraphrase, for his "paraphrase" would directly contradict the Lord on at least five points. Nor can the case be made (as preterism tries to do) that Luke, writing for Sha'ul, is giving us the "true" meaning of the Olivet Discourse, since if this were the case, he and Sha'ul would be disagreeing about what the Abomination of Desolation would be: Luke would be claiming that it was the surrounding of Jerusalem by Rome's armies, while Sha'ul affirms that it would be the coming of the Man of Sin, the Son of Perdition, "who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, setting himself forth, that he is God" (2 Th. 2:4). For some reason, I doubt Luke, writing in the early 60s AD, would see fit to change or challenge what Sha'ul had written to the Thessalonicans perhaps a decade before by changing the very words of the Messiah!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 . . .”
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?”
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
He continued teaching in the Temple afterwards (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)
Indeed, by a comparison of Scripture to Scripture, we see that Sha'ul did not regard the Second Coming in the Olivet Discourse as the destruction of the city of Jerusalem, but connected it with the Resurrection of the Dead:
From where I stand, it seems pretty clear that Yeshua gave two related but different discourses on two separate occassions, and reused a lot of His material. Indeed, we see that many of the elements of the Olivet Discourse were used in earlier teachings (e.g., Mt. 10 and Lk. 17), so it was not uncommon for Yeshua to repeat Himself to make sure that His disciples would remember His teachings. Nor was it uncommon for Him to use slight twists on His teachings at different times to drive home His points; e.g., He says, "Anyone who is not against us is for us," in Lk. 9:50 and says, "He who is not with Me is against Me" in Lk. 11:23.
Matthew
1 Thessalonians
“And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the End of the Age?” (24:3)
”. . . and they will see the Son of Man coming . . .” (v. 30)“. . . We which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent (precede to heaven) them which are asleep.” (4:15)
“. . . and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” (24:30)
“For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout . . .” (4:16)
“And He will send His angels . . .” (24:30)
“. . . with the voice of an archangel . . .” (4:16)
“. . . with a great sound of a shofar . . .“ (24:30)
“. . . and with the shofar of God.” (4:16)
“. . . and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.” (24:30)
“And the dead in Messiah will rise first. Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air.” (4:16-17)
“But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.” (24:43)
“For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.” (5:2)
“For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.” (24:38-39)
“For when they shall say, ‘Peace and safety’; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.” (5:3)
Having worked with a prominent itinerant preacher before, I can tell you that such reuse and reworking of material with different audiences or in different circumstances is not at all uncommon even today.
Thus we see that at best for you, there is no Scriptural reason not to separate these two discourses in time, place, and purpose--and at worse, there is no real way to reconcile them! Perhaps if preterists compared Scripture-to-Scripture with the same tenacity as they try to compare Scripture-to-Josephus (strangely enough, the only Jewish rabbi that preterists think is worth reading), their eschatology would be less muddled.
"The analogy of faith helps us to determine the proper interpretation, as opposed to some abritrary "literal" rule."
Speaking of "some 'arbitrary literal rule'":
"THE ANALOGY OF FAITH" IN LUTHER AND CALVIN
But the reformers also emphasized a hermeneutical principle that is commonly called "the analogy of faith." This principle was used when the time came to combine what two or more biblical writers said about some article of faith like the law (Moses or Paul), or justification (Genesis, Paul, and James). In general, the analogy-of-faith principle of hermeneutics affirms that the norm for interpreting other parts of the Bible is certain passages in the Pauline letters, which supposedly set forth biblical teachings with the greatest clarity and precision.
In stating this principle Luther said, "It is the attribute of Holy Scripture that it interprets itself by passages and places which belong together, and can only be understood by a rule of faith."5 On the surface, the statement that "scripture interprets itself" seems to be another pillar upholding the principle of sola scriptura. But Luther's additional statement that passages... can only be understood by a rule of faith" raises the question of how anyone acquires the authority for knowing just what that rule is.
As we consider how Luther and Calvin elaborated on this principle of the analogy of faith, it becomes clear that, in the final analysis, the subjective preference of the theologian himself is the only basis upon which this all-important norm for interpreting the rest of scripture is established. Consequently, the analogy-of-faith principle does not undergird but undermines the sola scriptura principle.
In elaborating this principle in another place Luther said, "Every word [of scripture] should be allowed to stand in its natural meaning, and that should not be abandoned unless faith forces us to it [italics added]."6 Luther's readiness to let faith force him to suppress the natural meaning of a text becomes evident from his famous statement made in his Disputation thesis, De fide, September 11, 1535. There he affirmed, "Scripture is to be understood not contrary to, but in accordance with Christ. Therefore Scripture is to be referred to him, or else we do not have what represents Scripture. If adversaries urge Scripture against Christ, we will urge Christ against Scripture." Likewise, "If it is to be a question of whether Christ or the Law is to be dismissed, we say, Law is to be dismissed, not Christ."7
……………………………………
But sola scriptura was threatened when Calvin, like Luther, made the Gospel of John the "key" for understanding the Synoptic Gospels. Concerning the Gospel of John, Calvin said, "The doctrine which points out to us the power and fruit of Christ's coming appears far more clearly in [John] than in [Matthew, Mark, and Luke]. . . . For this reason I am accustomed to say that this Gospel is the key to open the door to the understanding of the others."16
The problem, however, is that one who is convinced that John's teaching is the key for understanding the other Gospels will devote more energy to learning what John teaches than he will to learning what a Synoptic Gospel teaches. This in itself would be contrary to sola scriptura, which requires one to be equally docile to all of scripture.
Calvin also required Exodus through Deuteronomy to be understood in terms of Paul's view of the law. Indeed, Calvin concluded, just from the exegesis of the Pentateuch itself, that "the same [italics added] covenant, of which Abraham had been the minister and keeper, was repeated to his descendants by the instrumentality of Moses." But then when he considered what Paul said about the Mosaic law, he said, "Paul opposes [the Mosaic law] to the promise given to Abraham, because as [Paul] is treating of the peculiar office, power and end of the law, he separates it from the promises of grace [that are found in Abraham and Moses]. . . .17
Thus, according to Calvin, the message of Exodus through Deuteronomy could not be properly grasped simply by studying these books. One must first know about the antithesis Paul drew between Abraham, on the one hand, and parts of Moses, on the other, before his study of Exodus through Deuteronomy would produce accurate results. For Calvin, unless one knew that the promises in these books constantly shift back and forth between conditional and unconditional ones18, he would be led astray in his study of them. So Calvin concluded the introduction to his harmony of Exodus through Deuteronomy by saying, "I have thought it advisable to say this much by way of preface, for the purpose of directing my readers to the proper object [italics added] of the history. . . .
………
Here is a concrete example of how analogy-of-faith hermeneutics worked in Calvin's thinking. He has to construe Matthew 25 and Colossians 3 in terms of other passages drawn from such distant contexts as Ephesians 1 and Galatians 4. These he selects because they accord well with his understanding of the analogy of faith, that only God, and not men, should be glorified.21 Then he applies these remote-context passages to the ones in Matthew and Colossians, whose own terminology does not affirm so clearly that God alone is glorified in man's salvation. They even say, on Calvin's own admission, that "the Holy Spirit [!] promises everlasting glory as a reward for works. . . " But this statement of theirs must be suppressed and replaced by the passages from Ephesians and Galatians, so that the passages in Matthew 25 and Colossians 3 will make it clear that the inheritance spoken of there "comes to us from another source [than works]."22
…………………………………
So long as the exegesis of biblical passages is conducted by such analogy-of-faith hermeneutics, it would be difficult for systematic theology to be nourished and corrected by exegetical considerations from the biblical text. But this was the course which the reformers left for theology to steer. While the reformers themselves introduced into biblical exegesis many practices which greatly furthered the cause of sola scriptura, yet because they did not grasp how their analogy-of-faith principle clashed with sola scriptura, they gave a strong impetus for Reformation theology also to revert to a scholasticism not unlike the medieval sort against which they had rebelled. Thus Ebeling argues,
"This lack of clarity became apparent in the degree to which Reformation theology, like medieval scholasticism, also developed into a scholastic system. What was the relation of the systematic method here [in the post-Reformation] to the exegetical method? Ultimately it was the same as in medieval scholasticism. There, too, exegesis of holy scripture went on not only within systematic theology but also separately alongside of it, yet so that the possibility of a tension between exegesis and systematic theology was a priori excluded. Exegesis was enclosed within the frontiers fixed by systematic theology."
Biblical Theology and the Analogy of Faith
by Daniel Fuller
This material was first published in Unity and Diversity in N.T. Theology.
Essays in Honor of George E. Ladd, R. A. Guelich (ed.). Eerdmans, 1978. Pp 195-213.
Also, if you take it "literally" as the author said, then the Lord Jesus would have already come contradicting what he said that the whole world would see his return in Matthew 24:30 (NASB) "And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory."
In order to take up that Christ returned in 70AD you have to spiritualize the above verse and to say that "All tribes " is not "All tribes"
So therefore, I am with you, I think this refers to a future time (not yet happened) and generation.
How can the Holy Spirit misquote the Lord? Luke was writing under inspiration.
Or there is another possibility, which I outlined. He says nothing materially different from what Matthew or Mark writes. The subject is the same. The setting is the same. The participants are all the same.
It is possible to infer Matt. 24:1 inserted in between Luke 21 verses 4 and 5. As I said, it's a arbitrary decision to find the subject of Luke is different from the same passage in the other synoptic gospels.
Luke’s discourse is often mistaken as a paraphrase of the same Olivet Discourse.
Actually, rather than a paraphrase, Luke includes important information to complete the picture given in Matthew and Mark, especially to readers who are not conversant in Hebraisms common to the other synoptic gospels.
One comment on a translation issue:
"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)
The Greek word found in that passage is aeon, meaning "age". The Hebrews associated the destruction of the temple and the end of the old order with the end of the present age and the introduction of the messianic one to follow. It's found elsewhere in the NT. The NAS get it right. The KJV does not. It think the poor translation of the KJV has contributed to the misunderstanding of this passage from the very beginning.
If you understand the word as "age" rather than "world", you'll see the disciples got the question right. For the Messiah had indeed appeared in the person of Jesus Christ at the end of the age.
"He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages (greek aeon), He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." (Heb. 9:26)
The present age was disappearing before their very eyes. The destruction of the temple was evidence of that fact. The age to come, that is the messianic age under King Jesus, was just beginning. It would continue to grow until the consummation of all things.
But surely you know that.
These contradictions cannot be reconciled as Luke giving a paraphrase, for his "paraphrase" would directly contradict the Lord on at least five points.
There is no real contradiction on any of these point. The differences can be entirely understood in terms of the audience. In fact, as I said, Luke offers important commentary for the non-Hebrew reader, e.g., "abomination of desolation" as Jerusalem surrounded by armies.
I as not referring to Rev. 3:20. I was referring to Luke 12:36, "and you yourselves be like men who wait for their master, when he will return from the wedding, that when he comes and knocks they may open to him immediately."
The Reformers, contrary to higher criticism, believed that the Scriptures were unified because it was the inspired Word of God. Though their interpretation was strict, they believed the Bible was an organic whole (a living, breathing entity built on continual revelation) rather than a cold, dead mechanical body of work. To them, the Bible was the highest authority and the final court of appeal in theological disputes. Unlike the Roman Catholics who espoused the infallibility of the Church, the Protestant Reformers believed, not that the Church was infallible, but God's word. They steadfastly maintained that "the church does not determine what the Scriptures teach, but the Scriptures determine what the Church ought to teach.One important point to keep in mind. Just because someone may not utilize the analogy of faith correctly in all cases does not mean this principle of interpreting the Bible is in error.Their exegesis resulted from two fundamental principles. (1) Scriptura Scripturae interpres. Translated, this simply means Scripture interprets Scripture. (2) omnis intellectus ac expositio Scripturae sit analogia fidei, i.e., let all understanding and exposition of Scripture be in conformity with the analogy of faith. And from these two principles the analogia fedei = Analogia Scripturae, i.e., the uniform teaching of the Scripture (Berkhof).
Concerning the interpretation of Scripture, Berkhof says that there are two types of analogy-- positive, and general. The first and most important of the two is positive analogy. Positive analogy consists of the Scriptures that are perspicuous (clearly and positively stated), and supported by so many passages that there can be no doubt as to their meaning. The general analogy of faith, according to Berkhof, does not rest on the explicit statements of the Bible. They do, however, rest on the obvious scope and significance of its teachings as a whole. Thus these constitute a standard of interpretation.
As a further standard of interpretation, because the analogy of faith will not always have the same degree of evidential value and authority, Berkhof submits the following factors affecting the outcome of exegesis. The degree of evidential value and authority will depend on (1) the number of passages that contain the same doctrine. The analogy is stronger when it is founded on twelve, than when it is based on six. (2) The unanimity or correspondence of the different passages. The value of the analogy will be in proportion to the agreement of the passages on which it is founded. (3) The clearness of the passage. Naturally, an analogy that rests wholly, or, to a great extent, on obscure passages, is of dubious value. (4) The distribution of the passage. If the analogy is founded on passages derived from a single book or from a few writings, it will not be as valuable as when it is based on passages of both the Old and the New Testaments, dating from various times, and coming from different authors.
In addition, Berkhof asks us to bear the following rules in mind--(1) A doctrine that is clearly supported by the Analogy of Faith cannot be contradicted by a contrary and obscure passage. (2) A passage that is neither supported nor contradicted by the Analogy of Faith may serve as the positive foundation for a doctrine, provided it is clear in its teaching. Yet, the doctrine so established will not have the same force as one that is founded on the Analogy of Faith. (3) When a doctrine is supported by an obscure passage of Scripture only, and finds no support in the Analogy of Faith, it can only be accepted with great reserve. Possibly, not to say probably, the passage requires a different interpretation than the one put on it. (4) In cases where the Analogy of Scripture leads to the establishment of two doctrines that appear contradictory, both doctrines should be accepted as scriptural in the confident belief that they resolve themselves into a higher unity.
Arthur W. Pink concurs. Says he, "The exposition made of any verse in the Holy Writ must be in entire agreement with the Analogy of Faith, or that system of truth which God has made known to His people." How then does one come into entire agreement with the Analogy of Faith when expositing Scripture? According to Pink one must have a comprehensive knowledge of the Bible's contents. This, largely, rules out the qualifications of a novice to teach and preach the Scriptures to others. This comprehensive knowledge can only be obtained through a constant, diligent, and systematic study of God's Word. He echoes Berkhof's first rule when he says that because all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, there are no contradictions. The obvious follow-up, then, is that any explanation given of a passage, which clashes with the plain teaching of other verses, is erroneous. If an interpretation to be valid it must perfectly agree with the scheme of the divine truth.
From The Analogy of Faith As It Pertains To Tradition, Interpretation, and the Perspicuity of Scripture.
In order to take up that Christ returned in 70AD you have to spiritualize the above verse and to say that "All tribes " is not "All tribes"
Actually, no you don't.
The phrase could be translated "the tribes of the land" (greek word ge). The word is also found in places like Matt. 2:20, "Arise and take the Child and His mother, and go into the land (ge) of Israel; for those who sought the Child's life are dead."
With this possible interpreation the phrase could be used to identify the inhabitants of the land of Israel, rather than the occupants of the entire earth.
It's possible you've jumped to a conclsuion based on only one suspect English translation of the text.
Do you take the position that Christ returned in 70 AD?
No, it is more the fact that deconstructionist anti-Reformers try to pick apart anything people like Luther and Calvin said and twist it to their own negative interpretation.
Interestingly, this derailing of the debate at hand seems to happen, more often than not, when the opposition has little left to offer.
'The Protestant Rule of Faith' -- Chapter VI from "Systematic Theology" by Charles Hodge
~~If the Scriptures be what they claim to be, the word of God, they are the work of one mind, and that mind divine. From this it follows that Scripture cannot contradict Scripture. God cannot teach in one place anything which is inconsistent with what He teaches in another. Hence Scripture must explain Scripture. If a passage admits of different interpretations, that only can be the true one which agrees with what the Bible teaches elsewhere on the same subject. If the Scriptures teach that the Son is the same in substance and equal in power and glory with the Father, then when the Son says, "The Father is greater than I," the superiority must be understood in a manner consistent with this equality. It must refer either to subordination as to the mode of subsistence and operation, or it must be official. A king's son may say, "My father is greater than I," although personally his father's equal. This rule of interpretation is sometimes called the analogy of Scripture, and sometimes the analogy of faith. There is no material difference in the meaning of the two expressions.~~
Scripture interprets Scripture. Sola Scriptura. Sola fide.
That was my point, and that's why I pay special attention to the apparent inconsistancies rather than just gloss over them.
He says nothing materially different from what Matthew or Mark writes. The subject is the same. The setting is the same. The participants are all the same.
Except that there are material differences which I went into in great detail in my previous post. Simply claiming that there aren't doesn't constitute a rebuttal.
Actually, rather than a paraphrase, Luke includes important information to complete the picture given in Matthew and Mark, especially to readers who are not conversant in Hebraisms common to the other synoptic gospels.
Already answered. Luke cannot be presenting the "armies surrounding Jerusalem" as being "the Abomination of Desolation" without adding not only to the Lord's Word, but disagreeing with Sha'ul's own definition of the Abomination of Desolation as well.
Notice that I present my case from Scripture. You present your case from sheer opinion as to how the Olivet Discourse and Luke's record should line up. I am engaging in careful exegesis, you are engaging in tradition-driven isogesis.
The Greek word found in that passage is aeon, meaning "age".
I'm aware of that, and go into that in detail in my book. That's an issue that's irrelevant to our discussion, however, since in no way do I hinge any part of my argument on the mistranslation of the KJV of aion.
The present age was disappearing before their very eyes. The destruction of the temple was evidence of that fact. The age to come, that is the messianic age under King Jesus, was just beginning. It would continue to grow until the consummation of all things.
Nope. The Apostles always connected the End of the Age with the Second Coming, not with the destruction of Jerusalem. "And what shall be the sign (singular) of Your coming, and of the end of the age?" Likewise, the extensive quote I provided from 2 Peter shows that Kefa was looking forward to the Day of the Lord, at the time of which the heavens and the earth would be destroyed by fire--note that he in no ways spoke of the destruction of Jerusalem such as it happened in 70 AD! Do a little cross-referencing with Sha'ul's eschatology in 1 and 2 Thessalonians and you see that he considered the Day of the Lord to begin with or immediately follow the Second Coming and the Resurrection of the righteous dead, not with the destruction of Jerusalem.
Likewise, we see in Luke's discourse record that Yeshua Himself said that following the surrounding of Jerusalem by armies, "And they shall fall by the sword's edge. And shall be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem shall be trodden down by the nations until the times of the nations is fulfilled" (v. 24), thus indicating that there would be a time in which Jerusalem would no longer be trampled by the Gentiles. He then goes on to describe the signs in the sun, moon, and stars that He would later explain in more detail in the Olivet Discourse to His disciples and His Second Coming.
But notice what He does not say of the destruction of Jerusalem! He does not say here, as in the Olivet Discourse, that "then shall be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world to this time; no, nor ever shall be" (Mt. 24:21). He could not if He were addressing the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, for there have been many "tribulations" that by any objective sense were as bad or worse than that one in Jewish history! Titus Vespasian killed two million Jews in his seige according to some estimate (probably exaggerated, but let's go with them); Hitler killed six million in the Holocaust. Surely any objective POV would say that the killing of six million--a third of all Jews living in the world at that time that we know of--is worse than the killing of two million!
"Ah," you say, "but the loss of the Temple made it worse." In that case, it could be no worse than the destruction of Nebuchadnezzar, which destroyed Solomon's Temple and depopulated Judea to boot. (The Roman removal of the Jews from Judea did not take place until 65 years later after the Bar-Kochba Revolt.) So we still have not reached the scope of the prophecy, meaning that it's final fulfillment must yet be future.
The claim that the Great Tribulation refers to all the time between the destruction of the Temple and the Second Coming won't work either, for three reasons: 1) There's been nothing demonstrably better or worse about the persecution of God's people in the last 2000 years than in the 4000+ before them. 2) This would belie your own idea that we are in the great Messianic Age that the Apostles looked forward to. And 3) this would contradict your own belief that the 40 years between the Crucifixion and the destruction of the Temple were the "generation [that] shall not pass until all these things are fulfilled," all these things including the Coming of the Son of Man on the clouds of heaven (where "every eye shall see Him," Rev. 1:7) and sending out His angels to gather the elect, which we have already proven is connected by Sha'ul to the Resurrection of the dead.
There is no real contradiction on any of these point. The differences can be entirely understood in terms of the audience.
You once again assert without any Scriptural case. Furthermore, you contradict not only Sha'ul (which I've already demonstrated without rebuttal, so I won't waste my time restating the argument here), but Josephus, who stated in no uncertain terms that the Abomination of Desolation was the setting up of a false idol in the Holy of Holies of the Lord's Temple in Jerusalem, not Antiochus' armies surrounding it beforehand.
Further, audience doesn't explain the other points I raised. Why would a Roman audience (to whom Mark wrote) understand the Abomination of Desolation, but a Greek audience not? What differences in audience could explain the Olivet Discourse quoting Yeshua as putting the persecutions of the faithful after the birth-pang signs and Luke quoting Him as putting them before the birth-pang signs of false christs, wars, famines, etc.? What difference in audience would cause Matthew to quote the Olivet Discourse as occuring after Yeshua left the Temple the final time, while Luke described Him continuing to teach there?
So we see that not only is there a derth of Scripture in your rebuttal (the only bit of Scripture that appeared was to support a side-issue, not the main thrust of the argument), but that while I am very specific in my claims, you can present only the most general and unsupported rebuttal of those claims. You have not resolved the contradictions, you have in fact only created new ones. Thus I submit that once again, futurism is far superior to preterism in comparing Scripture to Scripture and in logical presentation.
How good it is to talk about the Bible!
If you could exlain that it would be helpful as we proceed.
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.