The Preterists and Matthew 24:34

[Interplanner]

Musterion,
there is no such thing. The translation work is worthless. Please don't post things like this without sourcing them OK, and at least 2 distinct sources.

It is not a footnote in an NIV.

The TEV is extraordinarily clear: "all these things will happen before the people now living have all died."

Anyone who diagrams Greek (or English) knows that you can't insert a contingency in here. You'd have to have two sentences. One sentence would have be devoted to the condition to be met.

There is no mystery condition to be met! The people would not die before the things happened! That is the closest you can get to an implied contingency.

There are three columns of examples about 'heos' in the BDF lexicon, and they have nothing about this instance. Don't build anything on it without such solid support.

The closest similarity (and using 'heos') is v21 'from the beginning until ('heos') this day.'

 

[Interplanner]

The problem is not resolved on that particle. It is resolved because there was an allowance for a delay between the DofJ and the day of judgement of the whole world.

 

[George Affleck]

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days..."

Following upon the 3 and a half year war on Jerusalem, the destruction of the city, the temple desecrations, with millions killed, and the entrance of Daniel's abomination of desolation (Roman army) into Jerusalem...

"...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:"

The old, incomplete, physical Jewish order, continual sacrifices, which began with and is represented by: Jacob (the sun), his wife Rachel (the moon), and his other 11 sons (stars) will no longer shine but be put out to make way for Him who is the light of the world to all generations of them who only believe.

 

[Aaron the Tall]

It is interesting that the first time the words sun, moon and stars are used in conjunction, in the Bible, are in Joseph's dream.

"And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me.
And he told it to his father, and to his brethren: and his father rebuked him, and said unto him, What is this dream that thou hast dreamed? Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth?
And his brethren envied him; but his father observed the saying."

Used together, in this way, it came to be known, to the ancients, as synonymous for great nations, specifically the Jewish nation.

Of course, this is only interesting to those who compare scripture with scripture.

Good thing Joseph wasn't waiting for a literal fulfillment of his dream.

 

[Aaron the Tall]

The preterists take every thing in a literal sense from the beginning of the 24th chapter of Matthew until Matthew 24:28. And then all of a sudden when a literal rendering of the next verse destroys their theology then they just say that it refers to apocalyptic language.

Then the preterists offer no explanation as to why this verse should not be taken literally even though they themselves took the previous twenty eight verses literally:

"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" (Mt.24:29).​

According to this verse this so-called apocalyptic language is not even in regard to the tribulation because the so-called apocalyptic language is not even seen until the tribulation is already over.

You overlook the fact that when apocalyptic language is employed it is used to describe an apocalypse which remains in the future.

It would make no sense to use apocalyptic language in regard to an apocalypse which has already occurred.

What???

When the apocalyptic language in Matthew was used, the event was still future...

The apocalyptic language used in certain OT prophecies are in reference to things that have already occurred. Apply your same reasoning, and you must say this makes no sense.


Like I said before, we have a signal that Jesus is switching to apocalyptic language when he quotes passages of OT apocalyptic language. A big hint is also the fact that the stars can't literally fall from the sky. That makes all too much sense to me.

 

[Aaron the Tall]

So are you saying that the prophecy of Jeremiah 31:31-34 has already been fulfilled?

I say that it has begun, and there is ongoing fulfillment as people come to Christ and have their sins forgiven.

You ignore the content of this promise of the Lord here in "bold":

"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more" (Jer.31:31-34).​

Yes, the first covenant was made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob - but that doesn't mean the first covenant or the new covenant are limited to the physical descendants of Abraham.

As you yourself finally admitted, Gentiles could participate in the original covenant by being grafted in to Israel.

Why should it be any different with the new covenant? Paul says Gentile branches are grafted in. Paul says those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. Paul says those born of the spirit are in Isaac. God said if Abraham's descendants didn't follow the precepts of the covenant, they would be cut off.

The message is clear that certain literal physical sons of Abraham will not be counted as true sons - yet certain non-related people will be counted as true sons.

Apply this clear teaching to the Jeremiah prophecy and you will see how ALL of Abraham's true children have had all their sins forgiven.

Yes, He initiated the New Covenant but when it came time for Israel to fully enter into that covenant she failed. Here Peter told Israel what she must do to enter into the New Covenant:

"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you" (Acts 3:19-20).​

Yes, if Israel repented, they would have entered into the New Covenant that Jesus established. Many repented, but most didn't.

The early church was composed entirely of Jews. Jesus broke the bread of the new covenant entirely with Jews. Wouldn't you say that these first Jews entered into the new covenant?

If Israel would have repented then she would have had all of her sins blotted out. But since she didn't repent then her sins were not blotted out. Are you willing to argue that she entered into the New Covenant despite the fact that she remained obstinate?

Those who didn't repent showed that they were not truly in Isaac - showing that they were not truly Abraham's children - showing that they were not heirs of the promise.

"After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come" (1 Cor.11:25-26; KJV).​

This speaks of a commemoration of the Lord Jesus' death spoken of in His Last Will and Testament, the gospel - "justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."

A commemoration of the NEW COVENANT. Why commemorate what didn't apply to them? Taking the elements was a symbol of their participation in the New Covenant, just as it was with the disciples and Jesus.

Why in the world would you imagine that the New Covenant applied to the Body of Christ since it is only applied to the house of Israel and the house of Judah?

Often quoted, never responded to: Romans 9:6

The Lord Jesus is the Mediator of a better testament:

"Therefore, He is the mediator of a new testament, so that those who are called might receive the promise of the eternal inheritance, because a death has taken place for redemption from the transgressions committed under the first covenant" (Heb.9:15; KJV).​

Are you trying to make a case that a "better testament" is something different than the new covenant? And what translation are you quoting here. It isn't KJV, because KJV uses "testament" in both instances in this verse, not "covenant" for the 2nd instance.

When in the past did the Deliverer come out of Sion and turn all ungodliness from Jacob?

Surely you must have an answer to this. What is your answer?

Romans 9:6

How can you believe that ALL Israel will be saved? You don't and you can't. You believe that 2/3 of the Jews will be slaughtered - and the 1/3 that remain will be saved. That isn't all Israel! That's what's left of Israel. You believe that a remnant of Israel will be saved. I do to.

 

[Interplanner]

It is also a bit difficult to coordinate this 'darkening' of everything with 2 Pet 3, where things are consumed in fire, but it must all take place rather quickly. I think the shorter the span of events of the last day, the more accurate that view is.

 

[Interplanner]

re 1146 and who the covenant was between:
We must accept the NT interp. The covenant was actually between God and Christ the Seed, Gal 3:15. Others are the seed if they are in Christ. This is what Paul is saying, and it is part of his detangling the literalism of Judaism about it, which voided and replaced the Promised Gospel with its attention to the Law.

It is the children of the promise who are regarded the seed of Abraham, not the natural descendants, Rom 9:8.

When the covenant was cut, Abraham was put to sleep. That's how involved he was as the other party of the covenant. It was between God and Christ. People--us--are in the covenant by faith in Christ!

 

[George Affleck]

Good thing Joseph wasn't waiting for a literal fulfillment of his dream.

Joseph's dream was literally fulfilled in his day.

Jacob and family bowed to him in Egypt without knowing who he was in an attempt to avoid the famine.

Scripture is true on so many levels.

 

[Interplanner]

George,
literal would mean that several stars moved their place in the sky, had a shape that could bow, and bowed to the sun. that's literal, OK?

No sickly cows in Egypt ate healthy cows.

No vines in Egypt produced instant grapes.

They all meant something else.

Literal is the ordinary meaning.

 

[George Affleck]

George,
literal would mean that several stars moved their place in the sky, had a shape that could bow, and bowed to the sun. that's literal, OK?

No sickly cows in Egypt ate healthy cows.

No vines in Egypt produced instant grapes.

They all meant something else.

Literal is the ordinary meaning.

Your confusion is not uncommon.

Here is my definition of "literal".

A literal interpretation is that which discovers the authentic meaning of the text in its grammatical forms with consideration for (1) the historical, cultural and linguistic context, (2) the author's presentation style and literary devices, and (3) the integrity and harmony of the Scriptures.

Hence, a proper interpretation of; "Our God is a consuming fire." will be true and literal but in a non-physical sense.

Too many people think that "literal" equates to "physical". It does not always. It relates directly to that which the original author "literated".

When we keep in mind that there are always 2 authors involved in God's Word, a holy man of God and the Holy Spirit, who work in perfect harmony, all scripture becomes timelessly true.

 

[RevTestament]

Your confusion is not uncommon.

Here is my definition of "literal".

A literal interpretation is that which discovers the authentic meaning of the text in its grammatical forms with consideration for (1) the historical, cultural and linguistic context, (2) the author's presentation style and literary devices, and (3) the integrity and harmony of the Scriptures.

Hence, a proper interpretation of; "Our God is a consuming fire." will be true and literal but in a non-physical sense.

Too many people think that "literal" equates to "physical". It does not always. It relates directly to that which the original author "literated".

Hey, I like that reference
(see avatar)

 

[Interplanner]

He will be a consuming fire on the last day, it seems: 2 Pet 3.

 

[George Affleck]

He will be a consuming fire on the last day, it seems: 2 Pet 3.

Heb 12:29KJV

Present tense
Active Voice

If you choose to ignore revelation and learn from it, so be it.

He is now, and will continue to be, a consuming fire - that is literal truth.

 

[Aaron the Tall]

Your confusion is not uncommon.

Here is my definition of "literal".

A literal interpretation is that which discovers the authentic meaning of the text in its grammatical forms with consideration for (1) the historical, cultural and linguistic context, (2) the author's presentation style and literary devices, and (3) the integrity and harmony of the Scriptures.

Hence, a proper interpretation of; "Our God is a consuming fire." will be true and literal but in a non-physical sense.

Too many people think that "literal" equates to "physical". It does not always. It relates directly to that which the original author "literated".

When we keep in mind that there are always 2 authors involved in God's Word, a holy man of God and the Holy Spirit, who work in perfect harmony, all scripture becomes timelessly true.

I've have had similar thoughts. I was using "literal" as it is typically understood - as a visible physical, non-metaphorical fulfillment.

However, you could say that literal means what the author "literally" meant in accordance with the chosen genre, etc.

 

[Danoh]

I've have had similar thoughts. I was using "literal" as it is typically understood - as a visible physical, non-metaphorical fulfillment.

However, you could say that literal means what the author "literally" meant in accordance with the chosen genre, etc.

When it comes to the witness of Scripture with Scripture as to its own intended sense "you can't fight city hall."

Or, to use the following as a figure of speech, here - "But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God" Acts 3:39.

 

[George Affleck]

I've have had similar thoughts. I was using "literal" as it is typically understood - as a visible physical, non-metaphorical fulfillment.

However, you could say that literal means what the author "literally" meant in accordance with the chosen genre, etc.

Indeed.

Because we are losing command of our own language, sometimes the actual meaning of an English word is smeared with a careless ignorance - even at the dictionary/thesaurus level. Unfortunately our so-called 'typical understanding' of some words (often theological ones) is a recent gloss and shows that we have traded depth of knowledge for breadth of ignorance.

In this case, the best way to quickly find the original (literary) meaning of 'literal', apart from digging, is to search the synonyms and antonyms which have not yet been affected.

actual, genuine, real - are synonyms
At Thesaurus.com the first choice for an antonym for 'literal' is 'counterfeit' - obviously denoting unreal or non-genuine.

'Literal' is the opposite of this.

 

[George Affleck]

Encore une fois:

Agree with me or not, here is, in my opinion, the best definition of "literal interpretation".

A literal interpretation is that which discovers the authentic meaning of the text in its grammatical forms with consideration for (1) the historical, cultural and linguistic context, (2) the author's presentation style and literary devices, and (3) the integrity and harmony of the Scriptures.

Hence, all correct interpretation of scripture yields a literal interpretation.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

How can you believe that ALL Israel will be saved? You don't and you can't.

Of course you think that you know more than Paul because he certainly believed that all Israel shall be saved:

"And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins" (Ro.11:26-27).​

You believe that 2/3 of the Jews will be slaughtered - and the 1/3 that remain will be saved. That isn't all Israel! That's what's left of Israel. You believe that a remnant of Israel will be saved. I do to.

Again, you deny what Paul said as well as what is written here:

"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more" (Jer.31:31-34).​

There has never been a time when all of the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob plus all of the Gentile converts to Judaism had their sins forgiven.

You live in a fairy tale world if you think that happened sometime in the past. It has never happened and the preterists have no place for its fulfllment in the future.

So according to your idea the LORD makes promises and then refuses to honor those promises.

The message is clear that certain literal physical sons of Abraham will not be counted as true sons - yet certain non-related people will be counted as true sons.

No one argued that is all circumstances that all of the physical descendants of Abraham will be counted as true sons. On the other hand, it is a fact that some of the physical descendants are counted as true sons.

It is also a fact that those who will receive the promise of the New Covenant at Jeremiah 31:31-34 are either the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob or Gentile converts to Judaism who have been circumcised. There has never been a time when every single one of those people have had their sins forgiven.

Apply this clear teaching to the Jeremiah prophecy and you will see how ALL of Abraham's true children have had all their sins forgiven.

The fathers of those who will receive the promises under the New Covenant are described this way:

"Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt" (Jer.31:32).​

Not only are the "fathers" of those who will receive the blessings of the New Covenant the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob but it is clear by their actions that they couldn't be described as a so-called "spiritual Israel":

"They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt" (Ex.32:8).​

With these facts in view it is evident that their fathers were the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and not members of the so-called spiritual Israel.

You say the following:

Apply this clear teaching to the Jeremiah prophecy and you will see how ALL of Abraham's true children have had all their sins forgiven.'

Yes, at Jeremiah 31:34 we can see that all of the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are Abraham's true children because they have all had their sins forgiven.

And there has never been a time when all of the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob plus all the Gentiles converts to Judaism have had their sins forgiven. So the promises of Jeremiah 31:31-34 have not been fulfilled. And since you have no place for the fulfillment of these promises in your eschatology then that means that you worship a God who makes promises and then refuses to honor those promises.

 

[Interplanner]

JerryS,
the promise was made to the Seed, which is Christ. That is the NT superceding what the OT said.

"It is not the natural (sarkos) children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring (sperma). ...the objects of mercy, even us...not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles, as he says in Hosea...

His son by the slave woman was born the ordinary way...

Glad you quoted at least one NT passage, but you didn't seem to realize it was quoting Isaiah as fulfilled: the Redeemer came, sin as debt was taken away, and the new covenant is in action.