Matthew 23:39 - Until you say; "Blessed is He who comes..."
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
People sometimes ask me about Matthew 23:39, as if it
somehow defeats my belief system and they want to know
how I can explain it in light of said belief system. But as
I have said many times... if you're trained to read something
in a certain way, then you'll never see it any other way.
In fact, you don't even really read it any more. You just
assume it to say what you believe.
Well today, we're going to actually read it. And we're going
to read it in the light of the context of the rest of Scripture
and no, we're not going to forget about _when_ they lived
and pretend that the Bible was written in the 1st century,
but was written for and about us and so, was closed
immediately after it was written, waiting until we were born
today, before it could apply again!
This will be a long lesson, but a lesson that will be of great
benefit to you, if you work through it and study it carefully!
But be ready to devote some time to it. Some of it I'll admit,
is boring. :) But it is also necessary to be able to understand
what Jesus was saying in Matthew 23:39.
Or you can just use your usual method of responding without
studying it and telling me I'm wrong anyway and then claim
in a future message that Matt 23:39 defeats my belief system.
Your choice. :) But don't pretend to be interested.
Most people think that Matthew 23:39 somehow proves that
national Israel is to be saved at some future date and point to
it whenever they are shown when Jesus said He would return
and the Apostles as well, which was stated to be imminent by
them and within that same generation, by Jesus.
So it seems to me, that to point to Matt 23:39 in that manner,
is to pit the Bible against itself.
And take a look at what Jesus said would be the event that
showed that "all things written" would be fulfilled and please,
READ CAREFULLY and also note that He never said it was
about the whole planet. Just Jerusalem and Judea.
Luke 21:20-22
20) But when you see JERUSALEM surrounded by armies,
then know that ITS desolation is near.
21) Then let those who are IN JUDEA flee to the mountains,
let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not
those who are in the country enter her.
22) For *THESE* are the days of vengeance, that ALL THINGS
which are WRITTEN may BE FULFILLED.
Jesus made it clear that Israel's salvation would come through
eschatological change and not national restoration. And note
that He didn't say;
"But don't worry, because you'll then be a nation again
and set up another temple".
Why would God want that? He's the one who took the temple
out of the way!
And I know people want to quote Acts 1:6-7, but if you're not
understanding Matt 23:39, then maybe you're misunderstanding
that Scripture as well and Jesus did not say "national Israel with
a land based kingdom". That is you adding that from doctrine.
I will also note the view of Toussaint, since he is a popular name
amongst those who support the idea of the national restoration
of Israel.
Anyway, let's us begin by noting that if we are going to discuss
this subject, it is important to read it in its context, which I will
now quote.
Matthew 23:29-39
20) Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
For you build the tombs of the prophets, and adorn
the tombs of the righteous.
30) And you say, If we had been in the days of our
fathers, we would not have been partakers with them
in the blood of the prophets.
31) So you witness to yourselves that you are the sons
of those who murdered the prophets.
32) And you fill up the measure of your fathers.
33) Serpents! Offspring of vipers! How shall you escape
the judgment of Hell?!
34) Because of this, behold, I send to you prophets and
wise ones and scribes. And some of them you will kill and
crucify and some of them you will flog in your synagogues
and will persecute from city to city;
35) so that should come on you all the righteous blood
poured out on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel
to the blood of Zechariah the son of Berechiah, whom you
murdered between the Holy Place and the altar!
36) Truly I say to you, All these things will come on THIS GENERATION!
37) Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one killing the prophets and stoning
those sent to her. How often I desired to gather your children in
the way a bird gathers her chicks under her wings and you did not
desire it!
38) Behold, YOUR HOUSE is left to you desolate!
39) For I say to you, In no way shall you see Me from now on,
until you say, Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!
Many have a picture of v39 meaning some future point of
the national restoration of Israel. I would suggest that this
is a view which ignores the text and not one which is within
the context of the text.
Contrary to what people in these groups try to pretend is
reality, there isn't really any argument amongst the various
eschatological views, that in Matthew 23:29-38, the Lord
Jesus Christ was predicting the fall of Jerusalem in His
generation. It is interesting to note that the premillennialists
who normally redefine the term "this generation" in Matt 24:34
freely acknowledge that "this generation" in 23:36 means Jesus'
generation and not the "Jewish race", or some future generation.
But when it comes to v39, many are confused as to exactly how
that could play into that context.
According to Plummer, there are three major interpretations
of the point of time indicated by Jesus' words:
1) The cries of the multitude on Palm Sunday
(Luke 19:38; Mat. 21:9).
2) The Second Advent (involving the conversion of the Jews).
3) The conversion of the Jews throughout all time.
Due to space, I will not go into trying to argue all three
of these points.
Rather, I will present a construction that I believe will show
the Preterist position to be the best and one that does not
force us to try to rip v39 out of the conversation that Jesus
had there.
And let us bear in mind, that the discussion in ch 23 & 24
are together. He says what He says in the temple and then
they walk up the mount and it is what He said in the temple,
that causes the disciples to be so astonished and point out
the temple buildings and ask Him the questions they did
and keeping this in mind, it is obvious that they associated
His return (of which they only preached one), with the total
destruction of the temple and not some "World War".
And we have to first note some of the history involved,
as it will be of extreme importance in understanding
this verse!
As I have said, it is absolutely impossible to understand
the Scriptures, without knowing the people and how
they ate/slept/spoke/though/lived and the times and
what was important to them in their religion(s), etc.!
And we must have a very strong, working knowledge
of the Old Testament Scriptures, or we simply cannot
understand the New Testament Scriptures, since the
entire context of the New Testament Scriptures is that
they are the revealing and expounding upon the
Old Testament Scriptures!
I know that most of you reject this idea that we have
to know this stuff to understand the Scriptures, but let
us be honest here. You say that because you're too
lazy to get to know them.
And ask yourself this one question...
"How can I claim that I understand the Scriptures,
if I don't even know what all of them they say and
I haven't even read all of them?"
Now you just think about that, okay? :)
Anyway...
First of all, we must understand that Matthew 23:39 is a quote
of Psalm 118:26, which is part of the "Song of Ascent", or a
"Song of Degrees" and not just some words that Jesus said
to make them feel good. This was not at all about them being
blessed by being saved nationally by His return, but about
when it would happen and He was quoting a Psalm.
In other words, this was no a statement about "how"
it would happen folks, but "when" it would happen!
And what few realize, is the historical significance of the fact
that it is a quote of this Psalm an of what this Psalm signifies!
The Psalm was sung to pilgrims, by the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
as the travelers approached the city of Jerusalem to observe one
of the three sacred feast days of the Jewish Calendar. Remember,
(see further down) all Jewish males had to travel to Jerusalem
three times a year for these highest of Holy Days!
It was what was called, "an antiphonal hymn" and was for joyful
occasions, when there was to be a procession to the Temple,
a welcoming of the procession by those inside and the solemn
offering of a sacrifice upon the altar there. It has connections
with the great pilgrim feasts of Judaism, but especially the
"Feast of Tabernacles". Psalm 118, especially v26, was a song
that was especially associated with the three great feast days
of Israel. So let's take a quick look at them and see how they
tie in to this.
This part will be a little boring, but as I said, it is indeed
absolutely necessary for understanding this subject!
The Jews had three major "pilgrimage" feasts. There was
three times a year when every Jewish male that was of age
was required by Mosaic mandate to travel to Jerusalem and
worship the Lord (Exodus 23:17). Those feasts are sometimes
called by different names, but they are generally known as
Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles. Passover is also known
as the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Technically, the Feast of
Unleavened Bread began on the day after Passover, but was
so linked with it that the terms were many times used
interchangeably. Pentecost is the Feast of First fruits, and
the Feast of Tabernacles is also called the Feast of Booths
and the Feast of In-Gathering (Exod 23:14; Lev 23).
The Feast of Passover began the Jewish Calendar and lasted
for seven days (Exod 12; Lev 23:4-8). The Feast of Pentecost,
or First fruits, was almost two months later (50 days - Lev 23:15).
The seventh month of the Jewish Calendar was especially
important, since on the first day of that month, was the
Feast of Trumpets.
On the 10th day was the Day of Atonement, the most
Holy Day of the year!
On the 15th day was the beginning of the Feast of Tabernacles.
This Feast actually lasted for 7 days (Lev 23:33).
The Jewish Calendar, as shown, had a significant number
of days dedicated to worship High Days. In all, counting
the 49 day interim between Passover and Pentecost, since
normally that was almost considered as part of the Festival
complex, the time involved in the Feasts involved two full
months.
So what is the point to going over all of this?
Remember, it was Psalms 118 that was sung to the pilgrims as
they approached the city of Jerusalem to observe these feasts.
Thus on three different occasions, once at the beginning of
the year, once almost two months later and again in the seventh
month, Psalm 118:26 would be heard throughout the streets of
Jerusalem: โBlessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!โ.
Now let's make the connection with Matthew 23:39. :)
As I already noted, there is little controversy among commentators
that Jesus, in Matthew 23:29-38, predicted the judgment on
Jerusalem in A.D. 70. But these same commentators believe that
v39 somehow strikes a dissonant cord to that message of doom,
offering instead a "silver lining" to the dark cloud of pronounced
judgment. They say that in this verse, "The Lord Jesus said Israel
would not see Him again until that nation affirmed (in repentance),
that He was indeed the Messiah!".
I do not however, believe that! Surprised? <lol!> :)
Verse 39 was a statement of Jesus predicting the time of His
coming in judgment against Israel. It is very clear that the
point of Jesus' statement in verse 39 is when he would come:
"you will not see me again until you say". Many agree with
this assessment and link this verse to a yet future conversion
of the Jews at the end of the age, citing Romans 11:26.
But this position ignores several facts.
First, many would quote the following passages from Romans:
Romans 11:25-26a
25) For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant
of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits;
that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness
of the Gentiles be come in.
26a) And so all Israel shall be saved.
Now at first glance, given how we are trained to read it,
it seems as if what is believed today, is right. That God
saves part of Israel, then some Gentiles, then goes back
and saves all of national Israel. But given what we read
from Galatians, I would here suggest a different way of
reading it.
It is usually read as follows...
1) It says "in part" and so, some Jews are saved.
2) Then a certain number of Gentiles are brought in.
3) Then God goes back and saves all of national Israel.
But that doesn't really make any sense. Especially given
that in the same letter, on the same subject, Paul uses
the example from the Old Testament about a "remnant",
to explain to them (in the 1st century that he wrote to)
that it would be a remnant that would be saved. And
so the question becomes; What does Paul mean by
"all Israel"? Is it "national Israel"? Or is it the "Israel
that has the circumcision of the heart, because he is
a Jew who is one inwardly"? That is the key here,
isn't it? And doesn't Galatians teach us that it isn't
(wouldn't be) by national heritage, but by faith?
And note that it does not say, "and THEN all Israel...",
which would indeed note a time line (this happens,
then that happens).
But rather, it says, "and SO all Israel...", which does
not note any such time line and merely means,
"and this manner...", or "and in this way...".
That word "so" from the Greek, means "in this manner".
In other words, it is saying that some Jews would be saved,
then the fulness of the Gentiles (whatever that amount was)
would come in and IN THAT MANNER, all Israel would be
saved!
That is what it actually says! And isn't what it actually says,
what is important here???
So try reading it with that in mind...
1) Many Jews were saved (the first century church
started out Jewish and was almost exclusively
Jewish for the first 3 1/2 years after Pentecost).
Many, but not most. A "remnant", as Paul said.
2) Israel was blinded, but only in part, so that the
Gentiles could be brought in (this is when the
Apostle Paul shook the dust off of him at the Jews
and went to the Gentiles and became the Apostle
to the Gentiles). So some Jews were still being
saved, while the fullness of the Gentiles was being
brought in.
3) Once the fullness of the Gentiles was brought in,
"in this manner" "all Israel" was "saved".
Some Jews are saved and some Gentiles are saved.
And "IN THIS MANNER", "all Israel", *IS* saved.
That is what it actually says! So we can choose to believe
what it actually says, or to believe our doctrine, knowing
that it doesn't say what our doctrine says. Most choose,
unfortunately, the latter, because they want to extend
the time line out to today, which they do by claiming that
it couldn't have been fulfilled, because it hasn't happened
yet that all of national Israel has been saved. But of course,
since it doesn't say that's what would happen, there is no
real reason to extend it out and they simply won't let go
of their doctrine for that very reason!
But it is, "the Israel of God", "the bride of the Lamb",
which is "the church", is it not?
Have we not read that "there is neither Jew, nor Gentile"
in Christ? How can that be true, if God is preferencing
national Israel? That simply does not make sense!
We must stop taking passages out of context, for it is then
that they do not read as they were meant. Looking in
THE SAME LETTER, we can see that Paul discounted the
idea of "national Israel" as being what he was talking about.
"For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel."
- Romans 9:6b
Now how can it be that God is going to save national Israel,
when the Scriptures tell us that not everyone who is born
into national Israel, is of Israel? Therefore, even though
at points nationality is discussed in Scripture, it cannot be
"national Israel" that was being discussed as being saved
in these passages here (some of it would be, as Paul said).
How does a people get saved by rejecting Christ?
Do you not see that when this claim is made, that by default,
one is claiming that it is circumcision that is the key and not
faith in Christ, because it ends up saying that God is going
to save national Israel, regardless if they believe or not and
btw, as a side note, that also fries the "free will" belief,
if you have one. :)
But doesn't Paul also say that "circumcision avails nothing"
and call the Galatians "foolish" for thinking that as Jews,
they must also observe the Law? And while Dispensationalists
would agree with that (in Galatians), they also claim that
there will come a time when Jews will have their own way
to God, apart from Christ and that way will be through
the Law, even though Christ said (and said it to Jews)
that NO ONE comes to the Father, except through Him!
How can that be, if it is about being born Jewish? How can
it be that "circumcision avails nothing" and that "they are
not all Israel, which are of Israel" and that "no one comes
to the Father, but through Christ", if it is all about their
(the Jews') national heritage and that is what will save them?!
Let us read it again, with Romans 9:6b in mind...
"For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel."
- Romans 9:6b
"For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant
of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion,
that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness
of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved"
- Romans 11:25-26a
The "shall be" is not future tense from the point of time after
the fullness of the Gentiles came in. It was future tense to
the point in time that Paul was writing it and present tense
to the point in time that the fullness of the Gentiles had
come in.
And now we can see that it reads quite differently.
Unless of course, you do think that God was acting
in a non-sensical manner? Surely not, right? :)
"Come, let us REASON TOGETHER, saith the Lord."
Paul is saying that some Jews are saved and some Gentiles
are saved and once the fullness of the Gentiles had come in,
AT THAT POINT, "all Israel shall be saved".
"AND SO all Israel shall be saved."
"AND IN THIS MANNER all Israel shall be saved."
And also, Paul, in Romans 9:28, places the predicted
salvation of Israel within an imminent time frame,
actually linking it to his personal ministry in 11:25
and 15:16. This cannot be ignored!
The Futurist claim would also ignore the fact that Israel's
salvation would come at the time of Israel's judgment.
See Isaiah 2-4; 64-66; Zechariah 12-14, etc..
In other words, Israel would be saved by judgment, not
from judgment! Israel would be saved by eschatological
transformation, not national restoration!
Some suggest that Zechariah 12-14 must speak of the time
of Israelโs repentance and conversion. They stress the fountain
opened for taking away Israelโs sins, insisting that this must
refer to her repentance and conversion. However, chap 13
describes the judgment that would fall on her and it was a
judgment that would destroy โtwo thirds of the people" (13:8).
Further, chapter 14 very clearly states the destruction of
Jerusalem in the Day of the Lord.
Third, it ignores the fact that the New Testament writers
indisputably taught that they were living in the last days,
in the end of the age (1 Cor 10:10-11; Heb 1:1-2; 9:26,
1 Peter 1:5-7, 18-20).
It is a doubtful hermeneutic that denies this and extends
the last days for a period of two thousand years... SO FAR!
But again, the point of Jesus' prediction in Matt 23:39 is
the timing of His Parousia. The purpose of His return in
this context is judgment and Jesus never once said there,
"And when I return the second time", nor did the Apostles
ever write, "And when Jesus comes back for the second time.",
so the Futurist view of multiple returns is wrong!
Jesus stated one return and the Apostles stated one return
for Him and any separation of "His return" events is nothing
more than Futurists adding those time separations in there!
Jesus' return involved judgment and He Himself limited that
judgment to the Jews and placed it not world wide, but in
Jerusalem and Judea (Matt 21:33-46; Luke 21:20-22, et al).
When would he come in judgment? Within that same generation
(Matt 24:34/Luke 21:32) and at the time when they would be
singing the Song of Degrees (Psalm 118:26)!
Jesus was saying he would return in the judgment He had
just pronounced during one of the three Feast Days of Israel,
which is when they would be singing that Song!
Do you get it now?! Jesus was not saying...
"All national Jews must be signing praise to Me
before I can return."
He was telling them that His return would be during one of
the days that they sang that Feast Song!
But is this what really happened?
Anyone familiar at all with Josephus knows this to be true.
In the Works of Josephus, Book 6, chapter 9, par 3, he says...
"Now the number of those that were carried captive during
this whole war was collected to be ninety seven thousand;
as was the number of those that perished during the whole
siege eleven hundred thousand, the greater part of whom
were indeed of the same nation (with the citizens of Jerusalem),
but not belonging to the city itself; for they were come up
from all the country to the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and
were on a sudden shut up by an army." (see Jesus' statement
that no one should be allowed to enter the city, in Luke 21:21).
Thus, Josephus confirms that the siege of Jerusalem began
at the time of one of the three major feast days, one of the
distinctive times when Psalm 118:26 would indeed be sung
("blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord") and
thus Jesus came when the city would be full of those who
rejected Him and judgment would fall not upon but a few,
but upon all of them; a great number!
Remember, it was the males 20 and over who were considered
ready or war and during these three feast days, ALL males of
the right age and above HAD to go to Jerusalem for those feasts!
So that was the perfect time for Jesus to execute judgment
on the people, just as it also says in Matt 21:33-46 and in
Luke 21:20-22! They just did not know which one!
Someone might object that such a prediction by Jesus limiting
His coming to one of the feast days would be the same as
predicting "the day and the hour" of His coming. But that's
not the case at all. In Matthew 24 Jesus predicted His coming
within that generation (vs29-34). He even gave some signs
(v14-15), so that, "when you see all these things then know
that it is near even at the doors" (v33). They could know by
these signs that his coming was near; "but of that day and hour
knoweth no man" (v36). Knowing something is near, that it
is even to be in your generation, does not tell you the day or
the hour of its occurrence! And that is all Jesus said. That
they wouldn't know which DAY, nor which HOUR of that day!
The Futurists like to claim that means, "No one will have any
idea at all when", but that is also adding to what Jesus said!
And speaking of what Jesus said, remember that He warned
His disciples to flee when they saw this coming.
And interestingly enough, the believers there did flee to
a town called Pella, when the siege was at a pause. The
Roman army built up against the city (after having gone
through Judea) and then paused and waited (I won't
go into why here, so that this message doesn't become
even longer) and that's when the Christians fled, just as
Jesus told them to! :)
Anyway... :)
Considering the span of time involved in the feast days of
the Jews it would hardly be possible for anyone to calculate
the day or the hour of Jesus' coming. After all, literally months
were spanned in these feasts, both at the first of the year and
in the seventh month.
If I were to tell you that I was going to come to your house
next year for sure and that it would be at one of the national
holidays, could you predict the specific day and hour I would
arrive? Certainly not! Just so, when Jesus pronounced
judgment against Israel in Matthew 23:29-38 and then in
a somewhat puzzling manner, stated that this would occur
on one of the occasions when they would be singing the
Hallel Hymn of Psalm 118, He was not specifying the day
and hour of His coming.
This view of Matthew 23:39 is consistent with the context.
It prevents us from interjecting into the context some idea
that has not been previously mentioned or hinted at.
I.e. the national conversion of the Jewish nation. But not
only is this view consistent with the context, it becomes
very significant for helping us understand the disciples'
question in Matthew 24 and shows the Futurist view of
Jewish national salvation to be a false system of belief,
especially since they were to be slaughtered, not saved!
Those saved, were those who believed and those who
still rejected Him, died then at there!
So let's look at their question a bit and see how this helps us
to understand this passage.
Jesus' disciples heard his prediction of coming judgment.
As they were leaving the Temple they began to show Him
the incredible stones of the Temple. Many commentators
believe they were pointing out its beauty to him and this is
certainly not unreasonable. But is it not just as reasonable
and in context, to believe that they, after just overhearing
him predict judgment on this structure, were pointing out
its size and invulnerability as well? But whether beauty or
its structure was their focus, the point remains the same
and must not be ignored!
The disciples were pointing to the Temple in immediate response
to Jesus' prediction to come in judgment against it, since their
conversation with Him in Matthew 24 took place immediately
after they heard what He said to the scribes and Pharisees in
the Temple, in Matthew 23 and judgment is what He just
predicted against the Temple (Mat 23:37-38)!
Now since, as we have already seen, it is widely agreed that
Matthew 23 is a prediction of Jesus' coming in judgment on
Israel in that generation, where is the justification for anyone
changing from that and insisting that in 24:2 the disciples were
asking about some "end of time" coming of Jesus as Futurists
today define it?
And again, isn't that to say that Jesus comes more than once,
while claiming to be waiting for His Second Coming?
Those who know about 70 AD cannot deny that it was indeed
the Lord who returned in judgment against them then. And
as I said, interestingly enough, some of the priests in Jerusalem
during the siege were heard to cry; "The son cometh!".
So where did Jesus preach that He would return more than once?
He didn't! Not once did He, nor the Apostles say that!!!
And all Rabbis agree that Biblical Judaism ended in 70 AD!
And if one accepts what I have presented regarding v39, then this
argument becomes even stronger. In other words, if the disciples
understood Jesus in Matt 23:39 to be speaking of his coming in
judgment against Jerusalem, then the most natural and unforced
interpretation of their question in 24:2 is that they were asking
for more information about what Jesus has just predicted.
Matt 24:2 simply cannot contextually be viewed as "New News"
to the disciples! Jesus has already pronounced coming judgment
in chap 23. Chap 24:3 should therefore be viewed as an inquiry
for more information. They wanted more information on when it
would happen ("When shall these things be?") and the signs that
would be precursory to the event ("What shall be the sign of Your
coming?").
And we need to bear in mind, that in Matt 24:3, when some
translations say, "end of the world", they are in error since
the Greek word there is "aion", which means, "an age".
The Greek word for the planet Earth, is "kosmos" (Mat 13:35).
Yet in spite of this it is common to read in the commentaries:
"Naturally, the disciples considered these three events
(the fall of Jerusalem, the end of the world and the
final coming of Jesus), but in this they were mistaken."
Huh? They were "mistaken" for thinking of the Second Coming?
And this from people who claim to trust God's word?!
And isn't that what more than one Futurist in these news groups
have been trying to convince us of?
Besides the fact that this statement assumes without proof the
end of material creation at the end of time, it falsely charges
the disciples with misunderstanding a subject that inspiration
specifically says that they understood!
We well understand that the disciples did not, far too often,
comprehend Jesus' teaching. But, the only way we know
they misunderstood is because the inspired record tells us
they did. Just where in Matthew 23-24 are we informed
of the disciples' misunderstanding of the subject at hand?
There is no indication at all! The fact is we are plainly told
that they DID understand!
In Matthew 13, Jesus told three parables about the end of the age
and about the Kingdom. In v51, Jesus specifically asked them;
"Have you understood all these things?". Their response was
"Yes, Lord.".
Now, did they lie? Or were they too embarrassed to admit
confusion? If so, where is the indication of that being the
case, given the fact that Scripture always tells us when they
were confused?
What is so significant about this? Simple. It is because one of
the parables has a direct impact on our understanding of Matt 24!
The parable of the Tares in Matthew 13 tells of the coming of
the Son of Man with the angels to gather the elect and cast out
the tares at the end of the age (v 37). Jesus says at that time
would be when "the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the
kingdom" (v 43). This is a direct quote from Daniel 12:3.
Daniel 12 deals with the Great Tribulation (v 1), the "time of
the end" (v 4) and the Abomination of Desolation (vs 9-11).
Jesus directly alludes to Daniel 12 in Matthew 24:15 and 21
and the disciple's question about the end of the age is grounded
in Daniel 12 as well.
Now watch this! :)
In Daniel 12 the prophet overheard one angel ask another when
all these things would be fulfilled and was told that "when the
power of the holy people has been completely shattered all these
things will be fulfilled" (v 7).
The disciples were well aware of Daniel 12 and its prediction
of judgment on Israel. Jesus quoted Daniel 12 and applied it
to His coming at the end of the age (Matthew 13). He quoted
Daniel 12 no less than twice in his prediction of Jerusalem's
fall in Matthew 24, thereby, as I said, applying it to that time!
So how can Daniel 12 have yet to be fulfilled?!
Jesus asked them if they understood and what did they say?
They said, "Yes!".
Therefore, unless the disciples lied to Jesus, then they did
understand from Daniel and Jesus' teaching in Matthew 13
that His coming would be at the end of the age judgment
on Israel!
Did they lose their understanding in Matthew 24?
Had they become confused since Jesus spoke His words
of Matthew 13?
I don't think so! :)
When we look at it in this light, the questions of the disciples
in Matthew 24 are perfectly consistent with the context of...
1) Matthew 23.
2) The earlier teaching of Matthew 13.
3) The prophetic background of Daniel 12.
The disciples had heard Jesus predict Jerusalem's judgment.
They were familiar with the prophecies of its fall at the end
of the age, and were now inquiring for more information
about when it would happen and the signs to signify its
approach. Any other interpretation of the questions accuses
the disciples of lying, terribly bad memory, or confusion at
the very least.
Toussaint, a Dispensationalist, says in his commentary that
the disciples correctly linked Jesusโ prediction of Jerusalemโs
demise with the end of the age and his parousia. He says;
"To them (the disciples), the destruction of Jerusalem,
the coming of the Messiah and the end of the age
comprised one complex of events.โ
Toussaint even says that when Jesus spoke of the destruction
of Jerusalem, โthey (the disciples), would logically call to
remembrance Zechariah 14, for those elements are all brought
together in that Old Testament prophecyโ.
I agree! :) And I would state that the disciples were correct
to associate the fall of Jerusalem with the end of the age!
Now, since Toussaint concurs that Jerusalem fell in that first
century generation, and since it was logical for the disciples
to associate that event with the end of the age, it follows
that the end of the age did come with the fall of Jerusalem
in A.D. 70.. There is no justification to suggest, as does
Toussaint, that Jesusโ generation would see only the beginning
of the fulfillment. To suggest that the fall of Jerusalem was
only the beginning of the end, that is, the time when the
signs of the end would begin to occur, stretches the period
of fulfillment beyond where Jesus unmistakably placed it.
Speaking of the coming destruction on Jerusalem, Jesus said;
โThese be the days of vengeance in which all things that
are written must be fulfilled (Luke 21:22).
The fall of Jerusalem was the time of fulfillment, not the time
of beginning!
There is therefore, only one coming in the context of Matt 23-24.
Even Toussaint agrees that the disciples were not confused to
associate the fall of Jerusalem with the end of the age, although
of course, he extends the end of the age, so far by 2,000 years.
Naturally such a gap between the sign, Jerusalemโs fall and what
it signified (the end of the age), is totally and completely lost
in such a huge gap!
After hearing Jesus' awesome words in 23:29, the disciples
naturally wanted to know more and thus the questions of
Matthew 24:3. Unless of course, one can demonstrate that...
1) The coming of 23:39 is not the judgment coming of
the previous verses.
And..
2) That the coming of v 39 is therefore, a reference to
national Jewish conversion.
It seems therefore, unavoidable that v39 is indeed a reference
to the A.D. 70 coming of Jesus in judgment against Israel.
This also provides the context for identifying the coming in
24:3. This means that if the coming of 24:3 is the coming
of 23:39 and if the coming of 23:39 is A.D. 70, then there
is no basis at all for postulating an "end of time" coming
in Matthew 24.
A final thought here.
Many Dispensationalists insist that in Luke 21:28,
when Jesus promised โwhen you see these things
come to pass, lift up your heads, for your redemption
draws nighโ, that this is a reference to the national
conversion and salvation of Israel.
This is a clear cut failure to honor the language and
context. Jesus was speaking to his personal disciples,
and promising them that they will suffer persecution
at the hands of the Jews (โthey will deliver you to
synagoguesโ v12), just as he had told the Jews in
chapter 23 that they would persecute his disciples.
Jesus was not speaking of the Jewish nation under
attack. He was speaking of his disciples, those who
became the church, the True Israel! This distinction,
established by simply honoring the pronouns, is,
in actuality, devastating to the literal, 1,000 year
millennial view!
And also, as a result of this persecution, Israel would
bear the brunt of Godโs wrath, for He would bring
the Abomination of Desolation and final judgment
on Israel.
It is tragic that Dispensationalists seem not to
realize that the Abomination of Desolation can
ONLY be seen as a judgment on Israel for violating
the everlasting covenant and in fact, for persecuting
the church!
Jesus tells the scribes and Pharisees that they will
persecute those He sends and then tells the disciples
that they will be persecuted and yet, Jesus was
talking about an age with a national restoration
of Israel and was talking about an unbelieving
national Israel being persecuted in some war?
HUH?!?!?! (:
It is interesting to note that Toussaint does state;
โDispensationalists and Preterists agree that the
destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 was Godโs
judgment on Israel.โ.
WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THIS VERY SIMPLE TRUTH!!!
Jehovah never allowed, nor caused Israel to be attacked
and pillaged, unless she had violated the covenant!!!
See Psalms 41:11.
To suggest that the Abomination would be a horrible
act of desecration placed on the โinnocentโ nation,
by a traitorous Man of Sin, COMPLETELY IGNORES
the covenantal nature of any and all attacks and
desecrations against Israelโs land, city and Temple!
To put it simply, if Israel was attacked and her city
and Temple conquered or desecrated, it was PROOF
POSITIVE that it was in violation of the covenant!
It cannot be a nationally restored Israel and certainly
not a believing, saved Israel that is being attacked
here! It MUST BE an Israel IN VIOLATION of
God's Covenant!
Another point that must be brought to bear here,
is the fact that even the "literal 1,000 year"
millennialists claim that the Mosaic Covenant
has been forever fulfilled and removed in Christ.
Yet, they then appeal to Deuteronomy 30 and
other Old Testament passages, as proof texts,
to support a future restoration. This is a logical
contradiction!
You cannot say that the Old Covenant has been
forever removed, and then appeal to the Old Covenant
to support the idea of a future restoration of Israel!
If the old system has been removed in the judgment,
which is what 70 AD was all about and is all that
Jesus mentioned, then it cannot be that the texts
are supporting a NATIONAL RESTORATION,
but rather, a spiritual fulfillment (see Heb 12:22)
in Christ! Especially considering that as pointed
out earlier, their salvation comes at the time of
their destruction!
Since the Abomination of Desolation must be seen
as a judgment from God on Israel, according to the
Mosaic Covenant, it is prima fascia evident that the
Abomination of Desolation had to occur while the
Mosaic Covenant was still standing. The point is,
that in the context of the redemption promised in
Luke, it has to refer, not to the nation of Israel
and a national repentance and conversion.
Jesus was speaking to his followers about what would
befall them at the hands of Old Covenant Israel and
then, what would befall Old Covenant Israel for her
persecution of His disciples. Jesus was not speaking
to, nor about Old Covenant Israel when he said,
โwhen you see all of these things come to pass, your
redemption draws nigh.โ. He was speaking to those
who followed Him in faith!
So we have seen that identifying the context and
background of the Song of Ascent in Matthew 23:39
is helpful in properly interpreting the entire Olivet
Discourse.
The interpretation provided here, avoids the pitfalls
of introducing unprecedented subject matter into
the actual context and it is consistent with the
context of judgment in Matthew 23.
Just as in chapter 24, Jesus foretold the fact of His
coming and the general time of its occurrence. He
had already given the scene of His coming in judgment
and a statement as to the time for its happening.
Jesus would come in judgment against Jerusalem.
He would come on one of the Holy Days of the year,
when they would be singing, "Blessed is he who comes
in the name of the Lord". And this is exactly what
happened! And when we look at when the events
happened in 70 AD, we will see what Holy Day
was taking place! In fact, Josephus told us. The
Passover Lamb returned in judgment against Israel,
during Passover. :)
Thus, in spite of the Dispensationalist's objections,
Matthew 23:39 presents no difficulty for the Preterist
view. Rather, it confirms the true Preterist view!
And let us not forget, as far as Daniel 12, which Jesus
referenced in Matthew 24, He also said in Luke 21,
that when this event occurred (Jerusalem surrounded,
which meant their desolation was about to happen),
that "ALL THINGS" written were fulfilled. Read it
for yourself. :)
And Daniel was "written" and therefore, could not
possibly be left unfulfilled, or Jesus lied. (:
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34
So make your choice. Believe Jesus, or believe
your Futurist doctrine.
***************************************************
I hope this helped. :) And I hope you can see that it
makes more sense in the context that I gave.
--
Pastor Dave
The best Bible software: http://www.theword.net/ is free!
"Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place,
but far more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing
at the tempting moment." - Benjamin Franklin
Jon Net
> People sometimes ask me about Matthew 23:39, as if it
> somehow defeats my belief system
It's obvious neither the resurrection nor rapture has occurred
yet, and that the Bible teaches both will when Christ returns (1
Cor. 15; 1 Thess. 4:13-18). Your attempts to explain them away
with 1,000 line filibusters defeats your credibility and belief
system.
Glory to God
> in a certain way, then you'll never see it any other way.
Which is why you see passages of Scripture plainly telling you
there will be a resurrection and rapture when Christ returns (1
Cor. 15; 1 Thess. 4:13-18), then deny it and try to explain it away.
Linda Lee
And fake pastor Dave failed to explain the main point and title
(Matthew 23:39 - Until you say; "Blessed is He who comes...") of his
post.
Dave cannot explain Matt. 23:39, which the Messiah said AFTER he had
already been greeted with blessings by a great many Jews when he
entered into Jerusalem (Matt. 21:9).
Matt. 21:9 "And the multitudes that went before, and that followed,
cried, saying, Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed is he that cometh
in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest."
AFTERWARDS:
Matt. 23:39 "For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till
ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord."
Linda Lee
If you quote the Scriptures to Dave to show him his errors, he always
calls it 'pitting scripture against scripture'. He only recognizes
scripture that doesn't obviously negate his Preterist heresy; the rest
he ignores.
bear
Pastor Dave
> Pastor Dave wrote:
>
>> People sometimes ask me about Matthew 23:39, as if it
>> somehow defeats my belief system
>
> It's obvious neither the resurrection nor rapture has occurred
You mean because you said so, right?
What is obvious, is that it has not happened
as Futilists interpret it as to how it happens.
Now goodbye and don't think I don't know
who you are. <chuckle>
--
Pastor Dave
The best Bible software: http://www.theword.net/ is free!
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against
common sense is the key to an understanding of the real
struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the
side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of
its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of
its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of
the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated
just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment
to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions
of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation
of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are
forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create
an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce
material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter
how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism
is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
- Richard Lewontin
Pastor Dave
<lindag...@juno.com> spake thusly:
>On Apr 26, 5:37ย pm, Jon Net <jon...@errpiupiou.org> wrote:
>
>> On 4/26/2011 6:53 AM, Pastor Dave wrote:
>>
>> > People sometimes ask me about Matthew 23:39, as if it
>> > somehow defeats my belief system
>>
>> It's obvious neither the resurrection nor rapture has occurred
>> yet, and that the Bible teaches both will when Christ returns (1
>> Cor. 15; 1 Thess. 4:13-18). Your attempts to explain them away
>> with 1,000 line filibusters defeats your credibility and belief
>> system.
>
>And fake pastor Dave failed to explain the main point and title
>(Matthew 23:39 - Until you say; "Blessed is He who comes...") of his
>post.
I cannot help that you are unable to comprehend
what was gone over in detail.
--
Pastor Dave
The best Bible software: http://www.theword.net/ is free!
"The ability to hold two contradictory ideas at the same time
is genius." - Chief Pope (from the TV show, "The Closer")
Pastor Dave
<lindag...@juno.com> spake thusly:
Note folks, this is all they have in response.
Snip and deny. That's all you'll see.
--
Pastor Dave
The best Bible software: http://www.theword.net/ is free!
Bathroom Fact: Most toilets flush in the key of E-Flat.
Just Another Critic
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 16:37:16 -0500, Jon Net<jon...@errpiupiou.org>
> spake thusly:
>
>> Pastor Dave wrote:
>>
>>> People sometimes ask me about Matthew 23:39, as if it
>>> somehow defeats my belief system
>>
>> It's obvious neither the resurrection nor rapture has occurred
>
> You mean because you said so, right?
no dense one, because there are bodies still in the ground,
and because not every living person has seen Christ return,
nor has Armageddon become a reality.
>
> What is obvious, is that it has not happened
> as Futilists interpret it as to how it happens.
>
> Now goodbye and don't think I don't know
> who you are.<chuckle>
>
And if you do, what then ?
Linda Lee
wrote:
> People sometimes ask me about Matthew 23:39, as if it
> somehow defeats my belief system
> First of all, we must understand that Matthew 23:39 is a quote
> of Psalm 118:26, which is part of the "Song of Ascent", or a
> "Song of Degrees" and not just some words that Jesus said
> to make them feel good. ย This was not at all about them being
> blessed by being saved nationally by His return, but about
> when it would happen and He was quoting a Psalm.
>
> In other words, this was no a statement about "how"
> it would happen folks, but "when" it would happen!
>
> And what few realize, is the historical significance of the fact
> that it is a quote of this Psalm an of what this Psalm signifies!
Psa. 118:26 is related to (and fulfilled by) Luke 19:38.
Psa. 118:26, "Blessed be he that cometh in the name of the LORD: we
have blessed you out of the house of the LORD".
Luk 19:37 And when he was come nigh, even now at the descent of the
mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice
and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they
had seen;
Luk 19:38 Saying, Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the
Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest.
> On the 10th day was the Day ...
>
> read more ยป
Fred Blank
> spake thusly:
>
>> > Pastor Dave wrote:
>> >
>>> >> People sometimes ask me about Matthew 23:39, as if it
>>> >> somehow defeats my belief system
>> >
>> > It's obvious neither the resurrection nor rapture has occurred
> You mean because you said so, right?
I cited the reference. 1 Cor. 15 & 1 Thess. 4:13-18. They teach
that when Christ returns, the church will be caught up to meet
the Lord in the clouds and the dead in Christ will rise. That
didn't happen in A.D. 70, and hasn't happened at any time since.
All you can do is post 1,000 line filibusters trying to explain
away what those passages say.
<chuckle>
Fred Blank
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 15:06:42 -0700 (PDT), Linda Lee
> <lindag...@juno.com> spake thusly:
>
>
>> >On Apr 26, 5:40 pm, Glory to God<gloryto...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>> >> On 4/26/2011 6:53 AM, Pastor Dave wrote:
>>> >>
>>>> >> > if you're trained to read something
>>>> >> > in a certain way, then you'll never see it any other way.
>>> >>
>>> >> Which is why you see passages of Scripture plainly telling you
>>> >> there will be a resurrection and rapture when Christ returns (1
>>> >> Cor. 15; 1 Thess. 4:13-18), then deny it and try to explain it away.
>> >
>> >
>> >If you quote the Scriptures to Dave to show him his errors, he always
>> >calls it 'pitting scripture against scripture'. He only recognizes
>> >scripture that doesn't obviously negate his Preterist heresy; the rest
>> >he ignores.
> Note folks, this is all they have in response.
> Snip and deny. That's all you'll see.
Snip and deny is what you do to 1 Corinthians 15 and 1
Thessalonians 4:13-18. But you MUST, since it's obvious the
resurrection and rapture they say will occur when Christ returns,
did not happen in A.D. 70, or at any time since.
Pastor Dave
<lindag...@juno.com> spake thusly:
>On Apr 26, 7:53ย am, Pastor Dave <newsgroup-mail @ tampabay.rr.com>
>wrote:
>
>> People sometimes ask me about Matthew 23:39, as if it
>> somehow defeats my belief system
>
>
>> First of all, we must understand that Matthew 23:39 is a quote
>> of Psalm 118:26, which is part of the "Song of Ascent", or a
>> "Song of Degrees" and not just some words that Jesus said
>> to make them feel good. ย This was not at all about them being
>> blessed by being saved nationally by His return, but about
>> when it would happen and He was quoting a Psalm.
>>
>> In other words, this was no a statement about "how"
>> it would happen folks, but "when" it would happen!
>>
>> And what few realize, is the historical significance of the fact
>> that it is a quote of this Psalm an of what this Psalm signifies!
>
>
>
>Psa. 118:26 is related to (and fulfilled by) Luke 19:38.
>
>Psa. 118:26, "Blessed be he that cometh in the name of the LORD: we
>have blessed you out of the house of the LORD".
>
>Luk 19:37 And when he was come nigh, even now at the descent of the
>mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice
>and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they
>had seen;
>Luk 19:38 Saying, Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the
>Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest.
Being an idiot is easy for you, huh?
--
Pastor Dave
The best Bible software: http://www.theword.net/ is free!
"I am not permitted to let my love be so merciful
as to tolerate and endure false doctrine. When
faith and doctrine are concerned and endangered,
neither love nor patience are in order... For
a defective life does not destroy Christendom,
but exercises it. However, defective doctrine
and false faith ruin everything. Therefore, when
these are concerned, neither toleration nor mercy
are in order, but only anger, dispute and
destruction - to be sure, only with the Word
of God as our weapon." - Martin Luther
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
Most people think that Matthew 23:39 somehow proves that
national Israel is to be saved at some future date and point to
it whenever they are shown when Jesus said He would return
and the Apostles as well, which was stated to be imminent by
them and within that same generation, by Jesus.
So it seems to me, that to point to Matt 23:39 in that manner,
is to pit the Bible against itself.
So people sometimes ask me about Matthew 23:39, as if it
somehow defeats my belief system and they want to know
how I can explain it in light of said belief system. But as
I have said many times... if you're trained to read something
in a certain way, then you'll never see it any other way.
So I will respond to their "questions" here with a lesson
on this subject. I put the word "questions" in quotes,
because the "questions" are never asked in desire of
a way to learn something about something else, but
rather, only from a desire to find more ways to attack.
But I will provide this lesson anyway, for the lurkers
and any others who truly do wish to know.
This will be a long lesson, but a lesson that will be of great
benefit to you, if you work through it and study it carefully!
And that doesn't mean whizzing through it, or responding
as you read it, since I will not repeat what you would have
seen further down, had you kept reading, nor does it mean
reading part of it, figuring you know where it's going and
then asking dumb questions that assume that your original
assumption needs to be answered to, when has already
been done by this post.
It means taking the time to read it through carefully and
doing so with the goal of understanding, not how to best
attack someone.
So be ready to devote some time to it. Some of it I'll admit,
is boring. :) But it is also necessary to be able to understand
what Jesus was saying in Matthew 23:39, as is some history.
I will also note the view of Toussaint, since he is a popular
name amongst those who support the idea of the national
restoration of Israel.
Let's us begin by noting that if we are going to discuss this
Matthew 23:29-39
Now take a look at what Jesus said would be the event that
showed that "all things written" would be fulfilled and please,
READ CAREFULLY and also note that He never said it was
about the whole planet. Just Jerusalem and Judea.
Luke 21:20-22
20) But when you see JERUSALEM surrounded by armies,
then know that ITS desolation is near.
21) Then let those who are IN JUDEA flee to the mountains,
let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not
those who are in the country enter her.
22) For *THESE* are the days of vengeance, that ALL THINGS
which are WRITTEN may BE FULFILLED.
Jesus made it clear that Israel's salvation would come through
eschatological change and not national restoration.
Contrary to what people in these groups try to pretend is
First of all, we must understand that Matthew 23:39 is a quote
of Psalm 118:26, which is part of the "Song of Ascent", or a
"Song of Degrees" and not just some words that Jesus said
to make them feel good. This was not at all about them being
blessed by being saved nationally by His return, but about
when it would happen and He was quoting a Psalm.
In other words, this was not a statement about "how"
it would happen folks, but "when" it would happen!
And what few realize, is the historical significance of the fact
that it is a quote of this Psalm an of what this Psalm signifies!
The Psalm was sung to pilgrims, by the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
On the 10th day was the Day of Atonement, the most
Romans 11:25-26a
saved.
That is what it actually says. And isn't what it actually says,
what is important here?
So try reading it with that in mind...
Anyway... :)
Now watch this! :)
1) Matthew 23.
And..
A final thought here.
HUH?!?!?! (:
***************************************************
--
Pastor Dave
The best Bible software: http://www.theword.net/ is free!
"There can be no happiness if the things we believe in are
different from the things we do." - Freya Madeline Stark
GospelHope
> Most people think that Matthew 23:39 somehow proves that
> national Israel is to be saved at some future date and point to
> it
Thanks for acknowledging we are able to point to it, since the
Bible plainly does:
I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so
that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening
in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so
all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The deliverer will
come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. And
this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins." As
far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account;
but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of
the patriarchs, for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable.
(Rom 11:25-29)
1) The fullness of the Gentiles has not come in, else they
wouldn't still be coming in.
2) The Israel which was an enemy of the gospel until they come
in, wouldn't still be an enemy of the gospel, but would be saved.
3) the deliverer would have come from Zion to turn away
ungodliness from "Jacob".
The "Israel" which is an enemy of the gospel while the "Gentiles"
are coming in, is NOT the "Gentiles" who are coming in to be
saved while they are an enemy!
> whenever they are shown when Jesus said He would return
> and the Apostles as well,
We do not dispute when Jesus and the Apostles said He would
return, but when you and preterists claim He did...
> which was stated to be imminent by them
We do not dispute that the return of Christ has been imminent
since they said it was. We dispute that it already happened,
since the Bible plainly teaches that when Christ returns, the
dead in Christ will rise and those who are alive and remain will
be raised from the dead, transformed, and caught up into the air
to be with Him (1 Cor. 15; 1 Thess. 4:13-18). That the dead
saints' bodies are still dead in the tombs, and that the church
has not been transformed and caught up into the clouds of the air
are irrefutable proof Christ did not return in A.D. 70, or at any
time since.
and within that same generation, by Jesus.
The preceding chapter (Matthew 23), clearly uses the word
"generation" to include people who lived and died over hundreds
of years, and not to exclude anyone except those who were then alive:
Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers.
Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in
your synagogues and pursue from town to town. And so upon you
will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth,
from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of
Berekiah, whom YOU murdered between the temple and the altar. I
tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.
(Mat 23:34-36)
Thus the meaning of "generation", as used in the immediate
context of the passage Dave refers to, cannot be confined to
exclude anyone who was not then alive at the time Christ spoke.
But notice the blatant stench of preterist hypocrisy. When the
Bible says that upon Christ's return, believer's corruptible
bodies will be raised from the dead (1 Cor. 15), and that those
who are alive and remain will be transformed and caught up
together with them in the clouds of the air, Preterists
immediately feign indignation about how carnal futurists are for
believing the promises literally, and how "spiritual" they are
for denying, rejecting, and scoffing at the idea that any of
God's promises could possibly include something physical or
observable, from a human perspective (Gnostics).
Then, the minute they come to a phrase like "generation", "at
hand", or "soon", and suddenly those phrases must ONLY be
interpreted in a SINGLE (of several possible), strictly literal
way, and then ONLY from an earthly, human perspective, DESPITE
the fact the Bible clearly defines them in places like 2 Peter 3,
to be from God's patient point of view, not ours!
Rod
You must be kidding, right ? She has put in long, hard hours
being stupid. You might like to point this out to her since
I'm sure that she carries around an extra bottle of peroxide
to make certain her hair stays blonde. Oddly enough, it will
one day fall out. Imagine that!
:>)))))