A short preterist commentary on the Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24

In about 13 minutes (with as much detail as possible all packed in), this video contains a summary of the preterist understanding of Matthew 24. This theological persuasion holds that all of the events in Matthew 24 find their fulfillment in the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. Of course, this may sound absurd to those who have never been exposed to such theology, as it did to me. But I would ask that you at least watch this video and consider some of the arguments that are made. I can't say that i'm one hundred percent on board or able to provide a thorough defense of this view, but so far its a position that i'm leaning towards:

My last response to Marcus on the Matthew 24 challenge

This will be my last response to Marcus in his well-written answers to my MATTHEW 24 CHALLENGE, where I challenge anyone to show me a verse in Matthew 24 which demands a fulfillment beyond the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. Here is the dialogue thus far:

Marcus' initial response

My response to Marcus

Marcus' second response

The verse in question is Matthew 24:3. I have looked it up in 5 translations and two out of three of them use the word "world". I agree that Jesus did not use the word kosmos - the word used is aion. I think "age" is the correct rendering...but what "age" is being discussed? I didn't discuss this in my first post because it never occurred to me that not all my brothers saw the "end of the age" as "end of the world". Let's look at the context. In verse 2 Jesus tells all listening that the temple was going to be destroyed. I think Mike and I agree that Jesus meant that the temple destruction being at a different time than His coming and the end of the age. Therefore I don't think AD 70 can fulfills the entire prophecy Jesus gave in Matthew 24. If the disciples thought that his coming and the destruction of the temple were near simultaneous events then it appears to me that the ask the same thing twice and that does not seem reasonable to me. So I ask what did the disciples thought was ending? Israel as a sovereign nation? No, i think they meant the point at which Jesus would set up his kingdom and take control.

But why can't the disciples be asking two questions in referencing the same event? I think it would help to look at the parallel accounts to show that this doesn't demand a post 70 A.D. fulfillment:

"When will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age." (Matthew 24:3)

"When will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are going to be fulfilled." (Mark 13:4)

"When therefore will these things happen? And what will be the sign when these things are about to take place?" (Luke 21:7)

Interestingly, if Mark and Luke are parallel accounts to Matthew 24 (which I don't see how anyone could doubt), why would they omit the main event; namely, the second coming? My answer is that it is because a "second coming" wasn't in the scope of the disciple's questions at all. But just to be as fair and open minded as I can, I would be willing to grant that this verse could be used to support either position. Why? Because, if the context was speaking of a literal second coming, then it would only be appropriate to assume that Jesus was actually answering the disciple's question correctly. But if the context doesn't reference any second coming, then we would have to assume that Jesus didn't answer their question.

I totally agree that Jesus was referring to Antiochus Ephiphanes and making a parallel. However during the Jewish War (c 70 AD) there had been no idol set up in the Temple. It only almost happened then. I totality agree that we don't know really know what the "abomination" is and i don't think the Left Behind series has truth I wanna base my life one but i don't think the events of 70 AD completely fulfill the prophesy. Some of it like this part I think speaks to 70 AD and the future.

With all due respect to Marcus, this is merely an opinion based on ignorance. The reason I say this is because, even in Marcus' own admission, "we don't really know what the abomination is." And if we really don't know what the abomination is, then how can he claim that it wasn't fulfilled in 70 A.D.? I submit that the clues provided in the context suggest a very strong basis by which this event was fulfilled in the disciple's lifetime:

1. In 24:1, Jesus was clearly referencing the temple, which at least should grant the possibility that the "abomination" was in reference to this.

2. The pronouns "you" throughout the context of Matthew 24 strongly supports the idea that all the events were in reference to the disciples. If it were in reference to a group thousands of years later, wouldn't "they" or "them" be more often implemented?

3. "This generation" was in reference to the disciples, not some group thousands of years in the future, as i'll discuss in more detail.

4. The parallel account in Luke 21:20 supports the possibility that the "desolation" was in reference to Jerusalem itself, not specifically the temple: "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near." So what is the "desolation" in reference to? Jerusalem being surrounded by armies. Yes, this "desolation" certainly would include the temple, since it resides in Jerusalem as well as the possibility that it was desolated in some way similar to what Antiochus Ephiphanes did.

Therefore, on what basis does the reference to the "abomination" demand a post-A.D. 70 fulfillment?

The discussion where Mike explains how you can see that Jesus' coming could be explained as happening in AD 70 really didn't move me. If I understand correctly, Mike is arguing that the "Son of Man coming on clouds" breferes to judgement and punishing Israel. He points out that there are many Old Testament passages including Jesus later on using the langauge to say He will be vindicated. Thing is, the destruction of Jerusalem did not make Jews who denied Jesus embrace Jesus. The Roman went on like nothing happened. For them, it was another day at the office. I just don't see how Jesus coming on clouds "with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other." can be found fulfilled in AD 70.

But where in the text does it say that the "coming on clouds" is what triggers the Jews to embrace Jesus? From what I can tell, there is nothing in the text which suggests such a thing. And as I pointed out in my last response, the "coming in the clouds" has nothing to do with a "coming to earth." So even in what seems to be Marcus' view, even a "second coming" scenario in implementing this text wouldn't support such a conclusion either. But with that aside, I don't see how 24:31 is meant to be a direct or consequential result of 24:30. And as for Marcus not being able to see how v. 31 could be in reference to the first century, I think the details of such a discussion would have to be reserved for another time, as I intended this discussion to be more focused upon one or two texts.

I think you have a point but "this generation" is translated by some as "this race" as in the human race.

But which translations and on what basis? Is there anything lexically which would merit such a translation? Also, check out the context in which "this generation" is used in other places. Would "this race" be appropriate in those places as well? I think that a lot of justification would need to be made before implementing such a conclusion.

I want to thank Marcus for such a profitable discussion and hope that the readers have benefitted from the interaction. I think this goes to show how two people can disagree in a respectful manner while remaining brothers in the Lord. I'll leave the last word for Marcus so that he can clarify any points that he sees fit.

Addressing a response to my Matthew 24 Challenge

Instead of responding in the comment section of my Matthew 24 challenge, I figured I would just write a whole new blog post since Marcus McElhaney WROTE an excellent blog of his own in response. So what i'd like to do here is go through some of the things he said in response.

"The disciples asked Jesus two separate questions: When will the temple be destroyed? When will the end of the world happen?"

The first problem I see is that I don't find "when will the end of the world happen" anywhere in the text. Instead, the verse reads, "what will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?" This is significant because the disciples did not say, "when will be the end of the world?" If they did, then kosmos would have been more appropriately used by Jesus. However, I will admit that "world" is used by some Bible translations to translate aion, but "age" seems to be more of a reasonable translation in light of the context. And since the context is what is in question, it would suffice to engage Marcus' primary point to establish whether "world" would be an appropriate translation. And this would inevitably lead to a future fulfillment of Matthew 24.

"The Emperor Caligula had tried to set up idols in the holy pace in the Temple. The interesting thing to me is that Jesus said that when you see the abomination that causes desolation standing in the holy place he seems to be describing a person not an idol and as far I can tell Caligula's order was never presented. This is why I've never thought that Jesus was merely describing AD 70. I would argue that it was in this paassge Jesus is sifting from talking about the temple to the end of the world."

Let's see how Jesus describes what is going on in v. 15:

"Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place..."

In light of Marcus' comment's, I still find that there is good reason to believe that Jesus was speaking about the events leading up to 70 A.D. And to illustrate this, it would be important to bring in the parallel account in Luke where more details are given:

"When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near." (Luke 21:20)

This clearly links the military action associated with the destruction and the desolation of the temple. In addition, Jesus changed the subject from the worldwide preaching of the gospel to the abomination that will make the temple "desolate." In referring back to Daniel 9:27, 11:31 and 12:11, Jesus draws on these themes to speak of something that would be set up in the temple at the time of the destruction. Whatever this was, it would be the thing that makes the temple "desolate," as Matthew 24:15 and Luke 21:20 explicitly affirm.

But what was this "abomination?" Clearly, Jesus is making a dual fulfillment application of the Daniel passages. That is, Daniel 12:11 seems to be fulfilled in part when Antiochus Ephiphanes set up a pagan altar in the temple in 168 B.C. And the fact that Jesus speaks of this type of abomination as a future thing implies that Daniel 12:11 had not been completely fulfilled. This is important in considering Marcus' view because whatever it was that "desolated" the temple, it had to be of the same type as the ancient context. That is, unless it can be demonstrated that Jesus was speaking of something of a different type, which is what Marcus seems to be implying, then my view seems to be more reasonable because every Jew knew the story: Antiochus Ephiphanes rendered the temple unclean with his erecting a pagan statue. And there is nothing in the Daniel account or the Olivet discourse that explicitly affirms that the "abomination" is some sort of "anti-Christ" figure. Maybe it is, or maybe it isn't. But whatever it is, we can only go by what the text is trying to describe; namely, that something is going to desecrate the temple in such as way that Antiochus' profanations will only pale in comparison. In other words, I don't see that Marcus' view is more reasonable than a 70 A.D. fulfillment.

"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

This has not happened yet. It can only happen once and it has not happened ever in any history we can point to."

Here, Marcus describes Matthew 24:30-31 as something that could not have happened in 70 A.D. But unless i'm mistaken here, I believe that Matthew 24:34 provides me with justification in interpreting these verses within the context of the first century:

"Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place."

What generation could Jesus have been speaking of other than the disciples? Therefore, "all these things," or everything that Jesus mentioned, including the "Son of man coming on the clouds of the sky, etc." took place in the events leading up to the destruction in 70 A.D. And though I realize how unlikely it may seem to the modern, western mind, I believe this view is entirely justifiable and far more reasonable than the futurist view.

Because this could lead to a very technical discussion, i'm just going to address v. 30 and leave v. 31 for another discussion.

"And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory."

First, let's consider the language of "coming" with regards to judgment, which is clearly what is going on in Jesus' account. It is important to recognize that Jesus is speaking to a Jewish audience who would have the Hebrew Scriptures in mind when hearing familiar references. For instance, could they have heard an echo of Micah 1:3-4:

"For behold, YHWH is coming forth from His place. He will come down and tread upon the high places of the earth. The mountains will melt under Him and the valleys will be split, like wax before the fire, like water poured down a steep place."

Even the most staunch dispensationalist commentary will affirm that this wasn't a literal appearing of Jehovah to bring destruction to Samaria. Instead, it is figurative language used to describe the fact, not necessarily the means by which, Jehovah would bring judgment upon the land. To find out the means by which He did this, visit 2 Kings 17:1-8. And as far as I can tell, there was nothing supernatural about the invasion of Samaria; especially not a literal appearing or coming of Jehovah. Therefore, we cannot read Matthew 24:30 as a literal appearing on the basis of "Son of Man coming" alone.

What about the "coming on the clouds" language? First, we can't assume it is literal unless there is a good reason for believing so. And with the Hebrew context in mind, there would be good reason to believe that it is not literal. After all, what is normally associated with "clouds" and God? Isn't it normally judgment, whether God is visibly present or not?

"Behold, YHWH is riding on a swift cloud and is about to come to Egypt; the idols of Egypt will tremble at His presence, and the heart of the Egyptians will melt within them." (Isaiah 19:1)

"He makes the clouds His chariot; He walks upon the wings of the wind." (Psalm 104:3)

In Isaiah 19:1, is this describing a time when Jehovah literally came down on a cloud and judged Egypt? Interestingly enough, the passage also describes Jehovah as "present," yet no Egyptian actually saw Him. Also, He is described as having clouds as "chariots" But there is no event, to my knowledge, where God performed a visible act of judgment whereby he came down on a cloud as a chariot. And so very often, God accomplishes His judgment by the means of bringing pagan nations against His people, which is clearly the means by which He does so in Matthew 24. And since we have many indicators of this in Matthew 24, why allege that Jesus is speaking of a physical appearing whereby God judges when the Hebrew context tells us that this is not always the case?

Next, there is a very important "cloud" reference that cannot be overlooked. This is where Jesus is referencing Daniel 7:13 in describing what is going to take place with His "coming." Notice that the account has the Son of Man goingup instead of down:

"I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven one like a Son of Man was coming, and He came up to the Ancient of Days and was presented before Him."

If Jesus were referring to a physical coming to earth to judge, why would He reference a text in which He was not coming to earth? Instead, He is making a prediction in which He would have exaltation and authority; the kind of authority He would need in order to pronounce such a judgment on Jerusalem, which is why the Pharisees were to appalled at Jesus' statement in Matthew 26:64-65:

"Jesus said to them, 'You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.' Then the high priest tore his robes and said, 'He has blasphemed!'"

It is very interesting to note how this affirms my view even further; namely, that this "coming" would happen soon. Why else would Jesus tell them, "hereafter you will see." If Jesus were referring to an event thousands of years later, how could He be telling the Pharisees that they would see this? A possible objection might be, "but the Pharisees didn't actually see the Son of Man in this regard, so how could it have happened back then?" To answer this, consider the fact that the Bible often equates "seeing" with "understanding." For instance, in John 12:40, Jesus quotes Isaiah 6:10 to explain why some are not believing:

"He has blinded their eyes and He hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and be converted and I heal them."

Therefore, is it not likely that the "seeing" in Matthew 24:30 is likely with reference to "understanding," since Jesus was basically telling the Pharisees that they would "see the Son of Man...coming on the clouds of heaven?"

Next, let's consider what Jesus means with, "And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky." This needs to be read very carefully so as to not miss what is being said. What is it that will appear in the sky? Jesus, or the sign? It would seem that the sign is what appears. Also, consider the fact that according to the BDAG Greek lexicon, ouranos can mean, "The portion or portions of the universe distinguished from planet earth, heaven." And also the, "transcendent abode, heaven...the dwelling place (or throne) of God." And even in isolating Matthew 24:30 from its context, the fact that Jesus alludes to a place (Daniel 7:13) where the Son of Man is going to heaven rather than coming to earth, further supports the idea that this isn't speaking of a literal and physical coming of Jesus.

But we still need to answer what this "sign" is referring to? Whatever it is, it is something which proves that Jesus is enthroned in heaven and has the authority to rule and judge. Thus, it is completely reasonable to see the "sign of the Son of Man [appearing] in the sky" as the destruction that would take place in 70 A.D. What better way could Jesus prove He was the one spoken of in Daniel 7:13 than this?

Last, but not least, in order for my position to be true, "all the tribes of the earth will mourn" would have to more likely fit into the first century context than an "end-times" scenario. The first issue to consider is a translation issue. Since the context of Matthew 24 is within the destruction of Jerusalem, "land" would seem to be a more appropriate translation, and is a very justifiable translation of ge, as almost any Greek dictionary or lexicon will affirm. And if it is the case that the entire context of Matthew 24 is localized, then "all the tribes of the land will mourn" is very reasonable in light of what happened in 70 A.D.

I want to thank Marcus for taking the time to write his blog and address my challenge. I think these conversations are important to have, as long as they are done with respect. I consider Marcus to be my brother in Christ and would never see an issue like this as a reason to divide from him and i'm sure he feels the same way. And if he, or anyone else, would like to respond, i'd be very interested in reading other views.

A challenge to futurists on Matthew 24

Eschatology has always been a bit of an interest to me. There have been times where I focused too much on the subject (I was practically obsessed with Tim Lahaye books), and other times when I focused too little. Until recently, I was a very staunch futurist in that I believed that Matthew 24, the book of Revelation, and other prophetic books like Daniel, had a future fulfillment. However, the more I studied Reformed theology, the more I became exposed to the preterist view, whether it be amillennial or postmillennial. One thing that really challenged my view was reading alternate exegesis of Matthew 24, which would describe all of the events as having a past fulfillment in 70 C.E. in the events leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem.

Though i'm not completely set on this idea, it seems to be the most reasonable. With that said, i'd like to pose a challenge to anyone who views Matthew 24 as having a unique, future fulfillment. And specifically, i'd like to see someone choose one specific event listed in the account that specifically, uniquely, unequivically refers to a future event. That is, do not choose an event that had some sort of "dual fulfillment." I want to see if there is even one event in Matthew 24 that could not have possibly been in reference to the destruction in 70 C.E.

I'd appreciate any insights on this and i'll either interact in the comment section or in a future blog. And keep in mind that this is not a debate. I just want to discuss this with an open mind and respectfully share our views with each other.

Some eschatological thoughts

"Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." (Matthew 16:28)

Could this verse be speaking of the same event as the following:

"For just as lightening comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be." (Matthew 24: 27)

"And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of the sky with power and glory." (24:30)

"Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." (24:34)

There's a few things i'd like to point out. First, is the "coming" in Matthew 16:28 the same as what is spoken of in chapter 24? Is the language not parallel?

Could the "those who are standing here" in 16:28 be the same "this generation" that is spoken of in 24:34?

If it is really true that "those standing here" and "this generation" is in reference to those who were living at the time of Jesus, then what implications would this have for your theology?

Debate: The Great Tribulation. Past or Future?

This was an excellent debate that took place between Gary DeMar and Thomas Ice at Biola University in 2002. Because of the popularity of dispensationalist, premillennial eschatology most Christians are unaware that there are other perspectives within "evangelicalism." Debates like these are great opportunities to hear both sides of the issue. The debate is primarily centered around Matthew 24. Did it take place in the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., or is it yet to come? Listen and come to your own conclusions.

PART 1
PART 2

Book Review: "Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church" by Gary DeMar

In his book, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church, Gary DeMar presents a powerful critique of today’s popular “end-times” authors. While some may be tempted to accuse the author of not dealing with the more conservative futurists, such an accusation is unwarranted given the subtitle: “obsession of the modern church.” This is important to recognize, for the more conservative writers are not to be confused with the “madness” of men like Hal Lindsey who are borderline, if not outright false prophets.

But regardless of the intended audience for DeMar, I feel that he did a very good job of establishing and defending the preterist position against futurism. To sum up the primary thesis of the book; the author concedes that the events of Matthew 24 are not to be fulfilled in the future. Instead, they were all fulfilled in the events surrounding the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. Thus, the author seeks to put an end to the “madness” by showing how the futurists misinterpret the “signs” of Matthew 24, as well those in Daniel, Revelation and other books.

The bulk of the book is essentially a preterist commentary on Matthew 24. In fact, more than half of the 442 pages are devoted to Matthew 24, and for good reason; the majority of “signs” that futurists look for are from this chapter. Therefore, the author feels that if Matthew 24 can be shown to reflect the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D., then the futurist position falls apart.

Being a reserved and fairly cautious futurist, I approached Last Day Madness with a lot of skepticism. I have always believed that the signs are being fulfilled right before our very eyes, with increased lawlessness, wars, famines, etc. And I could not even begin to imagine the events in Revelation as having a past fulfillment. However, I never took a dogmatic approach to this, since men of old have often failed at interpreting the signs correctly.

And this is one aspect that I felt was unfair for DeMar. He regularly accused futurists of doing “newspaper exegesis” in looking at the modern “signs.” He argues that if you stick to the Bible, you wouldn’t have to be constantly modifying your theories. The problem is, the author is inconsistent. Where DeMar accuses futurists of looking “outside the Bible” for fulfillment of the signs, he does the exact same thing in looking at ancient equivalents of “newspapers” (i.e. Josephus and other “reporters”) to establish a past fulfillment. Either way, this does not establish the truth or falsity of either position. If Matthew 24 is future, then no one can be faulted for looking at the signs. If Matthew 24 is past, then the same applies. This is one place where the author unfairly accused others time and time again.

As far as the author’s exegesis of the text, there was very little I could disagree with. When I said to myself, “There is no way this verse has a past fulfillment,” DeMar would surprise me with an application that I could not deny. The problem was, I had always looked at these verses with a modern eye, thinking that Jesus’ original audience would view things the same way. Instead, I should have looked at these verses with an ancient eye, as one who was familiar with the language and usage of the phrases and motives in the Hebrew Scriptures.

This being the first work of Preterism that I’ve ever encountered, I still remain fairly skeptical of this position, with many questions yet to be answered. However, at this point I find very little I can outright disagree with in DeMar’s interpretation of the texts. Furthermore, I am quite surprised that the futurist books that I once studied did not address the text of Scripture as it should. In other words, I found things in the Bible that I never knew was there!

If you are a futurist who believes that we are living in the end times, you need to read this book, especially if you have never been challenged by the preterist position.

Eschatological Developments

I haven't really done much blogging on eschatology for a few reasons. First, I haven't studied it enough to have a firm opinion. And second, it just hasn't been at the forefront of my mind.

My background has always been a premillennial, dispensational eschatology. The reason being, its all i've been exposed to. When I went to college where I was in the process of figuring out what I believed, I picked up a few books by Tim Lahaye and Henry Morris to see if this form of eschatology had any credibility. When I concluded the credibility of this position, and that the majority of Christian leaders and seminaries held to these views, I never saw any reason to question any of it. Never did I hear any opposition from the "other side," whoever they were. As far as I knew, preterists were a bunch of theological liberals, or at worse, heretics.

Being on the road full time with my band has brought me a very significant amount of free time; time to read things that I would probably never otherwise read. And ever since I was exposed to "reformed theology," i've been hearing more and more arguments from the preterist position. So, I decided to pick up one of their books: Last Days Madness by Gary DeMarr.

All I can say is that i'm half way through this book and it is making me rethink anything and everything I ever believed about eschatology. If you are a premillennialist and don't mind a good theological challenge, check out this book. If you've never read what the other side has to say on this, you'll be very surprised. Things will jump out of the Bible that you never knew was there. Just try it. You'll see.

I'll post more details on this when I finish the book.