Wow! It's hard to keep up with all the activity here in a single day! I would like to address a number of those who have posted in the last 24 hours...
Damon--
I think you tend not only to import meanings into vague texts (as we all do from time to time), but you also exclude very reasonable meanings in favor of very speculative ones. To say that the little horn wears out the saints in some way other than persecution is to import an unlikely meaning--especially since persecution seems to be clearly implied in Daniel 7:21, which says he "makes war against the saints." I think that this better fits the idea of persecution than whatever it is you are viewing as the horn's activity.
For one institution to hunt down, torture, kill and seize the property of the non-Catholic saints for a period of many hundreds of years would certainly quality for wearing down the saints. I don't see any hint that a difficult economy or difficulty in finding reliable babysitters reflects the specific form of the saints being worn down. Actually, poverty has characterized the true saints for the better part of history. Jesus indicated that this condition is a "blessing"--not something that wears them out.
No, I don't see the little horn of Daniel 8 (who is obviously Antiochus Epiphanes) as the same person as the little horn of chapter 7. The principal reason is that the horn of chapter 7 grows out of the fourth empire (Rome?) while the horn in chapter 8 grows out of the Grecian Empire (the he-goat).
As innovative as the suggestion of the Muslim Empire or some future fuhrer may be to the modern mind looking for contemporary fulfillments, the papacy as the little horn still is the shortest distance between two points, and admirably fulfills every part of the description. Only strong wishful thinking on the part of futurists, or sympathy with the papacy, could cause this identification to be rejected.
The fact that many Christians (today) are not under the papal authority does not change the fact that no Christians were permitted to worship apart from the Roman Church for approximately 1000 years of Medieval history. This is enough to qualify as fulfillment.
That "the whole world" can easily mean "the Mediterranean World" or "the Roman Empire" can be demonstrated by many biblical parallels, the most unambiguous of which are probably Luke 2:1; Acts 11:28; 24:5; and Col.1:6.
You wrote:
"So what you're saying is that it's okay to convict the papacy as being the man of sin, as it were, because he "could be." Because that passage "could mean" something other than a government which literally rules the whole world. Umm...if I were a Catholic, you'd be pushing me away from salvation and not towards it."
If you identify some future person as the antichrist, will you not be doing so on the same basis that Protestants have always identified the papacy as such? That is, won't you be looking at the biblical evidence, and then checking it against the facts of that person's character and career? In very modern times, this method has been used to identify many modern dictators with the antichrist. How will your candidate differ from the others?
We should have no qualms about accusing the papacy of such a role, since (whether it is the little horn or not) the papacy made a career of doing all these things for centuries. Why give them a pass and act like that corrupt institution should not be criticized or accused. If it was your babies' heads that the popes had dashed against stone walls, you might feel differently about this. Almost everything about your interpretation of prophecy seems extremely provincial to me. It would be wise to get a better historical perspective before deciding whom to defend.
You wrote:
"According to Strong's, this word (#1080) is bela, meaning "to wear away, wear out, figuratively to harass constantly." This word is derived from balah (#1086), which means to wear out or become old but the derivation is restricted to the mental sense only."
Even if the wearing out referred exclusively to the psychological or mental effects of persecution on the saints, this in no sense argues against persecution being the primary reason for this emotional state. An exhausted mental state, among otherwise well-adjusted people, is generally the result of extraordinary circumstances. Unless you are suggesting that the little horn telepathically transmits exhaustion into the minds of the saints without the mediation of any physical circumstance, we must assume that this refers to the result of some actual action taken by the horn against the saints.
You yourself seem to think that this emotional distress is to be laid at the door of factors such as underemployment and the lack of good childcare help. But these are outward circumstances (not mental states), as truly as is persecultion...but much less distressing ones! I think this "wearing out" of the saints is the result of the little horn's "making war" against them. I am unaware of a better theory.
You wrote (in order to prove that life is harder now than in past centuries):
"My grandmother says that this day and age is a lot more stressful than it ever used to be."
Who would be so rude as to call into question the testimony of your grandmother? Shall we then rewrite the history books so as not to continue exaggerating the miseries of the barbarian invasions of Western Europe, the Mohammeddan invasions of Eastern Europe, the black plague, the Inquisition, Medieval serfdom, the pogroms, the Industrial Revolution (or the French or Bolshevik or any revolution, for that matter) and the plight of slaves or even of the average working stiff for the first 5800 years of history? Again, without impugning the testimony of your grandmother, I would have to say that your perspective is incredibly provincial.
You wrote:
"Errr...did any of these popes claim to be God instead of God? In other words, did they deny God's existence and substitute themselves? (Daniel 11:36-38 )"
Errrr....no. There is no mention of the little horn or the man of sin being an atheist. The little horn and the man of sin are not mentioned in the passage you cited. That the popes placed themselves above God and even saw it as their domain to "change times and law" (Dan.7:25) will not be denied by any objective viewer of the historical data.
Paidion--
I once held this view, that the hindrance was "government" in general that had to disappear before the future antichist would appear. I confess I always hoped no one would ask me the following question: "But do you not anticipate the antichrist having a government? So his will simply succeed the previous ones as they succeeded each other? How does this make the concept of government something that must go away before the antichrist's government?"
It makes much more sense to believe that the fall of a particular government in a region (the Roman) must be removed before another (the papacy) can arise in the same region. This was the unanimous opinion of all the fathers and all Protestants up till about the nineteenth century. While the majority does not necessarily rule, if they contradict a higher authority (scripture), I am prepared to maintain the historical view so long as it agrees with scripture, rather than to replace it with some novel view that does not fit the scriptures any better.
The place where Eusebius identifies AD 70 as the fulfillment of Matthew 24 is in his Ecclesiastical History, Book III, Chapter VII.
Cameron--
I have heard this theory about Michael for many years, and it has the advantage of being mentioned in the Bible, but in what connection? The only thing I know of that would suggest that Michael's standing up correlates with the removal of the hindrance of 2 Thessalonians is the fact that Michael's motion precipitates a great tribulation, and futurists assume the same about the rise of the man of sin. But this is not so.
That the rise of the man of sin brought about a millennium of tribulation for the church does not mean that this trouble correlates with the time of trouble in Daniel 12, nor with that of Matthew 24:21. A principal difference is that the little horn persecutes the "saints" (believers), while the tribulation of Daniel 12 and Matthew 24 (paralleld in Luke 21) comes upon the apostate Jews in Jerusalem (Luke 21:20, 23).
There is therefore no reason to link Daniel 12 with Daniel 7 or 2 Thessalonians 2. This linkage has long been an assumption of dispensationalism. You are not a dispensationalist, but I am going to guess (perhaps incorrectly) that you were once a dispensationalist who transitioned to historic premillennialism. I and many others have made that transition as a first step out of the grip of the dispensational brainwashing we had previously received. You may not end up following the pattern, but my observation has been that the move from dispensationalism to historic premillennialism is generally followed (among those who keep allowing the scripture to correct modern popular assumptions) to full amillennialism. This often leads then to preterism as well, though not necessarily.
A Case for Futurism from the Early Church
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Tue Aug 30, 2005 10:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Steve,
You are correct about the shift from dispensationalism. I did play with amillennialism many years ago and still think about its reality in a spiritual sense waiting for a physical fulfillment.
I brought up Michael only because he is the only person related to a time of distress which I do happen to correlate to other Scripture you cited and but not for reasons you mentioned. I did go into a eschatological hermitage for some years trying to figure out what I believe the Bible to say on the topic. I realized quite quickly that many people had been using passages critical to their views that were not on the topic of the end times. Examples would be James 5:9 and 1 Corinthians 15:52. Neither of these is explicitly on the End Times but are used to make dogmatic statements about End Times events for their respective views.
The issue has always been order and sequence. Whose order and what sequence? So with that in mind, I reread the Bible looking for any passage that related to the End Times. I made a list of three columns that graded from clear/detailed to ambiguous with some that fit in-between. Eventually, I discovered that there are only 6 or 7 passages that fit the following criteria better than others:
1) On the topic or subject of the End Times
2) And also discuss order and sequences
3) And are more clear and detailed than the rest.
It was this core that I developed my primary understanding from by using the example Jesus provided in Matthew 24:15.
Regarding you parallel of Luke 21 to Matthew 24/Mark 13, I believe I’ve challenged that in another post based on eternal evidences. You are the only other person I know of who has developed a tri-column parallel comparison of these three passages. It was one of the first things I did in my hermitage as I began trying to develop a synoptic understanding. Rather than doing that, I discovered that Luke 20-21 likely occurred during the day in the Temple. There is no indication in the text to suggest otherwise, in fact, careful Luke is specific at the beginning of Luke 20 and quite detailed in Luke 21:37-38 to explain Jesus’ teachings.
Why did Luke go to the trouble of such detail if he was not aware of what either Matthew or Mark had written about their records on this topic being at night and in private. This pattern of Jesus publicly teaching and then later explaining it to His disciples was typical (Mark 4:34, Matthew 13:36).
To me the differences speak louder than the similarities. Matthew and Mark do not mention Jerusalem. Matthew 24:9 seems to be in a different sense than Luke 21:12; one is before and one is after. I think that Luke 21 was for the public and His crowd of followers but Matthew 24/Mark 13 was just meant for the disciples.
On another note:
That "the whole world" can easily mean "the Mediterranean World" or "the Roman Empire" can be demonstrated by many biblical parallels, the most unambiguous of which are probably Luke 2:1 and Col.1:6.
Yes, those do represent the extremes so it is safe to say that Paul meant all of creation in Col. 1:16 while Luke referred to the Roman world in Luke 2:1. Regarding the passages that generally like to be considered limited to the Roman world by preterists such as Col. 1:23, I would say four things:
1) The immediate context of Col. 1:23 uses “all the world” in a universal and all encompassing sense in Col. 1:16 and 1:20.
2) No one can truly know that an “all” has been accomplished. For if they did know, then they would be God. Therefore, the most likely sense of Paul’s words are that of hyperbole as in John 21:25.
3) Limiting the scope of “all the world” and similar to the Roman world reflects our 21st Century imposition of bias into a 1st Century text. We may know that the world is a sphere but they did not. They perceived it as elephants, turtles, columns or Atlas holding up a plane of land with edges and ends. Hence, using terms such as four corners or ends of the earth would be idioms directly referencing this common 1st Century understanding. Example Romans 10:18 “ ends of the earth”.
4) Jesus certainly knew the meaning of the entire world even if the dispels did not. Who are we to limit the perception of his global commands such as in Acts 1:6-8 ?
You are correct about the shift from dispensationalism. I did play with amillennialism many years ago and still think about its reality in a spiritual sense waiting for a physical fulfillment.
I brought up Michael only because he is the only person related to a time of distress which I do happen to correlate to other Scripture you cited and but not for reasons you mentioned. I did go into a eschatological hermitage for some years trying to figure out what I believe the Bible to say on the topic. I realized quite quickly that many people had been using passages critical to their views that were not on the topic of the end times. Examples would be James 5:9 and 1 Corinthians 15:52. Neither of these is explicitly on the End Times but are used to make dogmatic statements about End Times events for their respective views.
The issue has always been order and sequence. Whose order and what sequence? So with that in mind, I reread the Bible looking for any passage that related to the End Times. I made a list of three columns that graded from clear/detailed to ambiguous with some that fit in-between. Eventually, I discovered that there are only 6 or 7 passages that fit the following criteria better than others:
1) On the topic or subject of the End Times
2) And also discuss order and sequences
3) And are more clear and detailed than the rest.
It was this core that I developed my primary understanding from by using the example Jesus provided in Matthew 24:15.
Regarding you parallel of Luke 21 to Matthew 24/Mark 13, I believe I’ve challenged that in another post based on eternal evidences. You are the only other person I know of who has developed a tri-column parallel comparison of these three passages. It was one of the first things I did in my hermitage as I began trying to develop a synoptic understanding. Rather than doing that, I discovered that Luke 20-21 likely occurred during the day in the Temple. There is no indication in the text to suggest otherwise, in fact, careful Luke is specific at the beginning of Luke 20 and quite detailed in Luke 21:37-38 to explain Jesus’ teachings.
Why did Luke go to the trouble of such detail if he was not aware of what either Matthew or Mark had written about their records on this topic being at night and in private. This pattern of Jesus publicly teaching and then later explaining it to His disciples was typical (Mark 4:34, Matthew 13:36).
To me the differences speak louder than the similarities. Matthew and Mark do not mention Jerusalem. Matthew 24:9 seems to be in a different sense than Luke 21:12; one is before and one is after. I think that Luke 21 was for the public and His crowd of followers but Matthew 24/Mark 13 was just meant for the disciples.
On another note:
That "the whole world" can easily mean "the Mediterranean World" or "the Roman Empire" can be demonstrated by many biblical parallels, the most unambiguous of which are probably Luke 2:1 and Col.1:6.
Yes, those do represent the extremes so it is safe to say that Paul meant all of creation in Col. 1:16 while Luke referred to the Roman world in Luke 2:1. Regarding the passages that generally like to be considered limited to the Roman world by preterists such as Col. 1:23, I would say four things:
1) The immediate context of Col. 1:23 uses “all the world” in a universal and all encompassing sense in Col. 1:16 and 1:20.
2) No one can truly know that an “all” has been accomplished. For if they did know, then they would be God. Therefore, the most likely sense of Paul’s words are that of hyperbole as in John 21:25.
3) Limiting the scope of “all the world” and similar to the Roman world reflects our 21st Century imposition of bias into a 1st Century text. We may know that the world is a sphere but they did not. They perceived it as elephants, turtles, columns or Atlas holding up a plane of land with edges and ends. Hence, using terms such as four corners or ends of the earth would be idioms directly referencing this common 1st Century understanding. Example Romans 10:18 “ ends of the earth”.
4) Jesus certainly knew the meaning of the entire world even if the dispels did not. Who are we to limit the perception of his global commands such as in Acts 1:6-8 ?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Always willing to listen and consider by the grace of God,
Cameron Fultz
Cameron Fultz
Hi Cameron,
I appreciate all the time and thought that you have put into this matter. I have looked at the scriptures that you cited and considered your points, but I am not able to agree with some of your conclusions.
First, it seems very unlikely that Luke 21 is a different discourse, given to an broader audience than the discourse described in Matthew 24 and Mark 13. This suggests that Jesus gave the same discourse, almost verbatim, twice the same day--once to His disciples, and once to the crowd (which included His disciples). None of the gospels tell us that He gave a rerun of the sermon to His disciples in private (though He could have done so, we cannot assume it from any of the evidence in the gospels).
Second, Luke does not affirm that the discourse he records was given in the temple. True, the events of chapter 20 through 21:6 occurred there, but there is no reason that Luke or the other writers must tell us of every movement of Jesus from one location to another...and, in fact, they do not. Matthew and Mark do not tell us anything about it being night when Jesus gave the discourse to the disciples recorded in those books. I have never gotten the impression that this was the case from studying them, so the idea that Luke 21 was uttered in the daytime is not in conflict with its identification with the discourse in the synoptic parallels. The last two verses of Luke 21 don't appear to be commenting on the venue of this particular discourse, but rather seem to be making a statement of Jesus' habits during the passion week in general.
Third, the differences between the synoptic accounts of the discourse are not greater than the degree to which the authors differ in wording from each other, for example, in telling of the healing of the man with the withered hand, or the relating of the parable of the sower, or many other parallel material. Even the question of the disciples in Matt.24:3 and Mark 13:4 (which you and I agree to be parallels) is worded very differently between these two gospels.
Fourth, the idea that Luke 21 was uttered to the crowds, rather than to the disciples privately (as was the case of Matthew 24 and Mark 13) does not seem to be correct, as there is too much in Luke 21 that would apply exclusively to the disciples (e.g., Luke 21:12-19, 28), and not to the crowds at all.
Fifth, it would seem coincidental, to the point of strangeness, if the disciples had just heard Jesus give this discourse to the crowds (as per Luke 21), in response to the crowd's question: "When shall these things be? And what sign shall there be that these things are about to take place?" (Luke 21:7), and then they took Him aside and asked Him the exact same two questions (Mark 13:3-4), as if He had not just presented a full answer in their hearing.
Sixth, the discourses related in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 do not have the character of an explanation of Luke 21, but rather of a mere restatement of the same material--if anything, in more obscure language. Therefore, I am not inclined to see the former as a private explanation of the latter.
Your work on this subject is commendable, but you and I may be bringing different sets of presuppositions to the investigation Thanks for sharing.
I appreciate all the time and thought that you have put into this matter. I have looked at the scriptures that you cited and considered your points, but I am not able to agree with some of your conclusions.
First, it seems very unlikely that Luke 21 is a different discourse, given to an broader audience than the discourse described in Matthew 24 and Mark 13. This suggests that Jesus gave the same discourse, almost verbatim, twice the same day--once to His disciples, and once to the crowd (which included His disciples). None of the gospels tell us that He gave a rerun of the sermon to His disciples in private (though He could have done so, we cannot assume it from any of the evidence in the gospels).
Second, Luke does not affirm that the discourse he records was given in the temple. True, the events of chapter 20 through 21:6 occurred there, but there is no reason that Luke or the other writers must tell us of every movement of Jesus from one location to another...and, in fact, they do not. Matthew and Mark do not tell us anything about it being night when Jesus gave the discourse to the disciples recorded in those books. I have never gotten the impression that this was the case from studying them, so the idea that Luke 21 was uttered in the daytime is not in conflict with its identification with the discourse in the synoptic parallels. The last two verses of Luke 21 don't appear to be commenting on the venue of this particular discourse, but rather seem to be making a statement of Jesus' habits during the passion week in general.
Third, the differences between the synoptic accounts of the discourse are not greater than the degree to which the authors differ in wording from each other, for example, in telling of the healing of the man with the withered hand, or the relating of the parable of the sower, or many other parallel material. Even the question of the disciples in Matt.24:3 and Mark 13:4 (which you and I agree to be parallels) is worded very differently between these two gospels.
Fourth, the idea that Luke 21 was uttered to the crowds, rather than to the disciples privately (as was the case of Matthew 24 and Mark 13) does not seem to be correct, as there is too much in Luke 21 that would apply exclusively to the disciples (e.g., Luke 21:12-19, 28), and not to the crowds at all.
Fifth, it would seem coincidental, to the point of strangeness, if the disciples had just heard Jesus give this discourse to the crowds (as per Luke 21), in response to the crowd's question: "When shall these things be? And what sign shall there be that these things are about to take place?" (Luke 21:7), and then they took Him aside and asked Him the exact same two questions (Mark 13:3-4), as if He had not just presented a full answer in their hearing.
Sixth, the discourses related in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 do not have the character of an explanation of Luke 21, but rather of a mere restatement of the same material--if anything, in more obscure language. Therefore, I am not inclined to see the former as a private explanation of the latter.
Your work on this subject is commendable, but you and I may be bringing different sets of presuppositions to the investigation Thanks for sharing.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Steve,
I appreciate the time and consideration you have given to this discussion.
Luk 21:37 And every day he was teaching in the temple, but at night he went out and lodged on the mount called Olivet.
Luk 21:38 And early in the morning all the people came to him in the temple to hear him.
This occurs directly after the teaching and it stretches credulity to presuppose that this teaching occurred anywhere but in the Temple. Luke’s records is devoid of any references to privacy, while Matthew and Mark clearly state that it was private and on the Mt. of Olives which is virtually identical to saying it was at night based on the two verses just quoted above. Let’s review these again:
Mat 24:3 As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying,…
Mar 13:3 And as he sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,….
Again, Luke 21:37-38 isn’t in the Gospels positioned exactly where it is to take up space or necessarily to speak about Jesus’ habits. It has a careful purpose and is part of a larger picture that flows from the pattern set out at the beginning:
Luk 1:1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us,
Luk 1:2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us,
Luk 1:3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
Luk 1:4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.
Luke 21:37-38 caps the end of a larger discourse that began in chapter 20 and it is vital to bring closure to the scene.
Luk 20:1 One day, as Jesus was teaching the people in the temple and preaching the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes with the elders came up.
Careful Luke supplies no references, other than Luke 21:37-38 that Jesus ever left the temple while teaching.
I do not dispute that there are other synoptic passages and I recognize their differences that can be explained by the different viewpoints of the authors such as ; Peter knew the name of the blind beggar while Matthew only was aware of two beggars he would not likely know as a tax collector.
But the patterns seen in Matthew 13:36 and Mark 4:34 do provide examples of how Jesus will carefully explain things in further detail. This was the final week, Jesus had just mentioned His coming with the signs of the Day of the Lord. Don’t you think that the disciples were just a least bit curious? If they had heard that earlier in the day, then why wouldn’t they seek to understand more?
Well, if you phrase it like this then it is strange. But I do not think that how you have suggested it is how it happened. I do happen to believe that it is very likely that they all share the same beginning; as they were leaving, one of the disciples made the comment that resulted in Jesus’ response that immediately resulted in the questions as to “when” and Jesus’ further response in public as recorded in Luke. If we just look at Luke, who was supposedly quite careful in his accounting of the Gospel, then one would be forced to say that Luke with full knowledge of either Matthew’s and/or Mark’s account deliberately avoided mentioning the significance of that Matthew and Mark (Peter) placed on the “privacy” of the discussion Mark 13:3, Matthew 24:3. To me this is a stranger supposition.
Secondly, if we accept that Jesus immediately responded in teaching and that such teaching occurred in public in the Temple as Luke records in 21:37-38 immediately after then who are we to discount patterns sets up in Mark 4:34 and Matthew 13:36 that clearly show times of private teaching to his disciples to explain what was earlier said in public? Rather, I would find it quite strange to ignore a pattern in the Gospel, especially in light of Matthew’s refined questions that one could understand are refined as a result of what was heard earlier. To me this make much more sense, preconceived biases aside, for I think that it is important that Jesus was “across from the Temple”, ie. in view of it that evening when the four disciples approached him.
Third, it is even stranger that careful Luke would record what the four disciples (Mark 13:3) heard in private when his stated mission in Luke 1:1-4 was to question other eye-witness to see if what they had heard was true. If find it more likely that Luke found those who were part of the greater crowd in the Temple and thus recorded specifically what they collectively heard. Mark makes it quite clear, that were ever Jesus went there was a large crowd, therefore, a lot of eye-witnesses. Matthew and Peter’s account in Mark go out of their way to express the “private” aspect of the Olivet Discourse.
The exact opposite pattern is demonstrated in Scripture where the vagueness is in public and the interpretation is in private to the disciples. Regardless of my presuppositions that I am aware of, I find that it makes more credible sense for Jesus to speak of the impending doom of the Temple and Jerusalem in public to the larger mixed audience of followers and skeptics. Those with ears will hear and those without will not. This is the typical pattern of Jesus’ public teaching.
I’m not saying that all of Luke 21 was meant for the non-Christian crowd, rather I’m saying that it was Jesus’ public response to the mixed crowd of believers and non-believers and those with hears understood. And when 70 AD happened they were able to respond appropriately for it was a message to all who could hear. A similar pattern occurred in Jeremiah’s time.
I do think it is significant that the sense of time is different between Luke 21:12 and Matthew 24:9. Maybe it is my supposition that Jesus could speak to events of 70 AD as a foreshadow of a future reality or maybe it is simply the truth and that Jesus did change the sense of time from “before” to “after” to make a critical point about the ultimate fulfillment and that He wanted His teachings given in private to be explicitly handed down to every generation of disciples as the Great Commission charges. I think “tote” G5117 carries a significant change in meaning (Thayers: “then or at that time”) compared to “pro” G4253 (Thayers: before) and that the two are, therefore, not speaking of the same time.
I find it more likely given the patterns of the Gospel that Matthew 24 and Mark 13 do indeed record Jesus private explanation directed specifically at the disciples and their progeny.
I appreciate the time and consideration you have given to this discussion.
I beg to differ with Luke 21:37-38Second, Luke does not affirm that the discourse he records was given in the temple. True, the events of chapter 20 through 21:6 occurred there, but there is no reason that Luke or the other writers must tell us of every movement of Jesus from one location to another ...and, in fact, they do not. Matthew and Mark do not tell us anything about it being night when Jesus gave the discourse to the disciples recorded in those books. I have never gotten the impression that this was the case from studying them, so the idea that Luke 21 was uttered in the daytime is not in conflict with its identification with the discourse in the synoptic parallels. The last two verses of Luke 21 don't appear to be commenting on the venue of this particular discourse, but rather seem to be making a statement of Jesus' habits during the passion week in general.
Luk 21:37 And every day he was teaching in the temple, but at night he went out and lodged on the mount called Olivet.
Luk 21:38 And early in the morning all the people came to him in the temple to hear him.
This occurs directly after the teaching and it stretches credulity to presuppose that this teaching occurred anywhere but in the Temple. Luke’s records is devoid of any references to privacy, while Matthew and Mark clearly state that it was private and on the Mt. of Olives which is virtually identical to saying it was at night based on the two verses just quoted above. Let’s review these again:
Mat 24:3 As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying,…
Mar 13:3 And as he sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,….
Again, Luke 21:37-38 isn’t in the Gospels positioned exactly where it is to take up space or necessarily to speak about Jesus’ habits. It has a careful purpose and is part of a larger picture that flows from the pattern set out at the beginning:
Luk 1:1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us,
Luk 1:2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us,
Luk 1:3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
Luk 1:4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.
Luke 21:37-38 caps the end of a larger discourse that began in chapter 20 and it is vital to bring closure to the scene.
Luk 20:1 One day, as Jesus was teaching the people in the temple and preaching the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes with the elders came up.
Careful Luke supplies no references, other than Luke 21:37-38 that Jesus ever left the temple while teaching.
I do not dispute that there are other synoptic passages and I recognize their differences that can be explained by the different viewpoints of the authors such as ; Peter knew the name of the blind beggar while Matthew only was aware of two beggars he would not likely know as a tax collector.
But the patterns seen in Matthew 13:36 and Mark 4:34 do provide examples of how Jesus will carefully explain things in further detail. This was the final week, Jesus had just mentioned His coming with the signs of the Day of the Lord. Don’t you think that the disciples were just a least bit curious? If they had heard that earlier in the day, then why wouldn’t they seek to understand more?
The crowds that followed Jesus also represented those who were followers and curiosity seekers. There was the inner core, the 12, the 70 and it goes on from there. I do not see that he would necessarily avoid discussing any of the things he mentioned in 21:12-19, 28. Rather I would expect to see it given the larger body of followers, especially after the Triumphal entry.Fourth, the idea that Luke 21 was uttered to the crowds, rather than to the disciples privately (as was the case of Matthew 24 and Mark 13) does not seem to be correct, as there is too much in Luke 21 that would apply exclusively to the disciples (e.g., Luke 21:12-19, 28), and not to the crowds at all.
Fifth, it would seem coincidental, to the point of strangeness, if the disciples had just heard Jesus give this discourse to the crowds (as per Luke 21), in response to the crowd's question: "When shall these things be? And what sign shall there be that these things are about to take place?" (Luke 21:7), and then they took Him aside and asked Him the exact same two questions (Mark 13:3-4), as if He had not just presented a full answer in their hearing.
Well, if you phrase it like this then it is strange. But I do not think that how you have suggested it is how it happened. I do happen to believe that it is very likely that they all share the same beginning; as they were leaving, one of the disciples made the comment that resulted in Jesus’ response that immediately resulted in the questions as to “when” and Jesus’ further response in public as recorded in Luke. If we just look at Luke, who was supposedly quite careful in his accounting of the Gospel, then one would be forced to say that Luke with full knowledge of either Matthew’s and/or Mark’s account deliberately avoided mentioning the significance of that Matthew and Mark (Peter) placed on the “privacy” of the discussion Mark 13:3, Matthew 24:3. To me this is a stranger supposition.
Secondly, if we accept that Jesus immediately responded in teaching and that such teaching occurred in public in the Temple as Luke records in 21:37-38 immediately after then who are we to discount patterns sets up in Mark 4:34 and Matthew 13:36 that clearly show times of private teaching to his disciples to explain what was earlier said in public? Rather, I would find it quite strange to ignore a pattern in the Gospel, especially in light of Matthew’s refined questions that one could understand are refined as a result of what was heard earlier. To me this make much more sense, preconceived biases aside, for I think that it is important that Jesus was “across from the Temple”, ie. in view of it that evening when the four disciples approached him.
Third, it is even stranger that careful Luke would record what the four disciples (Mark 13:3) heard in private when his stated mission in Luke 1:1-4 was to question other eye-witness to see if what they had heard was true. If find it more likely that Luke found those who were part of the greater crowd in the Temple and thus recorded specifically what they collectively heard. Mark makes it quite clear, that were ever Jesus went there was a large crowd, therefore, a lot of eye-witnesses. Matthew and Peter’s account in Mark go out of their way to express the “private” aspect of the Olivet Discourse.
I find what you have just said to be both curious and odd at the same time. For in Matthew and Mark, we have explicit indication that Jesus teaching was private and to the inner three plus Andrew, who I assume made the original comment. This is all the more reason for Jesus’ teaching to be clear and specific and address the inner issues as in Mark 4:34 and Matthew 13:36. We all do have suppositions and preconceptions, but don’t you honestly see how your own could lead to your statement that Matthew and Mark’s account are more vague?Sixth, the discourses related in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 do not have the character of an explanation of Luke 21, but rather of a mere restatement of the same material--if anything, in more obscure language. Therefore, I am not inclined to see the former as a private explanation of the latter.
The exact opposite pattern is demonstrated in Scripture where the vagueness is in public and the interpretation is in private to the disciples. Regardless of my presuppositions that I am aware of, I find that it makes more credible sense for Jesus to speak of the impending doom of the Temple and Jerusalem in public to the larger mixed audience of followers and skeptics. Those with ears will hear and those without will not. This is the typical pattern of Jesus’ public teaching.
I’m not saying that all of Luke 21 was meant for the non-Christian crowd, rather I’m saying that it was Jesus’ public response to the mixed crowd of believers and non-believers and those with hears understood. And when 70 AD happened they were able to respond appropriately for it was a message to all who could hear. A similar pattern occurred in Jeremiah’s time.
I do think it is significant that the sense of time is different between Luke 21:12 and Matthew 24:9. Maybe it is my supposition that Jesus could speak to events of 70 AD as a foreshadow of a future reality or maybe it is simply the truth and that Jesus did change the sense of time from “before” to “after” to make a critical point about the ultimate fulfillment and that He wanted His teachings given in private to be explicitly handed down to every generation of disciples as the Great Commission charges. I think “tote” G5117 carries a significant change in meaning (Thayers: “then or at that time”) compared to “pro” G4253 (Thayers: before) and that the two are, therefore, not speaking of the same time.
I find it more likely given the patterns of the Gospel that Matthew 24 and Mark 13 do indeed record Jesus private explanation directed specifically at the disciples and their progeny.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Always willing to listen and consider by the grace of God,
Cameron Fultz
Cameron Fultz
I leave you to your convictions about this. You have heard my reasons for believing otherwise. If you find your statements more convincing than mine, there is little more that I can contribute.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Steve,
Thanks. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. I'm always willing to give up what I think I know for the Truth.
Somethings appear to be understood within the bounds of larger constructs. So for the sake of the larger construct, some nusances can be overlooked. For me, this is less of a nusance and more of an important topic considering it contributes to one's foundational basis of eschatological understanding. It is not the most critical topic, but it is important for if one were to overlook the differences then I would grant you that it could lead one into more of a past-fulfillment direction. And of course that is fine if it makes sense.
On the other hand, if one is not predisposed to 70 AD at all costs, then the differences, the pattern Jesus's teaching ministry and Luke's careful recording should cause one to pause to rigidly connect these three accounts. Nor should one be overtly seeking to capitalize on any difference to fabricate a division where there is none between synoptic passages in order to create a future eschatology at all costs.
Thanks. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. I'm always willing to give up what I think I know for the Truth.
Somethings appear to be understood within the bounds of larger constructs. So for the sake of the larger construct, some nusances can be overlooked. For me, this is less of a nusance and more of an important topic considering it contributes to one's foundational basis of eschatological understanding. It is not the most critical topic, but it is important for if one were to overlook the differences then I would grant you that it could lead one into more of a past-fulfillment direction. And of course that is fine if it makes sense.
On the other hand, if one is not predisposed to 70 AD at all costs, then the differences, the pattern Jesus's teaching ministry and Luke's careful recording should cause one to pause to rigidly connect these three accounts. Nor should one be overtly seeking to capitalize on any difference to fabricate a division where there is none between synoptic passages in order to create a future eschatology at all costs.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Always willing to listen and consider by the grace of God,
Cameron Fultz
Cameron Fultz
I just don't see why or how a private or public discussion can suddenly detatch Luke from the other Gospels, so that one temple being destroyed would be different from another, as if two time periods are in view. Why would someone suppose this? There was one temple standing and one temple the disciples saw, and one temple destroyed within one generation.Cameron wrote: On the other hand, if one is not predisposed to 70 AD at all costs, then the differences, the pattern Jesus's teaching ministry and Luke's careful recording should cause one to pause to rigidly connect these three accounts. Nor should one be overtly seeking to capitalize on any difference to fabricate a division where there is none between synoptic passages in order to create a future eschatology at all costs.
I'm trying to really see what you are saying, and I certainly appreciate your insight (I like being forced to think, and you've done that) but to seperate Luke 21 from Mark 13 and Matt 24 is bizzare to me. What possible reason would Jesus have for not talking about the 70AD temple destruction/events when that is what they asked about?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:35)
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
Firstly I want to thank you all for for your points of view on all these matters. It brings new insight and makes me take another look at my views also.
Secondly I want to make the simple point that we have numerous other instances in the gospels where Jesus spoke thngs to the crowds and later the desciples came to him and recieved additional words concerning the same matters. The fact that this also was occuring during this last week in Jerusalem before the crucifixion is totally possible.
Roger
Secondly I want to make the simple point that we have numerous other instances in the gospels where Jesus spoke thngs to the crowds and later the desciples came to him and recieved additional words concerning the same matters. The fact that this also was occuring during this last week in Jerusalem before the crucifixion is totally possible.
Roger
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Of course, it is possible that Jesus did this kind of thing during the passion week, as at other times. But that possibility does not give us any assurance about Cameron's thesis. The reasons I gave against the thesis are enumerated in my earlier post (above). Cameron, in my opinion, did not provide any rebuttal, but simply restated his original arguments (which I had addressed).
The suggestion that equating Luke 21 with the parallels in Matthew and Mark can only be done if one is "predisposed to 70 AD at all costs" is amazing! The majority of futurists (who don't even know that anything interesting happened in AD70) have always equated the three parallels. Doing so does not require any predisposition toward inserting AD70 anywhere. In fact the opposite is true.
Cameron's thesis looks to me like a rather desperate attempt to manipulate the text because of his own predisposition toward a futurist interpretation of Matthew 24--and that won't work unless one makes Luke 21 record a different discourse. It is not difficult here to see whose predispositions are forcing an awkward exegesis..
In my own case, I did not come to equate the three parallels passages by coming to them with a preterist set of assumptions, but the reverse. I have always equated them (as simple and sound exegesis, I think, requires that we must), and the contents of the passages themselves led me to preterism.
I honestly have no interest in winning this argument, because the matter, to me, is of small importance. I simply think that a commitment to futurism is the only thing that could drive the wishful thinking that wants Luke 21 to be a different discourse than the one recorded in Matthew and Mark. I don't bring any particular presupposition of futurism or of preterism to the text, but study it and its parallels in exactly the same way that I study any other set of synoptic parallels.
It really isn't that difficult.
The suggestion that equating Luke 21 with the parallels in Matthew and Mark can only be done if one is "predisposed to 70 AD at all costs" is amazing! The majority of futurists (who don't even know that anything interesting happened in AD70) have always equated the three parallels. Doing so does not require any predisposition toward inserting AD70 anywhere. In fact the opposite is true.
Cameron's thesis looks to me like a rather desperate attempt to manipulate the text because of his own predisposition toward a futurist interpretation of Matthew 24--and that won't work unless one makes Luke 21 record a different discourse. It is not difficult here to see whose predispositions are forcing an awkward exegesis..
In my own case, I did not come to equate the three parallels passages by coming to them with a preterist set of assumptions, but the reverse. I have always equated them (as simple and sound exegesis, I think, requires that we must), and the contents of the passages themselves led me to preterism.
I honestly have no interest in winning this argument, because the matter, to me, is of small importance. I simply think that a commitment to futurism is the only thing that could drive the wishful thinking that wants Luke 21 to be a different discourse than the one recorded in Matthew and Mark. I don't bring any particular presupposition of futurism or of preterism to the text, but study it and its parallels in exactly the same way that I study any other set of synoptic parallels.
It really isn't that difficult.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
The short answer is that the disciples expected a future kingdom at the Ascension.What possible reason would Jesus have for not talking about the 70AD temple destruction/events when that is what they asked about?
Act 1:6 So when they had come together, they asked him, "Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?"
After all of Jesus’ teachings and ministry, the last question they are left with is one regarding a future physical restored kingdom. Their response from Jesus is not a denial. Rather it is a sign of physicality. Just as He physically departed so will He physically return and by implication restore the physical kingdom. And furthermore, as He said before, only the Father knows when that will be.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Always willing to listen and consider by the grace of God,
Cameron Fultz
Cameron Fultz