A basic flaw in Partial Preterist interpretation

[sovereigngrace]

Let's test who's actually ignoring the meaning of "genea", and changing it to suit their own eschatological bias. Thayer's Greek lexicon does not list a verse for point number 2, which is where you believe Matthew 24:34 should fall. Point number 3 defines genea as a literal generation, in regards to Matthew 23:34, So it is very clear that you are ignoring the meaning of the genea as in interferes with your eschatological bias

Source: Strong's Greek: 1074. γενεά (genea) -- race, family, generation

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 1074: γενεά

γενεά, γενεάς, ἡ (ΓΑΝΩ, γίνομαι (crf. Curtius, p. 610)); the Sept. often for דּור; in Greek writings from Homer down;

1. a begetting, birth, nativity: Herodotus 3, 33; Xenophon, Cyril 1, 2, 8, etc.; (others make the collective sense the primary significance, see Curtius as above).

2. passively, that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family;

a. properly, as early as Homer; equivalent to מִשְׁפָּחַה, Genesis 31:3, etc. σῴζειν Ρ᾽αχαβην καί τήν γενεάν αὐτῆς, Josephus, Antiquities 5, 1, 5. the several ranks in a natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy: Matthew 1:17 (ἑβδόμῃ γενεά οὗτος ἐστιν ἀπό τοῦ πρώτου, Philo, vit. Moys. i. § 2).

b. metaphorically, a race of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character; and especially in a bad sense a perverse race: Matthew 17:17; Mark 9:19; Luke 9:41; Luke 16:8; (Acts 2:40).

3. the whole multitude of men living at the same time: Matthew 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 1:48 (πᾶσαι αἱ γενεαί); ; Philippians 2:15; used especially of the Jewish race living at one and the same period: Matthew 11:16; Matthew 12:39, 41f, 45; Matthew 16:4; Matthew 23:36; Mark 8:12, 38; Luke 11:29f, 32, 50; Luke 17:25; Acts 13:36; Hebrews 3:10; ἄνθρωποι τῆς γενεάς ταύτης, Luke 7:31; ἄνδρες τῆς γενεάς ταύτης, Luke 11:31; τήν δέ γενεάν αὐτοῦ τίς διηγήσεται, who can describe the wickedness of the present generation, Acts 8:33 (from Isaiah 53:8 the Sept.) (but cf. Meyer, at the passage).

4. an age (i. e. the time ordinarily occupied by each successive generation), the space of from 30 to 33 years (Herodotus 2, 142, et al.; Heraclitus in Plutarch, def. orac. c. 11), or ὁ χρόνος, ἐν ᾧ γεννωντα παρέχει τόν ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγεννημένον ὁ γεννησας (Plutarch, the passage cited); in the N. T. common in plural: Ephesians 3:5 (Winers Grammar, § 31, 9 a.; Buttmann, 186 (161)); παρῳχημέναις γενεαῖς in ages gone by, Acts 14:16; ἀπό τῶν γενεῶν for ages, since the generations began, Colossians 1:26; ἐκ γενεῶν ἀρχαίων from the generations of old, from ancient times down, Acts 15:21; εἰς γενεάς γενεῶν unto generations of generations, through all ages, forever (a phrase which assumes that the longer ages are made up of shorter; see αἰών, 1 a.): Luke 1:50 R L (דּורִים לְדור, Isaiah 51:8); εἰς γενεάς καί γενεάς unto generations and generations, ibid. T Tr WH equivalent to וָדור לְדור, Psalm 89:2; Isaiah 34:17; very often in the Sept.; (add, εἰς πάσας τάς γενεάς τοῦ αἰῶνος τῶν αἰώνων, Ephesians 3:21, cf. Ellicott at the passage) (γενεά is used of a century in Genesis 15:16, cf. Knobel at the passage, and on the senses of the word see the full remarks of Keim, iii. 206 (v. 245 English translation)).




the temple destruction is included in "all these things". So you believe you will see the destruction of the literal temple in Jerusalem in your life?

Matthew 24:33 So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates.

You don't believe the "you" in matthew 24:34 applies to the 1st century generation that experienced the destruction of the temple?

Thayer outlines the different meanings of the word, most of which do not fit your doctrine. The passages attached to the meanings are total speculation on his part, no weightier than your or my speculations. Other Lexicons may differ in their opinion. You are building your position on man, not what it says. Anyway, the whole context is the second coming. Even if it meant a literal generation, as you argue, it relates to the generation at the end, not 2000 years ago.

Jesus said in Matthew 24:23-51: “Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before. Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together. Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come. But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up. Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh. Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods. But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken; The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Jesus said in Mark 13:21-37: “And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not: For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect. But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things. But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven. Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near: So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is. For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch. Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning: Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping. And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.”

Jesus said in Luke 21:25-36: “And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh. And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth. Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.”

Context proves that the phrase “this generation” relates to those alive before Christ’s one final future climactic coming. It has nothing to do with first century events or AD70. Jesus was talking about events preceding His climactic future coming at the end of this age.

 

[Christian Gedge]

What Bible translation translates genea as anything other than "generation"?

In the case of Philippians 2:15 there are a few:- KJV, Websters, NLT, Contemporary, Good News.

"That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, (genea) among whom ye shine as lights in the world." (Philippians 2:15 KJV)​

Many other translations use "generation" as you say, but readers understand the context to mean "crooked and twisted people" among whom we live at any particular time. So, I find myself agreeing with others here who consider the Olivet mentions of "genea" was not meant to be forced to mean only a 1st century event.

 

[jgr]

In the overwhelming majority of instances, "genea" is translated as "generation" in all current English versions.

Thayer's lexicon shows the word to mean "the whole multitude of men living at the same time" in a clear majority of instances including Matthew 24:34, as compared to the meaning of "race".

I am confident that Thayer's mastery of Greek is superior to that of any of us.

The translation of "race" in Matthew 24:34 is essential to dispensational heterodoxy in order to perpetuate its futurized and racialized atheologies. It is a malinterpretation. Let us not err likewise.

The idea of a "Jewish race" is illegitimate both mathematically and genetically, insofar as the ancient Abrahamic genome is ubiquitous across the entire human race, through natural genetic dispersion and diffusion over more than 3,000 years. Examples are shown below. Those knowledgeable within the Jewish community itself recognize and applaud this reality. Thus we are all the "Jewish race", and the claim of an identifiable subset thereof within the human race reduces to invalidity and nonsense.

Let us recognize that in the vast majority of instances including Matthew 24:34, "genea" in Scripture means "the whole multitude of men living at the same time".

Example of the mathematical confirmation of ancestral genetic ubiquity

Abraham lineage
DNA Tests Could Fulfill God’s Promise to Abraham by Revealing Millions of Jews. But How Jewish is Jewish Enough?
Israel in all of Us? Research finds 'Jewish genes' in unusual places
Jewish-Roots Arabs in Israel
Tracing the lost tribes to Jewish communities in Africa
Nigeria's Igbo Jews: 'Lost tribe' of Israel? - CNN
http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/...-africa-has-jewish-roots-genetic-tests-reveal
https://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/...her-claims-proof-of-tribe-of-Ephraim-in-India
https://www.jta.org/2013/05/23/life...bush-bani-israel-tribe-claims-jewish-heritage

 

[sovereigngrace]

In the overwhelming majority of instances, "genea" is translated as "generation" in all current English versions.

Thayer's lexicon shows the word to mean "the whole multitude of men living at the same time" in a clear majority of instances including Matthew 24:34, as compared to the meaning of "race".

I am confident that Thayer's mastery of Greek is superior to that of any of us.

The translation of "race" in Matthew 24:34 is essential to dispensational heterodoxy in order to perpetuate its futurized and racialized atheologies. It is a malinterpretation. Let us not err likewise.

The idea of a "Jewish race" is illegitimate both mathematically and genetically, insofar as the ancient Abrahamic genome is ubiquitous across the entire human race, through natural genetic dispersion and diffusion over more than 3,000 years. Examples are shown below. Those knowledgeable within the Jewish community itself recognize and applaud this reality. Thus we are all the "Jewish race", and the claim of an identifiable subset thereof within the human race reduces to invalidity and nonsense.

Let us recognize that in the vast majority of instances including Matthew 24:34, "genea" in Scripture means "the whole multitude of men living at the same time".

Example of the mathematical confirmation of ancestral genetic ubiquity

Abraham lineage
DNA Tests Could Fulfill God’s Promise to Abraham by Revealing Millions of Jews. But How Jewish is Jewish Enough?
Israel in all of Us? Research finds 'Jewish genes' in unusual places
Jewish-Roots Arabs in Israel
Tracing the lost tribes to Jewish communities in Africa
Nigeria's Igbo Jews: 'Lost tribe' of Israel? - CNN
http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/...-africa-has-jewish-roots-genetic-tests-reveal
https://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/...her-claims-proof-of-tribe-of-Ephraim-in-India
https://www.jta.org/2013/05/23/life...bush-bani-israel-tribe-claims-jewish-heritage

Even if, for the sake of argument, we accept your opinion, the phrase is right in the middle of a description pertaining to the Lord's future return in Matthew 24:23-51, Mark 13:21-37 and Luke 21:25-36. Whatever way you look at it, it negates the Preterist position, and their unhealthy fixation with AD70.

 

[jgr]

Even if, for the sake of argument, we accept your opinion, the phrase is right in the middle of a description pertaining to the Lord's future return in Matthew 24:23-51, Mark 13:21-37 and Luke 21:25-36. Whatever way you look at it, it negates the Preterist position, and their unhealthy fixation with AD70.

Up to and including verse 34 is past. Otherwise, verse 34 is untrue.

After verse 34 is future.

 

[claninja]

When Jesus used pronouns such as 'you', ye', etc, in the Discourse, He was applying it to a type of person, that being a disciple, that being the church.

I think you can kind of make a case for this. Specifically, if you use a passage found in the OT that contains "you" with its fulfillment in later generations and even the NT. For example: Dueteronomy. Moses tells that the people that "God will raise up for 'you' a prophet", " 'you' shall listen". This law was applicable to all those under the old covenant, not just the audience standing in front of Moses.

Deuteronomy 18:15 The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen—

Even Peter applied this old covenant law to the Jews after the cross.

Acts 3:22 Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you.

The question now is to ask, does using the pronoun 'you' differ when it is written as a law versus and event?

Does "you" shall not murder apply to only Moses' audience or does this law apply to all generations? I'm sure we can agree it applies to all generations throughout time.

Does "you" in regards to Peter denying Christ, apply to the audience (Peter) or does this event apply to all generations? I'm sure we can agree this applies to Peter.

So the best argument one can make would probably IMHO be, is that the "you" in regards to events surrounding the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem are specifically 1st century audience related, but the "you" in regards to the coming of Christ on clouds, the resurrection, and judgment can be related to all generations, as all will stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

To think Jesus was only focusing on the disciples in His day, and only on the church in His day, is interpreting these things in a vaccuum.

I would disagree. I would say to pull everything out of the olivet discourse and place it future is to rip the entire passage out of context and ignore the audience based on one's eschatological bias.

Who do Preterists think are meant by these evil servants in verse 48? The unbelieving Jews that got slaughtered in 70 AD? Do Preterists think any of them were actually saying in their heart at the time---- My lord delayeth his coming? Obviously, 'My lord' means Jesus in this context, and that unbelieving Jews back then despised Jesus, therefore they wouldn't have seen themselves as His servants for certain. Only a professed Christian can fit here.

I would argue that the the wicked servant who says "my master is delayed" is indeed at least partially related to the destruction of the wicked tenants in 66-70ad. Looking at 2 Peter 3:4, we can see that these scoffers about Christ's delayed coming were indeed Jewish as they refer to the "fathers". Additionally, Jesus states the 'sons of the kingdom' will be in that place of weeping and gnashing of teeth. 2 evidences that show that that 66-70ad does play a part in Matthew 24:48-51.

Matthew 24:48-51 But if that wicked servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed,’ and begins to beat his fellow servants and eats and drinks with drunkards, the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know and will cut him in pieces and put him with the hypocrites. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

2 Peter 3:4 They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.”

Matthew 8:12 I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

If this coming in verse 48 had to do with what happened in 70 AD, would not the unbelieving Jews hope that He delayed that coming? So why is Jesus punishing them when He comes because they were saying in their heart, My Lord delayth his coming?

They weren't punished because they said " Lord delayeth".

This is is why the unfaithful servant was punished:

Matthew 24:49 and begins to beat his fellow servants and eats and drinks with drunkards.

Context determines what something means. There is zero in the context of verses 48-51 that support a first century coming here. Zero, as in no chance whatsoever.

If you interpret this verse in a "vacuum" so to speak without looking at similar passages, then your argument is possible that there is "zero" chance.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Up to and including verse 34 is past. Otherwise, verse 34 is untrue.

After verse 34 is future.

I respect your position. I just disagree with it on this matter. But I know we agree on most things here.

 

[claninja]

Matthew 24:29-31 is interpreted and translated by most commentators as if it were a description of the second coming in the future. However, a literal translation may also render, 'Then, at that time the sign of the Son of man will appear in the sky placing the event in the contemporary reader's past rather than their future.

A case can then be made that the reference to the sign is to denote an event meaningful to Jesus' listeners (or Matthew's readers), because Matthew's Jesus states explicitly in verse 34: 'this generation will not pass away until all these things take place'. That generation did not see the expected second coming; for this reason Jesus must have referred to something that was contemporary to their circumstances. Jesus tells the high priest according to Matthew 26:64 that 'from now on you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven'. The priest did not see the second coming.

A last argument is that when Jesus refers to the second coming in the second part of his discourse (24:27, 37, 39), he uses ή παρουσία, whereas in 24:30 he uses έρχόμενον. Jesus' use of another word might indicate that he is not speaking of his second coming. Then the τό σημεΐον τουυίου του άνθρώπου έν τω ούρανω might refer to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, and the tribulation or affliction (

) in verse 29 refers to the abomination of desolation depicted in verse 15-28, εσται γαρ τότεθλΐψις μεγάλη οϊα ού γέγονεν άπ' άρχης κόσμου εως του νυν ούδ' ού μή γένηται [For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be'; 24:21].

The sign of the Son of man is then interpreted as the sign of Jesus' vindication as the Messiah. The destruction of the temple implied that the Jewish system of sacrifices and ritual purity came to an end, indicating that Jesus is the true Saviour, and that Jerusalem is destroyed, implies that Jesus is crowned as King in heaven.

I like this

This argument, however, breaks down at the second part of verses 30 and 31:

the tribes of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven and he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other ...

I don't know if I necessarily agree that this is where the argument breaks down, as we need to understand what Jesus is quoting from

"the tribes of the earth will mourn" is quoting from zechariah 12. And the context of this, is those tribes morning, specifically from the land of Israel, and not the whole earth.

Zechariah 12:10B-14 they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn. On that day the mourning in Jerusalem will be as great as the mourning for Hadad-rimmon in the plain of Megiddo. The land shall mourn, each clan by itself: the family of the house of David by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Levi by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the Shimeites by itself, and their wives by themselves; and all the families that are left, each by itself, and their wives by themselves.

While the greek word "ge" can mean earth, it can also mean land. When we look at the context of the septuagint, the passage that Jesus is quoting from in regards to the "tribes of the Land" uses the exact same greek words, thus providing evidence that "tribes the land will mourn" is about Israel and not the whole world.

Matthew 24:30 Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes (phylai) of the earth (ge) will mourn

zechariah 12:12 (LXX) And the land (ge) shall lament in separate families(phylas), the family of the house of David by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself, and their wives by themselves;

Additionally, why would these tribes of the land, as in Israel, "see" christ coming on the clouds any differently than the sanhedrin who was to "from now on" see Christ coming on the clouds?

Matthew 24:30 and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory

Matthew 26:64 Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

My observations: The passage mixes 2 events, which makes it difficult to interpret. But the fact that Church Fathers who lived after 70 AD never mentioned that the Lord's coming had already taken place should settle the matter. Even in the 4th century when they wrote the Creed, they indicated that the Parousya was still expected in the future:

We first need to understand that the nicene creed was written (325)prior to the fall of the Roman empire.

Jerome believed that Rome would be partitioned among 10 kings leading up to the antichrist. This interpretation has been proved false by history, as Rome prior to its fall was never ruled by 10 kings at the same time, followed by an 11th that uprooted 3.

"We should therefore concur with the traditional interpretation of all the commentators of the Christian Church, that at the end of the world, when the Roman Empire is to be destroyed, there shall be ten kings who will partition the Roman world amongst themselves. Then an insignificant eleventh king will arise, who will overcome three of the ten kings... after they have been slain, the seven other kings also will bow their necks to the victor." (Jerome 347-420 AD)

Cyril of Jerusalem believed 10 kings of the Romans would rule different parts all at the same time, followed by the 11th king prior to Romes fall.

The fourth beast shall be a fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall surpass all kingdoms. And that this kingdom is that of the Romans, has been the tradition of the Church’s interpreters ... There shall rise up together ten kings of the Romans, reigning in different parts , but all about the same time; and after these an eleventh, the Antichrist, who by his magical craft shall seize upon the Roman power; and of the kings who reigned before him, three he shall humble, and the remaining seven he shall keep in subjection to himself …(Cyril of Jerusalem 313–386 AD)

Tertullian believed that it was the roman state that held back the mystery of lawlessness, thus by roman being taken away and broken into 10 kingdoms would introduce that antichrist. Can history prove this?
For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work, but only until the one who now restrains it is removed. What obstacles are there but the Roman state, the rebellion of which, by being scattered into the ten kingDOMS, will introduce the Antichrist upon its own ruins?(Tertullian 160–220 AD)

Hyppolytus believed 10 kings would rise from among rome, did this happen prior to Rome's destruction?Hippolytus also date set the return of Christ based, which ended up being a false prediction.
“A fourth beast, dreadful and terrible; it had iron teeth and claws of brass.” And who are these but the Romans? - the kingdom which is now established ... After this, what remains, but the toes of the feet of the image, in which part is iron and part clay, mixed together? And mystically by the toes of the feet he meant the kings who are to arise from among them. (Hippolytus (170–235 AD)


Ireneaus belived the 10 horns of the beast of revelation, be 10 horns that would rise from the empire.
In a still clearer light has John, in the Apocalypse, indicated to the Lord’s disciples ... concerning the ten kings who shall then arise, among whom the empire which now rules the earth shall be partitioned. He teaches us what the ten horns shall be which were seen by Daniel.(Irenaeus 130–202 AD).

All of these early church fathers appear to believe the end would occur at or soon after the destruction of Rome. History confirms this did not happen. Thankfully, the anticene creed did not include much of the false predictions of the early church fathers.

An interesting church father to note would be Origen who appears to have believed in a spiritual 2nd coming that is more personal than historical.

"with much power, however, there comes daily, the soul of every believer, the 2nd advent of the word in the prophetic clouds, that is in the writing of the prophets and apostles, which reveal Him in all their words disclose the light of truth, and declare Him as coming forth in all their signification divine and above human nature. Thus, moreover, to those who recognize the revealer of doctrines in the prophets and apostles, we say that much glory also appears which is seen in the 2nd advent of the word."


Even through mistaken interpretation, the truth of God still moves forward by His will. Thus is evidenced with the original nice creed, of which I absolutely agree in that "he will come to judge the living and the dead".

Original nicene creed:

We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the Son of God,
begotten from the Father, only-begotten,
that is, from the substance of the Father,
God from God,
light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten not made,
of one substance with the Father,
through Whom all things came into being,
things in heaven and things on earth,
Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down, and became incarnate
and became man, and suffered, and rose again on the third day, and ascended to the heavens,
and will come to judge the living and dead, And in the Holy Spirit.

 

[claninja]

Thayer outlines the different meanings of the word, most of which do not fit your doctrine.

That's ironic considering genea is translated as literal generation more often than not. So it seems you are going the route of your own interpretation of genea Matthew 24:34 in order to fit your eschatological bias.

The passages attached to the meanings are total speculation on his part, no weightier than your or my speculations.

Well since you and I are just 2 random internet guys, and Thayer is not, I would say there is a little more weight to His study, then yours or mine.

You are building your position on man, not what it says. Anyway, the whole context is the second coming. Even if it meant a literal generation, as you argue, it relates to the generation at the end, not 2000 years ago.

These are 2 positions espoused by dispensationalism, which I would argue are the positions of men.

Context proves that the phrase “this generation” relates to those alive before Christ’s one final future climactic coming. It has nothing to do with first century events or AD70. Jesus was talking about events preceding His climactic future coming at the end of this age.

The context, is the destruction of temple, which is set right at the beginning of the passage.

Matthew 24:1-2 Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered them, “You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.”

When look at all synoptic gospels, the questions are 2 fold

Mark 13:2 Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished?”

Matthew 24:3 As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?

Luke 21 21:7 and they asked him, “Teacher, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when these things are about to take place?”

Thus the "sign of your coming and of the end of the age" = the sign when all these things (destruction of temple) are about to be accomplished/take place.

Did Jesus' generation experience the destruction of the temple? Yes.

 

[claninja]

In the case of Philippians 2:15 there are a few:- KJV, Websters, NLT, Contemporary, Good News.

"That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, (genea) among whom ye shine as lights in the world." (Philippians 2:15 KJV)​

Many other translations use "generation" as you say, but readers understand the context to mean "crooked and twisted people" among whom we live at any particular time. So, I find myself agreeing with others here who consider the Olivet mentions of "genea" was not meant to be forced to mean only a 1st century event.

Finally, thank you for this CG. I wonder why SG did not simply provide this earlier. This is an excellent example of genea being translated as other than generation.

I believe Acts 14:16 is also where genea is translated as "times" instead of generation in the KJV. If we try substiuting "times with "nation", "race", "family stock", it doesn't really work. But substituting with "generation" does work.

Acts 14:16 Who in times (genea) past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways.

Can Paul's passage of being a light amongst a perverse "nation" or "generation" apply to a 1st century audience and us? Yes, but his message was of the nation or generation of his day.

philippians 2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world

Can Jesus' passage about the destruction of the temple in 66-70ad apply to a 1st century generation? Yes, as they lived through it. Will we, 2,000 years later live through it? No.
Thus, the coming of the son of man in judgment upon Israel is applicable to the 1st century generation.

However, Can the coming of Christ and the judgment of the living and the dead apply to all generations future and past? Yes, as all, as in every generation, will stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

 

[sovereigngrace]

I like this



I don't know if I necessarily agree that this is where the argument breaks down, as we need to understand what Jesus is quoting from

"the tribes of the earth will mourn" is quoting from zechariah 12. And the context of this, is those tribes morning, specifically from he land of Israel, and not the whole earth.

Zechariah 12:10B-14 they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn. On that day the mourning in Jerusalem will be as great as the mourning for Hadad-rimmon in the plain of Megiddo. The land shall mourn, each clan by itself: the family of the house of David by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Levi by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the Shimeites by itself, and their wives by themselves; and all the families that are left, each by itself, and their wives by themselves.

While the greek word "ge" can mean earth, it can also mean land. When we look at the context of the septuagint, the passage that Jesus is quoting from in regards to the "tribes of the Land" uses the exact same greek words, thus providing evidence that "tribes the land will mourn" is about Israel and not the whole world.

Matthew 24:30 Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes (phylai) of the earth (ge) will mourn

zechariah 12:12 (LXX) And the land (ge) shall lament in separate families(phylas), the family of the house of David by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself, and their wives by themselves;

Additionally, why would these tribes of the land, as in Israel, "see" christ coming on the clouds and differently than the sanhedrin who was to "from now on" see Christ coming on the clouds?

Matthew 24:30 and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory

Matthew 26:64 Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

You do the same with the Old Testament that you do with the New Testament: your fixation with the coming of Titus and AD70 causes you to dump every prophetic passage that pertains to some other location or some other event into that one occurrence.

• You have the old covenant prophets fixated (like you) with the coming of Titus and AD70.
• You have the NT writers fixated (like you) with the coming of Titus and AD70.
• You have Jesus the Son of God fixated (like you) with the coming of Titus and AD70.

This is so wrong! This shows how erroneous, untenable and forced the Preterist position is. Words lose their normal and repeated meaning. Context is butchered. Every reference to global events is localized to relate to Jerusalem in AD70. Histories events all relate to the coming of Titus and AD70. The climactic detail attributed to the second coming is redirected to the coming of Titus and AD70.

Preterists are obsessed with AD 70, and dump every and any text they find into the Roman destruction of the Jewish Temple and the city of Jerusalem in AD 70, as if it was the pivotal moment in time and eternity. No Scripture is safe. It is as if the Holy Spirit in the New Testament has nothing else to speak about but this passing fleeting event that was perpetrated by the Roman soldiers.

· Passages that clearly pertain to the cross (and the introduction of the new covenant) are stolen, reinterpreted and reapplied to AD 70.
· Passages that clearly pertain to the intra-Advent period are stolen, reinterpreted and reapplied to AD 70.
· Passages that clearly pertain to the glorious climactic coming of Christ are stolen, reinterpreted and reapplied to AD 70.
· Passages that clearly pertain to eternity are stolen, reinterpreted and reapplied to AD 70.

What they apply to AD 70 is totally unbiblical and insane. They are indeed fixated with that date, whereas Scripture is fixated with the cross and the Lord's final return.

• They have the old covenant ending at the coming of Titus in AD 70.
• They have the new covenant commencing at the coming of Titus in AD 70.
• They have “this age” ending at the coming of Titus in AD 70.
• They have “the age to come” starting at the coming of Titus in AD 70.
• They have “the last days” finishing at the coming of Titus in AD 70.
• They have “the last day” of “the last days” occurring at the coming of Titus in AD 70.
• They have “the day of redemption” happening at the coming of Titus in AD 70.
• They have “the coming of the Lord” arriving at the coming of Titus in AD 70.
• They have “the resurrection” of the just and the unjust happening at the coming of Titus in AD70.
• They have “the judgment” of the just and the unjust happening at the coming of Titus in AD 70.
• They have the old corrupt heavens and earth being replaced at the coming of Titus in AD 70.
• They have “the new heavens and new earth” appearing at the coming of Titus in AD 70.

This is absolutely ridiculous! Such is their obsession with this much vaunted year (AD 70), that their advocates and websites can do nothing else but speak on its virtues.

Preterists neutralize every possible future coming of the Lord passage in order to sustain their position. No text is safe. The only event they seem to see in the New Testament is AD 70. When you engage with them you quickly find that they are totally fixated with this innocuous date. There is such a delusion and duplicity here.

Scripture is Christ-centered - from Genesis to Revelation. Preterism is AD70-centered. The life, character and achievements of Christ are pushed into the background in your theology, whereas they are central to those of the Holy Spirit and the sacred text. The earthly ministry of Christ vastly out-weights the importance of AD70, yet that is all you want to talk about. You concentrate little (if any) on the sinless life, the atoning death and victorious resurrection of Christ. In your estimation, it is not the work of Christ on the cross that abolishes the old covenant and introduces the new, but Titus and his coming in AD70. You totally sidestep the climatic coming of the Lord Jesus Christ in the future and the deliverance of creation from the bondage of corruption, including the resurrection of mankind and the general resurrection. You rather attribute text after text that relates to this all-consummating event to AD70.

 

[claninja]

You do the same with the Old Testament that you do with the New Testament: your fixation with the coming of Titus and AD70 causes you to dump every prophetic passage that pertains to some other location or some other event into that one occurrence.

• You have the old covenant prophets fixated (like you) with the coming of Titus and AD70.
• You have the NT writers fixated (like you) with the coming of Titus and AD70.
• You have Jesus the Son of God fixated (like you) with the coming of Titus and AD70.

This is so wrong! This shows how erroneous, untenable and forced the Preterist position is. Words lose their normal and repeated meaning. Context is butchered. Every reference to global events is localized to relate to Jerusalem in AD70. Histories events all relate to the coming of Titus and AD70. The climactic detail attributed to the second coming is redirected to the coming of Titus and AD70.

Preterists are obsessed with AD 70, and dump every and any text they find into the Roman destruction of the Jewish Temple and the city of Jerusalem in AD 70, as if it was the pivotal moment in time and eternity. No Scripture is safe. It is as if the Holy Spirit in the New Testament has nothing else to speak about but this passing fleeting event that was perpetrated by the Roman soldiers.

· Passages that clearly pertain to the cross (and the introduction of the new covenant) are stolen, reinterpreted and reapplied to AD 70.
· Passages that clearly pertain to the intra-Advent period are stolen, reinterpreted and reapplied to AD 70.
· Passages that clearly pertain to the glorious climactic coming of Christ are stolen, reinterpreted and reapplied to AD 70.
· Passages that clearly pertain to eternity are stolen, reinterpreted and reapplied to AD 70.

What they apply to AD 70 is totally unbiblical and insane. They are indeed fixated with that date, whereas Scripture is fixated with the cross and the Lord's final return.

• They have the old covenant ending at the coming of Titus in AD 70.
• They have the new covenant commencing at the coming of Titus in AD 70.
• They have “this age” ending at the coming of Titus in AD 70.
• They have “the age to come” starting at the coming of Titus in AD 70.
• They have “the last days” finishing at the coming of Titus in AD 70.
• They have “the last day” of “the last days” occurring at the coming of Titus in AD 70.
• They have “the day of redemption” happening at the coming of Titus in AD 70.
• They have “the coming of the Lord” arriving at the coming of Titus in AD 70.
• They have “the resurrection” of the just and the unjust happening at the coming of Titus in AD70.
• They have “the judgment” of the just and the unjust happening at the coming of Titus in AD 70.
• They have the old corrupt heavens and earth being replaced at the coming of Titus in AD 70.
• They have “the new heavens and new earth” appearing at the coming of Titus in AD 70.

This is absolutely ridiculous! Such is their obsession with this much vaunted year (AD 70), that their advocates and websites can do nothing else but speak on its virtues.

Preterists neutralize every possible future coming of the Lord passage in order to sustain their position. No text is safe. The only event they seem to see in the New Testament is AD 70. When you engage with them you quickly find that they are totally fixated with this innocuous date. There is such a delusion and duplicity here.

Scripture is Christ-centered - from Genesis to Revelation. Preterism is AD70-centered. The life, character and achievements of Christ are pushed into the background in your theology, whereas they are central to those of the Holy Spirit and the sacred text. The earthly ministry of Christ vastly out-weights the importance of AD70, yet that is all you want to talk about. You concentrate little (if any) on the sinless life, the atoning death and victorious resurrection of Christ. In your estimation, it is not the work of Christ on the cross that abolishes the old covenant and introduces the new, but Titus and his coming in AD70. You totally sidestep the climatic coming of the Lord Jesus Christ in the future and the deliverance of creation from the bondage of corruption, including the resurrection of mankind and the general resurrection. You rather attribute text after text that relates to this all-consummating event to AD70.

none of this rant actually addresses what I posted. It would be more fruitful if you pointed to which specific verses I quoted In post 68 and explain why i am wrong.

for example, why am I wrong about applying Zechariah 12, which I stated is local Israel based on the context in Zechariah 12, to Matthew 24:30? How am I wrong about Jesus quoting Zechariah 12:12 in regards to the tribes of the land of israel?

Additionally, Why would the Sanhedrin seeing son of man coming on the clouds “from now on” Be different than the tribes of the land of Israel mourning when they too saw the son of man coming on the clouds?

 

[Andrewn]

I don't know if I necessarily agree that this is where the argument breaks down, as we need to understand what Jesus is quoting from

I agree that the Lord was quoting from Zech 12 and that the word "ge" can mean "land." Still, this doesn't support your view. Zech 12:3-10 is clearly not what happened in 70 AD and must be interpreted as future. It follows that that the rest of Zech 12 is also future.

Mt 26:64 is most likely speaking figuratively. We know that the Lord isn't literally seated at the right hand of Power bec Power doesn't have a right hand and Hebrews tells us otherwise. Similarly, He is not literally riding on the clouds of heaven but, as elsewhere, the clouds of heaven is a reference to the saints who manifest His sovereign reign on earth.

We first need to understand that the nicene creed was written (325)prior to the fall of the Roman empire. Jerome believed that Rome would be partitioned among 10 kings leading up to the antichrist. This interpretation has been proved false by history, as Rome prior to its fall was never ruled by 10 kings at the same time, followed by an 11th that uprooted 3.

Your quotations support what I said, namely that Church Fathers didn't believe Jesus had already returned in 70 AD.

 

[jgr]

Jerome believed that Rome would be partitioned among 10 kings leading up to the antichrist. This interpretation has been proved false by history, as Rome prior to its fall was never ruled by 10 kings at the same time, followed by an 11th that uprooted 3.

"We should therefore concur with the traditional interpretation of all the commentators of the Christian Church, that at the end of the world, when the Roman Empire is to be destroyed, there shall be ten kings who will partition the Roman world amongst themselves. Then an insignificant eleventh king will arise, who will overcome three of the ten kings... after they have been slain, the seven other kings also will bow their necks to the victor." (Jerome 347-420 AD)

Cyril of Jerusalem believed 10 kings of the Romans would rule different parts all at the same time, followed by the 11th king prior to Romes fall.

The fourth beast shall be a fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall surpass all kingdoms. And that this kingdom is that of the Romans, has been the tradition of the Church’s interpreters ... There shall rise up together ten kings of the Romans, reigning in different parts , but all about the same time; and after these an eleventh, the Antichrist, who by his magical craft shall seize upon the Roman power; and of the kings who reigned before him, three he shall humble, and the remaining seven he shall keep in subjection to himself …(Cyril of Jerusalem 313–386 AD)

Tertullian believed that it was the roman state that held back the mystery of lawlessness, thus by roman being taken away and broken into 10 kingdoms would introduce that antichrist. Can history prove this?
For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work, but only until the one who now restrains it is removed. What obstacles are there but the Roman state, the rebellion of which, by being scattered into the ten kingDOMS, will introduce the Antichrist upon its own ruins?(Tertullian 160–220 AD)

These fathers were presciently accurate.

Imperial Rome was the impediment restraining the appearance of the Roman apostate papal antichrist, identified by the little horn (Daniel 7:8).

Out of the eventual disintegration of imperial Rome, ten kingdoms emerged: The Heruli, Suevi, Burgundians, Huns, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Vandals, Lombards, Franks, and Anglo-Saxons.

The little horn of the papacy uprooted three of these kingdoms: The Heruli, Vandals, and Ostrogoths.

Recognition of these historical fulfillments was integral and indispensable to the ultimate effectiveness and success of the Reformation.

 

[DavidPT]

none of this rant actually addresses what I posted. It would be more fruitful if you pointed to which specific verses I quoted In post 68 and explain why i am wrong.

for example, why am I wrong about applying Zechariah 12, which I stated is local Israel based on the context in Zechariah 12, to Matthew 24:30? How am I wrong about Jesus quoting Zechariah 12:12 in regards to the tribes of the land of israel?

Additionally, Why would the Sanhedrin seeing son of man coming on the clouds “from now on” Be different than the tribes of the land of Israel mourning when they too saw the son of man coming on the clouds?

Clearly, Zechariah 12:10-14, Matthew 24:30, and Revelation 1:7, are all referring to the same events. This does not present a problem for me since I have always understood ever since I can remember, that Zechariah 12:10-14 and Revelation 1:7 are connected with the bodily return of Christ in the end of this age.

I suspect Zechariah 12:10-14 might cause a problem for sovereigngrace though, since I'm assuming he likely applies Zechariah 12:10-14 to the first century, likely involving Christ's death. I don't know for a fact that he does, but every Amil similar to him that I have ever encountered in the past does. So I assume he does too. Because, if Zechariah 12:10-14 is referring to the same events connected with Matthew 24:30 like you and I tend to think, he can't have the former occurring in the first century and the latter occurring in the end of the age, then expect some of us to seriously consider that interpretation, as if it could be correct or something.

 

[Christian Gedge]

I suspect Zechariah 12:10-14 might cause a problem for sovereigngrace though, since I'm assuming he likely applies Zechariah 12:10-14 to the first century, likely involving Christ's death. I don't know for a fact that he does, but every Amil similar to him that I have ever encountered in the past does.

I wouldn't be too sure about that bro.

 

[DavidPT]

I wouldn't be too sure about that bro.

I did indicate that I didn't know for a fact that he does. I am hoping that I am assuming wrong. But in the event I'm not assuming wrong, basing that on discussions with other Amils similar to him in the past, I then explained why this would cause a problem. Clearly he is correct about Matthew 24:30. And if Zechariah 12:10-15 involves this same coming, obviously Zechariah 12:10-15 would have to still be future if Matthew 24:30 is still future.

 

[Andrewn]

But in the event I'm not assuming wrong, basing that on discussions with other Amils similar to him in the past, I then explained why this would cause a problem. Clearly he is correct about Matthew 24:30. And if Zechariah 12:10-14 involves this same coming, obviously Zechariah 12:10-14 would have to still be future if Matthew 24:30 is still future.

I just wrote in message #73 that Zech 12 is future. Call me an atypical Amil if you like. But other Amils have a similar understanding (post #76). Looks like you misunderstood.

 

[claninja]

Zech 12:3-10 is clearly not what happened in 70 AD

Zechariah 12:10 does have fulfillment in the 1st century, specifically with the death of Christ

zechariah 12:10 And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a --firstborn.

John 19:34-37 But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water. He who saw it has borne witness—his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth—that you also may believe. For these things took place that the Scripture might be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken.” And again another Scripture says, “They will look on him whom they have pierced.”

Still, this doesn't support your view. Zech 12:3-10 is clearly not what happened in 70 AD and must be interpreted as future.

I guess, how is it not supported? The original context of the prophecy is in regards to the nation of Israel and their tribal clans mourning because they pierced God. Zechariah 12:12 is not about the all people or the whole world in general, its specifically about Israel.

Zechariah 12:12-13 The land shall mourn, each tribe by itself: the family of the house of David by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Levi by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the Shimeites by itself, and their wives by themselves; and all the families that are left, each by itself, and their wives by themselves.

Jesus quotes from zechariah 12:12 as occuring shortly after the destruction of 1st century jerusalem.

Matthwe 24:29-30 Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.


Jerusalem is destroyed because they did not recognize the time of Jesus' coming......
Luke 19:43-44 For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation.”

.......Which correlates with the Vineyard owner "COMING" to destroy the wicked tenants for killing his son.
Matthew 21:40-45 When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” They said to him, “He will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons.” Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: “‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone;d
this was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes’? Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits. And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.”e When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them.

Thus, I'm not sure on what grounds we can separate the coming of the vineyard owner to destroy the wicked tenants in association with kill His son and their mourning because of this?

Mt 26:64 is most likely speaking figuratively. We know that the Lord isn't literally seated at the right hand of Power bec Power doesn't have a right hand and Hebrews tells us otherwise. Similarly, He is not literally riding on the clouds of heaven but, as elsewhere, the clouds of heaven is a reference to the saints who manifest His sovereign reign on earth.

I would argue Matthew 26:64 is pointing to Daniel 7:13-14, in which the son of man comes on the clouds TO the Father. This would correlate nicely with the son of man sitting at the right hand. Thus, just as Jesus "from now on" IS sitting at the right hand, He IS coming on the clouds.

This language also points to how God came in judgment upon His enemies

He came down from heaven to judge David's enemies
2 samuel 22:10-11 He bowed the heavens and came down; thick darkness was under his feet. He rode on a cherub and flew; he was seen on the wings of the wind.

He came down from heaven to judge Eygpt
Isaiah 19:1 An oracle concerning Egypt. Behold, the LORD is riding on a swift cloud and comes to Egypt;

He came down from heaven to judge samaria
Micah 1:3-4 For behold, the LORD is coming out of his place, and will come down and tread upon the high places of the earth. And the mountains will melt under him, and the valleys will split open,

Your quotations support what I said, namely that Church Fathers didn't believe Jesus had already returned in 70 AD.

My only point is the inconsistencies in the early church father's eschatology. It seems that some believed the 2nd coming would occur at the end of the roman empire, some believed it would occur after 10 kingdoms had rise from the roman empire, and others believed it to be personal and non historical. Some believed in chiliasm and some did not. Some made predictions of the end that obviously turned to out be incorrect. Many the church Fathers believed the end of the world to be future them with in relation to the end roman empire, which ended up being wrong.

Interpretations of prophecy will continue to change as history over and over again proves them wrong.

What is consistent is that Christ came in judgment upon Israel in 70ad, which is specific to that 1st century generation, and Christ will come to judge the living and the dead as the Nicene creed states, which can be applied to all generations, past to and FUTURE to us.

 

[claninja]

These fathers were presciently accurate.

Imperial Rome was the impediment restraining the appearance of the Roman apostate papal antichrist, identified by the little horn (Daniel 7:8).

Out of the eventual disintegration of imperial Rome, ten kingdoms emerged: The Heruli, Suevi, Burgundians, Huns, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Vandals, Lombards, Franks, and Anglo-Saxons.

The little horn of the papacy uprooted three of these kingdoms: The Heruli, Vandals, and Ostrogoths.

Recognition of these historical fulfillments was integral and indispensable to the ultimate effectiveness and success of the Reformation.

I will admit, this is an area I do struggle with. I do agree the Roman apostate papal does have similarities to the little horn, especially when we look at things in an idealist perspective.

To note, it seems that the early church fathers such as Jerome, Cyril, and Irenaeus believed it would be 10 kings ruling over Rome followed by the 11th horn prior to the fall of the 4th kingdom. This would have been proved an incorrect interpretation by history

However, It seems that other church fathers such as Tertullian, believed as historists do today, that the roman empire would fall, then be split up into 10 kingdoms, followed by and 11th king.

However in regards to the Heruli, I thought they were conquered by the Lombards? I could be wrong though, as I am not too familiar with all the different tribes and kingdoms that came from the roman empire. Only have done a little "google" research .