Luke 21:22. Was All Bible Prophecy Fulfilled at AD 70?

[Homer]

robbyyoung,

You wrote, in reply to Paidion:

Oh my dear brother... Yes, the last days were in the 1st Century and everything took place. The time statements are irrefutable! You can only be left to argue "The Nature" of last days events. You, it seems, take a literal approach to most things probably. But "The Time Statements" will immediately suppress any future fulfillment outside the context.

Uh.... why do you take the literal approach to the "time statements"?

[robbyyoung]

robbyyoung,

You wrote, in reply to Paidion:

Oh my dear brother... Yes, the last days were in the 1st Century and everything took place. The time statements are irrefutable! You can only be left to argue "The Nature" of last days events. You, it seems, take a literal approach to most things probably. But "The Time Statements" will immediately suppress any future fulfillment outside the context.

Uh.... why do you take the literal approach to the "time statements"?

That's very simple to answer, 'THE CONTEXT". You should take Doug's advice and carefully listen to Ed Stevens podcast on this issue found here:

http://www.buzzsprout.com/11633/181738- ... s-lk-21-24

God Bless!

[robbyyoung]

In answer to Duncan's original point, Ed Stevens just did a pretty powerful podcast arguing that the times of the Gentiles was specifically the Roman war in 66-70AD. You can find that podcast here:

http://www.buzzsprout.com/11633/181738- ... s-lk-21-24

Yes Doug, our dear Brother does a good job on the historical side of eschatology concerning the events surrounding the 40 year transition period. I've really learned a lot concerning what our 1st Century Brethren where faced with. This lack of understanding and teaching, I think, handicaps today's churches concerning the relevant audience question and timing of their promised redemption. The "Pronouns" are crystal clear, and meant 1st hand for them.

God Bless!

[robbyyoung]

Hello Brenden and Homer,

I would like to start off by saying, let’s together get the context right. If at all possible let’s be pithy and succinct in order to stay focused on the audience and timing question. After all, we are discussing eschatological events.

We were discussing 1 Peter 2:12

Here’s my case:

1. We are reading a letter written by Peter to The Dispersion about 2000 years ago.
2. By inspiration of The Holy Spirit, Peter told The Dispersion the following;
a. Your conduct will cause The Nations to glorify God
b. This was to occur during the day or in a day of visitation or inspection

The context denotes the timing of this event during the lifetime of The Dispersion. WE ARE NOT interested in “THE HOW” of the matter, this is the ambiguous part of the context. The unambiguous portion is the proclamation to the relevant audience which denotes the timing. Therefore, it CANNOT go outside the lifetime of The Dispersion to whom the letter was written to, UNLESS...

You can show where in the context does it speak to another people, place and time far removed from the original audience making THIS proclamation meaningless to The Dispersion?

God Bless.

[TheEditor]

It's late, so I'm going to bed. But for sake of clarity, can you qualify who you think makes up the "Dispersion"?

Regards, Brenden.

[Homer]

Robby,

You wrote:

1. We are reading a letter written by Peter to The Dispersion about 2000 years ago.
2. By inspiration of The Holy Spirit, Peter told The Dispersion the following;
a. Your conduct will cause The Nations to glorify God
b. This was to occur during the day or in a day of visitation or inspection

The context denotes the timing of this event during the lifetime of The Dispersion. WE ARE NOT interested in “THE HOW” of the matter, this is the ambiguous part of the context. The unambiguous portion is the proclamation to the relevant audience which denotes the timing. Therefore, it CANNOT go outside the lifetime of The Dispersion to whom the letter was written to, UNLESS...

You can show where in the context does it speak to another people, place and time far removed from the original audience making THIS proclamation meaningless to The Dispersion?

Your understanding of 1 Peter seems strange to me. Peter has much to say to Christians about how they should live and that this lifestyle would be a witness to the gentiles. Why is it you think this reaction by the gentiles Peter speaks of had to take place in 70AD? And the Greek word translated "glorify" is an aorist subjunctive which carries a bit of doubt or uncertainty. Seems to me Peter is speaking of behavior in the future that may (this word is not in the Greek but speaks of uncertainty in our translations) happen in some cases or might not.

Here is a fine example of what I believe Peter was speaking about: Julian the Apostate, recognizing the behavior of Christians, exclaimed "These impious Galileans feed not only their own poor, but ours as well". Now there is something to be excited about. And this statement was made hundreds of years after Peter wrote, and is a fine example of fulfillment of Peter's prophecy.

I'm curious why you would think that the timing does not apply to us but the instructions Peter gave in his letter would apply? Or do you see the time of visitation as an ongoing thing?

[Paidion]

Oh my dear brother... Yes, the last days were in the 1st Century and everything took place. The time statements are irrefutable! You can only be left to argue "The Nature" of last days events. You, it seems, take a literal approach to most things probably. But "The Time Statements" will immediately suppress any future fulfillment outside the context.

A wise Mennonite elder once said, "If the literal sense makes sense then it doesn't make sense to take it in any other sense."

When one spiritualizes or allegoricalizes the wonderful scriptures which tell us how to live, or which predict marvellous future events such as the return of our Lord and the glorious resurrection only in order to make it fit one's perception of a limited audience or time frame, then one has cast aside the whole purpose of Scripture. For one could even throw away our Lord's teachings in "the Sermon on the Mount" on the basis that He was addressing only the disciples to whom He was speaking. One could also dismiss all of Paul's instructions to the churches to whom he wrote, on the basis that his teachings don't apply to any later generations. When we put everything in its "proper time frame" and the "people to whom it was addressed", what is left for us today? Are we to trust in our own personal revelation from the Lord? That would be pretty subjective. Some "revelations" differ substantially from others. We'd probably all end up as spiritual lone rangers.

[robbyyoung]

It's late, so I'm going to bed. But for sake of clarity, can you qualify who you think makes up the "Dispersion"?

Regards, Brenden.

Brenden, Sorry for the delay, but I work 3rd shift and crashed all day . The Dispersion is the 10 lost tribes of the Northern Kingdom. Some even suggest gentiles are somewhat addressed as well, but I'm not sure about that.

God Bless.

[robbyyoung]

Robby,

You wrote:

1. We are reading a letter written by Peter to The Dispersion about 2000 years ago.
2. By inspiration of The Holy Spirit, Peter told The Dispersion the following;
a. Your conduct will cause The Nations to glorify God
b. This was to occur during the day or in a day of visitation or inspection

The context denotes the timing of this event during the lifetime of The Dispersion. WE ARE NOT interested in “THE HOW” of the matter, this is the ambiguous part of the context. The unambiguous portion is the proclamation to the relevant audience which denotes the timing. Therefore, it CANNOT go outside the lifetime of The Dispersion to whom the letter was written to, UNLESS...

You can show where in the context does it speak to another people, place and time far removed from the original audience making THIS proclamation meaningless to The Dispersion?

Your understanding of 1 Peter seems strange to me. Peter has much to say to Christians about how they should live and that this lifestyle would be a witness to the gentiles. Why is it you think this reaction by the gentiles Peter speaks of had to take place in 70AD? And the Greek word translated "glorify" is an aorist subjunctive which carries a bit of doubt or uncertainty. Seems to me Peter is speaking of behavior in the future that may (this word is not in the Greek but speaks of uncertainty in our translations) happen in some cases or might not.

Here is a fine example of what I believe Peter was speaking about: Julian the Apostate, recognizing the behavior of Christians, exclaimed "These impious Galileans feed not only their own poor, but ours as well". Now there is something to be excited about. And this statement was made hundreds of years after Peter wrote, and is a fine example of fulfillment of Peter's prophecy.

I'm curious why you would think that the timing does not apply to us but the instructions Peter gave in his letter would apply? Or do you see the time of visitation as an ongoing thing?

Hi Homer,

You failed to show in the context where Peter is writing to another people, time and place. Taking what WAS FULFILLED and applying Godly principles to future generations DOES NOT negate it's relevance and promises to the original audience. The personal pronoun usage is their for a reason. Why are you reading someone else's mail any differently than we do today? If you were one of The Dispersion sitting in the assembly as the Elder read Peter's letter, I guarantee your mindset of fulfillment directed at YOU would be crystal clear.

So where in the context does Peter say, sorry Dispersion but this really has nothing to do with you! Your conduct WILL NOT bring about glorification to God, so disregard. I'm asking a simple question on how anybody can read a piece of literature to ascertain the audience and promises made to them.

Implications regarding fulfillment can and will have lasting effects on generations to come, but that's not the question regarding eschatology of the 1st Century.

God Bless.

[robbyyoung]

Oh my dear brother... Yes, the last days were in the 1st Century and everything took place. The time statements are irrefutable! You can only be left to argue "The Nature" of last days events. You, it seems, take a literal approach to most things probably. But "The Time Statements" will immediately suppress any future fulfillment outside the context.

A wise Mennonite elder once said, "If the literal sense makes sense then it doesn't make sense to take it in any other sense."

When one spiritualizes or allegoricalizes the wonderful scriptures which tell us how to live, or which predict marvellous future events such as the return of our Lord and the glorious resurrection only in order to make it fit one's perception of a limited audience or time frame, then one has cast aside the whole purpose of Scripture. For one could even throw away our Lord's teachings in "the Sermon on the Mount" on the basis that He was addressing only the disciples to whom He was speaking. One could also dismiss all of Paul's instructions to the churches to whom he wrote, on the basis that his teachings don't apply to any later generations. When we put everything in its "proper time frame" and the "people to whom it was addressed", what is left for us today? Are we to trust in our own personal revelation from the Lord? That would be pretty subjective. Some "revelations" differ substantially from others. We'd probably all end up as spiritual lone rangers.

Hi Paidon,

Refer to my last post to Homer. By the way, you are the one who spiritualizes or allegoricalizes. Is it not you who are taking from the original audience and applying it to another people, time and place? I'm simply reading a letter address by it's author to The Dispersion. 1st Chapter, 1st verse! So no, I'm not guilty of the charge, you are.

God Bless