| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Pastor Dave" |
| Date: |
23 May 2007 03:11:24 PM |
| Object: |
They Shall Shine Forth Like The Sun - Daniel 12 |
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 studied them, to see what it is I am saying and
whether or not it holds Scriptural water. (:
Approach something with a predetermined belief and
everything else will always be wrong to you. It was only
when I stopped doing this, that I was able to see what
the Bible says, instead of trying to filter the Bible through
my predisposed doctrine and that is why I believe what
I believe now and that is why the Bible became so alive
and so clear to me, as to what the Apostles were really
waiting for!
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 one 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, it 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, it 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 Cor 10:10-11; Heb 1:1; 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! 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, par 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!
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
in 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, nor 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.
We must bear in mind first, that Jesus' discourse in Mat 24,
was not a long time off from what He said in Mat 23, in
the Temple. No! Jesus said what He said to the scribes
and Pharisees in the Temple and then *immediately*
walked up the mount with His disciples and they asked Him
some questions, based on what they *just* heard and He
answered them.
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!
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 insist that in 24:3 the disciples
were asking about some "end of time" coming of Jesus?
<Note: The KJV translates the word incorrectly in Mat 24:3.
The Greek word there is "aion" and means "age", as in
"an age" and not the planet. Check other translations
and you'll see that most translate it correctly as "the end
of the age".>
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 had just predicted. Matthew 24:2 simply cannot
contextually be viewed as "New News" to the disciples.
Jesus has already pronounced coming judgment in chap 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?").
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?
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).
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).
Let that sink in for a moment and understand that it does not
mean, "Christians". Today's Christians are so vain, that they
think that everything they read in the Bible is about them! (:
It means the Jews! Again, referencing the coming judgment
(which has already come from out perspective in time),
let that verse sink in for a moment, before continuing...
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
Mat 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 v 39 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 chap 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!
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.”.
In fact, Jesus said clearly that when Jerusalem was destroyed,
that it meant that all things written were fulfilled.
Luke 21:20-22
20) But when you see JERUSALEM surrounded by armies,
then know that ITS desolation is near.
21) 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.
22) For THESE are the days of vengeance, that ALL THINGS
which are WRITTEN may BE FULFILLED.
Furthermore, in 70 AD, the Roman armies burned the Temple
and afterward, tore it apart, stone by stone, to retrieve the
melted gold that ran in between the stones, thus fulfilling
Jesus' prophecy in Mat 24:2. Now some may point to the
Western Wall, as a way of escaping with their vanity intact,
claiming that it didn't happen and that it's still all about
them. But the reality is, the Western Wall was merely
part of the foundation platform that the Temple buildings
were built on top of and to say that because it's still there,
that it means that Jesus' words have not been fulfilled,
would be like telling a victim of Hurricane Andrew that
their house was not destroyed, because the basement
is still there. :)
Jesus' return was a spiritual event, with some physical
aspects to it. People expect to see Him riding on a cloud,
claiming that He said this would happen. But that ignores
the symbolic language that God used throughout the
Scriptures and that Jesus would have used also, especially
since He was a first century Jew, speaking to first century
Jews. Look at this FULFILLED prophecy about the time
that God used the Assyrians to judge Egypt:
"The burden against Egypt. Behold, the Lord rides
on a swift cloud, and will come into Egypt; The idols
of Egypt will totter at His presence, and the heart of
Egypt will melt in its midst." - Isaiah 19:1
Now did anyone literally and physically see God riding
on a cloud at that time? The answer would be no,
so does that mean that God lied? Or that we need
to stop reading everything as physically literal and
stop letting our vanity and ego be our guide?
Let's look at what did happen in 70 AD though...
Tacitus, a first century Roman historian said, "There were
many prodigies presignifying their ruin which was not averted
by all the sacrifices and vows of that people. Armies were
seen fighting in the air with brandished weapons. A fire fell
upon the Temple from the clouds. The doors of the Temple
were suddenly opened. At the same time there was a loud
voice saying that the gods were removing, which was
accompanied with a sound as of a multitude going out.
All which things were supposed, by some to portend
great calamities."
Tacitus also said...
"In the sky appeared a vision of armies in conflict,
of glittering armour. A sudden lightening flash from
the clouds lit up the Temple. The doors of the holy
place abruptly opened, a superhuman voice was heard
to declare that the gods were leaving it, and in the same
instant came the rushing tumult of their departure"
(Histories, v. 13).
Eusebius (A.D. 325), quoting from the Latin Josephus,
in the fourth century:
"For before the setting of the sun chariots and armed
troops were seen throughout the whole region in mid-air,
wheeling through the clouds and encircling the cities"
(Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, Ch. 8).
The following is also part of what is recorded about 70 AD...
Heavenly phenomena:
- A star resembling a sword
- A comet (Halley's Comet)
- A bright light shining around the altar
and the temple
- A vision of chariots and soldiers running around
among the clouds and all cities of Palestine.
- Lightning flashing.
Earthly phenomena (reported by priests)
- A quaking
- A great noise
- The sounds of a great multitude saying,
"Let us remove hence."
Josephus further says that "no other city ever suffered
such miseries; nor was there ever a generation more
fruitful in wickedness from the beginning of the world. ...
In reality it was God who condemned the whole nation and
turned every course that was taken for their preservation
to their destruction. . . . The multitudes of those who
perished exceeded all the destructions that man or God
ever brought upon the world."
Famine did its slow but dreadful work so that women were
known to eat their own children, just as Moses said they
would do, fifteen hundred years before. The prophecy of
Christ that not one stone of the Temple should be left upon
another, was literally fulfilled. The Jews were carried
into captivity among all nations, and their condition from
that time till now has been an impressive proof of the
truth of prophecy. (Hopkins' Evidences, pp. 322-324.)
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!
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,
are actually symbolic of a spiritual fulfillment in Christ
(see Heb 12:22)! Especially considering that as pointed
out earlier, their salvation comes at the time of their
destruction, hello? :)
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. And
it no longer does and as any Rabbi can tell you, Biblical
Judaism ended in 70 AD!
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 or 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!
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 finally, let us bear in mind that Jesus never preached
a physical, Earthly kingdom and to read Revelation that way,
is to take the most symbolic book in the Bible and try to
make it the most physically literal! (:
We must bear in mind, that just because we see the rod "earth"
in the Bible, that does not mean that it is automatically
speaking of the whole planet. Most often, the Greek word
behind it is "ge", which means "land", not "the planet".
As for the Kingdom that Jesus preached, what did He say?
Luke 17:20-21
20) Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when
the kingdom of God would come, He answered them
and said; The kingdom of God does NOT come with
observation;
21) Nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’
For indeed, the kingdom of God is WITHIN you.
Note that Jesus said the following:
The word "observation" is translated from a Greek word.
Parateresis - Inspection, that is, ocular evidence
Ocular = Of or relating to the eye; the sense of sight.
So let's compare what Jesus said, to what the Futurist
doctrine claims.
Jesus: The Kingdom of God does *NOT* come with observation
(seeing by the human eye).
Futurism: The Kingdom of God *WILL* come with observation
(seeing by the human eye).
Jesus: They will *NOT* be able to point at it and say,
"Look! There it is!".
Futurism: They *WILL* be able to point at it and say,
"Look! There it is!".
Hmmmm.... That doesn't seem to me to be an accurate
assessment of what the Bible says, on the part of the
Futurists. And yet, they keep claiming that what they're
saying, "is in the Bible". Does that seem right to you?
Let us note that Jesus NEVER, EVER taught a physical
Kingdom of God on Earth, that people could see with
the eye and point at and say, "Look! There it is!".
NEVER AND NOT ONCE!
So when any Futurist, preaching this "national Israel
is God's people" doctrine claims that what they read
elsewhere in the Scriptures proves their claim, they
are really saying that Jesus was wrong and they are
pitting the Bible against itself! (:
Now Jesus' statement was VERY SIMPLE AND CLEAR!
It was not some "super fantastic, sci-fi, complex" statement.
Yet the Futurists want us to believe that we are to interpret
what Jesus said, as meaning the exact opposite of what He
actually did say, because they wish to interpret the
fantastic, sci-fi sounding, "new heaven and earth" statements,
as physically literal statements. Yet proper interpretation
requires us to interpret the fantastic statements by the
simple and the obscure statements by the clear statements
and not the other way around.
I hope this has helped some to see what they have not
yet seen!
We must remember *NOT* to approach the Bible as if
it were written by 21st century Gentiles, just the day
before we opened it for the first time and just for us.
Rather, we must read the Bible understanding the people
of that time and how they thought, wrote and spoke!
Only then, can we begin to understand what is being said!
May God bless your study of this!
--
Pastor Dave
People are so afraid to reject doctrine, that they just
don't give a damn what the Bible actually says! Sad!
.
|
|
| User: "Fred A Stover" |
|
| Title: Re: They Shall Shine Forth Like The Sun - Daniel 12 |
23 May 2007 05:29:20 PM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <.....SNAFU.....@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:ms7953lk31sjsdlkvco7mpfv8gbpgjtqbk@4ax.com...
You obviously are inept at "rightly dividing the word of truth" (2Tim 2:15),
for you mix His chastisement of the scribes and Pharisees with His promise
to save the whole world.
Chastisement of Scribes and Pharisees:
..
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.
The promise of salvation for all mankind:
Although the liar has already been show that the Author uses 3 different
words, generally translated generation, which designate the children of
three different generators: Gennema, for those generated by Adam, Genos, for
the church generated by adoption, and Genea for those generated by Jacob,
the Jews, he continues in His hatred.
33) Serpents! Offspring [Gennema: the Author uses for the offspring of
Adam, translated as generation in KJV and others] 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.[genea, the word the Author uses for natural children of
Jacob.]
What He is revealling to folks who have His Spirit, and not Satan's is that
all mankind, generated by Adam can be saved. And the way that it will happen
is by all the sins of the world come upon Jesus generated by Jacob. Which
happened at the cross.
What anyone without Satan's hatred of the God's people realizes is that they
didn't even exist when Abel was killed. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were born
later. They had no part in Abels's death.
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."
And the third part is Jesus weeping over Jerusalem as the prophecy of the
Song of Moses for His people begins, and lasts until:
Deut. 32:41-43
If I whet my glittering sword, and mine hand take hold on judgment; I
will render vengeance to mine enemies, and will reward them that hate me.
[42] I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour
flesh; and that with the blood of the slain and of the captives, from the
beginning of revenges upon the enemy. [43] Rejoice, O ye nations, with his
people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render
vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his
people.
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.
That's what believers do. They believe Him, not you, Satan.
His,
--
http://www.geocities.com/alphadiego66medina@sbcglobal.net/
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as
a little child, he shall not enter therein. (Mark 10:15)
<)))))><
.
|
|
|
|
| User: " ::: vera :::" |
|
| Title: Re: They Shall Shine Forth Like The Sun - Daniel 12 |
23 May 2007 03:20:17 PM |
|
|
In news:ms7953lk31sjsdlkvco7mpfv8gbpgjtqbk@4ax.com,
Pastor Dave <noway@nowhere.com> typed:
Hi,
Hi "Pastor" Dave.
I have snipped your brainwashing if you do not mind.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" |
|
| Title: Re: They Shall Shine Forth Like The Sun - Daniel 12 |
24 May 2007 02:31:07 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave schrieb:
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!
you are still attempting to harmonize writings and authors which were
never intended to be harmonized.
your references to the "pilgrimages" is commendable,
however you need to come to the point where you can read and enter
these texts at a level where you barely need to consult the lexicons.
honesty is essential.
while you expose the idiocy of those whining and moaning about "yet to
be fulfilled" "prophecies" ,
you are still treating symptoms and not the root or premise.
of course, the price you would need to pay is completely abandon your
presumptions about the `yeshua` character and likewise the rest of the
"New" "Testament".
if someone insists that they must be called "A Christian" "till death
do us part" then the only option for them is to ignore the meaning of
`christos` itself.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
