Expect, or not to Expect? That is the question.

Jamdoc

Watching and Praying Always
Oct 22, 2019
7,369
2,301
43
Helena
✟203,882.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Yes, you *chose* it. You picked the cherry that you wanted, the one that you thought best, the one that was most neutral. That's a safe approach, but not necessarily the most precise. Safe is less than precise.

Let me give you an example. I've had this discussion before on another forum. In Dan 2.40 Finally, there will be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron...

The word "finally" in the NIV translation isn't really there. But the use of conjunctions in a particular set may legitimately conclude that the last conjunction can mean "finally." It's a scholar's decision to translate it this way, considering how the language is normally used, and not just using a word by word translation. Tendencies in some languages cannot be constructed word by word.

Most translations read: 40 Then there will be a fourth kingdom as strong as iron...
Or, 40 And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron..

The literal, safe rendering would be to translate it as "then," or "and." But the NIV scholars concluded that the context and the formation of these series of conjunctions legitimized the final conjunction being translated as "finally," since that was the apparent insinuation.

All this to show that "safe" translations are sometimes less specific so as to try to not be too specific, and possibly wrong or misleading. But the more specific translation, if indeed it is the real meaning, would be less safe, but provide better understanding and perhaps avoid error.

In this case, our argument was over whether the text meant to say that the 4th Kingdom was the last in world history, or just "the next" Kingdom in world history. But the fact that only 4 were given indicates that the last "and" should be translated as "finally." The 4th Kingdom should be the last in history.

In this case, "and" is being properly translated as "finally," and gives a less "safe" meaning, but a more accurate meaning as conjunctions were used in sets like this, or in a particular context. We are translating the practices of one language into another language with a different set of rules.

The following passage is similar, and also uses a conjunction.
Luke 17.20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation...

The NIV consists of scholars who have studied this arrangement and have decided that conjunction is not determinative with respect to a sequence of events. Rather, the account suggests a change in context such that a conjunction appropriately allows for such and can be translated:

20 Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come...

Word for word translations can mislead, and certainly are not determinative in this sense. The context is. A single word can be used with different implications based on the context.


Why would I choose an interpretation that doesn't fit both translations?
That makes no sense whatsoever.

It makes no sense to hold an interpretation that does not fit BOTH translations.
Cherry picking is choosing 1 and discarding the other translation because my interpretation doesn't fit both.

You make absolutely no sense.
 
Upvote 0

Jamdoc

Watching and Praying Always
Oct 22, 2019
7,369
2,301
43
Helena
✟203,882.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Yes, you *chose* it. You picked the cherry that you wanted, the one that you thought best, the one that was most neutral. That's a safe approach, but not necessarily the most precise. Safe is less than precise.

Let me give you an example. I've had this discussion before on another forum. In Dan 2.40 Finally, there will be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron...

The word "finally" in the NIV translation isn't really there. But the use of conjunctions in a particular set may legitimately conclude that the last conjunction can mean "finally." It's a scholar's decision to translate it this way, considering how the language is normally used, and not just using a word by word translation. Tendencies in some languages cannot be constructed word by word.

Most translations read: 40 Then there will be a fourth kingdom as strong as iron...
Or, 40 And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron..

The literal, safe rendering would be to translate it as "then," or "and." But the NIV scholars concluded that the context and the formation of these series of conjunctions legitimized the final conjunction being translated as "finally," since that was the apparent insinuation.

All this to show that "safe" translations are sometimes less specific so as to try to not be too specific, and possibly wrong or misleading. But the more specific translation, if indeed it is the real meaning, would be less safe, but provide better understanding and perhaps avoid error.

In this case, our argument was over whether the text meant to say that the 4th Kingdom was the last in world history, or just "the next" Kingdom in world history. But the fact that only 4 were given indicates that the last "and" should be translated as "finally." The 4th Kingdom should be the last in history.

In this case, "and" is being properly translated as "finally," and gives a less "safe" meaning, but a more accurate meaning as conjunctions were used in sets like this, or in a particular context. We are translating the practices of one language into another language with a different set of rules.

The following passage is similar, and also uses a conjunction.
Luke 17.20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation...

The NIV consists of scholars who have studied this arrangement and have decided that conjunction is not determinative with respect to a sequence of events. Rather, the account suggests a change in context such that a conjunction appropriately allows for such and can be translated:

20 Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come...

Word for word translations can mislead, and certainly are not determinative in this sense. The context is. A single word can be used with different implications based on the context.

That is such a strawman.
if your interpretation does not fit all good translations of the bible in your language you should reject it. Not double down and tell the guy who insists on it reconciling with those translations is wrong.

You're doing this because you have a motive of injecting Pharisees into being the audience of the Olivet Discourse.
That only works if you throw out other translations of the bible that don't leave room for such an interpretation AND throw out Mark 13 which states the discourse was private for 4 disciples.
 
Upvote 0

RandyPNW

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2021
2,171
435
Pacific NW, USA
✟101,976.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
That is such a strawman.
if your interpretation does not fit all good translations of the bible in your language you should reject it. Not double down and tell the guy who insists on it reconciling with those translations is wrong.

It's unfortunate, but I don't think you understand. Maybe you don't want to understand--I don't know? It certainly isn't a "strawman!"

You're trying to make decisions about translations based on the assumption that word for word translations present the actual meaning, when often they don't. I leave this to scholars, whereas you think you know better than these scholars.

There has long been the conspiracy theory that modern translations are trying to dilute biblical truth. Most translations are in agreement, and often cite where there is some question among translators.

You're doing this because you have a motive of injecting Pharisees into being the audience of the Olivet Discourse.

Yes, it makes sense to for the reasons I already gave you. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all covered the exact same Discourse, and all would then include X and Y parts of the Discourse. Except, in Matthew and Mark we have both X and Y together, where in Luke we we have X separate in ch. 17 and Y in ch. 21.

It is logical to deduce that Luke inserted part of the Olivet Discourse into an earlier account simply because it fit there as part of what Jesus had been telling the Pharisees. He was letting his readers know what Jesus meant based on what he would later say to his Disciples on the Mt. of Olives.

Luke 17.20 Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come...
22 Then he said to his disciples...


Verse 20 is talking about one context, when Jesus is being asked by the Pharisees. And verse 22 switches over to a different context, when Jesus is speaking specifically to his Disciples.

Yes, I'm surmising, but it is not a corrupt--just a speculation. Your insinuation that I'm self-serving in this discussion is false. It is, to me, the most logical explanation for Luke splitting the Olivet Discourse into separate accounts.

In my honest opinion, Luke 17 has Jesus responding to *both* Pharisees and his Disciples. You cannot deny that.

And since we *know* Jesus said these same things on the Mt. of Olives, we *must* conclude that ch. 17 should be read as a single conversation from before Jerusalem to the Mt. of Olives or, as you suggest, a repetition of the same material in both places. At any rate, *it doesn't matter!*
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: keras
Upvote 0

Jamdoc

Watching and Praying Always
Oct 22, 2019
7,369
2,301
43
Helena
✟203,882.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
It's unfortunate, but I don't think you understand. Maybe you don't want to understand--I don't know? It certainly isn't a "strawman!"

You're trying to make decisions about translations based on the assumption that word for word translations present the actual meaning, when often they don't. I leave this to scholars, whereas you think you know better than these scholars.

There has long been the conspiracy theory that modern translations are trying to dilute biblical truth. Most translations are in agreement, and often cite where there is some question among translators.



Yes, it makes sense to for the reasons I already gave you. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all covered the exact same Discourse, and all would then include X and Y parts of the Discourse. Except, in Matthew and Mark we have both X and Y together, where in Luke we we have X separate in ch. 17 and Y in ch. 21.

It is logical to deduce that Luke inserted part of the Olivet Discourse into an earlier account simply because it fit there as part of what Jesus had been telling the Pharisees. He was letting his readers know what Jesus meant based on what he would later say to his Disciples on the Mt. of Olives.

Luke 17.20 Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come...
22 Then he said to his disciples...


Verse 20 is talking about one context, when Jesus is being asked by the Pharisees. And verse 22 switches over to a different context, when Jesus is speaking specifically to his Disciples.

Yes, I'm surmising, but it is not a corrupt--just a speculation. Your insinuation that I'm self-serving in this discussion is false. It is, to me, the most logical explanation for Luke splitting the Olivet Discourse into separate accounts.

In my honest opinion, Luke 17 has Jesus responding to *both* Pharisees and his Disciples. You cannot deny that.

And since we *know* Jesus said these same things on the Mt. of Olives, we *must* conclude that ch. 17 should be read as a single conversation from before Jerusalem to the Mt. of Olives or, as you suggest, a repetition of the same material in both places. At any rate, *it doesn't matter!*

Yes, Luke 17 was a larger audience, it was on the way to Jerusalem. Jesus reused some of His material, pastors do it all the time.
That is what makes sense, and agrees with all translations.

Mark 13 precludes your interpretation.

and it's important because it's important to know who Jesus was speaking to and who His intended audience was for the Olivet Discourse. that's the ulterior motive, to deflect that it was meant to be to Christians. You and the pretribulationists have the idea that it was specific to Israel, and to unbelieving Jews. You have a different reason for it than the pretribulationists, for you it's to lend support to a historicist viewpoint on the Abomination of Desolation, for pretribulationists it's to deflect Matthew 24:29-31 to not be about the rapture of the church. For a pretribulationist they absolutely cannot have any scripture refer to the rapture until 1 Corinthians 15 (and then they'll turn around and use John 14), because if the Olivet Discourse counts, their position is destroyed.

I don't know why you insist on a historicist view of the AoD and Great Tribulation.
 
Upvote 0

RandyPNW

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2021
2,171
435
Pacific NW, USA
✟101,976.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yes, Luke 17 was a larger audience, it was on the way to Jerusalem. Jesus reused some of His material, pastors do it all the time.
That is what makes sense, and agrees with all translations.

Mark 13 precludes your interpretation.

and it's important because it's important to know who Jesus was speaking to and who His intended audience was for the Olivet Discourse. that's the ulterior motive, to deflect that it was meant to be to Christians. You and the pretribulationists have the idea that it was specific to Israel, and to unbelieving Jews. You have a different reason for it than the pretribulationists, for you it's to lend support to a historicist viewpoint on the Abomination of Desolation, for pretribulationists it's to deflect Matthew 24:29-31 to not be about the rapture of the church. For a pretribulationist they absolutely cannot have any scripture refer to the rapture until 1 Corinthians 15 (and then they'll turn around and use John 14), because if the Olivet Discourse counts, their position is destroyed.

I don't know why you insist on a historicist view of the AoD and Great Tribulation.

Nor can I understand why you reject my position, which is, as I see it, what is plainly said in Luke 21. It is all about the historic destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD by the Romans. Jesus was speaking to the Jewish people at the time, because the Gospel had not yet gone out to the "dogs," ie to the Gentiles. Jesus was focusing, at that particular time, on the Jews, even though it concerned a time *after* the Gospel goes out to the nations.

This is called the "worst" tribulation in Israel's history. And if this indeed has to do with Israel, both believers and unbelievers, then it certainly meant that after 70 AD Israel would be in the "wilderness," so to speak for the next 2000 years, which is exactly what we've seen. It's the worst, longest punishment the Jews have ever experienced since they entered into covenant with God.

So why don't you believe that? That's just what it says! I haven't said that it cannot apply, in principle, to Christians in other nations. It does. Israel was designed to be a model for the nations. But you would insert international Christianity back into the Olivet Discourse even before the cross? I don't think so. You should prove it before saying that I'm rejecting "the obvious."

Do you spiritualize the "Jews" in this passage?

Luke 21.22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people.

Do you think "this people" above represents Christians? Nobody really ever answers this question when they believe as you do. Some Christians simply admit it says what it says, but they deny that Matt 24 and Mark 13 are saying the same things.
 
Upvote 0

Jamdoc

Watching and Praying Always
Oct 22, 2019
7,369
2,301
43
Helena
✟203,882.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Nor can I understand why you reject my position, which is, as I see it, what is plainly said in Luke 21. It is all about the historic destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD by the Romans. Jesus was speaking to the Jewish people at the time, because the Gospel had not yet gone out to the "dogs," ie to the Gentiles. Jesus was focusing, at that particular time, on the Jews, even though it concerned a time *after* the Gospel goes out to the nations.

This is called the "worst" tribulation in Israel's history. And if this indeed has to do with Israel, both believers and unbelievers, then it certainly meant that after 70 AD Israel would be in the "wilderness," so to speak for the next 2000 years, which is exactly what we've seen. It's the worst, longest punishment the Jews have ever experienced since they entered into covenant with God.

So why don't you believe that? That's just what it says! I haven't said that it cannot apply, in principle, to Christians in other nations. It does. Israel was designed to be a model for the nations. But you would insert international Christianity back into the Olivet Discourse even before the cross? I don't think so. You should prove it before saying that I'm rejecting "the obvious."

Do you spiritualize the "Jews" in this passage?

Luke 21.22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people.

Do you think "this people" above represents Christians? Nobody really ever answers this question when they believe as you do. Some Christians simply admit it says what it says, but they deny that Matt 24 and Mark 13 are saying the same things.

Yes
I do

Revelation 12
17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

The woman represents Israel, who gave birth to the man child (Jesus)
The Christians are the remnant of her seed.
 
Upvote 0

RandyPNW

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2021
2,171
435
Pacific NW, USA
✟101,976.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yes
I do
Revelation 12
The woman represents Israel, who gave birth to the man child (Jesus)
The Christians are the remnant of her seed.

Thanks for the honest answer. But you should now realize why I can't sign on? It doesn't make sense to say that the following "people" represents *Christians:*

Luke 21.22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people.

This is the passage I asked you about, and you gave me a response to Rev 12? We were talking about the Olivet Discourse, I thought? We were talking about the historical fulfillment of Luke 17, or not?
 
Upvote 0

RandyPNW

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2021
2,171
435
Pacific NW, USA
✟101,976.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I don't know why you insist on a historicist view of the AoD and Great Tribulation.

Luke 21.22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people.

"This People" represents the Jewish People, who were punished with "great distress" when every stone of the temple came down in 70 AD. That is precisely what Jesus said would happen "in this generation." He said this in every version of the Olivet Discourse, Matt 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21.

The fall of the temple in 70 AD precipitated what Jesus said would be a great scattering of Israel into all nations.

Luke 21.24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

The time of the Gentiles ends only at the 2nd Coming. That's when the Jewish Punishment will end. So there is an historical aspect to this, as well as a future aspect. But that's what the passage says. Don't fall me for taking Jesus literally at his word!
 
Upvote 0

Jamdoc

Watching and Praying Always
Oct 22, 2019
7,369
2,301
43
Helena
✟203,882.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Thanks for the honest answer. But you should now realize why I can't sign on? It doesn't make sense to say that the following "people" represents *Christians:*

Luke 21.22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people.

This is the passage I asked you about, and you gave me a response to Rev 12? We were talking about the Olivet Discourse, I thought? We were talking about the historical fulfillment of Luke 17, or not?

I don't consider the "historical fulfillment" to be the true fulfillment.
Satan is going to have great wrath against Jews and Christians, that is what Revelation 12 reveals as well.
 
Upvote 0

RandyPNW

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2021
2,171
435
Pacific NW, USA
✟101,976.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I don't consider the "historical fulfillment" to be the true fulfillment.
Satan is going to have great wrath against Jews and Christians, that is what Revelation 12 reveals as well.

I'd be happy to treat Rev 12, but you were suggesting I was sort of being "hard-headed" about Luke 21 and its reference to an historical suffering of the Jews throughout the present age. You haven't dealt with that?

But as to Rev 12, I do think that may be referring to Christians. Luke 21 is dealing with the Jewish People, both Christians and non-Christians. The unbelieving Jews are being judged for rejecting the righteousness of Christ, and for being disobedient to the Law before that. But the believing Jews are suffering both because of the national condition they are put in by unbelieving Jews, but also because unbelieving Jews and Gentiles persecute them.

If you'd rather talk about Rev 12, I'm okay with that?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jamdoc

Watching and Praying Always
Oct 22, 2019
7,369
2,301
43
Helena
✟203,882.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
I'd be happy to treat Rev 12, but you were suggesting I was sort of being "hard-headed" about Luke 21 and its reference to an historical suffering of the Jews throughout the present age. You haven't dealt with that?

But as to Rev 12, I do think that may be referring to Christians. Luke 21 is dealing with the Jewish People, both Christians and non-Christians. The unbelieving Jews are being judged for rejecting the righteousness of Christ, and for being disobedient to the Law before that. But the believing Jews are suffering both because of the national condition they are put in by unbelieving Jews, but also because unbelieving Jews and Gentiles persecute them.

If you'd rather talk about Rev 12, I'm okay with that?

Revelation covers the same ground as the Olivet Discourse.
All the true fulfillments of the OD, are in our future yet, because they are all connected to the return of Christ.
Nothing you, or any "great scholar" or "great theologian" is going to convince me otherwise because we can see this taking place in our time.
In order to consider the Olivet Discourse to be historical, you'd need to alsot believe Revelation 6, 12, and 13 were historical, because it is about those same things.
Particularly Revelation 6, which gives the same events in the same order as the Olivet Discourse, and Revelation 12 and 13 just give the details and targets of the Tribulation .
It is Christians.
 
Upvote 0

RandyPNW

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2021
2,171
435
Pacific NW, USA
✟101,976.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Revelation covers the same ground as the Olivet Discourse.

That is not a proven fact, but an opinion. There is no reference in Rev 12 to the Olivet Discourse. There is no evidence that the temple in Rev 11 is anything more than a "symbol" of the temple, whereas the temple referenced in the O.D. was the physical reality.

All the true fulfillments of the OD, are in our future yet, because they are all connected to the return of Christ.

I could say everything in history is connected to the Return of Christ, and that means nothing, proves nothing. The fact Christ's Return is mentioned in the Olivet Discourse has nothing to do with disproving the historicity of the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, which Jesus clearly referenced in that Discourse!

Nothing you, or any "great scholar" or "great theologian" is going to convince me otherwise because we can see this taking place in our time.

No, you don't see every stone of the temple coming down in our time because there *is no temple,* and it already took place in 70 AD!

In order to consider the Olivet Discourse to be historical, you'd need to alsot believe Revelation 6, 12, and 13 were historical, because it is about those same things.

That remains unproven and unlikely. By the time the Revelation was written, the temple had likely already been taken down by the Romans. No need to predict that event after it had already been fulfilled.

In Revelation you see the temple used as imagery for the heavenly temple. In fact, we have the heavenly temple referenced, using OT symbolism of the temple.

This is not the same as the physical temple mentioned in the Olivet Discourse, which was destroyed in 70 AD, as Jesus had indicated would happen "in this generation." Jesus was saying it would be fulfilled in *his generation.*

You can believe what you want. My goal here is not to twist arms, but to serve. If what I share is worthless to you, we'll move on.
 
Upvote 0

Jamdoc

Watching and Praying Always
Oct 22, 2019
7,369
2,301
43
Helena
✟203,882.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
That is not a proven fact, but an opinion. There is no reference in Rev 12 to the Olivet Discourse. There is no evidence that the temple in Rev 11 is anything more than a "symbol" of the temple, whereas the temple referenced in the O.D. was the physical reality.



I could say everything in history is connected to the Return of Christ, and that means nothing, proves nothing. The fact Christ's Return is mentioned in the Olivet Discourse has nothing to do with disproving the historicity of the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, which Jesus clearly referenced in that Discourse!



No, you don't see every stone of the temple coming down in our time because there *is no temple,* and it already took place in 70 AD!



That remains unproven and unlikely. By the time the Revelation was written, the temple had likely already been taken down by the Romans. No need to predict that event after it had already been fulfilled.

In Revelation you see the temple used as imagery for the heavenly temple. In fact, we have the heavenly temple referenced, using OT symbolism of the temple.

This is not the same as the physical temple mentioned in the Olivet Discourse, which was destroyed in 70 AD, as Jesus had indicated would happen "in this generation." Jesus was saying it would be fulfilled in *his generation.*

You can believe what you want. My goal here is not to twist arms, but to serve. If what I share is worthless to you, we'll move on.

The fact that Revelation was written after the destruction of the temple, and shows a temple in Jerusalem, shows that the OD, is about the 3rd temple.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: keras
Upvote 0

keras

Writer of studies on Bible prophecy
Feb 7, 2013
13,558
2,480
82
Thames, New Zealand
Visit site
✟290,689.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Jesus was saying it would be fulfilled in *his generation.*
Jesus said the 2nd Temple would be destroyed, but it will be the generation who see the 'fig tree'; Judah, restored - who will see all the end time events and His Return.
 
Upvote 0

RandyPNW

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2021
2,171
435
Pacific NW, USA
✟101,976.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The fact that Revelation was written after the destruction of the temple, and shows a temple in Jerusalem, shows that the OD, is about the 3rd temple.

Once again, the reference to the temple in the Revelation does not refer to the destruction of the temple referred to by Jesus in his Olivet Discourse. No connection apart from your own personal assumption.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RandyPNW

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2021
2,171
435
Pacific NW, USA
✟101,976.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Jesus said the 2nd Temple would be destroyed, but it will be the generation who see the 'fig tree'; Judah, restored - who will see all the end time events and His Return.

No, that's a Hal Lindsey thing, that the "generation" Jesus referred to was the generation that would see Jesus. This is not the context for Jesus' prediction of the destruction of the temple.

Jesus was warning his Disciples, and with them their own generation, that they would actually see this destruction--he did not say exactly what time it would happen--just that it would happen in their generation.

For one who is disgusted with Pretrib, I'm surprised that you're identifying with a Lindsey mind-set?
 
Upvote 0

Jamdoc

Watching and Praying Always
Oct 22, 2019
7,369
2,301
43
Helena
✟203,882.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Once again, the reference to the temple in the Revelation does not refer to the destruction of the temple referred to by Jesus in his Olivet Discourse. No connection apart from your own personal assumption.

Once again you forget that Jesus said ALL these things would be seen before the generation passed.
If He meant the disciples sitting in front of Him? then you believe in full preterism.
Because there's been over 1900 years after the fall of the temple and Jesus hasn't come back yet?
Either Jesus is a liar, or your historicist interpretation is wrong.
I'm gonna bet on the latter.
 
Upvote 0

keras

Writer of studies on Bible prophecy
Feb 7, 2013
13,558
2,480
82
Thames, New Zealand
Visit site
✟290,689.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
I'm surprised that you're identifying with a Lindsey mind-set?
I do not agree with Hal Lindsey and his 'rapture to heaven' theory.
But that does not mean everything he said was wrong.

What I am sure of is that we who are alive now since Judah became a nation, can expect to see the end time events and the glorious Return of Jesus to reign for the next thousand years.
Either Jesus is a liar, or your historicist interpretation is wrong.
I'm gonna bet on the latter.
Me too.
Nothing of what is prophesied from Revelation 6:12 until the end, has happened yet. [Only Revelation 12:1-5 is historical]
 
Upvote 0

RandyPNW

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2021
2,171
435
Pacific NW, USA
✟101,976.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I do not agree with Hal Lindsey and his 'rapture to heaven' theory.
But that does not mean everything he said was wrong.

What I am sure of is that we who are alive now since Judah became a nation, can expect to see the end time events and the glorious Return of Jesus to reign for the next thousand years.

My point is, I'm not sure what the genesis of the interpretation was, but Hal Lindsey, in my experience, popularized this notion that the "generation" Jesus spoke of in the Olivet Discourse was not the literal generation Jesus lived in, but rather, some future generation which will see "all" the signs Jesus mentioned, including his return from heaven.

To me, that is not a natural interpretation in the text, and therefore, fits into the category of "novel, or modern, interpretation." The natural meaning in the text would be that Jesus was referring to the generation of his apostles. After all, it was to them he was speaking.

And the signs Jesus inferred would be included in this generation would not include his return from heaven, since he excepted that sign as unpredictable. Rather, Jesus was specifically referring to "all these things," ie the things that constituted the "birth pangs," as well as the thing the birth pangs presaged, namely the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
30. Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass fill all these things be done—or "fulfilled" (Mt 24:34; Lu 21:32). Whether we take this to mean that the whole would be fulfilled within the limits of the generation then current, or, according to a usual way of speaking, that the generation then existing would not pass away without seeing a begun fulfilment of this prediction, the facts entirely correspond. For either the whole was fulfilled in the destruction accomplished by Titus, as many think; or, if we stretch it out, according to others, till the thorough dispersion of the Jews a little later, under Adrian, every requirement of our Lord's words seems to be met.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire BibleVerily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass,.... Not the generation of men, in general, or Jews in particular, nor of Christians; but that present generation of men, they should not all go off the stage of life,
till all these things be done; which were now predicted by Christ, concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, the signs of it, and what, should immediately follow upon it; See Gill on Matthew 24:34.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

keras

Writer of studies on Bible prophecy
Feb 7, 2013
13,558
2,480
82
Thames, New Zealand
Visit site
✟290,689.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
My point is, I'm not sure what the genesis of the interpretation was, but Hal Lindsey, in my experience, popularized this notion that the "generation" Jesus spoke of in the Olivet Discourse was not the literal generation Jesus lived in, but rather, some future generation which will see "all" the signs Jesus mentioned, including his return from heaven.
Hal was right about this!
What you and your commentators miss - avoid and ignore, is the CONTEXT. Matthew 24:32 plainly prophesies the re-establishment of the House of Judah, allegorically; the fig tree. Now known as the Jewish State of Israel.
THEREFORE; the next verse; Matthew 24:33-34 When you see these things, [also referring the the labor pangs; Matthew 24:6-8] you will know the end is near; at the very door. Truly I tell you the present generation, [or the generation present] will [live to] see it all.

WE are that generation. And not believing that; simply leaves people in the dark.

Trotting out old commentators, who never saw Judah back to a small part of the holy Land, is quite wrong; making them and yourself look silly.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Jamdoc
Upvote 0