Matthew 24: 1-44 Question

[Guest]

Luke 21:24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

Revelation 11:2 But leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the Gentiles. And they will tread the holy city underfoot for forty-two months.

And I think this is where the partial preterist falls into a tailspin of inconsistency. They say that the events of Revelation through chapter 19 are about the fall of Jerusalem. But yet they say that the times of the gentiles started in the first century and is still in force.

Would someone please explain to me how 42 months = 2000+ years. And I don't think that 2 Peter 3 or anything in the Psalms apply here.

Mike

I can't speak for Partial preterists but I would point out that the times of the gentiles DID begin in the first century AD. and if you look closely the passage in revelation does NOT say that the times of the gentiles is 42 months. it says, They will tread the HOLY CITY underfoot for 42 months. not that the times of the gentiles is only 42 months long. and the 42 months corresponds with the begining of the jewish-roman war and the fall of Jerusalem.

Can you demonstrate to me with the scriptures, why the times of the gentiles HAS to be more than 42 months?

[Guest]

Luke 21:20-24 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

We can clearly see that the times of the gentiles are intrinsically tied to the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD.

We know from history that the seige lasted 42 months.

Preterists...partial and full agree that the events of Revelation up through chapter 19 are about the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD.

Luke 21 & Revelation 11 speak of Jerusalem being tread under foot by Gentiles. The same word is even used in both texts.

3961 pateo pat-eh'-o from a derivative probably of 3817 (meaning a "path"); to trample (literally or figuratively):--tread (down, under foot). see GREEK for 3817

And Revelation 11 says that the Gentiles will PATEO Jerusalem just lilke Luke 21 does. However Rev 11 says that they will do it for 42 months.

Am I not connecting the dots correctly??? And I am open to being schooled.

Mike

[_Rick_C]

Interesting thread.....

Hello Mike,

Revelation 11 tells how long the Gentile siege of Jerusalem will last (42 months). Luke 21 doesn't give the precise duration of the siege but just says it will happen..."and Jerusalem shall be trodden down by the nations (Gentiles) till the times of the nations are fulfilled" (Lu 21:24b).

In Luke, Jesus prophesied that Jerusalem will be trodden down and that this will happen during" the the times of the nations." Put another way; Jesus taught that when his disciples would see Jerusalem being destroyed in the near future -- the times of the nations will have begun. The destruction of the city is the signaling event of this epoch.

Throughout Acts and in Romans, especially chapters 9-11, we see (much) more about this in terms of eschatological and soteriological fulfillments.

Btw, I haven't looked at Matt 24 lately. This has been refreshing!
But I have a weekend job & gtg to work!
Thanks & BBL,
Rick

[Guest]

Luke 21:20-24 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

We can clearly see that the times of the gentiles are intrinsically tied to the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD.

We know from history that the seige lasted 42 months.

Preterists...partial and full agree that the events of Revelation up through chapter 19 are about the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD.

Luke 21 & Revelation 11 speak of Jerusalem being tread under foot by Gentiles. The same word is even used in both texts.

3961 pateo pat-eh'-o from a derivative probably of 3817 (meaning a "path"); to trample (literally or figuratively):--tread (down, under foot). see GREEK for 3817

And Revelation 11 says that the Gentiles will PATEO Jerusalem just lilke Luke 21 does. However Rev 11 says that they will do it for 42 months.

Am I not connecting the dots correctly??? And I am open to being schooled.

Mike

Mike,

I see what you are saying, and I don't have any big problem with your view. I can certainly see why you think what you do.

Let me point out that in scripture we can see where something is said to be fulfilled but that does not mean over and done with but rather used in the sense of "Has come to pass" and is an ongoing proposition.

Luk 4:18 "The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me, Because He has anointed Me To preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives And recovery of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed;
Luk 4:19 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD."
Luk 4:20 Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him.
Luk 4:21 And He began to say to them, "Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."

Notice that at the begining of his ministry that Jesus proclaims that the works he would do which were prophesied by Isaiah were, "TODAY this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing." that does not point to the end of Jesus ministry though nor is it over with now. He still continues to set free the captives working thru his body upon the earth thru the means of the preaching of the Gospel.

Rev. says that the Holy City is trodden underfoot for 42 months ( which corresponds with the length of time between the begining of the Jewish roman war and the fall of Jerusalem.) In Luke 21 Jesus says that Jerusalem will be trodden underfoot until the times of the gentiles is fulfilled. to me this points tot he fact that earthly Jerusalem will NEVER again be the "Holy City". I don't think that the times of the gentiles is over until the second coming. so in essence I view Jesus words to be saying that Earthly Jerusalem would NEVER again be what it once was. the city was completely destroyed in 70 A.D. in 135 A.D. a new city was built by the romans on that spot called Aliea Capotolina and dedicated tot eh God Jupiter. later the name Jerusalem was again given to the city. but it is not the city that was, nor will it ever be again. Chirstian tourist get suckered every year out of millions of dollars thinking they are "walking on the stones that Jesus walked on" or seeing where the room the last supper was held in. but it is a con job. they are walking in and reverencing a roman city built in 135 A.D. a city that is not the "Holy City" and never will be.

[_Rick_C]

Prophecy (eschatology) is hard to understand. Especially if you have been taught stuff that is not only confusing, but not biblical. As a former "Hal Lindsay dispensationalist"...it took many years for me to be objective and read just what the Bible says. I'm still perplexed by Matt 24 but since reading this thread and looking at this passage afresh...I'm seeing new things (from a different angle) ) that I want to follow up on. So here goes:

It seems to say that they will trample down Jerusalem until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. If that time is now, then that must mean the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. I don't see how that can be the case. I certainly believe God wants them in the land they occupy, because I see God as the one who sets boarders and boundaries. Not because God owes them something based on their geneology.

An excerpt from Paul:

22 So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. 24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. 26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, 28 for

“‘In him we live and move and have our being’;

as even some of your own poets have said,

“‘For we are indeed his offspring.’

Paul seems to be talking about the sovereignty of God: both as the Creator, and by natural extension, the God who is "ultimately over" all nations and peoples; what we might call "the general sovereignty of God." In this sense of meaning, God is "over" (transcendent) every nation of all time. This wouldn't necessarily have anything to do with God directly appointing any nation; but He will be over all regardless of human made boundaries. I agree with you that God has this ultimate reign over all nations. I would say God only "wants" Israel in the land as a nation in the sense that He also "wants communist China to be there too." My point on this is that God sovereignly transcends the nations of the earth...and the universe. If Israel, China, or any other country were to cease being nations: God would be "over that" also. God was "over" Nazi Germany and reigns over present day democratic Germany too. It is not as much he "wants" to be over the nations as He "IS" over them!

What can make prophecy tricky:

"They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled" (Lu 21:24, which has parallels in Mt 24).

"...a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in" (Ro 11:25b)

My take is: "the times of the Gentiles" were simply the times or epochs when Israel was ruled and/or judged by God by them. God using the nations (Gentiles) to judge the nation Israel is a familiar and repeated OT theme. Seen this way, the Babylonian Captivity, and epochs of the Greek and Roman rules over Israel are "times of the Gentiles." Israel and/or Judah (by NT times) was "ruled by Gentiles" for the large part of its existence via military occupation. In Luke 21:24 Jesus was announcing that this Gentile rule was about to reach its peak ("fullness") with the city of Jerusalem being destroyed, effectively ending the nation's existence, or at least, certainly its immediate hopes of becoming an independent, sovereign country.

Re: "till the the fullness of the Gentiles has come in." This passage is eschatological in the sense that it has a future fulfillment. However, this passage's main thrust is soteriological ("about salvation"). Paul is telling how the Gentiles will come in, and join, the true Israel of God (made up of believing Jews and Gentiles, anyone).

Luke 21:24 (and other synoptic parallels) and Romans 9-11 are related in that they are eschatological (have a fulfillment ). But Luke21/synoptics are about the judgment of God upon Israel (Judah) as the end of the OT era and covenant for the Jews -- while Romans 9-11 has nothing to say about this, then future, national judgment at all! Romans 9-11 are all about how God was including (and still includes) Gentiles into His Chosen People. "The fullness of the Gentiles coming in" will have happened when Jesus comes back, imo: Every Gentile who will join God's Israel will have been saved. Paul wasn't teaching eschatology-proper in Romans 9-11 and he certainly had no dispensational (or other) scheme about Israel "becoming a nation again" in prophecy. For one thing, the nation still existed when he was alive, though it was occupied.

Does this make sense to anyone? I just wanted to make these important distinctions.
BBL with more to add...
Thanks,
Rick

[_Rick_C]

Continuing....

Quote:
2Th 1:7 and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels
2Th 1:8 in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.
2Th 1:9 They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might,
2Th 1:10 when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed.

I've seen many other post where even the Partial Preterist will point out who the author is speaking to. Example above: "you"

So with that said, I'm still having a tough time seeing it as a future fulfillment. I for sure don't see how it could be fulfilled in that day, but maybe the Full Preterist are on to something... I don't know. Or just maybe the Futurist have some good points.

The issue of "The Soon Expected Parousia" (second coming of Jesus in Paul's lifetime).

I have reasons to believe Paul may have expected Jesus to return within 40 years of His Ascension. I base this on extra-biblical Jewish writings of the time (but won't go into that now). We know from the Pastorals that, later in his life, Paul seemed to think he could, and probably would, die before the Lord returned though he didn't actually spell it out with complete certitude.

In the above passage Paul is very "emotionally charged" and "honing in on" God's judgment of the unbelievers who were persecuting the Christians in Thessalonica. I've been emotional at times in this way too and have thought to myself, "The Lord will reward them!" (when I have been persecuted). I thought this in a way that had a sense of "immediacy" though I knew their certain and final judgment will be at a later time (if they don't become Christians). Paul was letting the Thessalonicans know -- "right now!" -- that the Lord will take care of things when He returns.

Taken literally, it definitely can seem like Paul really expected the Lord to come back immanently. But let's compare scripture with scripture....

2Th 1:7 and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels
2Th 1:8 in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.
2Th 1:9 They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might,
2Th 1:10 when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed.

1 Thess 4, ESV:
13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. 14 For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. 15 For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words.

In 1 Thess 4 Paul had already written the Thessalonians about what will happen to the living and the dead in Christ. Anyone who is still alive when Jesus comes will be with Him, the dead rising first. 1 Thess 4 doesn't talk about anyone being judged (saints or sinners).

2 Thess 1, however, talks about the judgment of sinners and the "relief" Christians will have when "and so will we always be with the Lord."

Then we who are alive, who are left (remain alive till His coming, the dead in Christ will rise first, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep), will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed. [He will] grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, and so we will always be with the Lord. Therefore encourage one another with these words."

"Relief" will come at the rapture/second coming to all who have believed, whether they are living or dead; when all saints of all times will glorify Him from then on. We are to take "comfort (encouragement)" knowing this, Amen!

I'm not sure what all I'm trying to get at here (lol) but...taking into account Paul's total teaching to the Thessalonians; 2 Thess 1 doesn't necessarily have to be read as Paul expecting an immanent return of Jesus. I would say that Paul saw the second coming as: impending. Paul doesn't mention the dead in Christ getting relief though we know he would believe they would be rewarded for their godly lives. For now, I'm going with impending...which isn't the same thing as immanent. Similar, but not quite exactly alike.

Did this post make any sense? lol
Rick

[_Rick_C]

One more post for now.....

I am not a full preterist and I firmly believe in the literal physical return of Christ and I believe that the physical resurrection is yet future. that said I also firmly believe that Matt 24 has NOTHING to do with the second coming. The very context that frames the disciples question is Jesus prediction of the destruction of the temple. The Jews understood from the OT that the second temple WOULD eventually be destroyed and that the messiah when He came would build the third temple. Understanding this allows us to understand what the disciples were asking. they were not asking about when Jesus would return, they didnt even yet understand that He was even going anywhere. When they asked, "What is the sign of our coming", they were not asking about his return. they were asking WHEN would he be revealed as the messiah and begin His rule. the second half of the question is firmly linked to the first. "and the end of the age". they understood that when Christ was revealed and began his rule as the messiah that this would herald the beginning of a new age. the age of the messianic kingdom. NOT the "end of the world."

Full preterists, amils and most others still insist on trying to make the "coming of the son of man" as the second coming but it is NOT. the coming of the son of man is a reference to Daniel 7 where the "One like the son of man comes in the clouds of heaven to the Ancient of days and he receives and kingdom, Dominion, and glory". this is how Jesus hearers would have understood his references to himself as the "Son of man" and of the "Son of man coming in the clouds."

I've been calling myself a partial-preterist since I heard the term about 3 years ago. I'm an amillennialist also.

In reading your post, well, I've been reexamining Matt 24/synoptics: You got me to thinkin....

Last week I read Matt 24 and then began to think about all of the places that mention things-similar, like the "gnashing of teeth" (in Gospels and Acts). I've also studied Intertestamental Apocalyptic literature like 1 Enoch where the coming (and judgment) of the Son of Man is prominent.

I'm not at all close to becoming a full preterist. But what you say about the Son of Man's coming and kingdom...I think I'm in agreement with you on it. There seem to be so many texts that can be compared with Matt 24 along these lines! Stephen's Speech in Acts, a perfect example. He saw the Son of Man in his Kingdom "standing" (a position of authority and address) and at this the Jews gnashed their teeth. Jesus' Kingdom had come, and come upon the Sanhedrin, but they gnashed their teeth at it/Him and to His Rule....Verrrrry interesting, Benaiah!

[Guest]

Rick_C,

and those same religious leaders were certainly weeping and gnashing their teeth after the destruction of the temple the city and the nation. The kingdom was taken from them just as Jesus predicted. not just the "spiritual kingdom" but the physical kingdom as well. and they found themselves outside of the kingdom of the son of man weeping and gnashing their teeth at his followers who DID enter in to the kingdom of the Son of man. which was no longer a localized geographical location like Israel. but was going global just as Paul pointed out in Romans.

Rom 4:13 For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

and we know from Galatians that the singular seed of Abraham is Christ. and that those in Christ are fellow heirs with Him.

[_Rick_C]

Benaiah,

You and I seem to agree on the "details" of how things happened. A national and political Kingdom of Israel was never restored (see Acts 1:6).

I noticed it for the first time about 4 years ago; how Paul was the very first person mentioned in Acts to specifically preach "Jesus is the Son of God" (Acts 9:20). Also, Paul's Gospel was specifically about "the kingdom of God" (Acts 14:22) as contrasted with the Jewish-Christian restoration of "David's fallen tent" (Acts 15:16) and the bringing in of the remnant of Israel and Gentiles.

Paul had been preaching the Kingdom of God in Gentile lands while the Jerusalem Church was still focussed on the restoration of (the remnant of) Israel in Peter's sermons and up till Acts 15. It seems like Paul was way ahead of the Jerusalem Church, knowing that God's Kingdom was universal! In Acts 15 the Jerusalem Church was dealing with "How can Gentiles be included in the restoration of Israel?" Paul already understood they WERE included into the Kingdom of God and had been preaching this the message for at least 2, and maybe as many as 5, years before the Acts 15 Council (49/50AD?)!

And by the time of the writing of Romans, Paul neglected one of the decisions made by the Jerusalem Council! (by the mid-50s when Romans was written; Paul wrote that eating meat sacrificed to idols was a matter of conscience (while the Jerusalem Council strictly forbade it, Acts 15:29, Romans 14:1-4)!

Anyway, thanx! ......................................Rick

[Guest]

Benaiah,

You and I seem to agree on the "details" of how things happened. A national and political Kingdom of Israel was never restored (see Acts 1:6).

I noticed it for the first time about 4 years ago; how Paul was the very first person mentioned in Acts to specifically preach "Jesus is the Son of God" (Acts 9:20). Also, Paul's Gospel was specifically about "the kingdom of God" (Acts 14:22) as contrasted with the Jewish-Christian restoration of "David's fallen tent" (Acts 15:16) and the bringing in of the remnant of Israel and Gentiles.

Paul had been preaching the Kingdom of God in Gentile lands while the Jerusalem Church was still focussed on the restoration of (the remnant of) Israel in Peter's sermons and up till Acts 15. It seems like Paul was way ahead of the Jerusalem Church, knowing that God's Kingdom was universal! In Acts 15 the Jerusalem Church was dealing with "How can Gentiles be included in the restoration of Israel?" Paul already understood they WERE included into the Kingdom of God and had been preaching this the message for at least 2, and maybe as many as 5, years before the Acts 15 Council (49/50AD?)!

And by the time of the writing of Romans, Paul neglected one of the decisions made by the Jerusalem Council! (by the mid-50s when Romans was written; Paul wrote that eating meat sacrificed to idols was a matter of conscience (while the Jerusalem Council strictly forbade it, Acts 15:29, Romans 14:1-4)!

Anyway, thanx! ......................................Rick

While I don't disagree with the above I think that the Apostles fixation and focus on Jerusalem and Judea was a result of their understanding of Jesus words in the olivet discourse to be predicting events that would ocur in their lifetime. knowing this and that Jerusalem and national Israel itself was doomed they focused on preaching the Gospel tot ehir fellow jews in hopes of saving as many as possible from the wrath they knew was coming.

I think that acts clearly reflects that the Jewish Christians certainly did fixate on the temple, probably another reason that it needed to be destroyed. they would have certainly understood from passages in Isaiah like in 66 that there would be a remnant of survivors go forth from the destruction that would overtake Jerusalem and take the word of the Lord to the gentiles which in turn would bring about the gathering of the exiles and the gentiles. The early Jewish Church undeniably remained fixated on the Temple and the law but even in Acts 15 we see a glimmer of the truth that salvation is apart from the law of moses in Peters speech. His statement must have been quite startling to his Jewish hearers.

Act 15:11 "But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they."

Notice he does not say. Hey the gentiles are being saved even as we are but rather, WE (Jews) will be saved even as they (gentiles) are. and in the same manner, meaning apart from the law of moses.