Was the Olivet Discourse completely fulfilled in 70A.D.?

[twospirits]

There have been numerous debates on this issue, and I suppose they will never be agreement on this, as well as other major prophetic scriptures. But scripture shows me (a minority view here at AV) that Jesus clearly prophesied events that were fulfilled in 70 A.D., but the “Olivet Discourse” was not completely fulfilled in 70 A.D.

The premise is that in Luke 21, the question is concerning the destruction of the temple and a sign to look for shortly before that destruction would happen. Jesus answers the question by describing the sign of Jerusalem being surrounded by armies. Later, in a private setting, four disciples come to Jesus and ask about when would these things happen, and more specifically, what would be the sign of his coming (parousia)) and of the end of the age. Jesus then delivers the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24 and Mark 13) which focuses for the most part on his coming, since he has already answered questions regarding the destruction of the temple to the public earlier that day. In verse 24, Jesus has mentioned the dispersion of Israel amongst the Gentiles nations and Jerusalem being trodden down by Gentile nations, both continuing until the times of the Gentiles have been fulfilled. Why would Jesus leave this issue open ended? He would not, therefore as Jesus describes his coming, he is giving “the conclusion for the times of the Gentiles.”

It must be noted here that the word “fulfilled” is a poor and incorrect translation seen in Matt. 24-34. It should read, “Verily I say unto you , this generation shall not pass,until all these things begin to take place.” Not “fulfilled.” The Greek word is genetai from genomai, to begin to be, to come to be, and is quite different from pleroo, to fulfill. In Luke 21-32, which is the parallel passage, we have the word genetai, begin to be, while in verse 24, we have the word pleroo, fulfilled. So when reading Matt. 24-34 following the correct translation, we read: “Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, til all these things begin to take place.” This is what the Lord Jesus said, and they did “begin to take place during that very generation.” For following the Lord's death there would be many coming saying, “I am Christ,” (v.5), but in order that we might clearly understand, Jesus immediately adds in Matt. 24-6,”--for all must come to pass, but the “end is not yet.”

From these passages we see that the phrase “this generation” hangs on the implications of the word “you” in the preceding verses. The problem is that preterists completely fail to understand a simple principle in scripture with regard to “prophetic passages.” This biblical principle occurs in prophetic passages by which God speaks to an immediate physical audience, such as the apostles or the Israelites of Moses' day for example, but is actually addressing future unborn generations yet to come.

God bless---Twospirits

[JLVaughn]

Two,

Gary DeMar has an argument for the Olivet being one complete, indivisible prophecy of one event in Last Days Madness.

I have a (i think) better argument (or at least different) for the same thing. You can read it on my website here.

http://beyondcreationscience.com/index.php?pr=Read_Chapter_1

Chapter 3 of my book is a historical demonstration that the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled.

Blessings.

[twospirits]

JL,

As I posted, when reading Matt. 24-34 following the correct translation, we read: “Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, til all these things begin to take place.” This is what the Lord Jesus said, and they did “begin to take place during that very generation.” The judgment on the Jewish nation did begin to take place in "this generation" (their generation), as recorded in Luke 21-20-24a. What occurred in 70 A.D. was the judgment on the Jewish nation for their rebellion and rejection of their Messiah, but it was not Christ's Coming. Neither was it the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse.

I read your introduction of your book, but I think you are wrong on Matthew 16-28: “Verily I say unto you, there are some of those standing here that shall not taste of death at all until they shall have seen the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

Now you (and other preterists) hold that the Lord was here promising that some of his disciples would live to see him coming to “actually establish” his kingdom on earth; that they would not taste death until he did so. Therefore, they say, the coming of the Son of Man to actually establish his kingdom must have been fulfilled in their lifetime, specifically in, or immediately after the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. But the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. cannot be the prophesied Lord's second coming, nor can it be the “result” of Jesus' second coming. For the coming of the Son of Man on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory coming in his kingdom is declared in scripture to take place “immediately after.” After “the tribulation of those days,” which the doctrine of preterism states, “is the very destruction of Jerusalem (itself) in 70 A.D. Thus this doctrine is teaching that the destruction of Jerusalem (Christ's coming in judgment) takes place “after” the destruction of Jerusalem (Christ's coming in judgment). This then, makes no sense at all.

God bless----Twospirits

[Brother Les]

Twospirits,
Do you understand what Jesus was talking about when asked about the 'sign' of His Parousia?..... His presence, His comings in Judgment and to give Salvation, was the destrutcion of Jerusalem and The Temple and The Nation. That is when The Parousia happened. God/Jesus is with us. and some of those who were still alive saw Him Coming in Judgment, "in The Glory of The Father".

[twospirits]

Brother Les,

Twospirits,
Do you understand what Jesus was talking about when asked about the 'sign' of His Parousia?..... His presence, His comings in Judgment and to give Salvation, was the destrutcion of Jerusalem and The Temple and The Nation. That is when The Parousia happened. God/Jesus is with us. and some of those who were still alive saw Him Coming in Judgment, "in The Glory of The Father".

Sure do! The "sign" was the destruction of Jerusalem, God's judgment for their rejection of Christ their Messiah. "--and to give salvation", yes when he shed His blood on the Cross in 30 A.D. (the New Covenant). But not in the judgment of 70 A.D. Salvation had nothing to do with that. The warning of "fleeing" had something to do with it, as Jesus prophesied. And no one literally "saw Him" coming in judgment, rather they "rationalized it by Jesus' prophecy."

Jesus declared that society would be in a state of normalcy when he returned. That is there would be no sense of imminent danger or catastrophe (read Matt. 24-38-39; Luke 17-28-29). However, as the days of the destruction of Jerusalem approached, things were anything but in a state of normalcy. Jesus prophesied about this in Luke 19-43 where he speaks of Jerusalem's siege and fall.

Speaking of the events preceding the time when Christ's second coming would draw near, Jesus said; "And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh" (Luke 21-28). What is there about the word "redemption" that could possibly be associated with the destruction of Jerusalem? Every place this word is used, it is associated with salvation, not cursing, with deliverance not judgment. The destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. had nothing to do with what we read in Luke 21-28. Christ's second coming would be for the redemption of his saints which certainly did not occur in 70 A.D. That coming still awaits fulfillment.

God bless---Twospirits

[Brother Les]

by twospirits
The "sign" was the destruction of Jerusalem, God's judgment for their rejection of Christ their Messiah. "--and to give salvation", yes when he shed His blood on the Cross in 30 A.D. (the New Covenant). But not in the judgment of 70 A.D. Salvation had nothing to do with that. The warning of "fleeing" had something to do with it, as Jesus prophesied. And no one literally "saw Him" coming in judgment, rather they "rationalized it by Jesus' prophecy."

The Judgment of70AD has more to do with Salvation than you realise.
1)The Cross, was the killing of The Husband (God), which ended His part of That Covenant as Husband, but not as Judge of the TERMS of That Covenant.

2) Pentecost was THE BETROTHAL of the NC Marriage Contract. Salvation (Redemption, Resurrection) could not happen untill The Marriage between Jesus/God and His Elect.

3) The Judgments of AD70ended the Curses of the Mosaic Marriage contract (" crusifiy Him and His blood upon us and our children") (40years wondering and All died in The Wilderness)

4) The Marriage of those betrothed from Pentecost forward married YHWH/Jesus in Ad70 and were Redeemed (Salvation and Resurrection) (for Joshua circumcised The Children of those who had fell in the wilderness and then Joshua led them into The Promised Land) (type and Ant-type) (Jesus leads His New Bride into The Promised Land of The NC.

And no one literally "saw Him" coming in judgment, rather they "rationalized it by Jesus' prophecy."

they saw their whole world being destroyed, for Jesus came as YHWH had in the past.

Jesus declared that society would be in a state of normalcy when he returned. That is there would be no sense of imminent danger or catastrophe (read Matt. 24-38-39; Luke 17-28-29). However, as the days of the destruction of Jerusalem approached, things were anything but in a state of normalcy. Jesus prophesied about this in Luke 19-43 where he speaks of Jerusalem's siege and fall.

The danger was there, but there was a great deal of denial going on.

Jesus said; "And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh" (Luke 21-28). What is there about the word "redemption" that could possibly be associated with the destruction of Jerusalem? Every place this word is used, it is associated with salvation, not cursing, with deliverance not judgment. The destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. had nothing to do with what we read in Luke 21-28. Christ's second coming would be for the redemption of his saints which certainly did not occur in 70 A.D. That coming still awaits fulfillment.[/quote]

Covenantal Change is what is going on, twospirits. From the Covenant of Death to the Covenant of Life. the Bride (the Church) has no Life (redemption) until The Marriage of the NC

[twospirits]

Brother Les,

(You quote) "The danger was there, but there was a great deal of denial going on."

Death and destruction was everywhere, beginning in 67 A.D., and you answer they were in denial while everyone around them were being slaughtered? Oh please!

(You quote) "4) The Marriage of those betrothed from Pentecost forward married YHWH/Jesus in Ad70 and were Redeemed (Salvation and Resurrection) (for Joshua circumcised The Children of those who had fell in the wilderness and then Joshua led them into The Promised Land) (type and Ant-type) (Jesus leads His New Bride into The Promised Land of The NC."

What about all the saints from 70 A.D. on? They were left out of the marriage??

Because some preterists insist that Jesus' coming (parousia) occurred in 70 A.D. In some spiritual way, they must also deny the nature of the resurrection of the saints. The resurrection of believers is closely tied to Jesus' second coming (1 Thess. 4-13-18). If the resurrection occurred in 70 A.D., it follows that it to is something spiritual and not the literal resurrection of the body, because no such visible resurrection was experienced or observed by the church in 70 A.D. Therefore, the core issue of contention between futurists and preterists is the nature of the resurrection of the dead, and the nature of the coming of Christ as being physical or spiritual.

An extensive discussion of the nature of the resurrection is given us in 1 Corinthians chapter 15. Paul began to reassert that Christ has indeed risen from the dead, and became the firstfruits of them that sleep (v.20). Paul continued by telling the Corinthians when the remainder will be raised as Christ was raised. “For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming” (verses 21-23). Paul continued to contrast Adam and Christ in verses 47-49. He wrote, “as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly” (v.49). By heavenly he meant Jesus Christ, where in the previous verse Jesus is identified as the one from heaven. That is, we will have a body like his resurrected body. He goes on to state that this will occur at the last trumpet (v.52).

Paul points to Jesus' resurrection in an incorruptible body of flesh and bones after his resurrection. This is the same Jesus who led the disciples out on the Mount of Olives and blessed them. Then was immediately taken up bodily from them into heaven until the clouds obscured their view. And it is this same Jesus that was taken up into heaven who will come again. “In like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven according to the angels present at that event (Acts 1-11).

God bless---Twospirits

[kramden327]

Because some preterists insist that Jesus' coming (parousia) occurred in 70 A.D. In some spiritual way, they must also deny the nature of the resurrection of the saints.

Hi 2,
Good discussion. It may be more accurate to say that preterists deny what futurists have concluded is the nature of the resurrection (i.e. physical, flesh/bones/blood bodies coming "up" from their graves at some point in the future). Not sure where these "graves" or the remains are since practically none exist for all the dead. I think preterists just don't see Scripture pointing to a physical body with mass being involved on either end of how the 'dead are raised'.

The resurrection of believers is closely tied to Jesus' second coming (1 Thess. 4-13-18). If the resurrection occurred in 70 A.D., it follows that it to is something spiritual and not the literal resurrection of the body, because no such visible resurrection was experienced or observed by the church in 70 A.D. Therefore, the core issue of contention between futurists and preterists is the nature of the resurrection of the dead, and the nature of the coming of Christ as being physical or spiritual.

I would agree that is one of the issues that separate pret's from futurists. What would lead you to believe (Scripturally) that the resurrection of believers would be something visible to the human eye here on earth?

Paul continued to contrast Adam and Christ in verses 47-49. He wrote, “as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly” (v.49). By heavenly he meant Jesus Christ, where in the previous verse Jesus is identified as the one from heaven. That is, we will have a body like his resurrected body.

Does bearing the image mean a physical likeness? We are made in the image of God. Does that speak of physical attributes? I doubt it.

Enjoying the thread 2, thanks.

Dave

[twospirits]

Because some preterists insist that Jesus' coming (parousia) occurred in 70 A.D. In some spiritual way, they must also deny the nature of the resurrection of the saints.

Hi 2,
Good discussion. It may be more accurate to say that preterists deny what futurists have concluded is the nature of the resurrection (i.e. physical, flesh/bones/blood bodies coming "up" from their graves at some point in the future). Not sure where these "graves" or the remains are since practically none exist for all the dead. I think preterists just don't see Scripture pointing to a physical body with mass being involved on either end of how the 'dead are raised'.

The resurrection of believers is closely tied to Jesus' second coming (1 Thess. 4-13-18). If the resurrection occurred in 70 A.D., it follows that it to is something spiritual and not the literal resurrection of the body, because no such visible resurrection was experienced or observed by the church in 70 A.D. Therefore, the core issue of contention between futurists and preterists is the nature of the resurrection of the dead, and the nature of the coming of Christ as being physical or spiritual.

I would agree that is one of the issues that separate pret's from futurists. What would lead you to believe (Scripturally) that the resurrection of believers would be something visible to the human eye here on earth?

(Twospirits) Matt. 27-52-53, "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his (Jesus') resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." We see that this occurred sometime after the resurrection of Jesus in 30 A.D. Now it is clear from the passage that this was a bodily resurrection and they were seen by many. My point? Why would the resurrection be any different in 70 A.D. that preterists say occurred, than the resurrection of those in 30 A.D.? Since God doesn't change, one would expect the resurrections of the saints to be the same.

Paul continued to contrast Adam and Christ in verses 47-49. He wrote, “as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly” (v.49). By heavenly he meant Jesus Christ, where in the previous verse Jesus is identified as the one from heaven. That is, we will have a body like his resurrected body.

Does bearing the image mean a physical likeness? We are made in the image of God. Does that speak of physical attributes? I doubt it.

Enjoying the thread 2, thanks.

Dave

Thanks for your input, I appreciate it, straightforward and honest. God bless---Twospirits

[dlspence_58]

I'd like to know what Two Spirits and the preterists think of Matthew 24:14. The preterists use this to say that the word "world" (οἰκουμένῃ) is restricted to the Roman Empire, or, "inhabited earth." While the word can be limited in scope (Luke 2:1; Acts 17:6; 19:27; 24:5 and possibly Acts 11:28?), in Mt. 24:14 it is qualified by the word "whole/all" (ὅλος). This descriptive is used in Acts 11:28; 19:27 (Asia), Revelation 3:10; 12:9; 16:14. (Other uses of "world" which seem to be worldwide and not limited are Luke 4:5; 21:26; Acts 17:31; Romans 10:18; Hebrews 1:6; 2:5).

The question is: If it is the "whole world" then has the Gospel been preached to the "whole world"? The post-mils might say no, but if it is a partial pret, post-mil, how do you reconcile the two positions?

[twospirits]

Dispence 58 said,

The question is: If it is the "whole world" then has the Gospel been preached to the "whole world"?

This is a good and important question. Depending on the context of how the word "world" is used is of course the key to its proper understanding. But I believe in many passages it means the entire world.

Looking to the parable in Matthew 13, we see here the "field" is the "world" (kosmos), the entire world. Matt. 4-8 and Luke 4-5 speak of Jesus' temptation by the devil when he showed Jesus "all the kingdoms of the world." The word "world" used here in Matt. 4-8 is "kosmos." But Luke 4-5 uses the word "oikoumene" to mean "the whole world." In Luke 21-25, the word "earth" is "ges," and Matt. 5-18 the word "earth" is "ge." In each case to mean the whole earth. So it is in Matt. 24-30, the word "earth" is "ge". In Matt. 24-26, there he uses the Greek word "earth"-"oikoumene." The context indicates that "ge" and "oikoumene" was intended to convey in the strictest sense "the entire earth."

We read in Rev. 12-9, "And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world, he was cast out into the earth (gen) and his angels were cast out with him." In verse 12, a woe "for the earth (gen) and the sea, because the devil has gone down to you." Here again, the word for earth is "gen", the entire earth. Using "earth" and "sea" together indicates that this speaks of the entire world which consists of the land and the sea. This is not speaking of a restricted area of earth/land, neither in Jerusalem or the Roman Empire as the preterist doctrines hold to. The context shows to any reasonable person that "oikoumene" in Luke 4-5; Acts 17-31; Hebrews 1-6; 2-5; Rev. 3-10; 12-9 and 16-14 signifies "the whole world."13 In Matt. 24-30 we read; "---all the tribes of the earth" (Ge). The Greek word "ge" is to mean the entire world. When "ge" is used in the limited sense, it is used in a limited sense of land within a specified region given in the text. A few examples are; Matt. 11-24, "Land (ge) of Sodom"; John 3-22, "land (gen) of Judea." Hebrews 8-8-9, "land (ges) of Egypt"; Matt. 14-34, "land (gen) of Gennesaret"; The contexts throughout the New Testament determined when "ge" was being used in the sense of the entire earth or a specific land area. Rev. 1-7 reads, "all the tribes of the earth "(ai phulai tes ges) will mourn because of him." Here the word "phulai" means "tribes" and "ges" means "earth," the entire world/earth.

God bless---Twospirits

[kramden327]

I'd like to know what Two Spirits and the preterists think of Matthew 24:14.

Hi DL,
More importantly, here's what Paul taught about Matt 24:14 ("this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world") - (oikoumene):

Romans 16:25-27. ".... now has been made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures has been made known to all nations (ethnos),...."
Romans 1:8. ".... your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world." (kosmos)
Col. 1:5-6. ..."the gospel, which has come to you, as it has also in all the world" (kosmos)
Col. 1:23. ".... the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister."

Sounds like Paul explained completeness of the preaching of the Gospel in his time using several different phrases (to all nations, to the whole world, and to every creature under heaven). Since Jesus' choice of words was "oikoumene" (often a more localized scope of 'world' than kosmos, but never a greater scope as far as I know), and Paul said all nations, throughout the whole world, and to every creature under heaven, I'm not sure how anyone could conclude that Paul did not consider Matt 24:14 fulfilled.

One must insert into the text that Matt 24:14 involves all time and the entire planet but Paul's words do not. The text itself indicates otherwise IMO.

Of course, as usual, it goes back to what the true meaning of "the end" is. Pret's and futurists have different understandings of that.

Dave