Futurist application of Matthew 24 to the end times

[schoel]

I'm currently teaching our church group through Matthew 24 and have been using Steve G's audio teachings about this passage as a springboard for my study.

Many of those I'm teaching have only ever heard the Futurist approach to the Olivet Discourse and I'm attempting to contrast that view with what I see as the correct take of Matthew 24, a prophecy about A.D. 70.

However, one question I cannot answer about the Futurist take on Matthew 24 is why they apply it to the future. All the articles I've read by Futurists on this passage seem to make the following leap:

(1) Jesus is speaking of the destruction of the temple in A.D.70 in the first few verses of the chapter, and then the disciples want to know more about this impending judgement, so they ask him when will it be and how will they know it is coming.
(Here's the leap).
(2) Jesus' answer in the remaining part of Matthew 24 is about the end times.


How do they get from statement 1 to 2? I can't find any article that discusses the reasoning for that leap. Since that leap is contextually unusual, they would need to give ample reason as to why it is.

Can anyone help?

[steve7150]

Just a thought, i think what you take as the end of an age they take as the end of the world.

[jarrod]

I believe some of the confusion arises by focusing solely on the language in Matthew and not comparing against other gospels that are not directed at a Jewish audience.

Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”

A lot of futurists suggest that "Your coming" and "end of the age" are referring to His second coming that are still off in the distance. Looking at Luke's gospel seems to make this more clear:

So they asked Him, saying, “Teacher, but when will these things be? And what sign will there be when these things are about to take place?”

Then there are most of the remaining passages that futurists cannot see any possible way of having a past fulfillment (from today). I find Steve's lectures with the references to Josephus impossible to ignore, but I had never heard of them before.

Jarrod

edit: what steve7150 said lol

[dwilkins]

Just a thought, i think what you take as the end of an age they take as the end of the world.

There is a lot in this short statement. One of the things that I've found most interesting is that highly qualified theologians constantly refer to something they call "the end of time", which is an event at the climax of eschatology. They seem to conflate the idea of the time of the end as the end of time. The idea that there is an end to time (or beginning, for that matter) is foreign to scripture. God is described as being from everlasting to everlasting, or, as close to an image of infinity as I think they probably had in their vocabulary. It is true that he created the material universe at some point on this timeline, but there is no indication from scripture that the writers conceived of time starting at that point or that time ever actually started. Our concept of the space-time universe (where time is an element of creation) is fairly new. It might be right on some level (though, when science is that new I am leery of changing theology to adjust to it). But, moving to the right on the timeline I think it's a particularly poor fit for what we expect in the future.

Even if eschatology was about the end of the world does that mean that it is the end of time? Do no events elapse after that? What about this new perfect world I keep hearing about? Don't events transpire on that world? If that world is supposed to be the eternal state and things are supposed to happen on it then in no way can we say that time has ended. The world could theoretically end, but time can't end according to our conception of the eternal state.

Doug

[wwalkeriv]

How do they get from statement 1 to 2? I can't find any article that discusses the reasoning for that leap. Since that leap is contextually unusual, they would need to give ample reason as to why it is.

My understanding is that Matthew 24 presents two different conversations that happened at different times. In Luke, chapter 17 a description is given of how things will be in "His day" (Son of Man's day). This parallels Matthew 24, beginning in verse 37. Everything prior to verse 37 parallels Luke 21, which discusses the destruction of the temple. This may be why the futurist make the leap.

I've heard Steve Gregg cover this in one of his lectures, but I can't remember where.

[robbyyoung]

As you know Robby folks who are not Preterists look at these same verses and reach different conclusions. I don't think Paul was answering a question about whether the Great Commission was fulfilled.

steve7150, it truly is unfortunate you cannot shake your indoctrination, and I say this kindly, I really do. This is what I mean by this statement, in bullet format (I will admit that I'm being presumptive):

> You were probably taught to read the scriptures as if most, if not all, promises, prophecies, and personnel pronoun usage regarding the afore mentioned, "actually refers TO YOU"

> Therefore, recorded conversation in history had little to no relevance to these actual parties, because THEY WERE ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT YOU!

> Therefore, the scriptures shouldn't be read as an ancient, historical document to learn from and believe, but as a brand new idea specifically addressed TO YOU!

Your above quote SCREAMS error. If Preterism happens to be an outcome of properly reading the Bible, hermeneutics if you will, then so be it. Paul was and Apostle, taught by NO MAN, but of Yeshua (Gal 1:11,12). Yeshua said, "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world (oikoumene) as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come."

> Yeshua WAS NOT talking TO YOU Brother steve7150. He was talking to His Disciples and what THEY were to look for as a sign that the end of the age has come. After all, THEY asked Him the question and He is answering THEM. Only a gross unorthodox reading of an historical conversation would lead someone to believe, 2000 years or a day later "That I, actually asked the questions, and Yeshua is talking to me!" This is extremely lamentable.

> Therefore, Paul was taught by Yeshua, and Paul said in Colossians 1:23 "if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister."

And you say, "I don't think Paul was answering a question about whether the Great Commission was fulfilled." Really, by who's authority are you claiming this? The written testimony says YOU ARE WRONG. Paul, and Yeshua says, YOU ARE WRONG. Paul was given the same signs as the other Disciples in the Olivet Discourse concerning what THEY were to look for. This was one of them and it was fulfilled. And you tell THEM, NO??? On who's authority are you claiming this?

I am asking you serious questions, and I'm not angry at all, so forgive me if I'm not expressing myself as kind, for that is my intention, but writing is not my favorite forte'.

None of the nations were made disciples and while the gospel was preached in some areas in Rome many more nations existed that never even heard the gospel. For example at that time China existed and was certainly on a par with Rome geographically and population wise yet never heard the gospel.

steve7150, what part of, "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world (oikoumene)..., is confusing you?

oikoumenē:

1. the inhabited earth

- the portion of the earth inhabited by the Greeks, in distinction from the lands of the barbarians

- the Roman empire, all the subjects of the empire

- the whole inhabited earth, the world

- the inhabitants of the earth, men

2. the universe, the world

We know Paul's use conflates with Yeshua's, because He was taught of Him. Therefore, "The First" and correct rendering of the word is correct and makes obvious sense. For Paul could not have traveled around the globe, and then make this statement. He was very aware of what Yeshua said, and He, Paul, said it was fulfilled.

However at the end of Revelation we see the nations coming to the tree of life for healing which sounds more like a fulfillment then 70AD.

"The Leaves" were for the healing of the nations. But this is a whole other topic, again that deals with the close of the Old Covenant and the establishment of the New Covenant during and after 70AD.

Ok Brother, in trying to establish my points, I hope you were not overly offended by my style of writing. It's very difficult to attempt to make what's obvious to me, presentable to another, if biblical hermeneutics doesn't seem to work. Please feel free to return the favor, I promise I will not take offense if I'm not understanding your sound biblical hermeneutics to the question.

God Bless.

[Homer]

Robby,

You wrote:

Therefore, Paul was taught by Yeshua, and Paul said in Colossians 1:23 "if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister."

And you say, "I don't think Paul was answering a question about whether the Great Commission was fulfilled." Really, by who's authority are you claiming this? The written testimony says YOU ARE WRONG. Paul, and Yeshua says, YOU ARE WRONG. Paul was given the same signs as the other Disciples in the Olivet Discourse concerning what THEY were to look for. This was one of them and it was fulfilled. And you tell THEM, NO??? On who's authority are you claiming this?

Are you really sure about this? John Piper comments:

From Rob Bell to Peter O’Brien, Colossians 1:23 proves a challenge. Paul refers to the gospel of his day as “the gospel . . . which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven” (ESV). Commentators multiply explanations of how the gospel could have already been proclaimed “in all creation” in the first century. The context:

You he has now reconciled . . . if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed (Greek tou kēruchthentos) in all creation under heaven.” (Colossians 1:21–23, emphasis added)

Here is my simple solution, though you have to know Greek to see it. The Greek for the phrase “which has been proclaimed” is tou kēruchthentos). This is a substantival participle which we could render “the proclaimed one” in English. It is in apposition with “the gospel” (tou euangeliou . . . tou kēruchthentos)—“the gospel . . . the proclaimed one.” The fact that the participle “proclaimed” is aorist tense does not mean the proclamation has already happened in the past. That is not the way aorists in substantival participles work, as Daniel Wallace makes clear in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (note 8, 615).

The aorist tense in such uses denotes no specific time. You can see how flexible the aorist is by the use of the aorist passive in Colossians 3:4: “When Christ who is your life appears (phanerothē), then you also will appear with him in glory.” The word for “appears” is aorist passive, but refers to an indefinite future time.

So the simplest reading of Colossians 1:23 is that Paul is defining the gospel as the kind of gospel that is unbounded and global in scope, and therefore is preached, by definition, in all the creation. There is no statement here that it has already happened. So I would translate it:

You he has now reconciled . . . if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard—the gospel which is proclaimed in all creation under heaven.

I happily note that N.T. Wright suggests the same interpretation. He writes that the usual English past-time translation, “‘which has been proclaimed,’ might seem to stand in the way of this view. But there is some question whether the aorist participle here (kēruchthentos) has this kind of time significance. Aorist adjectival participles can sometimes be simply ‘definitional’; i.e., here, ‘the proclaimed-in-creation gospel.’” (The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians and to Philemon, Tyndale New Testament Commentary, 84–85).

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[robbyyoung]

Robby,

You wrote:

Therefore, Paul was taught by Yeshua, and Paul said in Colossians 1:23 "if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister."

And you say, "I don't think Paul was answering a question about whether the Great Commission was fulfilled." Really, by who's authority are you claiming this? The written testimony says YOU ARE WRONG. Paul, and Yeshua says, YOU ARE WRONG. Paul was given the same signs as the other Disciples in the Olivet Discourse concerning what THEY were to look for. This was one of them and it was fulfilled. And you tell THEM, NO??? On who's authority are you claiming this?

Are you really sure about this? John Piper comments:

From Rob Bell to Peter O’Brien, Colossians 1:23 proves a challenge. Paul refers to the gospel of his day as “the gospel . . . which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven” (ESV). Commentators multiply explanations of how the gospel could have already been proclaimed “in all creation” in the first century. The context:

You he has now reconciled . . . if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed (Greek tou kēruchthentos) in all creation under heaven.” (Colossians 1:21–23, emphasis added)

Here is my simple solution, though you have to know Greek to see it. The Greek for the phrase “which has been proclaimed” is tou kēruchthentos). This is a substantival participle which we could render “the proclaimed one” in English. It is in apposition with “the gospel” (tou euangeliou . . . tou kēruchthentos)—“the gospel . . . the proclaimed one.” The fact that the participle “proclaimed” is aorist tense does not mean the proclamation has already happened in the past. That is not the way aorists in substantival participles work, as Daniel Wallace makes clear in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (note 8, 615).

The aorist tense in such uses denotes no specific time. You can see how flexible the aorist is by the use of the aorist passive in Colossians 3:4: “When Christ who is your life appears (phanerothē), then you also will appear with him in glory.” The word for “appears” is aorist passive, but refers to an indefinite future time.

So the simplest reading of Colossians 1:23 is that Paul is defining the gospel as the kind of gospel that is unbounded and global in scope, and therefore is preached, by definition, in all the creation. There is no statement here that it has already happened. So I would translate it:

You he has now reconciled . . . if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard—the gospel which is proclaimed in all creation under heaven.

I happily note that N.T. Wright suggests the same interpretation. He writes that the usual English past-time translation, “‘which has been proclaimed,’ might seem to stand in the way of this view. But there is some question whether the aorist participle here (kēruchthentos) has this kind of time significance. Aorist adjectival participles can sometimes be simply ‘definitional’; i.e., here, ‘the proclaimed-in-creation gospel.’” (The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians and to Philemon, Tyndale New Testament Commentary, 84–85).

Hi Brother dizerner,

Yea, I'm sure of my conclusion. Alternative and obscure rendering of the Greek doesn't phase me one bit. Why? Because I can find multiple Greek Scholars to support the interpretation I set forth. But here's the over all deciding factor, "CONTEXT backed by the overwhelming preponderance of internal, scriptural eveidence". I will show you what I mean while addressing your last post concerning "being silly".

God Bless.

[robbyyoung]

It think it's pretty silly to think Paul meant the Gospel was already was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, as his one goal was always to bring it to unreached people. The above explanations seem self-evident.

Brother dizerner,

The entire context of Matt 24:14:

"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."

1. "The End" will come, when the gospel is preached, as a witness, in the Roman World, to all the people.
2. NO DISCIPLE or APOSTLE could say, "THE END" is near, arrived, at the door, etc... before, the gospel was preached, as a witness, to the Roman World.
3. The ONLY ones who were QUALIFIED to make this announcement were The Apostles.
4. Yeshua, emphatically gave THEM what signs to look for in Matthew 24's discourse, to seperate THEM from the FALSE PROPHETS who will make premature declarations in THEIR DAY! (Luke 21:8).
5. Therefore, Peter says in 1 Peter 4:5-7, emphasis on vs. 7, "The end of all things is near..."
6. Paul and Peter correctly read the signs and rendered the warnings to their audience in the 1st Century!

I can go on and on to destroy any claims AGAINST these inspired NT Writers by UNSPIRED MEN!

If you are so big on context, why don't you celebrate THEIR conculsion in regards to "The End"?

Playing games with the Greek to erroneously support flawed presuppositions IS SILLY. The over all context simply destroys this nonsensical claim regarding Pauls statement. Oh I have no doubt you don't like it, but that's irrelevant, isn't it?

God Bless!