the olivet discourse - future israel · future vision in the whole of the olivet discourse. as an...

THEOLIVETDISCOURSEMATTHEW24

FUTURISMANDPRETERISM

BARRYE.HORNER


2

CONTENTS

A. Introduction.TwoSharplyContrastingEschatologicalPerspectives

1. Preterism.

2. Futurism.

B. ThePrecedingEschatologyofPassionWeek.

C. TheEschatologyofPassionWeek.

D. SignificantHermeneuticalPrinciples.

1. Propheticprogressioninprophecy.

2. Prolepticexpressioninprophecy.

a. Isaiah13:612.

b. Isaiah34:1-15

3. PronominalexpressioninProphecy.

4. JesusChristsanticipationintheOlivetDiscourse.

E. TwoVitalVersesintheOlivetDiscourse.1. Matthew24:3.

a. ThedisciplessecondquestiontoJesus.

b. ThedisciplesthirdquestiontoJesus.

2. Matthew24:34.

a. Themeaningofgeneaasgenerationorrace.

b. Themeaningofpantatautaasallthesethings.

4

5

7

8

9

10

10

13

13

14

15

17

18

20

23

24

26

27

28


3

c. Themeaningofgentai/ginomaiastakeplaceorbegin.

(1) Themeaningofgentai/ginomaibyProfessorC.E.Stowe.

(2) Themeaningofgentai/ginomaiinvariouslexicalsources.

(3) Themeaningofgentai/ginomaiasbegininMatthew24.

(4) Themeaningofginesthai/ginomaiinLuke21:36.

F. Conclusion.

G. AppendixA.

TheEschatologyofChrist,withSpecialReferencetotheDiscourseinMatthew24and25byProfessorCEStowe,DD.

H. AppendixB.

Politics,Civilization,andtheEndTime:AninterviewwithDr.D.MartynLloydJonesbyCarlF.H.Henry.

I. AppendixC.

Lo!HecomeswithcloudsDescendingbyJohnCennickandCharlesWesley.

30

31

31

32

33

34

38

58

61


4

THEOLIVETDISCOURSEMatthew24:151;Mark13:137;Luke21:136

A. Introduction.TwoSharplyContrastingEschatologicalPerspectives.

In these increasingly darkening turbulent times, the SecondComing of JesusChrist isespeciallydeartotheChristian.Itisthispresentglorioushope,notsomefleetingearthlyagenda,thatencouragesbelieverstobefixingoureyesonJesus,theauthorandperfecterof[the]faith(Heb.12:2).TheApostleJohnencouragesustoday,not justhisimmediateaddressees,toanticipatethisclimacticevent.WeknowthatwhenHeappears,weshallbe likeHim,becauseweshallseeHim justasHe is (I John3:1).Here isnopromiseofsomemystical,unreportedorunobserved revelationofChrist,assomepreteristsmightsuggestconcerning70AD,buttheonewhoJohnearlierdescribedasHewhowasfromthebeginning,whatwehaveheard,whatwehave seenwith our eyes,whatwehavelookedatandtouchedwithourhands[followingHisresurrection],concerningtheWordofLife(IJohn1:1).ThisistheJesuswhoJohnobservedascendingintoacloudandthenreceivedtheangelicpromisethatthissameJesuswillcomeinjustthesamewayasyouhavewatchedHimgointoheaven(Acts1:11).Thisisindeedthegloryoffuturism.

Then along comes thepreterist anddeclares that, No,no!Youhavegot it allwrong.Jesus really came in 70AD, andmost, if not all of theNew Testament eschatologicalstatements, focused on that past event. Even the partial preterist, in admitting to amystical return in 70 AD, then a future return of Christ at the end of this presentmillennial age according to say ICorinthians 15 and IThessalonians 4, neverthelessmakeslittlecomplaintofanallegedrealreturnin70ADanddefersto,evencomplimentsthemain thrustof the fullpreterist so that together they continue tohavevery cordialrelationswithoneanother.Youwouldthinkthattheirdifferencehereisminor,althoughintruth it isnot.Ratherthemajor issueforthemall isseentobethesqueezingofNewTestamentpropheticreferencesintothenarrowmoldofthepre70ADera,inconjunctionwitharigidunderstandingofMatthew24:34andanearlydateforRevelation.Somuch,ifnotall, is in thepast.This is theconstant realmof focus.Atbest,any futureandpostresurrectionglory isa somewhat indistinctblandhope.Therearenolastof thelastdays, there is no imminent great tribulation, since we are presently living in themillennium.Thereforetheinevitableconsequencehereisanassaultuponfuturism,inallofitsstrands,evenwithmockery,aproclivitytodebateandshocktactics.Thisbeingthe case, and having given fresh attention to thiswhole controversy according to theWord of God, I present the following as, more than ever, strengthened heartfeltconvictionthatthefundamentalcaseofthepreteristisseriouslyflawed;itisthecauseofdetouring many Christians from the glory to come which in turn detracts fromencouragementtolivesensibly,righteouslyandgodlyinthepresentage(Tit.2:12).


5

1. Preterism

a. AllofMatthew2425isfulfilleduptothedestructionofJerusalemin70AD,aswith James Stuart Russell, David Chilton (full preterists) and Gary DeMar(partial preterist). Some suggest, as with J. Marcellus Kik and Kenneth L.Gentry,Jr.(partialpreterists),thatMatthew24:35andonwardlookstoChristseschatological cominga second time in judgmentat the endof thisage.Herethen,within preterism, is a significant cleavage concerning Christs propheticfuturevisioninthewholeoftheOlivetDiscourse.AsanAchillesheel,ittendstobesmothered,asifofnogreatsignificance,ratherthanbeingseenforthevitaldistinctionthatitis.

As with the early date authorship of Revelation prior to 70 AD, beingapproximately 65AD,1 the overallpreteristview ofMatthew 24:134 is set inconcrete,particularlybecauseof theunderstandingofvs.2931,34,otherwisethe system breaks down. Any futurism inMatthew 24:134 is unacceptable,howeverslightthecrackinthedykemaybe.Butfurther,sooftenMatthew24,in relation to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, may be likened to aravenoussinkhole thatconsumesallaround it.Sowhenwecome to theGreatCommission (Matt.28:1820)and itsconfirmation (Acts1:8)aswellasChristspromisedreturn(Acts1:11),allhereareconsumedbytheeventsof70ADandthe concluding destiny of Israel. Furthermore and generally speaking, othergreatpropheticpassages are all consigned to the samepast fulfillment (Matt.19:28;Acts3:2021;IThess.4:135:11;IITim.3:113;Tit.2:1213;IIThess.2:112;IIPet.3:3132).Zechariah14suffers thesame fate.3ThusThomas Ice iscorrectwhenhewrites:

1 RefertothedevastatingarticlebyMarkHitchcock,TheStakeintheHeart:TheA.D.95DateofRevelation,

TimLaHayeandThomasIce,TheEndTimesControversy,pp.123150.2 KennethGentyisanexceptionheresincehebelievesthatIIPeter3isfuture,thatisbeyond70AD.3 InGaryDemarsLastDaysMadness,Appendix5 titledZechariah14and theComingofChrist,hevainly

attempts to forceZechariah14 into thepreterist70ADvortexbymeansof ignoringcarefulexegesisof themorebroadcontextofZechariah1214.Itwouldbehardtofindamoredisjointed,cherrypickingexplanationthatclearlyisdirectedbyapreteristpreunderstandingofScripture.In12:19whereJerusalemisbesiegedsothatall thenationsof theearthwillbegatheredagainst it,v.3,how is itin thatdayI[theLORD]willsetabout todestroyall thenations thatcomeagainst Jerusalem?Tosuggestaparallelwith thedemiseof theRoman empire some considerable timeafter70 to135136AD isquite futile. In12:1014,whenhas suchaprolongedmourning of Israel come about because of its piercing of the LORD inHis Son?What is therescued, one third remnant of 13:89?When will the fortunes of perennially assailed Israel be reversedaccordingto14:1?CouldtherebeaparallelbetweenJesusascentfromtheMountofOlives(Acts1911)and14:4?Whatistheuniquedaywheneveninglightshallcome,14:7?WhenwilltheLORDbekingoveralltheearth,14:9,andJerusalemwilldwell insecurity,14:11, inrelation toHispreviouslyrevealedcomingto


6

Ifpreterism is trueespecially fullpreterismthenwearealreadyat theendofhistoryanddontreallyknowwhereitisheaded....Ifpreterismistrue,thentheNewTestamentwaswrittenprimarily tobelieverswho livedduring the40yearperiod between the death ofChrist and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD.Therefore, virtually no part of the New Testament applies to believers today,according to preterist logic. There is no canon that applies directly to believersduringthecurrentage....Preterismtendstostartwithitsdifferentinterpretationof thephrasethisgeneration inMatthew24:34,butusuallydoesnot restuntilonesperspectiveoftheentireBiblehasbeeninfected.4

Asaresult thepartialpreteriststruggles to findanyremnantofScripture thatdeclaresChristsfuture,personal,bodilysecondcomingwhilethefullpreteristlooksforwardtoanondescriptfuturevoidofanypersonal,bodilyrevelationofChristwhatsoever.

So we repeat that there is disagreement amongst Preterists as to whetherChristsreturn,allegedtobeat70AD,wasHissecondparousia(fullpreterism),ora spiritualappearingbymeansof thevisitationofChrists judgmentuponIsrael,withasubsequent,personal thirdcomingat theendof thisage (partialpreterism).Fullpreterists include JamesRussell,DavidChilton,MaxR.King,etc.Partialpreteristsinclude,GaryDeMar,KennethL.Gentry,Jr.,R.C.Sproul,etc.

b. With the exception ofMax King who is of a Campbellite/Church of Christ

background,modern preterism tends toward reconstructionism, according toGregBahnsen,DavidChilton,KennethGentry, Jr.,GaryNorth,GaryDeMar,etc.,and is thuspredominantlyPresbyterian,covenantal inasystematicsense,andmodified in itspostmillennialism thatdiffers from the classicpostmillennialism of the likes of Jonathan Edwards. Refer to thiswriters Future Israel,AppendixA.Unlikemuchearlierpostmillennialism, it tends tobeantiJudaicwithregardtoacovenantalfuturefortheJews,thenationofIsraelandthelandthat,since70AD,hasbeensupercededbythenewspiritualIsrael,theChristianChurch. Somewhat ostrichlike concerning the state of contemporary worldaffairs,preterism tends tobemoreoptimisticwithregard to thecourseof thispresentmillennialageinwhichtheChristianizingoftheworldwillinevitablyresultintheprogressiveandultimatetriumphoftheChurch.AsDavidChiltonputsit:

fightagainstthosenations,14:3,thatgatheragainsttheappleofHiseye,2:8?ForclarityonthesemattersrefertoDavidBaronsenlighteninganddetailedcommentary,TheVisionsandPropheciesofZechariah,554pp.

4 ThomasIce,SomePracticalDangersofPreterism,TimLaHayeandThomasIce,TheEndTimesControversy,pp.420421,426.


7

We therefore have no Biblicalwarrant to expect increasing apostasy as historyprogresses;insteadweshouldexpecttheincreasingChistianizationoftheworld.5

Inthisregard,refertoAppendixBwhereDr.D.MartynLloydJonesassessmentof this increasingly decadentworld appears to bemuch closer to reality. Thefrequent chargeof thepostmillennialpreterist thatboth the amillennialist andpremillennialistaredefeatistandpessimistic regarding thispresentage isonlypartiallytrue.However,notbeingostrichlike,asifwithonesheadinthesandconcerning the present direction of humanity and the Christian church, thehellishdirection of thisplanet isnotdownplayed.Nevertheless the futurist issupremelyoptimisticconcerning theultimate triumphofKing Jesus,uponHissecondcoming,when,asaresulttheearthwillbefilledwiththeknowledgeofthegloryoftheLORD,asthewaterscoverthesea(Hab.2:14).Then,theLORDwillbekingoveralltheearth;inthatdaytheLordwillbetheonlyone,andHisname theonlyone (Zech.14:9).ThenwillGodsMessiahspeakpeace to thenations;andHisdominionwillbefromseatosea,andfromtheRivertotheendsoftheearth(Zech.9:10).

2. Futurism.

a. AllofMatthew2425,inconjunctionwiththeparallelMarkandLukeaccounts,

is fulfilled both at the destruction of Jerusalem, especially according to Luke21:2024, and beyond to Christs future return. An early or a late date forRevelations authorship can be accepted although the latter predominates.Futurismincludesbothsomepreterismandafirmpredominantbeliefinfutureapocalyptic fulfillment. Like the prospects of preacher Noah (II Pet. 2:5),futurism isunashamedlypessimisticconcerning thecourseof thispresentage,thoughsupremelyoptimisticintermsofJesusChristsreturnthatwillusherinthegloriousMessianic/Millennialkingdom,uponearth,andtheLordJesussoleearthlydominion.

b. Modern futurism is predominantly baptistic, premillennial/dispensational,nonconformist.IttendstobeproJudaicintermsofacovenantalfutureforJewsand Israel. Historically, with regard to Israel, though not in all instancesconcerningRevelation, itwould include premillennialistsHenryAlford, J.C.Ryle, H. Bonar, C. H. Spurgeon, Nathaniel West, etc., as well asdispensationalistsJohnWalvoord,CharlesRyrie,DwightPentecost,etc.

5 DavidChilton,ParadiseRestored:AnEschatology ofDominion,p.225.Also refer topostmillennialistLorraine

BoettnersTheMillenniuminwhichthereisachaptertitled,TheWorldisGettingBetter.Herethisauthor,whoissoopposedtoRomanCatholicism,includesstatisticsthatincorporatetheCatholicChurchwithinhisunderstandingofexpandingChristendom.


8

B. TheprecedingeschatologyofPassionWeek.

At the conclusion of Jesus northernGalileanministry, Hewas determined to go toJerusalem(Luke9:51)inanticipationofboththesufferingsofChristandthegloriestofollow(IPet.1:1012).Whatweretheseglories?TheywerethefulfillmentofScripturethroughtheprophetswhoprophesiedofthegracethatwouldcome.Selwynsuggeststhat Romans 8:1839 best describes these glories, that are decidedly, palpablyeschatologicallookingwellbeyond70to135136AD.6NotunrelatedisHortsdescriptionofPeter speakingof theprophets and their severalpartialMessianic foreshadowings,separate prophecies of suffering being crowned with separate prophecies of glory.7Consequently the point is that Peter describes not only Christs imminent atonementsufferingsbutalsoHiseschatologicalhopes thatunquestionably lookbeyond70 to135136ADtothattimewhenthecreationitselfwillbesetfreefromitsslaverytocorruptionintothefreedomofthegloryofthechildrenofGod(Rom.8:21).LikewisewealsobelievethatChristsrevelationinMatthew2425looksnotonlytowardimminenteventsbutalsoHiseschatologicalhopesthatlookwaybeyond70to135136AD.

1. JesusfinaljourneyingfromGalileetoJudea.

The parable of the fruitless fig tree (Luke 13:69) addresses the present evilgenerationofIsrael,asdoestheinitialthrustoftheOlivetDiscourse,indetailingtheimminenceof thecuttingdownprocess, that is the judgmentsof70ADand135136AD.[Afterthreeyears],ifitbearsfruitnextyear,fine;butitnot,cutitdown(Luke13:7,9).

Toevildoersandworkersofunrighteousness, Jesuswarns:Therewillbeweepingand gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all theprophets in the [Messianic] kingdom of God, but yourselves being thrown out(Luke13:28).

2. JesusjourneyinginPereaandSamaria.

Jesus is questioned about the coming of the kingdom of God. To the Pharisees,hardly indweltbytheSpiritofGod,Jesustellsthem:Behold,thekingdomofGod[preeminentlymanifest in the King of theMessianic kingdom] is in yourmidst[beforeyourveryeyes]ThispreludetotheOlivetDiscourseconcerns,thedaythattheSonofManisrevealed[,apokalupt](Luke17:2037).

6 EdwardGordonSelwyn,TheFirstEpistleofSt.Peter,p.137.7 F.J.A.Hort,TheFirstEpistleofSt.Peter:1:12:17,p.55.


9

3. JesusbriefreturntoBethany.

ThecapstonemiracleoftheraisingofLazarusisbutaforetaste,aforeshadowingofthat apocalypticday inwhichbelievers will allbe changed, in amoment, in thetwinklingofaneye,atthelasttrumpet;forthetrumpetwillsound,andthedeadwillbe raised imperishable, andwewill be changed (ICor. 15:5152).Then shall theredeemedbefittedfortheMessianickingdom.

4. JesusfinalmonthsinwithdrawaltoEphraim,Jericho,andbacktoBethany.

InMatthew 19:28; cf. 8:11, Jesus advisesHis disciples that, in the regeneration/rebirth [ , t palingenesia]when the Son ofManwill sit onHisglorious [Messianic] throne, you [the twelve apostles] also shall sit upon twelvethrones,judgingthetwelvetribesofIsraelaboutwhichGodspokebythemouthofHisholyprophets fromancient time.SimilarlyconsiderActs3:2021where,uponthe futurereturnofChrist, therewillbetheperiodof therestorationofall things[,apokatastasespantn].Surelytheseeventstranscend70ADandupholdthecontinuingfutureroleofIsraelintheMessianickingdom.

C. TheeschatologyofPassionWeek.

1. FridayJesusreturntoBethany.

2. SaturdayTheSabbathsupperandanointingbyMary.

3. SundayEnteringJerusalemasMessiah.

The superficial confession, Blessed isHewho comes in the name of the Lord(Matth. 21:9), contrasts with the promise of Tuesday/Wednesday: Behold, yourhouse[Temple]isbeinglefttoyoudesolate!ForIsaytoyou,fromnowonyouwillnotseeMeuntilyousay,BLESSEDISHEWHOCOMESINTHENAMEOFTHELORD(Matt.23:3839).GaryDeMarsexplanationof thisasanindefinitepossibility, ishighlyimprobable.8

8 GaryDeMar,LastDaysMadness,p.61,citesR.T.France,TheGospelAccordingtoMatthew:AnIntroductionandcommentary,p.333.HealsoreferencesthreeusesinMatthewoftheGreekadverb,,hes,meaninguntil(5:26;18:30;18:34)thatdoexpresscontingency,especiallybecauseallthreeinstancesdescribehumanparabolicsituations.HenceitisallegedthatMatthew23:39issimilarlymeanttodeclarecontingency,untilyousay,thoughmaybe youwill andmaybe youwont.However , hes isused on sixteen additional times inMatthew, and none of these allow for conditional usage, and especially several, like 23:39, that areeschatologicaldeclarations(10:23;16:28;17:9;22:44;24:34,39;26:36).


10

4. MondayTwoworksofjudgment.

Thecursingofthefigtree,thatisthepresentevilgenerationofIsrael(Matt.21:1819;Mark11:1214),andthesecondcleansingoftheTemple(Matt.21:1822;Mark11:1926),soontobelaiddesolate.

5. Tuesday/WednesdayDaysofconflictandprophecy.

Againtheimminent judgmentofthepresentevilgenerationofIsraelisrepresentedby the morning discovery of the withered fig tree (Matt. 21:1822). Then JesusauthorityischallengedbytheSanhedrintowhomHerespondswiththreeparablesof judgmenton Israels leadership, theParableof theTwoSons, theParableof theHouseholder,andtheParableoftheMarriageFeast(Matt.21:2322:14).

SpecificallyChrist declares: Therefore I say to you, the kingdom ofGodwill betakenawayfromyouandgiventoapeople,producingthefruitofit(Matt.21:43).This address is to the presentwicked generation of Israel (23:3738), and not aneverlastingdisenfranchisement(19:28),sinceHelaterreveals:ForIsaytoyou,fromnowonyouwillnotseeMeuntilyousay,BLESSEDISHEWHOCOMESINTHENAMEOFTHELORD!(Matthew23:39).9ThenfollowstheOlivetDiscourse:Matthew24:125:46;cf.Mark13:137;Luke21:536.

6. ThursdayDayofFarewellandchurchinstruction.

7. FridayDayofSuffering.

8. SaturdayDayofgloomanddesperation.

9. SundayDayofresurrection.

D. Significantinterpretiveprinciples.

1. Propheticprogressionfromthehistoricnowtotheeschatologicalfuture,

PropheticScriptureoftentransportsusfromthepresenttothefuture,fromahumanto a divine revelation, from now to not yet. SoMatthew 24 takes us from theperspectiveofpre70 to135136AD topost70 to135136ADandbeyond into thefuture and apocalyptic return of Christ. As the following examples indicate,

9 See the previous footnote. This is an unconditional eschatological prophecy, which is the majority

understandingofthelikesofHenryAlford,JohnA.Broadus,WilliamHendriksen,andC.H.Spurgeon.


11

sometimes there is the overlap or abutment of revealed truth, yet neverthelessprogression.

a. TheexampleofPsalm2.IsitaboutDavidalone,orChristalone,orDavidand

Christ.InthelightofActs4:2526,initialreferencetoDavidislostsightofinthelight of Christ revealed as sovereign King over all the nations. Spurgeoncomments:

Ifwe readover thePsalm, firstwithaneye to the literalDavid, themeaning isobvious,andputbeyondalldisputebythesacredhistory....[I]fwetakeanothersurveyofthePsalmasrelativetothepersonandconcernsofthespiritualDavid,anobleseriesofeventsimmediatelyrisestoview,andthemeaningbecomesmoreevident,aswellasmoreexalted.Thecoloringwhichmayperhapsseemtooboldandglaring for thekingof Israel,willno longer appear sowhen laiduponhisgreatAntitype.10

b. TheexampleofIsaiah14:323(4,1215).IsitaboutthekingofBabylonalone,or

Luciferalone,thisnameoriginatinghere,orthekingofBabylonandLucifer(cf.Luke10:18)?

c. The example ofDaniel 11:2135, 3645. Is thiswhole section aboutAntiochusEpiphanesalone,orthecomingAntichristalone,orAntiochusEpiphanesinvs.2035andthecomingAntichristinvs.3645?

d. TheexampleofMicah5:12.Inv.1thereisclearreferencetoIsrael(Judah)being

besiegedbytheAssyrians.Theninv.2wearesuddenlytransported700yearsforward to theMessianicprophecyof Jesusbirth inBethlehemwhich iswellattestedintheNewTestament(Matt.2:56;John7:42).

e. TheexampleofZechariah9.Invs.18mostevangelicalcommentators,suchas

DavidBaronandCharlesFeinberg,believethatthereisapropheticrevelationofAlexander the Greats conquest of Palestine from north to south along theMediterraneancoastthatincludeshisremarkablevisittoJerusalem,asattestedto by Josephus.11 Then, quite abruptly, in vs. 910we have the prophecy ofChrists triumphal entry into Jerusalem, in stark contrastwith the precedingmorebrutalmilitarismofAlexander,aswellas theportrayalofHisuniversalreign:[T]hebowofwarwillbecutoff.AndHewillspeakpeacetothenations;andHisdominionwillbefromseatosea,andfromtheRivertotheendsoftheearth.So invs.810,wearesweptfrom330BCto30AD,that isChristsfirst

10 C.H.Spurgeon,TheTreasuryofDavid,I,p.11.11 FlaviusJosephus,TheAntiquitiesoftheJews,Works,XI.VIII.45.


12

coming,v.9,and thenon toHissecondcomingat theendof thispresentagewaybeyond70to135136AD,v.10.

f. TheexampleofLuke21:728.Surelythisgospelwritersdistinctivecontribution

concerning theOlivetDiscourse,aswith theActsof theApostles, is thatofanhistorian.12 Invs.719 Jesusmingles imminent judgmentandpersecutionwithongoingfutureconflagrationandeschatologicalclimax,alongwiththewarning,but the end does not follow immediately, v. 9. Then follows, in a plainlysequential,historic fashion, thedestruction of Jerusalem in 70AD through to135136AD,vs.2024a,onthroughthetimesoftheGentiles,v.24b,followedbytheapocalypticendofthisagethatclimaxeswiththegloriousreturnofChrist,vs. 2528.13 Then the parable of the fig tree brings warning concerning theimminent commencement/beginningof these traumatic events,vs. 2933. In conclusion there is additional warning to contemporary and subsequent generations,vs.3436.Liketheprophets,Jesushasboththepresentandfutureinview.

g. So with the preceding thoughts in mind, we consider the interpretation ofMatthew24.Isitaboutthepre70to135136ADeraalone,orthepost70to135136eraalone,orprogressionfromtheformereratoalattereschatologicalera?WebelieveinthislatterperspectivewhichAlfordwelldescribesasfollows:

Twoparallelinterpretationsrunthroughtheformerpart[ofMatt.24)asfarasv.28;thedestructionofJerusalemandthefinaljudgmentbeingbothenwrappedinthewords,buttheformer[v.3),inthispartofthechapterpredominating.Eveninthispart,however,we cannot tellhowapplicable thewarningsgivenmaybe to theevents of the last times, in which apparently Jerusalem is again to play sodistinguishedapart.Fromv.28, the lessersubjectbegins tobeswallowedupbythe greater, and our Lords Second Coming to be the predominant theme,withhowevercertainhintsthrownbackasitwereattheeventwhichwasimmediatelyinquestion:till,inthelaterpartofthechapterandthewholeofthenext,thesecondadvent,andatlast,thefinaljudgmentensuingonit,arethesubjects.14

12 WiliamF.Arndt.TheGospelAccordingtoSt.Luke,p.28.Inthemain,Mark13alsoagreeswiththeorderofLuke

21.Matthewsaccountismorecomplex.13 MentionshouldalsobemadeofLukesexclusiverecord in17:2037concerningtheSonofman . . . inHis

day,v.24,thedaysoftheSonofMan,v.26,thedaythattheSonofManisrevealed,v.30.Jesusisbeingquestionedby thePharisees as towhen thekingdom ofGodwas coming.Byway of response,Christssecondcomingisplainlyforetold.Invs.2636,inthemidstofmundaneworldlylivingevenwhensleepinginbedorprocessinggrain,agreat separationof theunrighteous from the righteouswillovertake theworld.ThereisnoreferenceheretotheimminentdestructionofJerusalemwhereflightisrecommended(Matt.24:1618;Luke21:21),butnotseparation.

14 HenryAlford,TheGreekTestament,I,p.217.


13

2. Prolepticexpressioninprophecy.A further indicationof this relationshipbetween thepresent and the future is thefrequent employment ofproleptic expressions in Scripture, especially inpropheticdeclarations.Insimpleterms,aprolepticstatement(aprolepsis)istherepresentationofathingasexistinginthenowbeforeitactuallydoesoccur.Thatis,itspeaksofafutureeventashappeninginthepresent.Forinstance,inJohn17:11Jesusdeclares,Iam no longer in the world. He states as a present reality, just prior to Hiscrucifixion, thatwhichwill subsequently and certainly come topass atHisdeath,burial, resurrectionandascension toHisFather (John13:31;17:4).However in theOldTestamentmanypropheticdeclarationsalsorefertoafutureeventasexistinginthepastorpresent.So in Isaiah 53:4, SurelyourgriefsHehimselfbore, andoursorrowsHecarried.ThefuturesavingatonementofChristisdescribedhereasmostdefinitely accomplished. But particularly in the realm of prophecy concerningjudgment, the prophet often declares the eschatological future in past or presenttermsbecauseofitscertaintyforthepresentandfuturegenerations.WefocusontwoexamplesfromIsaiah.a. Isaiah13:612.

6Wail, for the day of the LORD near! Itwill come as destruction from theAlmighty.7Thereforeallhandswillfalllimp,Andeverymansheartwillmelt.8 Theywill be terrified, pains and anguishwill take hold of them; theywillwrithe like awoman in labor, theywill look at one another in astonishment,theirfacesaflame.9Behold,thedayoftheLORDiscoming,cruel,withfuryandburning anger, to make the land a desolation; and He will exterminate itssinnersfromit.10Forthestarsofheavenandtheirconstellationswillnotflashforththeirlight;thesunwillbedarkwhenitrisesandthemoonwillnotsheditslight. 11 Thus Iwill punish theworld for its evil and thewicked for theiriniquity; Iwill also put an end to the arrogance of the proud and abase thehaughtinessof the ruthless.12 Iwillmakemortalmanscarcer thanpuregoldandmankind than the gold ofOphir. 13 Therefore Iwillmake the heavenstremble,and theearthwillbeshaken from itsplaceat the furyof theLORDofhostsinthedayofHisburninganger.Partofv.10hereisquotedinMatthew24:29.InthisregardGaryDeMarreferstothisquotationofIsaiahasalocalizedjudgmentofaworldpowerthatexistedlongago,15andofcoursethisispartlytrue.HankHanegraafftakesasimilarapproach.

15 DeMar,LastDaysMadness,p.150.


14

[Here inMatthew 24:29, referencing Isaiah 13:10] Jesus is employing hyperboliclanguage that isdeeplyrooted inOldTestamenthistory. . . .To thoseunfamiliarwithbiblicallanguage,thesewordsmaywellbetakentomeanthattheendoftheworldwasathand.Inreality,IsaiahwasprophesyingthattheMedeswereabouttoputanendtothegloriesoftheBabylonianEmpire.16

Againthereispartialtruthherewithregardtothehistoricpresent,butitiswhatisleftoutconcerningtheeschatologicalfuturethatmakessuchavitaldifference,indeedadistortion.BothDeMarandHanegraaffquoteIsaiah13:610,17a.Yetitis significant that the more eschatological vs. 1112 are not referenced,presumably because they address the world, and mortal man, andmankind,andthusconflictwithaconfinedpreteristunderstanding.HoweverDelitzschcomments:

Insteadof eretzwehavehere tbel [world],which is alwaysused like apropername (neverwith thearticle), todenote theearth in itsentirecircumference. . . .Wordpainting is Isaiahsdelightand strength. . . .Thusdoes thewrathofGodprevailamongmen, castingdownanddestroying;and thenaturalworldaboveandbelowcannotfailtotakepartinit.17

TheproblemhereofDeMarandHanegraaff is that theyare so rigidly lockedinto apreteristmindset that they cannotunderstandhow Isaiah can combinebothapresenthistoricscenewitheschatologicalprospectsandgrandeurinthesame biblical accountwith close proximity.This is exactly the same problemtheyhavewithregardtodenyingeschatologicalintegrationwithinMatthew24,and especiallywith regard to its conclusion.Thenext reference in Isaiahwillmakethisprincipleallthemoreclear.

b. Isaiah34:14.

1Drawnear,Onations,tohear;andlisten,Opeoples!Lettheearthandallitcontains hear, and theworld and all that springs from it. 2 For the LORDSindignationisagainstallthenations,andHiswrathagainstalltheirarmies;Hehasutterlydestroyedthem,Hehasgiventhemovertoslaughter.3Sotheirslainwill be thrown out, and their corpses will give off their stench, and themountainswillbedrenchedwiththeirblood.4Andallthehostofheavenwillwearaway,and theskywillbe rolledup likeascroll;all theirhostswillalsowitherawayasaleafwithersfromthevine,orasonewithersfromthefigtree.

Clearlywehavehere adeclarationofGodswrath andprospective judgmentagainst the nations that surely to date have not known fulfillment. Yet v. 2

16 HankHanegraaff,TheApocalypseCode,p.31,17 FranzDelitzsch,BiblicalCommentaryonthePropheciesofIsaiah,II,pp.300301.


15

prolepticallydeclaresFortheLORDSindignationisagainstallthenations,andHiswrathagainstalltheirarmies;Hehasutterlydestroyedthem,Hehasgiventhemover to slaughter.Here thisdivine intervention is spokenof ashavingbeenaccomplished, the reasonbeing that itseventual fulfillment iscertain.SoEdwardJ.Youngconfirms:

He [Isaiah]utters thesestatements in thepasttense,as though theactionofGodhad already taken place, and thus shows how sure he is that these thingswilloccur. He has placed the ban upon the nations, devoting them to a full andcompletedestruction.TheyhaddetermineduponsuchadestructionforJudah,buttheywerenotsuccessful.Despitetheirattempts,aremnantofgracewaspreservedby themercyofGod.For thenations,however, theban is complete; there isnoescape. . . .Thepunishmentof thewickednations,beginningwith thedefeatofAssyriawillculminateinthecompleteoverthrowofallnature.18

3. Pronominalexpressionsinprophecy.One further related problem in this area of prophetic interpretation, indeedwithregardtoScriptureingeneral,concernstheclaimofHanegraaffthat,

[u]singfinalconsummationlanguagetocharacterizeanearfutureevent,Jesuscontinuesusingthepronounyou:

Youwillhearorwarsandrumorsofwars....Thenyouwillbehandedovertobepersecutedandputtodeath,andyouwillbehatedofallnationsbecauseofme....Whenyouseestandingintheholyplacetheabominationthatcausesdesolation,...pray that your flightwill not takeplace inwinter or on the Sabbath. . . . So ifanyonetellsyou,Thereheis,outinthedesert,donotgoout....whenyouseeallthese things, you know that it is near, right at thedoor. I tell you the truth, thisgenerationwillcertainlynotpassawayuntilallthesethingshavehappened(Matt.24:634).

Question:TowhomisJesusspeakinginMatthew24?DoesJesushaveHisfirstcenturyaudienceinmindasHedoesinMatthew23?OrdoesJesushaveatwentyfirstcenturyaudienceinmind?19

Here is raised a most vital matter concerning Jesus addressees in Matthew 24?Granted thathe isspeaking toHisdisciplesaboutthis [wicked]generation,evenso, as we shall see, this in no way excludes Jesus expectation that followinggenerations will anticipate and experience greater eschatological events. IfHanegraaff andDeMar are correct, then theLord Jesus, especiallyduringpassionweek,wasnotthatinterestedinspeakingabouteventsfollowing70ADincorporated

18 EdwardJ.Young,TheBookofIsaiah,II,pp.429,431.19 Hanegraaff,TheApocalyoseCode,pp.67.DeMarmakesthesamepoint,LastDaysMadness,pp.5859.


16

withinthetimesoftheGentiles.However,tounderstandMatthew24asreferringtonowandthechurchagetofollow,confirmsHisdeepconcernforgospelministryreachingthewholeworld[,oikoumen]asatestimonytoallthenations(Matt.24:14).GaryDeMarbelievesthatthewholeworldherereferstotheRomanEmpireupto70AD,andcertainlynotbeyond.HereagainheisindicatingthatChristhas little interest in gospel outreach to the extremities of the globe. In spite ofmentioning the times of theGentiles (Luke 21:24) in this discourse, it has littlecontextualimportforthepreterist.SohearguesfromtheuseofoikoumeninLuke2:1,where census limitation is obvious in the exclusion of the populations of sayChina,Australia, the north and south poles, etc.Nevertheless quoting a singularinstance of oikoumen in no way settles the question of its meaning in theeschatological context ofMatthew 24.Luke,whose accountmost closely identifieswiththedestructionofJerusalem,doesnotrecordthebroadevangelisticexpectationofMatthew24:14,asvitalas it is.HoweverMark13:10 speaksof thegospelbeingpreachedfirsttoallthenations,,pantataethn.Thepluralhere,taethn,speaksofthenationsotherthanIsrael.SoinMatthew25:3132wehaveafarmorecontextualreference:31ButwhentheSonofMancomesinHisglory,andallthe angelswithHim, thenHewill sit onHis glorious throne. 32All the nations[panta taethn]willbegatheredbeforeHim;andHewillseparate them fromoneanother,astheshepherdseparatesthesheepfromthegoats.Totryandsqueezethisintotheconsummationofthe70ADera issimplyadesperateattempttoavoidtheobviousforthesakeofsavingacrumblingsystem.

Fromallof thiswe conclude that,asmanypropheticdeclarations inboth theOldTestament andNew Testament speak of the presentwhile also looking ahead toeschatological fulfillment, it is inconsistent for the preterist to rigidly cling toexclusionary time texts when the surrounding context employs apocalypticlanguage that obviously looks to the future.Wemight as strictly claim that theGospelofLukewassolelyintendedforonepersonsincetheauthorspecificallystatesthathewroteitout,foryouinconsecutiveorder,mostexcellentTheophilus;sothatyoumayknow theexact truthabout the thingsyouhavebeen taught (Luke1:34).ThenwhatshallwesayofPaulsepistlesbeingdirectedtowardspecificgeographiccommunities during the first century prior to 70AD? Paulwrote not only to theRomans (Rom. 1:7),but also theCorinthians (ICor. 1:2; IICor. 1:1), theGalatians(Gal.1:1),theEphesians(Eph.1:1),thePhilippians(Phil.1:1),theColossians(1:2),theThessalonians(IThess.1:1;IIThess.1:1),aswellasTimothy(ITim.1:2;IITim.1:2),Titus(Tit.1:4),andPhilemon(Philem.1).TheseletterswerewrittenbyPaulinhisdayandatthattime,butnotexclusivelyforthatdayandforthattime.DoesthereasoningofHanegraaff and DeMar, applied here, mean that these epistles were not reallyintendedforustodayinthistwentyfirstcentury?Suchasuggestionwouldbequiteridiculous!Rather,liketheinscripturatedaccountsoftheOldTestament,inbeingthe


17

underpinningoftheNewTestamentwritings,whateverwaswritteninearliertimeswaswrittenforourinstruction,sothatthroughperseveranceandtheencouragementoftheScriptureswemighthavehope(Rom.15:4;cf.4:2324).ConsequentlytheNewTestamentwritings,includingtheireschatologicaldeclarations,werewrittenforourinstruction,uponwhomtheendsoftheageshavecome(ICor.10:11).20Asweshallsee, a right understanding of Matthew 24:134 incorporates this same principleinsteadof relegatingmuchofGodsprophetic revelation toanoutdatedwastelandrecedinginthepast.Rather,inMatthew24thereisprogressionfromthehistoricpastandpresenttotheeschatologicalfuture.

4. JesusChristsanticipationintheOliverDiscourse.

ImmediatelyfollowingtheOlivetDiscourseduringTuesdayofpassionweek,JesusretirestothehouseofSimontheleperinBethany,thatevening,andthereisanointedbyMarywithpreciousointment.Despitesomecriticismofthisexcessbysomeofthedisciples, Jesusdeclares thataremarkablememorialwillbeawarded toher forsuch devotion to and preparation forHis imminent burial. Truly I say to you,wherever thisgospel ispreached in thewholeworld [,kosmos],what thiswomanhasdonewill alsobe spokenof inmemoryofher (Matt. 26:13; cf.Mark14:9). Now this recognition obviously involves the inscripturated record of thisincidentinthegospelsofbothMatthewandMark,anditrevealstheomniscienceofJesuswithregardtothissubsequentwrittenrecord.Inotherwords,Hewasaware,indeedHe appointed it to be, that Scripturewould record the details ofMarysdevotionwhichinturnwouldbeperpetuatedoversubsequentcenturies.Butfurther,thereistheclearindicationherethatJesuswasanticipating,notmerelythatperiodofinitial judgmentupto70to135136AD,buttheperiodofthetimesoftheGentilesthatwouldextendbeyondthis.Furthermore,thisbeingthecase,itisobviousthat,onthe evening of that Tuesday, Jesus was looking way beyond the judgment ofJerusalem.Tosuggestotherwise,forthesakeofpreservingapreteristagenda, istoinferthatJesushadlittleinterestintheageoftheGentiles.Consequently,thisscenebears out the argument that, in delivering the Olivet Discourse on that PassionTuesday,daysbeforehiscrucifixion,Jesuswaslookingbeyondthenarrowpreteristconceptionofaneschatologythatisessentiallyrestrictedto70ADandprior.

We also add that Jesuswould surely have been looking beyond the times of theGentiles to the conclusion of Israels dispersion, the restoration of all things atwhichtimeallIsraelwillbesaved(Luke21:24;Acts3:2021;Rom.11:2529).

20 Concerninguponwhomtheendsoftheageshavecome,Hodgesuggeststhat,what,inthiscase,maybe

themorenatural,themeaningisthatwearelivingduringthelastofthoseperiodswhichareallottedtothedurationof theworld,orof thepresentorderof things.One seriesofages terminatedwith the comingofChrist;another,whichisthelast,isnowpassing.CommentaryontheFirstEpistlestotheCorinthians,p.181.


18

E. TwovitalversesintheOlivetdiscourse..

If anyonewould readMatthew 24withprima facie comprehension, surely thatpersonwould conclude that here is not only reference to the past, but also a future andapocalypticvision,andthatnotwithstandingthedifficultyofarrangingthedetailsofthisparticular gospel account. To suggest that the Lord Jesuswouldmainly focus on theperiod leadingup to 70 to 135136AD, and ignore the centuries ahead, is tomiss thebroaderperspective, lookingbeyondIsrael tothe timesoftheGentiles(Luke21:234).Thisperiod is introducedbyChrist inActs1:78:[Y]ou shallbemywitnessesboth inJerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth[ , eschatou ts gs].21 This perspective anticipates universal gospelwitness being made to both Jew and Gentile, notwithstanding the Apostlesmisunderstanding at this juncture thatwas shortly toundergo course correction (Acts10:111:18;15:132).Reliablechurchtraditiontellsusthatoftheapostles,AndrewwenttoAsiaMinorandGreece,JudetoSyriaandPersia,andThomasasfarasPersiaandIndia.Sothereistobeafuturemajorministry,ofovernineteenhundredyearstodate,untilthefullness of the Gentiles has come in (Rom. 11:25; cf. Luke 23:2324). Is this of littlesignificancetoChristinMatthew24,thisHislastpropheticwordpriortoHisatonement?ItisinconceivablethatHisperspectiveherewouldbesoconstricted,andespeciallywithregardtotheongoingsufferingoftheJewishdiasporabeyond70to135136AD.

Insimpleterms,havingbeenaskedaboutthedestructionofthetemple,thesignofJesuscomingandtheendoftheworld,Jesusreadilydescribestheimminentjudgmentsof70to135136ADearliermentioned(Matt.21:19,43;23:38),whichbecomesthemicromodelforthe infinitelygreatermacro realityof tribulationover futureagesand theclimaxof theapocalyptic,eschatologicalreturnoftheSonofMan.CalvinmakesthesamepointwhencommentingonMatthew24:34.

Now though the same evilswere perpetrated in uninterrupted succession formany agesafterwards, yet what Christ said was true, that, before the close of a single generation,believerswouldfeelinreality,andbyundoubtedexperience,thetruthofhisprediction;fortheapostlesenduredthesamethingswhichweseeinthepresentday.AndyetitwasnotthedesignofChristtopromisetohisfollowersthattheircalamitieswouldbeterminatedwithinashorttime,(forthenhewouldhavecontradictedhimself,havingpreviouslywarnedthemthat the end was not yet;) but, in order to encourage them to perseverance, he expresslyforetoldthatthosethingsrelatedtotheirownage.Themeaningthereforeis:Thisprophecydoesnotrelatetoevilsthataredistant,andwhichposteritywillseeafterthelapseofmanycenturies,butwhicharenowhangingoveryou,andreadytofallinonemass,sothatthereis

21 In the lightof thebroad scopeofActs, to suggesthere that tsgs shouldbe translatedthe land,as the

preteristmightwanttodo,istoborderonthenonsensical.IndealingwithActs,JamesStuartRussellmakesnomentionof1:78.However,concerning1:11,hewritesthatJesusreturninlikemanner[idiomatically,hontropon]mustnotbepressedtoofar,TheParousia,p.11.Theobviousreasonforthisobscurantistcommentisthatthetextplainlyinterfereswiththisauthorspresuppositions.


19

nopartofitwhichthepresentgenerationwillnotexperience.Sothen,whileourLordheapsupona,singlegenerationeverykindofcalamities,hedoesnotbyanymeansexemptfutureages from the same kind of sufferings, but only enjoins the disciples to be prepared forenduringthemallwithfirmness.22

SoforCalvin,the70to135136ADjudgmentisthecommencement/beginningofthatwhichwillbefallfutureages.NotethatincommentingonMatthew24:29,healsodescribesamoreeschatologicalvistathatfuturecenturieswillreveal.

[H]eaven will not be darkened immediately, but after that the Church shall have passedthroughthewholecourseofitstribulations.NotthatthegloryandmajestyofthekingdomofChrist will not appear till his last coming, but because till that time is delayed theaccomplishment of those thingswhich began to take place after his resurrection, and ofwhichGodgavetohispeoplenothingmorethanataste,thathemightleadthemfartheronin thepathofhope andpatience.According to this argument,Christkeeps theminds ofbelieversinastateofsuspensetillthelastday,thattheymaynotimaginethosedeclarationswhich the prophets made, about the future restoration, to have failed of theiraccomplishment, because they lie buried for a long period under the thick darkness oftribulations.23

Then,concerningMatthew24:30,Calvinconcludesthat:he[Christ]willappearopenlyathislastcomingand,surroundedbytheheavenlypower,whichwillbeasignerectedonanelevatedspot,hewillturntheeyesofthewholeworlduponhimself.24

Itneeds tobeunderstood thatwhileonlyoneOlivetDiscoursewasdeliveredby JesusChristduringpassionweek,yetaccordingtotheprovidenceoftheHolySpirit,eachofthethreeaccountspurposelyhasadistinctiveemphasisderivedfromtheparticularfocusgivenby itshumanauthor.Here isonethreefoldeschatology.ObviouslyMatthewhasthemostdetailed account, and it is for this reason that it commonly receivesprimaryattention.ThoughitseemslikelythattheMatthewaccountattimesconflatesthatclearerdistinctionwhichhistorianLukemakesbetweenthedestructionofJerusalem(21:2024a)andtheeschatologicalrevelationofChristsubsequenttowhenthetimesoftheGentilesare fulfilled [culminative aorist passive subjunctive] (21:24b31).25 The order ofMarkappearstobeclosetothatofLuke.

Becauseoftherestrictionoftime,wenowfocusonjustMatthew24:3,34,whiledrawinguponthebroadercontextofthischapterasawhole.Theseversesgettotheheartofthelegitimacyorillegitimacyofeitherpreterismorfuturism,asdefined.

22 JohnCalvin,CommentaryonMarrhew,http://www.ccel.org.23 Ibid.24 Ibid.25 NorvalGeldenhuysmakes this connectionbetweenLuke21:24band25a.Healso remarks that:InLukes

shorter reportof thepropheticdiscourse thepredictionsare farmore clearlymarkedoff fromeachother.CommentaryontheGospelofLuke,p.537.


20

1. Matthew24:3.

(v.3) , , .

(v. 3) He [Jesus] having sat on theMount ofOlives, the disciples came toHimprivatelysaying,Say/tellus,whenwillthesethingsbe,andwhat[willbe]thesignofYourappearing/coming[,parousia,followingYourdeparture]and[whatwillbethesign]oftheend/consummationoftheage?

Variations inMark 13:34.Concerning thedisciples questioning of Jesus, actuallyPeterandJamesandJohnandAndrewwerequestioningHimprivately.Onlytwoquestionsareincluded:Tellus,whenwillthesethingsbe,andwhatwillbethesignwhenthesethingsarecompleted/finished[,suntele],all[ofthem].

VariationsinLuke21:57.[S]omeweretalkingaboutthetemple.Onlearningofthetemplesfuturedestruction,[t]heyquestionedHimsaying,Teacher,whenthereforewill these thingshappen,andwhatwillbe thesignwhen these thingsareabout tocommence/begin [rather than take place, , ginesthai, present,middle/passiveinfinitiveof ,ginomai]?

Up to thispoint thediscipleshave continued tohaveworldly,ambitious thoughts(Matthew 14:1516; 15:1120, 23; 17:19; 18:1, 21; 20:2021) concerning which Jesuspresents heavenly correction (18:14; 19:1314). With this in mind, theseeschatologicalquestionsimplyshallowunderstandingandinadequateexpectations,alsowithregardtoexpectingthesign(),towhichJesusgivesadetailedcorrectiveresponse(cf.Matt.13:3841).

TherearethreequestionshereinMatthew,thisbeingthemostdetailedaccount.Thefirst question is grammaticallydistinct from the other two that are grammaticallyrelated. The first question obviously relates to the shocking revelation of vs. 12concerningthedestructionofthetemple.However,dotheothertwoquestionsonlyfocusontheperiodupto70ADaspreterists,suchasGaryDeMar,maintain,ordothey look ahead, from the first to subsequent centuries, and to Christs futureapocalyptic appearing, as the futuristbelieves?Again, Ibelieve that aprima faciereading of Matthew 24 easily leads to a futurist understanding. However thisperspectiveiscertainlynotwithoutitsdifficulties,26especiallyinMatthew,involvingadegreeofmysteryconcerning thepresentandthefuture,thatcharacterizedotherteaching of Jesus (Mat. 13:1011), but here especially because of the two parallel[overlapping/abutting]scenarios,especially in theearlierpartofMatthew24, that

26 That the preterist especially struggleswith the language ofMatthew 24:14, 21, 2931, is born out by the

attemptedassociationwithallegedOldTestamentparallelsandtheattributionofhyperbole.


21

Alfordpreviouslydescribed.However,wemustgodeeperthanthis.Ifthereissomefuturistperspectiveinmindinthesecondandthirdofthedisciplesquestions,alongwithJesusresponseandespeciallywithwhatfollowsuptov.34,thenthecaseforpreterism will not stand. This is even more so the case because of what somepreteristsacknowledge,namelythatafutureperspectiveisrevealedinvs.3551.Thisbeingso,itisdifficulttorejecttheviewthatafutureperspectiveisintegratedintothepreteristelementsofv.134.Thoughagain,v.34becomes thecontrollingprinciplehere.

JamesStuartRussell(18161895),aScottishCongregationalist,thefatherofmodern,fullpreterism,whoGaryDeMar,asamoderatepreterist,neverthelesscommendsasabreathoffreshairinaroomfilledwithsmokeandmirrorhermeneutics,27writesconcerningv.3:

Whatpreciseideasthey[thedisciples]entertainedrespectingtheendoftheageandtheeventstherewithconnected,wedonotknow;butwedoknowthattheyhadbeen accustomed tohear theirMaster speak ofHim coming again inHiskingdom, coming in His glory, and that within the lifetime of some amongthemselves.28

Without digressing, we would challenge the necessity of agnosticism hereconcerningthedisciplesunderstandingwithregardtotheeschatologyoftheendofthe age. Their comprehensionmay have been foggy, yet they had recently beentaughtthat,intheregenerationwhentheSonofmanwillsitonHisgloriousthrone,you also shall situpon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt.19:28).Surelysucharevelationhadtotranscendthe70ADscenariosinceJohndidnotdietillapproximately98AD.Furthermore,itistruethatJesustoldHisdisciplesabouthisdeparture,thatitwouldbringsadness,yetHispostresurrection,glorifiedappearances,priortoHisascension,wouldbringgreatjoy(John16:1620).

However,wedonotbelieve that the second and thirdquestions ofMatthew 24:3necessarilyrelatemerelytoa70to135136ADfulfillmentaswiththefirstquestion.They are probing and yet surely reach beyond to the distant unknown, perhapsreflectedinActs1:8.Afterall,itappearsthatthediscipleswerenotcognizantofwhatwas about to befall Jerusalem. According to Matthew 16:2817:8, plainly andcontextually, this kingdom glory had already been shown forth in ameasure atChrists transfiguration, and thatmost visibly and radiantly, as a prototype andforetaste of that which was ultimately to come. Of course this is not theunderstanding of preterists such asDeMar.He explains thatMatthew 16:28was

27 GaryDeMar,outsidebackcovercommendation,JamesStuartRussell,TheParousia.28 JamesStuartRussell,TheParousia,p.66.


22

reallyfulfilledin70ADwhenJohnalone,accordingtohistorictradition,wasalive.29Yes,the judgmentofJerusalemduring70to135136ADdidrevealthe judgmentofChristuponIsrael,thoughnotinscripturallyexplicittermsconcerninghiscomingatthattimeinthegloryofHiskingdom,thatisasapersonal,bodily,visible,dazzling(,phain,Matt.24:27,30)parousia.Sowedobelieve that theanswers to thesecond and third questions surely look forward,way beyond the lifetime of theapostles and centuries ahead, ultimately to the manifest eschatological secondcomingoftheSonofMan.Thiswewillnowendeavortoprove.Sowhatthedisciplesunderstood of Christs discourse here and what Russell thinks they may haveunderstood intermsofHis imminentrevelationofgloryastheSonofMan,hasnonecessary bearing onwhatChrist actuallymeant bywhatHe said. SoGaryDeMarrepresentatively states: These questions [concerning v. 3] are related to thedestructionof the templeand theendof theOldCovenantredemptivesystemandnothingelse. . . . Jesusnever indicates thatHehasadistantcoming inmind.30HequotesAlfredPlummerinsupport,whosuggeststhatthedisciplescouldwellhavehadonly theoverthrowof Jerusalemand theTemple inmind.Yes,Plummerdoesmention that it is quite possible that they [the disciples] would regard thedestructionoftheHolyCityandoftheTempleworshipastheendoftheworld.31However,DeMar totallyneglects to referencePlummersvital following comment:But the fact, if it be a fact, that theApostles and the Evangelist understood theMessiahswords in this sense isnoproof that thiswas the sense inwhichHeutteredthem[emphasisadded].32Furthermore,wheninterpretingvs.3031,whichPlummertitlesasTheCloseof theAge foretold,he sees themdescribing that timewhen,under the Christian dispensation a Church of His elect will have been formedthroughout the world.33 Preterist belief could not possibly accept this futuristinterpretationwithregardtoMatthew24.

29 HoweverMatthew,inparallelwiththeMarkandLukeaccounts,makestheconnectionclearwhenhewrites

with specificity that six days later, after the declaration ofMatthew 16:28, the transfiguration followed(Matt.17:1).Further,if,asDeMarclaims(LastDaysMadness,pp.4346),thatJohndidnottastedeathin70AD,andhealoneaccordingtohistorictradition,howisitthatJesusspeaksinthepluralofsomewhowillnottastedeath,v.28?Theansweristhat,infirstaddressingthetwelve,Hespokeofsome,Peter,Jamesand John, who would not die until they witnessed His unclouded transfiguration glory. Jesus uses theexpressionwillnotdiein16:28tosimplystresstheimminenceofwhatwassoontoberevealed,incontrastwiththeeschatologicalgloryandjudgmentjustspokenofin16:27.Inotherwords,theeschatologicalgloryof16:27isthemacroofwhich16:28isthemicrorevealedatthetransfiguration.ThisisnotunlikethepropheticmicroandmacroaspectsrevealedintheOlivetDiscourse.

30 DeMar,LastDaysMadness,p.68.31 AlfredPlummer,AnExegeticalCommentaryontheGospelAccordingtoMatthew,p.332.32 Ibid.33 Ibid,pp335336.


23

a. ThedisciplessecondquestiontoJesus.Now,concerning thedisciples timebasedenquiry,v.3,we firstconsider, thesecondquestion,whatwillbethesignofYourcoming[,parousia]?Therearethreeotherreferences,inMatthew24,toChristscoming/arrival,as,parousia; they arevs. 27,37, 39, their latermention in the chapterbeingsuggestiveofanapocalypticevent.Therearealsofourreferencestothecoming [, erchomai]of theSonofman inMatthew 24:30, 39, 42, 44,again according to latermention in the chapter,which verbmay have beenemployedbyChristbecauseof itsuse,according to theLXXquotation, in thefirst reference, v. 30.Hence, both parousia and erchomai are used on eightoccasionsinMatthew24tovariouslydescribethecoming/arrivalofJesusastheSonofMan.There isalso theuseof,phain inv.30bywhichChristdeclares that the Son ofManwill [brightly] appear in the sky,which termsuggests visible shining (cf. Matt. 2:7; 6:5, 16; 9:33; 23:2728; 24:27). ThecumulativeeffectofthisrepeatedterminologywebelievetobeindicativeofanunprecedentedeschatologicalappearingandnotthatallegedtohavemysticallytakenplaceinJerusalemin70ADintheformofdivinejudgment.

TherearealsosixreferencestotheSonofManinMatthew24:27,30(2),37,39,44,allofwhichinvolveJesuscertainlyreferringtoHimself.Inotherwords,thedisciplesenquiredastothesignof...[the]coming[oftheSonofMan],andoftheendoftheage.Apartfromthischapter,therearealsotwentyfiveotherlikereferencestotheSonofManinthisGospel.Howeverthelattermentioningoftheseinthischapterisalsosuggestiveofanapocalypticevent.Butfromwheredoes this selfimposed title originate? Evangelical scholarship is generallyagreed that the source is Daniel 7:13. Furthermore, highly significantconfirmationof this is JesusquotationofDaniel7:13 inMatthew24:30,whichfactGaryDeMar necessarilymisconstrues in terms of the broader context ofDaniel7:1314:Ikeptlookinginthenightvisions,andbehold,withthecloudsofheavenOnelikeaSonofManwascoming,andHecameuptotheAncientofDaysandwaspresentedbeforeHim.And toHimwasgivendominion,Gloryandakingdom, thatall thepeoples,nationsandmen of every languagemightserveHim.Hisdominionisaneverlastingdominionwhichwillnotpassaway;andHis kingdom is onewhichwillnot bedestroyed. SoDeMar comments,usingamillennialistN.T.Wrightinsupport,

ThecomingoftheSonofManisadepictionoftheexaltationandenthronementofJesusinheaven.Matthew24:30hasnothingtodowiththeraptureoranyend


24

time scenario.Each time Jesusused thephrase, the SonofGod comingon theclouds,thereferencehadcontemporaryapplication.34

GrantedthattheSonofGodinDanieliscomingtotheAncientofDays,yetitisforthepurposeofHimbeinggivendominion,gloryandakingdom(Dan.7:14). The following context concerns the coming of Christs indestructiblekingdomthatisfurtherdescribedinv.27:[A]llthekingdomsunderthewholeheavenwillbegiventothepeopleofthesaints[distinctivelyJewsandGentiles]of theHighestOne;Hiskingdomwillbean everlastingkingdom,andall thedominions [Gentiles] will serve and obey Him.35 To relate this to merelyChrists first coming and 70AD it to totallymiss thebigpictureofDaniel 7.Nevertheless, Jesus has been asked about His coming so that this is adominant themewhichHerepeatedlymentionsasHisaddressunfolds (24:27,30,37,39,42,44).However,asalreadyseen,Daniel7:1314asawholeplainlyhas a universal context that ismuch broader than Jerusalem and a universalkingdom thatextends farbeyond Israel since it involvesthepeoples,nationsandmenofeverylanguage,alsoaneverlastingdominionwhichwillnotpassaway. But of necessity, both DeMar and Wright have to disassociateeschatologicallyfromallofthisinamannerthatthereaderofMatthew24asawhole will find hard to digest. In the light of the apocalyptic revelation ofChristsgloryinv.30,itishardtobelievethatit,alongwiththeotherreferencesinvs.27,37,39,44,merelyrefertoaJerusalemappearancein70AD.Surelythiswholeapproachgreatlydims,indeedbecloudsthepowerandgreatgloryplainly revealed in the texthere. In fact, theonlydescriptionwehaveof thispowerandgreatglory,asinterpretedaccordingtoWrightandDeMar,isthegruesome decimation of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. as described by unbelievingJosephus!

Nowifthethirdquestionhereconcerningtheendoftheageisalsoprovedtobeeschatological,andnotpreterist,thenanyquestionaboutv.30beingpreteristissurelyinvalidated.

b. ThedisciplesthirdquestiontoJesus.Concerningthedisciplesthirdquestion:[W]hatwillbethesign...oftheendof the age inMatthew 24:3, it should gowithout saying thatGaryDeMartbelieves this to be solely related to the period leading up to the 70 A.D.destructionofJerusalem.Hewrites:

34 DeMar,LastDaysMadness,p.164.35 Cf.Dan7:18,2122,25.GeorgeN.H.Peters,TheTheocraticKingdom,II,pp.9294.


25

TheendoftheagereferstotheterminationoftheexclusiveJewishentitlementto the Jewish covenant promises and the inclusion of the Gentiles into theblessings of the covenant and the privileges of the gospel and kingdom. . . .Therefore,theexpressionendoftheagereferstotheendoftheJewishage.36

Moreover, DeMars understanding is that here we are concerned withcovenantal language, in other words disenfranchisement of Israel andenfranchisementoftheChristianchurch,notapocalypticrevelation.37

Thereare fourothersignificantreferences totheendof theage inMatthew,twoofwhicharefoundintheParableoftheWheatandtheTareswhichDeMarappearstonevermention.HereJesus, inrevealingHiseschatologyratherthanthatoftheapostles,declaresthat:TheonewhosowsthegoodseedistheSonofMan,andthefieldistheworld;...theenemywhosowedthem[thetares]isthedevil,andtheharvestistheendoftheage;andthereapersareangels.Sojustasthe taresaregatheredupandburnedwith fire,soshall itbeat theendof theage (13:3840). Surely the scenario here concerning the end of the ageencompasses, not Israel in 70 to 135136AD, but the apocalyptic end of thetimesoftheGentiles(Luke21:24).SoJesuspropheticeschatologyherelookswaybeyondtheimmediatejudgmentofIsrael,asisthecaseinMatthew24.

Further, in thesubsequentParableof theDragnetwehave thesameemphasis(Matt.13:4750):So itwillbeattheendoftheage;theangelswillcomeforthandtakeoutthewickedfromamongtherighteous[withintheworld?].ForthisreasonDeMariswrongwhenheadds:[T]heexpression,endoftheagerefersto the end of the Jewish age, i.e., the time of transference from a national[Israelonly]toaninternationalpeopleofGod[intheworld].38Werepeat,thegreat separation here, hardly fulfilled at 70 to 135136 AD, will be at thesubsequent end/consummation of the age, even as Plummerunderstands.39ThereforeitismostreasonabletoconcludethattheendoftheageinMatthew24:3isalsoapocalypticanduniversal.

Moreover,considertheGreatCommission(28:1920)whereChristspresenceispromiseduntil the end/consummation of the age [ , tou ainos].

36 DeMar,LastDaysMadness,pp.6970,referencing,withobviousagreement,R.T.France,TheGospelAccordingtoMatthew:An IntroductionandCommentary,p.337.Here isclearlyseen therootofDeMarsreplacementorsupercessionist theology.Wemightask,what is thegroundofGodnullifying theunconditionalAbrahamiccovenant promises to Israel according to Genesis 12:13; 15:121? Can a Christian be subject to suchnullificationsincehealsoparticipatesinthesameAbrahamiccovenant(Gal.3:29)?RefertotheauthorsFutureIsrael.

37 Ibid.,pp.7071.38 Ibid.,p.70,referencingR.T.France,TheGospelAccordingtoMatthew:AnIntroductionandCommentary,p.337.39 Plummer,TheGospelAccordingtoSt.Matthew,pp.195200.


26

Surelythishasmainlyafutureperspective.Howeverpreterists,suchasDeMar,see thispassage beingunderstood by the apostles asnecessitating fulfillmenttowardIsraeluntilthedemiseofthenationin70AD,andnotbeyondtoallthenations in a universal sense. Romans 16:26, cf. Galatians 4:4, is claimed insupport, but only through ignoring the context of the preceding v. 25whichsurelyanticipatesauniversalunveiling,ahistoricbestowaloftherevelationofthe mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past upon all thenations,obviouslyofthepresentlyknownworldandbeyond.ItisclaimedthattheapostlesonlyunderstoodtheGreatCommissioninthislight.Butinanycase,thereasoninghere is fallacious,namely thatall thenations inRomansmusthave identical meaning in Matthew. Is then world missions nullified? Thepreteristperspectivehereisreallysenseless!However,forthesakeofargument,even if this understandingwas true, the real question, aswas the casewithMatthew 24:3, concerns themeaning and intent of the Lord JesuswhenHeannounced theGreatCommission.CertainlyPetersmisunderstanding at thisjuncturewasdivinelycorrectedatCaesarea(Acts10)andconfessedatJerusalem(Acts 15). Hence, for the preterist, is there any explicit commission for thepreachingof thegospel to the four cornersof theearthafter70AD?Was thegreatmissionaryawakeningof theeighteenthcenturymistaken in termsof itsbiblicalmandate?WereWilliamCarey andAndrew Fullerunbiblical in theirmissionaryendeavors?

2. Matthew24:34.

(v. 34) , .

(v. 34) Truly [emphatic], I say to you, this generation/race will not/in no way[emphatic double negative] pass away/cease to exist until these things takeplace/begin/commence [, ginomai, , genetai, aorist middlesubjunctive,3s].One of the greatest dangers in serious Bible Study, especiallywhen a perplexingdifficultyarises, isbecoming locked intoa theological systemoraboxofourownlogicalconstruction thatcannotbechallenged in termsof its interlockingparts.Weknowthatifweyieldatonepoint,thenourtidyedificecollapses.SoithasbecomethecasewiththeinterpretationofMatthew24:34,andespecially,genea,thisgeneration,as if itsmeaningalone settles thematterathandwhen in fact itdoesnot.Howeverthepreterist,inbeingutterlyconvincedofitsmeaningwithregardtothewickedJewishgenerationthatsufferedGodsseverejudgmentin70ADthroughRome, comes to the conclusion that his argument here iswatertight.At least he


27

believes this tobeso insofarashiswholesystem is thought tobe insupportofhisunderstandinghere.Soallwhichisprophesiedintheprecedingvs.433isallegedtobeconcernedsolelywith theeventsbeforeandup to70AD.However, thedangerhere is thatwe fail to think through theotherelementsof thisverse,aswellas theway they relate to thebroader context.Becauseofdifficultiesonboth sidesof thefencethatseemtorestrictourquestforunityconcerningGodstruth,itwillhelpifweconsiderspirituallateralthinkingandthusattempttothinkoutsidethebox,sotospeak.a. Themeaningof,genea.,thisgeneration/race.

Arndt and Gingrich gives the first category of meaning as literally thosedescended fromacommonancestor,aclan, . . . thenrace,kind.Themeaningnationisadvocatedbysome.ThenthesecondcategoryofmeaningintheNewTestament is given as generation, contemporaries.40Concerning the contexthere, there is some legitimacy in translating race/nation rather thangenerationwhenthemeaningofallthesethingsisunderstoodasdescribingthecenturiesduringwhichIsraelwillendurepersecutionandtribulationwhileGodcovenantallyupholds itsexistence.Alternativelyrace/nationcouldreferto all those things previously described as occurring just prior to Christssecondcoming.Sorace/nation,as thehistoric Jewishpeople, isalsoaviabletranslation, especially in conjunction with Gods inviolate keeping of IsraelaccordingtoJeremiah31:3537,yetneverthelessnotaltogethersatisfyingforthiswriter, again with regard to the immediate context. We conclude thatrace/nationisatbest,particularlyinthesynopticgospelsoverall,asecondaryrather than theprimarymeaning.FurthermoreChrist is repeatedly concernedabout Israel as a present evil generation. So this more immediate context,especiallyasChristdrawsneartoHiscrucifixion,isoffundamentalimportancehere and not so much the more broad consideration of Israels historic,covenantal existence.Certainly theoverallmeaningofgenea references in thesynopticGospelscannotbeignored,especiallysinceifmostofthemsuggestedrace/nation,wemightbequick to reference thisusage.Excellentexegesisofthis understanding is provided by, Marshall Entrekin, though his eclecticapproach isnot finallyconclusivehere.41FromaMessianicperspective,David

40 W.F.ArndtandF.W.Gingrich,AGreekEnglishLexiconoftheNewTestamentandOtherChristianLiterature,pp.

153.41 http://www.thingstocome.org/whatgen.htm.Entrekinconcludes:ThecontextoftheOlivetDiscourseleadsus

tobelievethatJesuswasspeakingeitheroftheraceoftheJews,thegenerationofGodschildren,orofafuturegenerationthatwasnearinconsideration.(Thereaderwillbelefttodecidewhichofthesethreealternativesseemsmostlikely.Iwelcomecorrespondenceregardingthis).


28

Stern translates: Yes! I tellyou that thispeoplewill certainlynotpass awaybefore all these things happen.42 Nevertheless none of these options withregard to race/nation are altogether satisfying for this writer, and againespeciallywithregard to the immediatecontext; thealternativeandprevailingterm, generation, is much to be preferred. Thomas Ice believes thatgenerationreferstopeoplealivewhenallthesethings(i.e.theeventsofthe7yeartribulationofvv.431)takeplace.43AlsorefertoC.E.B.Cranfield44andNeilD.NelsonJr.45Sotheprimary,prevailingmeaningofgeneration/[national]contemporaries,specificallythewickedgenerationofIsraeland its leadershipat the time of Christ, seems most suitable, and especially when the samemeaning,asfrequentlyusedbyChristinothernearbyplaces(Matt.12:39,4142,45; 16:4; 17:17; 23:36), isunderstood.However, aswe shall see, thismeaning,namely generation/[national] contemporaries, does not necessitate that thethesethingsofvs.433arewholly,withoutexceptionreferringto70ADandeventsimmediatelypreceding.

b. Themeaningof,pantatautaallthesethings.

GaryDeMarwrites that he came to the conclusion that [t]he generation towhom Jesuswasspeakingwouldnotpassawayuntilall those things listed inMatthew 24:431 came to pass.46 Of course his meaning is that all thesethings, in every respect, would exclusively find their fulfillment up to thedestructionofJerusalemin70AD,butinnowaybeyond.However,wewouldsuggest that, according tovs. 431,wewill later see inmoredetailhow theydescribeapanoramaoftribulationthatplaysoutbeyond70AD,evenasvs.6,8,1314,4851suggest.

42 DavidH.Stern,CompleteJewishBible,p.1255,whoelsewherecommentsthatifthisisthecorrecttranslation,

Yeshua isguaranteeing that the Jewswillpersist as apeopleuntilhis second coming.He is echoing thepromise of Jeremiah 31:3537.DavidH. Stern, JewishNew Testament Commentary, p. 75.He does brieflycommentonthealternativetranslationofthisgeneration.

43 ThomasIce,PreteristTimeTexts,TimLaHayeandThomasIce,TheEndTimesControversy,pp.9097.44 C.E.B.Cranfield,St.Mark13,ScottishJournalofTheology7(July1954):291.Inacceptingthisgenerationas

preferableinv.30,allthesethingsmeansthesignsoftheEnd(vv.523),sothesameasinv.29.45 Neil D. Nelson Jr., This Generation in Matthew 24:34: A Literary Critical Perspective, Journal of theEvangelicalTheologicalSociety38:3(September1966):385.ThisgenerationinMatt.24:34doesnotrefertoallpeoplealivefromAD30toAD70becausetheydidnotwitnesstheeventsof24:1528,andJesusstatedthatneitherhenoranyofhis followersknewnorcouldanticipatewhen theparousiawouldbe (24:36,etc.).NordoesthisgenerationspeakofIsraelasarace....Thisgeneration(24:34)representsanevilclassofpeoplewhowillopposeJesusdisciplesuntilthedayhereturnsp.385.

46 DeMar,LastDaysMadness,p.15.


29

Further,DeMarsclaimismadeinthelightofthehistoricevidencethatallofthetwelve apostles, except John, died or were martyred before 70 AD. Theargument here is also heavily based upon the account of the destruction ofJerusalemrecordedbythehistorianJosephus,aJewandPhariseewithacruel,selfserving propensity,47 who appended the name Flavius in 69 AD inrecognition of his meeting with and emancipation by the Roman Emperor,FlaviusVespasian. In accompanying thevictoriousTitus, sometimesbeing anintermediarywiththeJewspleadingfortheirsurrender,hewrotethat3,000,000inhabitantswouldbeinJerusalematthePassoverseason,while1,100,000werekilledduringthesiegeanddestructionofJerusalemin70AD.VerifiablechargesofJosephuspronenesstonumericexaggerationwillnotbeconsideredhere.48Sothecitywas leveledexcept for three towersandonewall.Thisremainderwastodemonstrate toposteritywhatkindof city itwas,andhowwell fortified,which theRoman valor had subdued.49However this generallywell knownscenarioavoidsthefactthatthefinaldemiseofJerusalemandutterdesolationofthesurroundingregionofJudeawasnotuntil13536ADfollowingtherebellionof themessianicclaimant,SimonBarKokhba (cf.Matt.24:5,2324),supportedbythecelebratedRabbiAkiba.Thiswas

the last, and perhapsmost terrible, encounter between the Jews and ImperialRome [that] tookplace. . . .Thesuddennessof therising took theRomansquiteunawares,andinaveryshorttimeBarKokhbawasmasterofJudea....[So]thewardraggedonforthreeyearsandahalf....[W]ellover500,000Jewsfellinthefighting....OntheRomansidethelosseswerelikewiseveryserious.50

The Jewish combatants, often guerilla in style,were drawn from throughoutJudeainresponsetotheprohibitionofcircumcisionandfurtherpaganintrusion.Asaconsequence, theemperorHadrianploughedup the temple foundations,decreedtheexclusionofJewsfromJerusalem,andrebuiltthecitycallingitAeliaCapitolina after himself,while he named the surrounding region Palistina, aformofPhilistia,orPalestine, as further insult to the Jews.He also erected ashrine to Zeus on the temple site, which would have better application toMatthew24:15aswellasapocalypticfulfillmentofDaniel9:27;11:31.So,

the Templetax, which the Jews all over the world had hitherto paid for theupkeepof their sanctuary and its services,wasnowused for thebenefitof the

47 MichaelGrant,TheAncientHistorians,pp.243268.48 Ibid.,p.258.49 FlaviusJosephus,TheWarsoftheJews,Works,VII,I,1.50 TheodoreH.RobinsonandW.O.E.Oesterley,AHistoryofIsrael,II,pp.459463.


30

templeofJupiterCapitolinusinRome....FromthistimeonwardtheJewsbecamemoreandmore...aliensinaheathenworld.51

Onlynowwas thedestructionof Jerusalemand thedevastationof Judea fullyaccomplished,aswith the fulfillmentofMatthew24:2,except thatmany Jewsstill remained in the land. After 70 AD the Sanhedrin moved westward toJamniaonthecoastwhileafter135136ADthiscenterofJudaismmovednorthtoUshawestofGalilee.Herearabbinicalschoolwasestablished,thepresidentofwhichwasregardedbyRomeasthespiritualheadofJewry.52

Thepointhereisthatthepreteristmakestoomuchof70ADasacutoffpointandignoresthesignificanceof135136ADwhichtheOlivetDiscourseseemstomorebroadlyanticipate,andthusthecenturiesthatfollow.Ofcourse70ADis not anywhere mentioned in the biblical account. Certainly Luke 21:20declares: Butwhenyou see Jerusalem surroundedby armies, then recognizethatherdesolation/being laidwaste isnear.However,historically, it is clearthat this desolation was by no means complete until 135136 AD.Furthermore itwouldbe fair tosay thatChristsprophecy,JerusalemwillbetrampledunderfootbytheGentiles[bothTitusandHadrian]untilthetimesoftheGentilesarefulfilled(Luke21:24),reallyincorporatesJerusalemandJudea,and thus Hadrians thorough completion of this desolation. This is furtherindicated when Luke refers to this judgment upon Jerusalem while alsoincorporating Judea and great distress upon the land (Luke 21:21, 23),whichbroaderperspectiveisexactlywhatwasaccomplishedin135to136AD.Henceall thesethingsseemstohavea lessrestrictedframeofreferencethatproceedsbeyond70AD.Note theusealsoofall these things invs.8,33,aswellas followingLuke21:32 inv.36.Asweshallsee,allherespeaksmorerepresentativelyofmerelythebeginningofbirthpangs(Matt.24:8),themicro,andnottotallyofthemacrothatwillfollowuptotheendwhentheuniversalpreachingofthegospelshallhavebeencompleted(Matt.24:14).53

c. Themeaningof,gentai(,ginomai),befulfilled/bedone/take

place,accordingtomosttranslations.Tobeginwith,boththeKJVandtheNKJVaresomewhatwideofthemeaningof,gentaiwhentheytranslatefulfilledinbothMatthew24:34andLuke

51 Ibid. pp. 453, 462463.Refer also to the JewishVirtual Library, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/

Judaism/revolt1.html(November,2008).52 JamesParkes,AHistoryofPalestine,pp.4355.53 Refer to the earlier response toGaryDemar concerning his interpretation ofMatthew 24:14 asdescribing

evangelismstrictlybefore70AD.


31

21:24.ShouldtheGreektexthaveemployed,plro,suchatranslationwouldhavebeensuitable,butthisisnotthecase.HoweverinMark13:30takeplaceisusedintheseversions,whileinallthreegospelaccountstheexactsameform,thatisgentai,isused.(1) Themeaningof,gentai(ginomai)byC.E.Stowe.

Anoutstandingarticlepublishedin1850,TheEschatologyofChrist,withSpecialReferencetotheDiscourseinMatthew24and25,byC.E.Stowe,ProfessorofBiblicalLiteratureatLaneTheologicalSeminary(Presbyterian),Cincinatti, Ohio, is included here as Appendix A. Here we have eyeopening exegesis at thispoint that calls for serious study.Apart from somanyhelpfulinsights,weparticularlydrawattentiontoProfessorStowesconsideration of , gentai, being the aorist middle (reflexive),deponentsubjunctive,3rdpersonsingular,of,ginomai,commonlyunderstood as meaning to become/to come into being, and also tocommence/tobegin.Itisthelattermeaninghere,especiallyitscorrectnessincontextregardingv.34,thatweshallconsiderindetail,andthenrelatetotheimportofwhatJesusisreallysayinginthelightofvs.433.

ThelexicalsourcesthatProfessorStowedrawsuponaresubstantial,evenifreferencedfromthemidnineteenthcentury.Heplainlydemonstrateswithconsiderable detail that the proper translation here is [c]learly this: thisgeneration shallnotpass,TILLALLTHESETHINGSBEGINTOBE,or, tillall thesethings TAKE THEIR BEGINNING. So Luther interprets it, in his note on thepassage:...Allthiswillbegintotakeplaceinthepresenttime,whileyouareyetalive.Suchaninterpretationwillplaceatotallydifferentcomplexionuponour understanding ofMatthew 24, indeed thatwhich results in unity ofunderstandingratherthanconflictandconfusion.54

(2) Themeaningof,gentai(ginomai)invariouslexicalsources.InArndt&Gingrich, it is interesting that the extensive entry on ginomaimakesnoreferencetogentaiinMatthew24:34;Mark13:30;Luke21:32,sothatno specificmeaning isattributed.Even the exact formgentai isnotparsed. The primary meanings are come to be, arise, which suggestbeginning,commencing,alsobecome,originate.Anotablemeaningiswhenday came,when a convenient day arrived, againwith theobviousnuanceof

54 The lexical argument does not rest onwhether or notwe have an ingressive aorist here, as some have

considered. Refer to http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/warrengreek.html. The issue chiefly concerns contextuallexico;ogy,notsyntax.


32

beginning, commencing. In GrimmThayer, the principalmeaning is tocome intoexistence,tobegintobe,alsotoarise,toappear inhistory.InAbbottSmith, theprincipalmeaning is to come into being, to be born, to arise. It isinteresting that in these three lexical sources, not one of then considers, gentai, or thus allocates any specificmeaning to it.Howeverwhat we do learn from this is that Professor Stowes comprehensiveanalysisofginomaiisessentiallycorrect.

It isalso important tonotice thatProfessorStowemakes reference to thefactthat,itisoftenerroneouslysupposed[thatis]tobe[regardedas] synonymous with (page 53). Indeed Matthew 24:34 is oftenrenderedsothattheimpressiongivenisasifisinfactthebasisofthetranslationwhenitisnot.SurelythisissowithbedoneKJV(Mark13:30),have happened NIV, take place NASB, ESV, HCSB. While thedistinctivemeaningofthesetermsmayattimesmerge,yeteimidescribesexistence/beingwhile ginomaimeans to become, to come into existence.The two termsaredistinctivelyused inLuke21:7:TheyquestionedHimsaying,Whenthereforewillthesethingsbe/happen[eimi]?Andwhatwillbe the the sign when these things are about to begin/commence[ginomai]? As a final example, considerMatthew 27:24: When Pilatehavingseenthathewasgaining/accomplishingnothing,butthatariotwasstarting [ginomai,NASB]/beginning [ESV],he tookwaterandwashedhishandsinfrontofthecrowd.

(3) Themeaningof,gentai(ginomai)asbegininMatthew24.Apart from the meaning of , gentai in Matthew 24:34 asbegin/commence,firstconsidertheappropriatenessofthesamemeaningin v. 32. Learn from the fig tree the parable: when its branch begins[,gentai] sproutingandputsout leaf,youknow that summer isnear.Sowith23:15:Woetoyou,scribesandPharisees,becauseyoutraveloverseaandlandtomakeoneproselyte;andwhenhebegins/commences[,gentai],youmakehim[bywayofongoinginstruction]asonofhell/Gehennaasyourselves.Yetagainwith26:5:But theywere saying,Not during the festival, in order that a riotmight not begin/commence[,gentai] among thepeople. Furthermore, it is significant thattheNASB translationofActs 8:1 is as follows: Andon thatday agreatpersecutionbegan [,egeneto,aoristmiddle indicative]against thechurchinJerusalem.

So the immediate contextual indications inMatthew 24:34 of all thesethings...begin[,gentai,vamsp],playoutinvs.6,8,1314,48


33

51. If the nuance of beginning, commencing, being lexically wellsupported, is intended, then surely the preceding context, especially inthesespecificverses,wouldsupportsuchanunderstanding,andinfactthisproves tobe thecase. Inotherwords,all these thingswillbegin,vs.428,55duringthepresentwickedgenerationofIsrael;itwillnotmissoutonsuchtraumaticevents,eveninthemicro,thatyetwillcontinuethroughthecenturiesandleadtothemacro,anapocalyptic,eschatologicalclimaxatthesecondcomingofChristof infinitelygreaterproportions.Sothosethingsmust takeplace,but that isnotyet theend,v.6;Butall these thingsaremerelythebeginningofbirthpangs,v.8;onlywhenthegospelhasbeenpreachedtoallthenation[,oikoumen]...theendwillcome,vs.1314; the inference is thatmymaster isnotcoming fora long time,vs.4851.

(4) Themeaning of , ginomai inLuke 21:36, praying that youmayhave strength to escape all these things that are about [ ] to takeplace/begin, [ginesthai, infpm/p],and standbeforetheSonofMan.

Aftertheuseof,gentaiinv.32,herewearefacedwiththesamequestionconcerningthetranslationof,ginesthai.Thefinalpartofthiswarningalsopresentsadifficultyifitspeaksherethatallthesethingsareabouttotakeplace,sothatthewholeverserefersonlytobelieversupto 70ADwho are to stand before the Son ofGod at that time, as thepreteristwouldmaintain. If this interpretation is tohold, then it requiresconsiderable linguistic accommodation in terms of believers standingbefore the Son ofGod in 70AD.Howeverwhen the above translationspeaksofallthesethingsabouttobegin,itincludesthepre70ADperiodandbeyondregardingthatapocalyptictime,thissurelybeingtheobviousintenthere,whenmenstandbeforetheSonofGod(cf.Matt.16:28;19:28;24:30,37,39,44;25:31;26:64).56

55 Ifvs.2728 infer the judgmentofChristupon Jerusalem in70 to135136AD,surely theyare transitional in

terms of the greater eschatological vistas of vs. 2931. SoAlford,GreekNew Testament, I, p. 223; Broadus,Matthew,489.SuchblendingoroverlaporprogressionwouldbeinfullaccordwithOldTestamentpropheticrevelation.ThetransitionfromthemicrotothemacrojudgmentinMark13:2324andLuke21:2425appearstobefarmoreexplicitthaninMatthew.

56 OfcourseGaryDeMar,aswithmostpreterists,challengestheeschatologicalreferencingofallthesepassages.However,thecumulativeeffectissoplainandtranscendentlyglorious,namelythattheLordJesuslookswaybeyondtheforetasteof70ADand135136ADtothefutureday,likenoother,when,astheconcludinghymnofAppendixCinthispaperbyCennickandWesleydeclares:

Lo!Hecomeswithcloudsdescending Onceforfavoredsinnersslain.


34

F. Conclusion.

JesusChrist, inanswering thedisciplesquestionsconcerningHis futurecomingandthe future end of the age, is also concerned about confronting the present Jewishgeneration ofHis timewith immanent judgmentbecause ofnational apostasy and therejection of Hismessianic witness. He does not desire to describe a shocking futurescenarioofeventsthatinvolveIsraelsothat,insensingthemtobedistanteschatologicalprospects,they,thepresentJewishcommunity,wouldthenbeabletocomfortablydetachthemselvesfrompersonalapplicationbecausetheyrelatetoafuturegeneration,whichinfacttheyalsodo.No,JesuswillnotpermitanysuchwayofescapeforHisgeneration.Thepresent nation of Israel will not escape tribulation because of future expectations ofjudgment! So the future generation aswellwill not escape, especially at the climactic,gloriousappearingoftheLordJesusatHissecondcoming.Thefailuretograspthesetwoperspectivesisafundamentalweaknessinthewholepreteristsystem.

Hencepreterism tends to find refuge indisassociation from the futurebymeansof itsexclusive70ADmentality.TheapocalypticinScriptureispast,sodontworry.ThefutureisthegloriousblandgradualismoftheevolvingkingdomofGod.Thereisnoneedtodayfor the cry, flee from thewrath to come (Matt. 3:7). after themanner of John theBaptistsproclamation.The Jews certainlymerited and received a loadofdivinepenaltroublebackthenin70AD,butthatdoesnotapplytoustoday!Apocalypticeschatology,lastdays terror, isall finishedwith.But this isdangerous soporificerror that closes itseyes to a world that, lemminglike, rushes toward its fearful awakening to suddenapocalypticencounterwithaholyGod!

SomepreteristswitnessinthestreetsofTucsonwithsignssuchas,WeAreNotInTheLastDays!Of coursethe lastdaysare timesof cresting toward imminent terrifyingjudgment,57yetthesepeopletellusnottoworrysincethatisallpast.Thegreatportionsoftheprophets thatcauseourhair to standonendarepast.Theyhavenocontemporaryrelevance. So preterist Hank Hanegraaff tells us that such declarations are reallyhyperbolicexpression, localized inpasthistory,withoutuniversal significance. Inotherwordsitisextreme,inflatedliterarystylethattellsofevents,alreadyfulfilled,thatwere

57Acarefulstudyofthelast/latterdaysintheOldTestament,especiallytheprophets(Gen.49:1;Isa.2:2;Jer.23:20;30:24;49:39;Ezek.38:16;Dan.2:28;10:14;Hos.3:5;Mic.4:1)generallydescribeseschatologicalportrayalofsinandjudgmentandtheMessianickingdomtocomeinrelationtoIsraelsfuture.IntheNewTestament,thechurchageembodieslastdays/times/hoursituations,especiallyMessiahsappearinginconjunctionwiththeHolySpirit(Acts2:17;Heb.1:2;IPet.1:20),sinandjudgmentsituations(IITim.3:19;Jas.5:3;IIPet.3:3,7;IJohn2:18;Jude18)andtheconsummationofChristskingdom(IPet.1:5).DeMarratherarbitrarilydeclaresthat: InA.D. 70 the last days endedwith the dissolution of the temple and the sacrificial system [andpresumablyIsrael],LastDaysMadness,p.38.ToaccomplishthisconclusionhemustconfinetheabovelistofNewTestamentreferenceswithina70ADmatrix.Itisabadfit.SurelyIPeter1:5,indescribingtodistressedbelieversasalvationtoberevealedinthelasttime,whichSelwyndescribesasaneschatologicalhope,FirstEpistleofPeter,p.125,lookswaybeyond70AD.


35

not really as dramatic and severe as theymight appear to be described in Scripture!DoubtlessmanyinNoahsdaydeclaredthat,inhispreaching,hewasoverstatinghiscasewithregardtoauniversalflood!WereferenceagainHanegraaffscommentonMatthew24:29(seepage1314)whichquotesIsaiah13:10anddescribesthisasJesus

employinghyperbolic language that isdeeply rooted in theOldTestament. . . .To thoseunfamiliarwithbiblicallanguage,thesewordsmaywellbetakentomeanthattheendoftheworldwasahand.Inreality,IsaiahwasprophesyingthattheMedeswereabout toputanendtothegloriesoftheBabylonianEmpire.58

Howeverahalftruthhereendsupbeingaseriousavoidanceofthefulltruth.Granted,aswehavealreadyseen,thatBabylonisatthehistoricbackground,but,likesomanyOldTestament prophecies, as have been earlier referenced, there is an eschatological foregroundhere that,ofnecessity,preterismmustdeny,especiallywithregard toMatthew2425.SoEdwardJ.YoungcommentsontherelationshipbetweenIsaiah13:15and612.

ThedayoftheLordisthedayoffinaljudgment,butaforerunnerofthatjudgmentappearedinthedestructionofBabylon....OneBabylonafteranotherwillbedestroyeduntilthelastsinnerisremovedfromearth....Notonlyisthatdayabouttocome,butitisabouttocomeasacruelone. It ishardandunfeeling,breakingout invehementdestruction,showingnomercyandsparingnone.Withthatdaytherewillbenosunlightofblessingbutwrathandtheheatofanger.Overtheworldcitythe judgmentdeepensforthepurposeofmakingtheearth,representedbyandaffectedbyBabylon,adesolation.59

Butfurther,whatofotherawesomepropheticdescriptionsoftheeschatologicaljudgmentofthewholeworld.Asafurtherexample,considerthebroadercontextincludedinIsaiah62:18;63:16.Concerning62:18,GodsultimaterestorationofIsraelisrevealedaccordingto sworndeclaration, v. 8, in thepresence of thenations,v. 2.Concerning 63:16, onemightsaythatEdom,anditscapitalBozrah,aretheobjectsofjudgmenthere.Butno,asthe picture here as a whole plainly represents, they are merely types of the greateschatologicalantitype.AgainYoungexplains:

[Edom] displayed a vicious attitude toward Israel (cf. e.g. Amos 1:1112). . . . Edom ismentionedasarepresentativeofthepowersthatopposeGod,andinitsdestructionweseetheirdestruction.The reference isnot to thedestructionof the empiricalnationofEdom,although thatnation in courseof timedidpass away,but to the fact that allwhowouldhindertheestablishmentofGodskingdomuponearthmustpassawaythroughjudgment.60

As a final instance of eschatological judgment on aworld scale prefigured by a pasthistoric setting, considerZephaniah 1, 3.ProphesyingunderKing Josiahwho reignedfrom 641 to 610 BC, Zephaniah writes of Gods coming judgment upon Judah and

58 HankHanegraaff,TheApocalypseCode,p.31.59 Young,Isaiah,I,pp.419n,421422.60 Ibid.,p.476.


36

Jerusalem(1:413).SothegreatdayofJehovahisnearandcomingveryquickly,...thedayof theLord, . . .adayofwrath is thatday (1:1415).But thenweare transportedwaybeyondtoamoreencompassing,universalscenario.Iwillbringdistressonmensothattheywillwalkliketheblind,becausetheyhavesinnedagainsttheLORD;andtheirbloodwillbepouredoutlikedustandtheirfleshlikedung.NeithertheirsilvernortheirgoldwillbeabletodeliverthemonthedayoftheLORDSwrath;andalltheearthwillbedevouredinthefireofHisjealousy,forHewillmakeacompleteend,indeedaterrifyingone, of all the inhabitants of the earth (1:17-18). The same order is also found inZephaniah3. Jerusalem is tobe further judged (3:17), thenamoreuniversal judgmentfollows.Mydecision is togathernations, toassemblekingdoms, topourouton themMyindignation,allMyburninganger;foralltheearthwillbedevouredbythefireofMyzeal(3:8).Afterthisthenationswillbepurified(3:911)andtheremnantofIsraelsavedsoas todwellgloriously inZionaspartof theMessianickingdom since:theKingofIsrael, the LORD, is in your midst; you will fear disaster no more (3:1219). Then,concerningthedaughterofZion,...atthattimeIwillbringyouin,evenatthetimewhen Igatheryou together; indeed, Iwillgiveyou renown andpraise among all thepeoplesoftheearth,whenIrestoreyourfortunesbeforeyoureyes,SaystheLORD(3:14,20).

In the light of Scripture, alongwith the current state of this totteringworld, preteristhunkering down in the past, at the expense of the future, is not merely wrongeschatology,aslightdeviation fromamajorpropheticscenario.Rather it isstupefying,delusionalerror,thatparallels,inanumberofways,thewarningofPeter:[I]nthelastdaysmockerswillcomewiththeirmocking,followingaftertheirownlusts,andsaying,WhereisthepromiseofHiscoming?ForeversincetheFathersfellasleep,allcontinuesjustasitwasfromthebeginningofcreation(IIPet.3:34).Forthepreterist,thereisnolookingfortheblessedhopeandtheappearingofthegloryofourgreatGodandSavior,ChristJesus(Tit.2:13).ForRussellthiswasalookingpriorto70AD,andcertainlynotbeyond.61So forus today, there isnoblessedhope,andwith itnoencouragement tolivesensibly,righteouslyandgodly in thepresentage (Tit.2:12).But further there isinsistence that rightnow,not only is the apocalypticpast, but alsowe are living in apostmillennial millennium and the new heavens and a new earth, in whichrighteousnessdwells.AsRusselldeclares,[t]heoldJerusalemwastogiveplacetotheNew Jerusalem.62 In the lightof thishallucinatoryvisionof todays realworld restinguponanuclearprecipice,63wecannotescapetheparallelwithMaryBakerEddysillusorydenialoftherealityofsinanddeath.Ofcourse,inthelongrun,realityeventuallycatches

61 Russell,TheParousia,p.263.62 Ibid.,324325.63 RobertHutchinson,WeaponsofMassDestruction (2003),283pp.Theauthorwasa founderof JanesDefenceWeekly.Theoutside jacketdeclares:Within tenyearsanuclearwarheadwilldevastateamajorcity.This isnotamovieoutline,butthesoberconsensusamongintelligenceanalysts.


37

upwith sucha jarring shock.We therefore commend the reader toDr.MartynLloydJonessoberexhortation,neartheendofhislife,inAppendixB.

64

64 Cartoon,bycourtesyofDr.ThomasIce.

THE ESCHATOLOGY OF CHRIST IN MATTHEW 24 AND 25

38

APPENDIXA

THEESCHATOLOGYOFCHRIST,WITHSPECIALREFERENCE

TOTHEDISCOURSEINMATTHEW24AND25

by

ProfessorCEStowe,DDProfessorofBiblicalLiterature

LaneTheologicalSeminary(Presbyterian),Cincinatti,Ohio

the olivet discourse - future israel · future vision in the whole of the olivet discourse. as an...

Documents