This generation

[DavidPT]

incorrect. I never post commentaries as “proof”. There seems to be many amongst CF, including staff and moderators, that are unaware that the belief that the olivet discourse is completely fulfilled is NOT exclusive to full preterism. The commentators are there to demonstrate that partial preterism can hold that the olivet discourse was completely fulfilled.

Why do some of you need the OD to be completely fulfilled? Why is that the only acceptable interpretation for some of you? Why isn't it better to view the OD as the time of His ascension through His return in the end of this age and what He does when He returns? You want to understand the OD as Jesus intended it to mean, right? What if the way some of you are understanding some of the OD is not how Jesus intended for it be understood? What then? Keep understanding the way you currently do, regardless? That's the better solution?

As to the OD, only Partial Preterism is a balanced interpretation. Full Preterism and Futurism are extremes, neither view fits with what Jesus was meaning throughout the OD since some of it pertains to the time they were living in, and some of it pertains to generation after generation beyond that, thus partial Preterism.

Daniel 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

Matthew 24:30 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.

One like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven

and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

These are obviously not referring to the same coming. One is a coming to heaven, the other is a coming to earth.

This part undeniably proves the latter is a coming to earth--- and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see. I seriously doubt all the tribes of the earth meant here and in heaven at the time. Therefore, I don't get why some of you keep bringing Daniel 7:13 up in regard to the coming recorded in Matthew 24:30?

There are 3 comings of Christ recorded in the Bible, meaning in regard to taking up residence where He comes to, and they are the following. 1) the coming when He was born. 2) the coming back to heaven following His death and resurrection. 3) the coming back to earth in the end of this age. All 3 comings involve Him taking up residence where He comes to, until He goes somewhere else instead. As to the 3rd coming, there is no more comings after that. This times He comes to stay, for forever in this case.

There are two comings of Christ to the earth, one coming of Christ back to heaven, meaning in regard to comings that involve Him taking up residence where He comes to. By interpreting the coming in Matthew 24:30 to be meaning a coming in judgment in 70 AD, or whatever it is that some of you are applying that to, contradicts that the coming recorded in Matthew 24:30 involves Him taking up residence where He comes to. Why anyone could possibly think a coming in 70 AD, in any sense, was far more important to Jesus in the OD than a coming in the end of this age, I guess I will never understand that logic?

 

[Hammster]

Why do some of you need the OD to be completely fulfilled?

I don’t need it to be. It just is.

 

[DavidPT]

I don’t need it to be. It just is.

If you don't need it to be, that should mean you should be open to other interpretations of the OD, except I'm not seeing any evidence that you are open to other interpretations of the OD

 

[Hammster]

If you don't need it to be, that should mean you should be open to other interpretations of the OD, except I'm not seeing any evidence that you are open to other interpretations of the OD

I’ve been more than open to other interpretations since I’ve held other views in the past. Every person who wants to can and has posted views opposite of what was posted in the OP, and I’ve read them. I’m not sure what more I can do.

 

[rwb]

Right, I understand you believe the “last days” equal the messianic/gospel age. But that’s not what I’m trying to clarify.

I’m trying to clarify your belief of 1 john 2:18-19. You believe John knew it was the last hour/messianic age because many antichrists had appeared and left the church, correct? That’s how he knew it was the “last hour"

I believe John knew the age of the promised Messiah had come when he said, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." (Jo 1:29) Read all of Jo 1

One would be denying the obvious to imagine that John did not know the age/time/era, or Gospel/Messianic age had come at the beginning of the ministry of Christ, the God-Man. As a witness of the life, crucifixion, and resurrection of Christ, John also knew that Christ would come again when this age ends.

1 John 2:28 (KJV) And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.

When John says "last hour" he is speaking of the whole Messianic/Gospel era that he lived to witness coming when Christ came. He is simply telling the church what to expect in this age/era/time as the church is sent unto all the earth preaching the Gospel in the power of the Spirit. No different than Paul's warning "For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock." (Acts 20:29)

 

[rwb]

incorrect. I never post commentaries as “proof”. There seems to be many amongst CF, including staff and moderators, that are unaware that the belief that the olivet discourse is completely fulfilled is NOT exclusive to full preterism. The commentators are there to demonstrate that partial preterism can hold that the olivet discourse was completely fulfilled.

I too often find help from commentaries and concordances, but you quote them so often it's difficult to know whether all your understanding is from the writing of men or from the Word of God. One of the greatest problems within churches today is that professing Christians, even pastors more often than not build their doctrines on what others believe. You'll find it is far better, wiser and more biblically sound to allow the Bible to be its own interpreter. And if you find, or are shown that your doctrine forces contradiction, then you MUST re-evaluate your doctrine, rather than finding a commentary that agrees with you.

 

[DavidPT]

Philippians 2:15 (YLT) that ye may become blameless and harmless, children of God, unblemished in the midst of a generation(genea) crooked and perverse, among whom ye do appear as luminaries in the world,

I have suggested this before, maybe not in this thread though, this is the generation Jesus could be meaning in the OD, the one recorded in .Philippians 2:15 above.

Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

IOW---Verily I say unto you, This crooked and perverse generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

2 Peter 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.


Thus, something along the lines per the following.

the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men---this crooked and perverse generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled---Heaven and earth shall pass away, but of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.---the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up---Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

 

[DavidPT]

Christ also added whosoever reads, that also expands the "you" to whosoever read.

Unfortunately, i never looked at that in context at the time. That kind of destroys my entire argument then.

 

[rwb]

I didn’t “omit” it. The “son of man coming on the clouds” is a reference to Daniel 7. In that VISION, Christ come to the Father on the clouds of heaven and receives all power, authority, dominion, and an everlasting kingdom where all peoples worship him. You can’t separate vs 13 from 14.

So I stated, I believe the “coming in the clouds” is a reference to Christ’s kingdom.

Luke 21:31 31So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near

benson commentary on Matthew 24:30-31
“Then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven — Christ proceeds here in the same figurative style, and the plain meaning of his words is, that the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Jewish state, civil and religious, would be such a remarkable instance of divine vengeance, and such a signal manifestation of Christ’s power and glory, that all the Jewish tribes should mourn, and many should be led from thence to acknowledge him for the true Messiah. To explain this further it may be observed, “The sign from heaven, which both the disciples and Pharisees expected, was some visible appearance of the Messiah in the clouds, and some miraculous interposition of his power, by which the Romans, the masters of the world, were to be destroyed, and a universal empire over all nations erected in behalf of the Jews. This sign they were led to expect, because Daniel had said prophetically, of the Son of man, (Daniel 7:13,) that he saw him coming in the clouds of heaven, and that there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, &c. Nevertheless, by the coming of the Son of man in the clouds, Daniel meant his interposing for the destruction of his enemies, particularly the unbelieving Jews; and the erection of his own kingdom over all nations; a spiritual kingdom, a new dispensation of religion, which should comprehend the whole world within its pale. Therefore, to show the disciples that they had mistaken the prophecy, which referred wholly to the destruction of Jerusalem, and to the conversion of the Gentiles, he adopted it into his prediction of these events, and thereby settled its true meaning.” — Macknight. The figurative expression, Coming in the clouds of heaven, in several other passages of Scripture, signifies God’s interposing evidently and irresistibly, to execute vengeance on a wicked generation, and to assert his own government over the world.”

benson commentary Luke 21:27-28
“Then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud — They shall see the accomplishment of what Daniel foretold, by the figurative expression of, “the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven;” for the destruction of the Jewish nation by the Roman armies, and, in after ages, of other persecuting and antichristian powers, and the spreading of my gospel in consequence thereof, according to this my prediction, shall demonstrate to all unprejudiced persons, that I am the Son of man, prophesied of by Daniel, and that the conversion of the world to Christianity is the glorious universal kingdom which Daniel foretold was to be given to the Son of man; and this is the true sign from heaven, about which the Jews have been so solicitous.”

so just to clarify, you don’t believe Christ is presently sitting at the right hand of God?

Of course Christ is sitting at the right hand of God, and has been since He ascended there after His resurrection. And since His ascension was physically witnessed being taken up, and a cloud received him out of their sight, we read: "this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven."

Just as His ascending up was visible with the naked eye, so too when He comes again will be visible by all. Remember God IS NEAR to all who call upon Him. He is but a spoken Word away (the Gospel) received by grace through faith to whosoever believes.

Romans 10:12-13 (KJV) For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

 

[DavidPT]

I too often find help from commentaries and concordances, but you quote them so often it's difficult to know whether all your understanding is from the writing of men or from the Word of God. One of the greatest problems within churches today is that professing Christians, even pastors more often than not build their doctrines on what others believe. You'll find it is far better, wiser and more biblically sound to allow the Bible to be its own interpreter. And if you find, or are shown that your doctrine forces contradiction, then you MUST re-evaluate your doctrine, rather than finding a commentary that agrees with you.

Commentaries can be somewhat deceiving to a degree since anyone can likely find Commentaries that agree with their view of things, which then means to them, see, I was correct to interpret this or that like such, otherwise, how do you explain that this or that Commentary agrees with me? But what about the Commentaries that don't agree with one's view of things? Or better yet, what about what is recorded in the Bible itself, that if it doesn't agree with one's view of things?

 

[claninja]

I believe John knew the age of the promised Messiah had come when he said, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." (Jo 1:29) Read all of Jo 1

One would be denying the obvious to imagine that John did not know the age/time/era, or Gospel/Messianic age had come at the beginning of the ministry of Christ, the God-Man. As a witness of the life, crucifixion, and resurrection of Christ, John also knew that Christ would come again when this age ends.

1 John 2:28 (KJV) And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.

as previously stated, I already understand you believe the “last days” = the messianic/gospel age. No need to keep explaining that.

When John says "last hour" he is speaking of the whole Messianic/Gospel era that he lived to witness coming when Christ came. He is simply telling the church what to expect in this age/era/time as the church is sent unto all the earth preaching the Gospel in the power of the Spirit. No different than Paul's warning "For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock." (Acts 20:29)

right, I’m trying to understand your position. It’s a simple yes or no. Your understanding of 1 john 2:18, is that john knew it was the “messianic age” because many antichrists had arrived and left the church, correct?

 

[claninja]

I too often find help from commentaries and concordances, but you quote them so often it's difficult to know whether all your understanding is from the writing of men or from the Word of God. One of the greatest problems within churches today is that professing Christians, even pastors more often than not build their doctrines on what others believe. You'll find it is far better, wiser and more biblically sound to allow the Bible to be its own interpreter. And if you find, or are shown that your doctrine forces contradiction, then you MUST re-evaluate your doctrine, rather than finding a commentary that agrees with you.

Your not understanding me.

as already stated, there is a wrong understanding of partial preterism among those on CF. Many of these individuals incorrectly believe that if one holds to the complete fulfillment of the OD in the first century then they are a full preterist. The commentaries that I post, are solely provided to show that this is NOT true and totally incorrect. I am not providing the commentaries to show my position is “correct”. I’m providing them to correct a misunderstanding of partial preterism.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

as previously stated, i don’t believe the flood was global, as it’s not supported by any real evidence.

So, you don't consider scripture to be "real evidence"? Scripture itself makes it very clear that it was global. I can't take you seriously. Thanks for the past discussions we've had, but I have no interest in talking to you anymore.

 

[claninja]

Of course Christ is sitting at the right hand of God, and has been since He ascended there after His resurrection. And since His ascension was physically witnessed being taken up, and a cloud received him out of their sight, we read: "this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven."

great! I am glad you agree that Jesus is presently sitting at the right hand of God. So how did the Sanhedrin “from now on” see Him sitting at the right hand?

Matthew 26:64 64Jesus 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.

Just as His ascending up was visible with the naked eye, so too when He comes again will be visible by all. Remember God IS NEAR to all who call upon Him. He is but a spoken Word away (the Gospel) received by grace through faith to whosoever believes.

Christ was hidden by the clouds. He was not seen visibly entering heaven. So by that logic, if Christ went into heaven “out of sight in a cloud” he would come from heaven “out of sight in cloud”. Such would be consistent with the OT comings of God where he descended from heaven on the clouds to judge nations and enemies (2 Samuel 22, Micah 1, Isaiah 19, etc…..)

Acts 1:9 9And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.

But anyways….

Daniel 7 has the son of man coming on the clouds to the Father to receive all power, glory, dominion, and an everlasting kingdom where all peoples will serve him.

matthew 24:30, is referencing this. I believe, the reference of Daniel 7:13 is to point to daniel 7:14,27

Daniel 7:14,14And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom,
that all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one
that shall not be destroyed.

27And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High;
his kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom,and all dominions shall serve and obey him.’

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I addressed your objection. You’ve refused to actually address my argument. So be it.

So, you expect me to address your argument before you address mine. I see.

 

[claninja]

So, you don't consider scripture to be "real evidence"? Scripture itself makes it very clear that it was global. I can't take you seriously. Thanks for the past discussions we've had, but I have no interest in talking to you anymore.

hyperbole was a common literary tool among the Hebrew writers and those of the ancient near East.

for example, we know Cyrus wasn’t literally king of the whole world. This is hyperbole.

“Thus says Cyrus king of Persia, ‘The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever is among you of all his people, may the LORD his God be with him. Let him go up.’”

so just because I don’t believe in a hyperbolic global flood, doesn’t mean I don’t believe scripture, such is a fallacious argument.

But sure feel free stop engaging any time .

 

[claninja]

So also when you, that is; anyone reading these Words, see all these things; that is; Judah becoming a nation again and all the nations growing and prospering, then you; WE, the people alive today, will know that He is near, even at the door.
The glorious Return of Jesus, as described in the previous two verses. Matthew 24:30-34

sure, just point to where the olivet discourse specifically prophesied of Judah becoming a nation again.


Matthew 24:32-33 From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. 33So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

No, He showed what would happen within 40 years.

The gathering of the elect didn't happen within 40 years. The times of the Gentiles weren't fulfilled within 40 years. And those were things that Jesus had just talked about before saying this generation would not pass away until all these things (things like the gathering of the elect and the times of the Gentiles) were fulfilled.

 

[rwb]

as previously stated, I already understand you believe the “last days” = the messianic/gospel age. No need to keep explaining that.

right, I’m trying to understand your position. It’s a simple yes or no. Your understanding of 1 john 2:18, is that john knew it was the “messianic age” because many antichrists had arrived and left the church, correct?

John's understanding that Christ ushered in this age does not come from him knowing that there were already many antichrists. It came from his knowing the promised Messiah had come, which he realized meant the prophesied Day/age/era of the Lord had come.

 

[claninja]

Why do some of you need the OD to be completely fulfilled?

because Jesus said:

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

Why isn't it better to view the OD as the time of His ascension through His return in the end of this age and what He does when He returns? You want to understand the OD as Jesus intended it to mean, right? What if the way some of you are understanding some of the OD is not how Jesus intended for it be understood? What then? Keep understanding the way you currently do, regardless? That's the better solution?

if Jesus didn’t mean “this generation”, but instead thousands of years from his day, surely there should be NO passages in the NT that describe Christ’s as coming “soon”, “in a little”, “without delay” or “has drawn near”? Right?

This part undeniably proves the latter is a coming to earth--- and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see. I seriously doubt all the tribes of the earth meant here and in heaven at the time. Therefore, I don't get why some of you keep bringing Daniel 7:13 up in regard to the coming recorded in Matthew 24:30?

the argument is that by Jesus alluding to Daniel 7:13, then vs Daniel 14 and 27 should be understood in association.