Hi,
I have read many of the critiques of Preterism. I do
not believe what I believe, because I ignore any other
position. Nor did I begin my belief in Christ, with
this position. But I have always seen fatal flaws in
the doctrines of the futurists.
One of the critiques of Preterism, which I'll admit
seems like a real problem for the Preterist view,
is the passage found in Matthew 23:39.
I will offer a study on this verse here. I know it
may seem a bit long, but I believe that it is well
worth it!
I will also note the view of Toussaint, since he is
a popular name amongst those who support the
idea of the national restoration of Israel.
If you wish to pass on studying this, that is of
course, your choice. I will say though, that you
shouldn't skip over every study that I post on
my views and then claim to be refuting my views
in your messages, when you haven't even read
them. (:
And are we that much of a microwave society,
that even having to spend 15 or 20 minutes on
a Biblical study, is too much to ask? Is even
God's word not fast enough for us anymore? (:
Anyway, let's us begin by noting that if we are
going to discuss this subject, it is important
to read it in its context, which I will quote here.
Matthew 23:29-39
20) Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
For you build the tombs of the prophets, and adorn
the tombs of the righteous.
30) And you say, If we had been in the days of our
fathers, we would not have been partakers with them
in the blood of the prophets.
31) So you witness to yourselves that you are the sons
of those who murdered the prophets.
32) And you fill up the measure of your fathers.
33) Serpents! Offspring of vipers! How shall you
escape the judgment of Hell?
34) Because of this, behold, I send to you prophets
and wise ones and scribes. And some of them you
will kill and crucify, and some of them you will flog
in your synagogues and will persecute from city
to city;
35) so that should come on you all the righteous blood
poured out on the earth, from the blood of righteous
Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Berechiah
whom you murdered between the Holy Place and
the altar.
36) Truly I say to you, All these things will come on
this generation.
37) Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one killing the prophets
and stoning those sent to her. How often I desired to
gather your children in the way a bird gathers her
chicks under her wings! And you did not desire it.
38) Behold, "your house is left to you desolate."
Mat 23:39 For I say to you, In no way shall you see Me
from now on, until you say, "Blessed is He who comes
in the name of the Lord."
Many have a picture of v39 meaning some future point
of the national restoration of Israel. I would suggest
that this is a view which ignores the text and not one
which is within the context of the text.
There isn't really any argument amongst the various
eschatological views, that in Matthew 23:29-38,
the Lord Jesus Christ was predicting the fall of
Jerusalem in His generation. It is even interesting
to note that the premillennialists who normally
redefine the term "this generation" in Matthew 24:34
freely acknowledge that "this generation" in 23:36
means Jesus' generation and not the "Jewish race,"
or some future generation.
But when it comes to v39, many are confused as
to exactly how that could play into that context.
According to Plummer, there are three major
interpretations of the point of time indicated
by Jesus' words:
1) The cries of the multitude on Palm Sunday
(Luke 19:38; Mat. 21:9).
2) The Second Advent (involving the conversion
of the Jews).
3) The conversion of the Jews throughout all time.
Due to space, I will not go into trying to argue
all three of these points.
Rather, I will present a construction that I believe
will show the Preterist position to be the best and
once that does not force us to try to rip v39 out
of the conversation that Jesus had.
We have to first note some of the history involved,
as it will be of extreme importance in understanding
this verse.
First of all, we must understand that Matthew 23:39
is a quote of Psalm 118:26, which is part of the "Song
of Ascent", or a "Song of Degrees". What few realize
though, is the historical significance of that fact.
The Psalm was sung to pilgrims, by the inhabitants
of Jerusalem, as the travelers approached the city
of Jerusalem to observe one of the three sacred feast
days of the Jewish Calendar.
It was what was called, "an antiphonal hymn, for joyful
occasions, when there was to be a procession to the
Temple, a welcoming of the procession by those inside,
and the solemn offering of a sacrifice upon the altar
there. It has connections with the great pilgrim
feasts of Judaism, but especially the "Feast of
Tabernacles". Psalm 118, especially v26, was a song
that was especially associated with the three great
feast days of Israel. So let's take a quick look at
them and see how they tie in.
This part will be a little bit boring, but as I said,
is absolutely necessary for understanding this.
The Jews had three major "pilgrimage" feasts. There
was three times a year when every Jewish male that
was of age was required by Mosaic mandate to travel
to Jerusalem and worship the Lord (Exodus 23:17).
Those feasts are sometimes called by different names,
but they are generally known as Passover, Pentecost,
and Tabernacles. Passover is also known as the
Feast of Unleavened Bread. Technically, the Feast
of Unleavened Bread began on the day after Passover,
but was so linked with it that the terms were many
times used interchangeably. Pentecost is the Feast
of First fruits, and the Feast of Tabernacles is also
called the Feast of Booths and the Feast of
In-Gathering (Exodus, 23:14; Leviticus 23).
The Feast of Passover began the Jewish Calendar
and lasted for seven days (Exodus 12; Leviticus
23:4-8). The Feast of Pentecost, or First fruits, was
almost two months later (fifty days) (Leviticus 23:15).
The seventh month of the Jewish Calendar was especially
important, since on the first day of that month, was
the Feast of Trumpets. On the 10th day was the Day of
Atonement, the most Holy Day in the year. On the 15th
day was the beginning of the Feast of Tabernacles.
This Feast actually lasted for 7 days (Lev 23:33).
The Jewish Calendar, as shown, had a significant
number of days dedicated to worship High Days.
In all, counting the 49 day interim between Passover
and Pentecost since normally that was almost considered
as part of the Festival complex, the time involved in
the Feasts involved two full months.
So what is the point to going over all of this?
Remember, it was Psalms 118 that was sung to the
pilgrims as they approached the city of Jerusalem
to observe these feasts. Thus on three different
occasions, once at the beginning of the year, once
almost two months later, and again in the seventh
month Psalm 118:26 would be heard throughout
the streets of Jerusalem: “Blessed is he who comes
in the name of the Lord!”.
Now let's make the connection with Matthew 23:39.
As I already noted, there is little controversy among
commentators that Jesus, in Matthew 23:29-38,
predicted the judgment on Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
But these same commentators believe that v39
somehow strikes a dissonant cord to that message
of doom, offering instead a "silver lining" to the dark
cloud of pronounced judgment. They say that in this
verse, “The Lord Jesus said Israel would not see Him
again until that nation affirmed (in repentance),
that He was the Messiah". I do not believe that.
Verse 39 was a statement of Jesus predicting the time
of his coming in judgment against Israel. It is very
clear that the point of Jesus' statement in verse 39 is
when he would come: "you will not see me again until
you say". Many agree with this assessment, and link
this verse to a yet future conversion of the Jews at
the end of the age, citing Romans 11:26.
But this position ignores several facts.
First, Paul, in Romans 9:28, places the predicted
salvation of Israel within an imminent time frame,
actually linking it to his personal ministry in 11:25,
and 15:16. This cannot be ignored.
Second, it also ignores the fact that Israel's
salvation would come at the time of Israel's judgment.
See Isaiah 2-4; 64-66; Zechariah 12-14, etc..
In other words, Israel would be saved by judgment,
not from judgment. Israel would be saved by
eschatological transformation, not national
restoration.
Some suggest that Zechariah 12-14 must speak of
the time of Israel’s repentance and conversion. They
stress the fountain opened for taking away Israel’s
sins, insisting that this must refer to her repentance
and conversion. However, chapter 13 describes the
judgment that would fall on her and it was a judgment
that would destroy “two thirds of the people" (13:8).
Further, chapter 14 very clearly states the destruction
of Jerusalem in the Day of the Lord.
Third, it ignores the fact that the New Testament
writers indisputably taught that they were living
in the last days, in the end of the age (1 Corinthians
10:10-11; Hebrews 1:1-2; 9:26, 1 Peter 1:5-7, 18-20).
It is a doubtful hermeneutic that denies this and
extends the last days for a period of two thousand
years... SO FAR!
But again, the point of Jesus' prediction is the timing
of His parousia. The purpose of his return in this
context is judgment. When would he come in judgment?
At the time when they would be singing the Song of
Degrees (Psalm 118:26)! Jesus was saying he would
return in the judgment He had just pronounced during
one of the three Feast Days of Israel, which is when
they would be singing that Song! But is this what
really happened?
Anyone familiar at all with Josephus knows this to
be true. In the Works of Josephus, Book 6, chapter 9,
paragraph 3, he says...
"Now the number of those that were carried captive
during this whole war was collected to be ninety seven
thousand; as was the number of those that perished
during the whole siege eleven hundred thousand, the
greater part of whom were indeed of the same nation
(with the citizens of Jerusalem), but not belonging to
the city itself; for they were come up from all the
country to the feast of unleavened bread, and were
on a sudden shut up by an army."
Thus, Josephus confirms that the siege of Jerusalem
began at the time of one of the three major feast days,
one of the distinctive times when Psalm 118:26 would
be sung ("blessed is he who comes in the name of the
Lord")!
Someone might object that such a prediction by Jesus
limiting His coming to one of the feast days would be
the same as predicting "the day and the hour" of His
coming. But that's not the case at all. In Matthew 24
Jesus predicted his coming within that generation
(vs. 29-34). He even gave some signs, (v. 14-15),
so that, "when you see all these things then know that
it is near even at the doors" (v33). They could know
by these signs that his coming was near; "but of that
day and hour knoweth no man" (v. 36). Knowing
something is near, that it is even to be in your
generation, does not tell you the day or the hour
of its occurrence!
Considering the span of time involved in the feast days
of the Jews it would hardly be possible for anyone to
calculate the day or the hour of Jesus' coming. After
all, literally months were spanned in these feasts,
both at the first of the year and in the seventh month.
If I were to tell you that I was going to come to your
house next year for sure and that it would be at one
of the national holidays, could you predict the
specific day and hour I would arrive? Certainly not.
Just so, when Jesus pronounced judgment against Israel
in Matthew 23:29-38 and then in a somewhat puzzling
manner, stated that this would occur on one of the
occasions when they would be singing the Hallel Hymn
of Psalm 118, He was not specifying the day and hour
of His coming.
This view of Matthew 23:39 is consistent with
the context. It prevents us from interjecting into
the context some idea that has not been previously
mentioned or hinted at. I.e. the national conversion
of the Jewish nation. But not only is this view
consistent with the context, it becomes very
significant for helping us understand the disciples'
question in Matthew 24.
So let's look at their question a bit and see how this
helps us to understand this passage.
Jesus' disciples heard his prediction of coming
judgment. As they were leaving the Temple they began
to show him the incredible stones of the Temple. Many
commentators believe they were pointing out its beauty
to him and this is certainly not unreasonable. But is
it not just as reasonable and in context, to believe
that they, after just overhearing him predict judgment
on this structure, were pointing out its size and
invulnerability as well? But whether beauty or its
structure was their focus, the point is the same and
must not be ignored. The disciples were pointing
to the Temple in immediate response to Jesus'
prediction to come in judgment against it, since
their conversation with Him in Matthew 24 took
place immediately after they heard what He said
to the scribes and Pharisees in the Temple, in
Matthew 23 and judgment is what He just
predicted against the Temple (Mat 23:37-38)!
Now since, as we have already seen, it is widely agreed
that Matthew 23 is a prediction of Jesus' coming in
judgment on Israel in that generation, where is the
justification for changing from that and insisting
that in 24:2 the disciples were asking about some
"end of time" coming of Jesus?
And if one accepts what I have presented regarding
v39, then this argument becomes even stronger. In
other words, if the disciples understood Jesus in 23:39
to be speaking of his coming in judgment against
Jerusalem, then the most natural and unforced
interpretation of their question in 24:2 is that they
were asking for more information about what Jesus
has just predicted. Matthew 24:2 simply cannot
contextually be viewed as "New News" to the disciples.
Jesus has already pronounced coming judgment in
chapter 23. Chapter 24:3 should therefore be viewed
as an inquiry for more information. They wanted more
information on when it would happen ("When shall
these things be?") and the signs precursory to the
event ("What shall be the sign of Your coming?").
And we need to bear in mind, that in v3, when some
translations say, "end of the world", they are in error
since the Greek word there is "aion", which means,
"an age". The Greek word for the planet Earth,
is "kosmos" (see Mat 13:35).
Yet in spite of this it is common to read in the
commentaries: "Naturally, the disciples considered
these three events, (the fall of Jerusalem, the end of
the world and the final coming of Jesus), but in this
they were mistaken.".
Huh? They were "mistaken" for thinking of the
Second Coming?
Isn't that what someone in these news groups has
been trying to convince us of?
Besides the fact that this statement assumes without
proof the end of material creation at the end of time,
it falsely charges the disciples with misunderstanding
a subject that inspiration specifically says they
understood!
We well understand that the disciples did not, far too
often, comprehend Jesus' teaching. But, the only way
we know they misunderstood is because the inspired
record tells us they did. Just where in Matthew 23-24
are we informed of the disciples' misunderstanding of
the subject at hand? There is no indication at all.
The fact is we are told that they DID understand.
In Matthew 13, Jesus told three parables about
the end of the age and the kingdom. In verse 51,
Jesus specifically asked them "Have you understood
all these things?". Their response was "Yes, Lord.".
Now, did they lie? Or were they too embarrassed
to admit confusion? If so, where is the indication
of that being the case, given the fact that Scripture
always tells us when they were confused?
What is so significant about this? Simple. It is
because one of the parables has a direct impact
on our understanding of Matthew 24.
The parable of the Tares in Matthew 13 tells of
the coming of the Son of Man with the angels
to gather the elect and cast out the Tares at the
end of the age (v 37). Jesus says at that time would
be when "the righteous will shine forth as the sun
in the kingdom" (v 43). This is a direct quote
from Daniel 12:3.
Daniel 12 deals with the Great Tribulation (v 1),
the "time of the end" (v 4) and the Abomination
of Desolation (vs 9-11). Note that it does not say,
"the end of time". :)
Jesus directly alludes to Daniel 12 in Matthew 24:15
and 21 and the disciple's question about the end of
the age is grounded in Daniel 12 as well.
Now watch this! :)
In Daniel 12 the prophet overheard one angel ask
another when all these things would be fulfilled
and was told that "when the power of the holy people
has been completely shattered all these things will
be fulfilled" (v 7).
The disciples were well aware of Daniel 12 and its
prediction of judgment on Israel. Jesus quoted
Daniel 12 and applied it to his coming at the end
of the age (Matthew 13). He quoted Daniel 12 no
less than twice in his prediction of Jerusalem's fall
in Matthew 24!
Jesus asked them if they understood and what did
they say? They said, "Yes!".
Therefore, unless the disciples lied to Jesus, then
they understood from Daniel and Jesus' teaching
in Matthew 13 that His coming would be at the
end of the age judgment on Israel!
Did they lose their understanding in Matthew 24?
Had they become confused since Jesus spoke His
words of Matthew 13?
I don't think so!
When we look at it in this light, the questions of
the disciples in Matthew 24 are perfectly consistent
with the context of...
1) Matthew 23.
2) The earlier teaching of Matthew 13.
3) The prophetic background of Daniel 12.
The disciples had heard Jesus predict Jerusalem's
judgment. They were familiar with the prophecies
of its fall at the end of the age, and were now
inquiring for more information about when it would
happen and the signs to signify its approach. Any
other interpretation of the questions accuses the
disciples of lying, terribly bad memory, or confusion
at the very least.
Toussaint, a Dispensationalist, says in his commentary
that the disciples correctly linked Jesus’ prediction
of Jerusalem’s demise with the end of the age and
his parousia. He says;“To them (the disciples), the
destruction of Jerusalem, the coming of the Messiah
and the end of the age comprised one complex of
events.”. Toussaint even says that when Jesus spoke
of the destruction of Jerusalem, “they (the disciples),
would logically call to remembrance Zechariah 14,
for those elements are all brought together in that
Old Testament prophecy.”.
I agree! :) And I would state that the disciples were
correct to associate the fall of Jerusalem with the
end of the age. Now, since Toussaint concurs that
Jerusalem fell in that first century generation, and
since it was logical for the disciples to associate
that event with the end of the age, it follows that
the end of the age did come with the fall of Jerusalem
in A.D. 70.. There is no justification to suggest,
as does Toussaint, that Jesus’ generation would see
only the beginning of the fulfillment. To suggest that
the fall of Jerusalem was only the beginning of the
end, that is, the time when the signs of the end would
begin to occur, stretches the period of fulfillment
beyond where Jesus unmistakably placed it. Speaking
of the coming destruction on Jerusalem, Jesus said;
“These be the days of vengeance in which all things
that are written must be fulfilled (Luke 21:22).
The fall of Jerusalem was the time of fulfillment,
not the time of beginning.
There is therefore, only one coming in the context
of Matthew 23-24. Even Toussaint agrees that
the disciples were not confused to associate the
fall of Jerusalem with the end of the age, although
of course, he extends the end of the age, so far by
2,000 years. Naturally such a gap between the sign,
Jerusalem’s fall and what it signified, the end of the
age, is totally lost in such a huge gap!
After hearing Jesus' awesome words in 23:29,
the disciples naturally wanted to know more
and thus the questions of Matthew 24:3.
Unless of course, one can demonstrate that...
1) The coming of 23:39 is not the judgment coming
of the previous verses.
And..
2) That the coming of v 39 is therefore, a reference
to national Jewish conversion.
It seems therefore, unavoidable that v39 is indeed
a reference to the A.D. 70 coming of Jesus in judgment
against Israel.
This also provides the context for identifying the
coming in 24:3. This means that if the coming
of 24:3 is the coming of 23:39 and if the coming
of 23:39 is A.D. 70, then there is no basis at all for
postulating an "end of time" coming in Matthew 24.
A final thought here.
Many Dispensationalists insist that in Luke 21:28,
when Jesus promised “when you see these things
come to pass, lift up your heads, for your redemption
draws nigh”, that this is a reference to the national
conversion and salvation of Israel.
This is a clear cut failure to honor the language and
context. Jesus was speaking to his personal disciples,
and promising them that they will suffer persecution
at the hands of the Jews (“they will deliver you to
synagogues” v12), just as he had told the Jews in
chapter 23 that they would persecute his disciples.
Jesus was not speaking of the Jewish nation under
attack. He was speaking of his disciples, those who
became the church, the True Israel! This distinction,
established by simply honoring the pronouns, is,
in actuality, devastating to the literal, 1,000 year
millennial view!
And also, as a result of this persecution, Israel would
bear the brunt of God’s wrath, for He would bring
the Abomination of Desolation and final judgment
on Israel.
It is tragic that dispensationalists seem not to
realize that the Abomination of Desolation can
ONLY be seen as a judgment on Israel for violating
the everlasting covenant and in fact, for persecuting
the church!
Jesus tells the scribes and Pharisees that they will
persecute those He sends and then tells the disciples
that they will be persecuted and yet, Jesus was
talking about an age with a national restoration
of Israel and was talking about an unbelieving
national Israel being persecuted in some war?
HUH?!?!?! (:
It is interesting to note that Toussaint does state;
“Dispensationalists and Preterists agree that the
destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 was God’s
judgment on Israel.”.
WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THIS VERY SIMPLE TRUTH!!!
Jehovah never allowed, nor caused Israel to be attacked
and pillaged, unless she had violated the covenant!!!
See Psalms 41:11.
To suggest that the Abomination would be a horrible
act of desecration placed on the “innocent” nation,
by a traitorous Man of Sin, COMPLETELY IGNORES
the covenantal nature of any and all attacks and
desecrations against Israel’s land, city and Temple!
To put it simply, if Israel was attacked and her city
and Temple conquered or desecrated, it was PROOF
POSITIVE that it was in violation of the covenant!
It cannot be a nationally restored Israel and certainly
not a believing, saved Israel that is being attacked
here! It MUST BE an Israel IN VIOLATION of
God's Covenant!
Another point that must be brought to bear here,
is the fact that even the "literal 1,000 year"
millennialists claim that the Mosaic Covenant
has been forever fulfilled and removed in Christ.
Yet, they then appeal to Deuteronomy 30 and
other Old Testament passages, as proof texts,
to support a future restoration. This is a logical
contradiction!
You cannot say that the Old Covenant has been
forever removed, and then appeal to the Old Covenant
to support the idea of a future restoration of Israel!
If the old system has been removed in the judgment,
which is what 70 AD was all about and is all that
Jesus mentioned, then it cannot be that the texts
are supporting a NATIONAL RESTORATION,
but rather, a spiritual fulfillment (see Heb 12:22)
in Christ! Especially considering that as pointed
out earlier, their salvation comes at the time of
their destruction!
Since the Abomination of Desolation must be seen
as a judgment from God on Israel, according to the
Mosaic Covenant, it is prima fascia evident that the
Abomination of Desolation had to occur while the
Mosaic Covenant was still standing. The point is,
that in the context of the redemption promised in
Luke, it has to refer, not to the nation of Israel
and a national repentance and conversion.
Jesus was speaking to his followers about what would
befall them at the hands of Old Covenant Israel and
then, what would befall Old Covenant Israel for her
persecution of His disciples. Jesus was not speaking
to, nor about Old Covenant Israel when he said,
“when you see all of these things come to pass, your
redemption draws nigh.”. He was speaking to those
who followed Him in faith!
So we have seen that identifying the context and
background of the Song of Ascent in Matthew 23:39
is helpful in properly interpreting the entire Olivet
Discourse.
The interpretation provided here, avoids the pitfalls
of introducing unprecedented subject matter into
the actual context and it is consistent with the
context of judgment in Matthew 23.
Just as in chapter 24, Jesus foretold the fact of His
coming and the general time of its occurrence. He
had already given the scene of His coming in judgment
and a statement as to the time for its happening.
Jesus would come in judgment against Jerusalem.
He would come on one of the Holy Days of the year,
when they would be singing, "Blessed is he who comes
in the name of the Lord". And this is exactly what
happened! And when we look at when the events
happened in 70 AD, we will see what Holy Day
was taking place! In fact, Josephus told us. The
Passover Lamb returned in judgment against Israel,
during Passover. :)
Thus, in spite of the Dispensationalist's objections,
Matthew 23:39 presents no difficulty for the Preterist
view. Rather, it confirms the true Preterist view!
And let us not forget, as far as Daniel 12, which Jesus
referenced in Matthew 24, He also said in Luke 21,
that when this event occurred (Jerusalem surrounded,
which meant their desolation was about to happen),
that "ALL THINGS" written were fulfilled. Read it
for yourself. :)
And Daniel was "written" and therefore, could not
possibly be left unfulfilled, or Jesus lied. (:
So make your choice. Believe Jesus, or believe
your futurist doctrine.
--
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34
O
/
/
<><[]()X()[]><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>
\
\
O
"For the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword."
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology
and biology is thus in the peculiar position of
being a science founded on an unproved theory.
Is it then science, or faith? Belief in the
theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to
belief in special creation. Both are concepts
which believers know to be true, but neither,
up to the present, has been capable of proof.
- L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to
the 1971 edition of Charles Darwin's Origin
of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or
the Preservation of Favored Races in the
Struggle for Life
.
|
