Brace Yerself!
So, let me get this clear. All time references are symbolic and everything the inspired writers spoke of as having temporal significance is really not temporal at all-it all "transcends time."
All time references are symbolic? Did I write that? Everything the inspired writers spoke of as having temporal significance is really not temporal at all-it all? Did I write that? All transcends time? Did I write that? Nope!
Did I or did I not say that I articulate an orthodox preterist line, and that I dont interact with your Matthean texts (16:28; 26:64, etc.) because I affirm that the judgment you referenced was fulfilled in that generation just as described in the Olivet Discourse?
Yes, I did.
Did I or did I not say that whether the judgment which evangelists describe befell the nation in that generation is not at issue?
Yes, I did.
So once and for all--I contested nothing that you affirmed regarding the Olivet Discourse.
I hope that is clear.
You try to position me as assailing the integrity of the canonical text. But careful reading (rather than skimming) would show that the generational text you cite (Mt 24:34) is virtually identical to Mt 23:36. Look at them!
all these things will come upon this generation (Mt 23:36).
this generation will not pass away until all these things take place (Mt 24:34).
What does it mean? It means that this entire discourse forms one literary unit. And in Mt 23, the generational text includes these words--they fill up the measure of guilt of their fathers (v. 32), that they are the sons of those who murder the prophets (v. 31). This shows that they are in spiritual solidarity with those who slew the prophets (v. 30). Matthews conclusion is that:
upon you may fall all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation (Mt 23:35-36).
The plain sense of
upon you may fall all the righteous blood shed on earth would be what--judgment upon accumulated unbelief and disobedience across all generations? So the judgment foretold in Mt 23-24 has reference to all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to
the son of Berechiah. That is what Matthew wrote.
This indicates summary judgment with reference to the slaying of the OT faithful. As it is summary judgment, the judgment pronounced DOES transcend that time in its theological import. It is judgment on iniquity that has accumulated from all the righteous blood shed from Abel to Zechariah. Again--Matthew's words.
This is analogous to the Re 6 situation. The martyrs cry from beneath the altar (v. 9), but:
they were told that they should rest for a little while longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren who were to be killed even as they had been, would be completed also (Re 6:11).
That they must rest for a little while longer until the last martyr dies looks rather like summary judgment.
My guess is that you want to read the Revelation as a book ABOUT the destruction of Jerusalem and Rome. You want to derive a temporal framework from
ta,coj (
tachos--soon, or shortly) into which to press Johns report, so that we have to read it as an historical book. Futurists and Continuo-Historical people do the same thing, except they hold that the framework concerns future or present time respectively.
The Ideal view reads the Revelation more from a perspective of the timeless. Perhaps you gathered that. I hold that this book is based on the destruction of Jerusalem and Rome, but that Johns message reaches through all generations, teaching us to define our place in the same terms that he applied in his day. What does this mean practically? Whomever the cap of Edom/Pharaoh/Egypt/Philistia/Babylon/Rome/Caesar fits must wear it.
Now you want my take on shortly? In my opinion, shortly isnt the best translation.
At once (Fribergs Lexicon on
ta,coj tachos) is better because it indicates immediacy. Imperial power, glory and oppression (Re 13, 17-18) were already evident. Once readers grasped Johns kingdom of God manifesto-critique of Romes blasphemous, earth-based system of extortion, heresy and injustice (the one that functions today under other names), they could see his message at once.
The things that John records were unfolding even we he wrote. Thats WHY he wrote. He is showing believers history from Gods view so they can play their part in it faithfully. And until we figure out this point, the church WONT get her act together.
In my opinion,
ta,coj (
tachos--soon) lacks the power to provide the framework within which to unfold Johns vision report. Again, that assumes that we are being provided with a temporal framework, rather than a conceptual framework. Since I dont use soon as the paradigm for reading Johns vision report, its fair to ask what I offer in its place.
I believe that the opening line, the revelation of Jesus Christ is a cue. Johns formal epistolary introduction situates Jesus Christ in a Trinitarian context.
From him who is and who was and who is to come,
And from the seven spirits who are before his throne,
And from Jesus Christ
Then the prologue ends with:
I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty (Re 1:8 cf. 22:13).
These epistolary remarks both begin and end with him who is and who was and who is to come. The epilogue returns to this in Re 22:13. What inter-testamental background does John use? He gets this from Ex 3:14 where Gods sacred Name,
hy"h' ((hayah), is proclaimed to Moses. Moses asked, whom shall I say sent me. The answer is I am.
But there is a profoundly important catch to this!
Gods Name (Yahweh) is an imperfect. The Hebrew imperfect gives no indication as to whether the verb is past, present or future. That is why some English translations render Ex 3:14 as I am who I am and others say I will be whom I will be. Technically, both are correct. The translation of Hebrew imperfects must be determined by context. But grammatically, past, present and future are technically correct since the Hebrew imperfect is a timeless tense.
So there is your answer, Parousia! When he references him who is, and was, and is to be In Re 1:4,8, 4:8; 11:17, 16:5, etc., John proclaims Yahwehs timeless Name. Notice that what is said of God in the prologue, I am the Alpha and the Omega (Re 1:8) is said also of Christ in the epilogue, I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end (Re 22:13). So the revelation of Jesus Christ is also the revelation of Gods Name. This occurs in the prologue, epilogue and elsewhere for this reason:
Johns entire vision report is a theological exposition of the Name of God.
And throughout, John references what has been seen, what is seen, and what will be seen. But all of it is an exposition, an unfolding, an opening of Gods sacred Name.
Question: Which paradigm better serves Johns theological intention--one that latches on soon and tries to press into it the sequences of events regarding the fall of Jerusalem and Rome--or a paradigm in which Christ so reveals Gods Name that it is hallowed, his kingdom comes, and his will is done on earth as it is in heaven?
You may wonder, if this explanation is so hot--why havent I heard of it before! Read carefully and Ill tell you.
The problem with this view is that it puts us on a collision course with that same earthly system of ideology/authority/power/wealth/oppression etc. that John faced in his day. It puts us in confrontation with the spiritual descendents of Pharaoh and Jezebel as they exist in our own time and place.
This view will force us to live the reality of our faith as the incarnational presence of Jesus Christ. This is to say that it will make martyrs of us. Yes, martyrs. Even in the USA? Yes--in the USA.
As I said earlier--what do you think is the point of Holy Week? What is the message? When our Lord broke bread and gave it to his disciples, when gave them wine and told them to "do this and remember me..." he was SUMMONSING us follow him. When people really grasp the meaning, the reality of the incarnation, the fecal material truly hits the fan.
When the incarnation is truly understood, you either bow in confession and surrender, or else you rise up and slay the messenger.
I suggest that you read Mt 23 again in that light. I think that you will see that this is EXACTLY the Christ's point.
I believe also that you will see why we are so eager to push the theological import of Scripture into the future (futurists) or into the past (preterists). Once we begin to grasp the incarnation, once we see that the Biblical message is TIMELESS, we face the same prospect as the prophets that Jesus describes in Mt 23. And we face the same prospects as the martyrs of Re 6.
Some in John's day were buying into that earthly system. But that was exactly his point. THATS why martyrdom and overcoming even in death (see Pauls conclusion to Ro 8) is such a big issue in the Revelation. John wrote EXACTLY to show that we MUST confront those powers in our time and place. He uses the mark of the beast and the seal of God as a literary device to place these two ways of life in diametrical opposition.
Once we see that buying into this earthly system (ever hear of "the 'American' way of life?) constitutes acceptance of the mark, we have to repent and take up the message. That sets the stage for ALL the warfare that the book describes. They will shed our blood. As surely as the sun rises in the East and sets in the West, the blood of Christians will flow freely.
Beware understanding the incarnation of Jesus Christ. It is power. But it is also dangerous. Very dangerous.
If I am wrong in my reading of these things, it is clear that I am VERY wrong. But if I am right, may I respectfully suggest that the church is in one hell of a mess.
Methinks we should set aside the sarcasm about standing Gods word on its head and look at this?
Blessings!
Covenant Heart
has already been given, the I haven't read that post. 
