Olivet seperate...

[_Steve]

This thread was originally begun by a man who has since wished to have his identity (even his username) expunged from the forum. I am obliging him,removing his posts and all references to his name in any responses. However, I could not simply delete the whole threads that he started, since there was discussion by other members that became part of thse threads, which responses I wished to retain here. Therefore, I have editid all the threads where his name is mentioned, and replaced his name with "anonymous." He started this thread with the following post:

Hi Steve,

I've listened to the Olivet discourse mp3's, and I think I'm correct in saying that you believe;

Luke 21:5-38 is a discourse re: 'a' coming at AD70
Luke 17:20-37 is a discource re: 'the' second coming

And Matthew has combined the 2 discourses;

Matthew 24:1-36 is a discource re: 'a' coming at AD70
Matthew 24:37-51 is a disource re: 'the' second coming


If Luke 17 refers to 'the' second coming ,
and Matt 24:1-36 is a discourse about AD70;

How do you reconcile finding statements
from Luke 17:20-37 in Matthew 24:1-36?



Number One:

Luk 17:23 And they shall say to you, See here;
or, see there: go not after them, nor follow them.

Mat 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you,
Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.


Number Two:

Luk 17:31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop,
and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it
away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.

Mat 24:17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any
thing out of his house: 18 Neither let him which is in the field
return back to take his clothes.


Number Three:

Luk 17:37 And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord?
And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is,
thither will the eagles be gathered together.

Mat 24:28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be
gathered together.


Any responses welcomed!

Hi Anonymous,

Shame on me! I intended to respond to you much sooner, but got caught up responding to easier questions. I had not forgotten you...I just hadn't gotten around to your question yet. Sorry for the delay!

You wrote:

"If Luke 17 refers to 'the' second coming ,and Matt 24:1-36 is a discourse about AD70; How do you reconcile finding statements from Luke 17:20-37 in Matthew 24:1-36?"

This is a good question, and I am not sure that I have a good answer! Many have concluded from the data you present that Luke 17 should be seen as yet another discourse about AD 70. That would solve the immediate problem, but, for me, it would seem to present bigger difficulties--especially in the statements about the one being taken and the other left, which sounds like a rather instantaneous event (like the second coming) not like a gradual defeat of Jerusalem by her enemies.

But, upon my thesis that Luke 17 is about the second coming, what can be said to the questions you raise? Remember, I already said I don't have a good answer, so I will have to provide weak answers. Perhaps someone else can provide better ones.

Let's take your three cases individually:


Number One:

Luk 17:23 And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: go not after them, nor follow them.

Mat 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.

I understand Luke 17:22-24 to be warning the disciples that, in the time after Jesus leaves them, they will be very eager to see Him again ("one of the days of the Son of Man" simply means the days that he was with them on earth, just as "the days of Noah" and "the days of Lot" mean the days when those men were alive on earth--vv.26, 28). In their over-eagerness, they should not succumb to any reports that Jesus had secretly returned and could be found in the wilderness or in some hiding place. Instead, they should know that, when He really does come, it will be an unmistakable event, like the "bright shining" (a better translation of the word "lightning") that shines from the east to the west (i.e. the sunrise--Matt.24:27). Matthew 24 applies these warnings to the period before AD 70, which seems legitimate to me, and not out of harmony with the meaning of the Lucan verses, since, in Luke, they clearly apply to a period prior to the second coming, but in the lifetime of the disciples.

Number Two:

Luk 17:31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop,
and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it
away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.

Mat 24:17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any
thing out of his house: 18 Neither let him which is in the field
return back to take his clothes.

I frankly find this one to be the most difficult of the three questions. It is easy to see how it would apply to AD 70, but if Luke 17 is about the second coming, as I have suggested, what possible use could there be in fleeing?

On the other hand, there is no mention, in Luke's version, of actually fleeing anywhere, as there is in Matthew's (24:16). All that Jesus says in Luke is that, when the Son of Man is revealed (v.30), the disciples should not plan to hold on to any of their earthly possessions. If Matthew had not applied these words to the matter of flight into the wilderness, we might have understood the words in Luke to be an idiomatic way of saying, "You can't take it with you!" or, in Paul's words, "For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we carry nothing out" (1 Tim.6:7). In fact, perhaps this is all that the statement in Luke implies, whereas Jesus may have used the same expression on another occasion (or Matthew might have taken this statement) and applied it to the urgency of flight in the time of Jerusalem's seige. This answer won't satisfy everyone, but it seems tenable to me, and something like it must be true, if Luke 17 is about the second coming (a disputed point, but I believe the evidence is in favor of this premise).


Number Three:

Luk 17:37 And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord?
And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is,
thither will the eagles be gathered together.

Mat 24:28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be
gathered together.

This statement was apparently like a proverb, meaning something like our modern proverb: "Where there's smoke, there's fire." The one about the eagles being wherever there are carcases has its origin in God's own words to Job: "[The eagle's] young ones suck up blood; and where the slain are, there [the eagle] is" (Job.39:30). Jesus, and others of His time, may have used this proverb frequently, in a variety of applicable situations. This would make it not unlikely that He said this with reference to the carcase of Jerusalem, and the Roman "eagles" swooping in to devour the city (Matt.24), as well as applying it to the corpses of the slain at the end of the world (Luke 17).

The latter instance would not have to be a prediction of literal eagles eating the flesh of those destroyed at the second coming (any more than the same image in Revelation 19:17-18 would have to be taken literally). It would simply be a cryptic answer to the disciples' question, when He predicted that "one will be taken [i.e. in judgment], and the other left [alive]." The disciples, thinking He was talking about people being geographically taken somewhere, asked, "Where, Lord?" His answer, "Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together," would just be a way of saying, "They are dead, Dummies! You want to know where dead people are? Look for the birds!"

If these answers are not satisfactory, feel free to keep looking for better ones--or, alternatively, feel free to reject my thesis that Luke 17 is about the second coming, and apply it to AD 70. If that does not present worse problems for interpretation, it is the easiest solution to the ones you raised. God bless you. Thanks for being patient. I fear it may not have been worth the wait!

[Guest]

Anonymous,
I hope you don’t mind me throwing in my two cents or Steve for that matter.
I’ve listened to a number of Steve’s mp3s and there’s a few things I don’t agree with related to this issue. One is the idea that Matthew comprises multiple teachings that are not necessarily sequential such as Matthew 5-7 or as I remember the Olivet Discourse. The primary problem with that particular hypothesis is that the internal evidence points to Matthew 5 through 7 as being one single discourse.

Mat 5:1 When He saw the crowds, He went up on the mountain, and after He sat down, His disciples came to Him.
Mat 8:1 When He came down from the mountain, large crowds followed Him.

So I believe in based on this evidence that Jesus said these words in this order at this one teaching session. It may not be inclusive of all He said, but it was deemed important enough to be included. He could have said the same or similar things elsewhere at other times. The ability of people to remember words spoken and heard years later who do not have other media forms like we do today is amazing.

The over arching question is why did Luke find a discourse like this one given on another occasion? Luke’s own premise in Luke 1:1-4 is sufficient to explain this variation. He simply discovered it and reported it. Regarding the difference between Luke 21 and Matthew 24, I’ve already posted some on that and welcome further scrutiny.

In seeking to answer this question we see the prior context related to the Pharisees questioning when the kingdom of God would come. Luke 17:20 followed by a discussion about the object of the Kingdom; Jesus. On one hand we have Pharisees looking for a physical kingdom and then warnings to the disciples to watch out for physical manifestations of false messiahs and their false kingdoms. (In between all of this was Jesus’ goal of trying to get the Jewish leadership to recognize who He was Matt. 22’s question about David’s Lord who is his son, etc.).

To be consistent in one’s interpretation, if Matthew 24 the other “this generation” passages are taken in the immediate sense then one must maintain that same consistency here. It seems to me that this passage would then argue for a full preterist understanding given some of the previous statements.

Regarding Anonymous’ statement that this is a division at Matthew 24:36 to 37 is of issue.

1) Matthew 24:35-36 is one of the most fascinating statement of Christ’s humanity and deity. Separating these two phrases at this man-made verse is almost on par with trying to separate His nature. Consider that in verse 35, Christ claims to be God implicitly by declaring the eternality of His words! While in verse 36, Christ then declares that he does not know the future just as men who remember the past, experience the present and do not know the future. In these two verses we see a beautiful expression of theanthropos the God-man.

2) The idea that no one knows the day or hour in verse 36 (supposedly about the Second Coming) must be seen in context of the season being known in verse 32-34. Again separating these tow is arbitrary. Once again Jesus is playing off these two opposites.

This then once again points to a full preterist understanding of these passages, at least in my understanding of how one is consistent in hermeneutic.

Personally, I prefer the view I have stated regarding the variations between Luke 21 and Matthew 24 and Mark 13. Steve mentioned in his mp3 that he made columns and compared them. I also found the same comparison I made years ago and the different conclusion I came to. Briefly, if one reads Luke 21 without any knowledge of Matthew 24 or Mark 13, there is no indication that Jesus ever left the temple. Our only clue to Luke 21’s timing is Luke 21:37-38. There Luke states that Jesus taught in the temple during the day. So the implication is, since having just read about Jesus teaching specifically about the temple, then the simplest understanding according to the historical-grammatical method is that Luke 21 was heard in public during the day.

However, from a preterist perspective, at least those that I’ve heard or read, discount these differences and other differences in the text in seeking a synoptic solution for the sake of a predisposed idea. When the same type of case is made regarding internal evidence in Revelation for a 60’s date pointing to a less tenuous link to a temple reference in chapter 11,then it is OK for the sake of the premise. Well, at least this is how I see it. Inconsistency in my view is self-deceptive. (…Now I need to live that!)

Hopefully we can learn from each other.