Posted on 10/26/2007 9:00:59 PM PDT by topcat54
when
Verses 20,24 are not included in the report of the Olivet discourse as given by Matthew and Mark. Two sieges of Jerusalem are in view in that discourse. Luke 21:20-24 refers to the siege by Titus, A.D. 70, when the city was taken, and verse 24 literally fulfilled. But that siege and its horrors but adumbrate the final siege at the end of this age, in which the “great tribulation” culminates. At that time the city will be taken, but delivered by the glorious appearing of the Lord Revelation 19:11-21. The references in ; Matthew 24:15-28,; Mark 13:14-26 are to the final tribulation siege; Luke 21:20-24 to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. In Luke the sign is the compassing of Jerusalem by armies Luke 21:20 in ; Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14 the sign is the abomination in the holy place. 2 Thessalonians 2:4.
21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/ScofieldReferenceNotes/srn.cgi?book=lu&chapter=021
Amazing that the note was originally written in 1907 (this is from 1917).
No Israel-yet.
Jerusalem not in Jewish hands-yet.
Still Scofield wrote about it in his notes as a certain future event that hadn't happened-yet.
In the last days scoffers would come because the Lord hadn't returned-yet.(2Pe.3
Yes, but not slicing and dicing per Scofield's Notes.
The notion that Matthew was for a primarily Jewish audience and Luke for a gentile audience clearly supports the reading that Matthew 24 was using "abomination of desolation" (familiar to Jewish audience) while Luke 21 would use Jerusalem surrounded by armies to describe the same event.
Where the dispensationalist goes overboard is to assume that Matthew is exclusively to the Jews while Luke is somehow exclusively to gentiles, and use that to cloud their interpretation of the texts, and, in this case, to foresee two entirely different events.
And, for the record, nobody came up with this erroneous view of two entirely different events prior to Scofield.
Levity is not allowed in the Religion section of FR.
"4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God."Did this event already happen in 70 AD at the destruction of the temple or is this still in the future?
This has been gone over before. One of Paul's metaphor for the church is as the temple. The picture is not of a Romanian creep taking up residence in a reconstructed temple building at the end of time, but of an arch-deceiver arising in the midst of the church. IMHO, yet future.
In order for something to be considered good satire it must have a least a bit of truth in it.
You are obviously not a good satirist.
The Man of Lawlessness: A Preteristic Postmillennial Interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2 by Dr. Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
I personally have not worked through all the implications of 2 Thess. 2.
It may not be a damnable heresy, but it is most assuredly an aberrant teaching within the Church. It is divisive of the people of God by its very nature. It destroys the overall unity and purpose of the Word of God. It makes Christ appear as a schizophrenic wrt the races.
All that is not a good thing.
Are you sure about that??? Are you sure that others before him, like for example Spurgeon, didn't also foresee the return of the Jews to the Land of Promise when they read the words of the prophets in their Sola Scriptura Bibles.
Who's he??? another preterist???
An arch-deceiver arising in the midst of the church??? A scoffer perhaps ala II Peter 3? a preterist scoffing at the prophecies of the return of Jesus to the land of Israel?
That's not future -- it's a present reality within and without the church.
ping
I don’t get any of this and I’m not sure why it’s important. For one thing, there’s the statement to the effect that God has no active plan for the Jews because they’ve rejected Christ as the Messiah? I’m quite sure that there are Jews all over the world who convert to Christianity every day of every week of every year. Isn’t that “part of the plan”? I’m not trying to be obtuse; it’s simply an issue I’ve never researched or really been exposed to notwithstanding my lifelong, heartfelt beliefs and active participation in an Orthodox Christian community.
The context of this discussion is the destruction of the temple, and whether Matthew and Luke have two different events in view. If you have some evidence that would contradict my statement that no one taught this notion of two different events, one past and one future, before it appeared in Scofield’s Notes (or some other Irvingite/Darbyite pedigree), then please share it.
This interpretation is a direct outgrowth of the dispensational notion of the radical distinction between Israel and the Church. Spurgeon did not hold to any such erroneous view.
So just when did Cesar Nero sit in the Temple in Jerusalem????
But Spurgeon did believe that the Jews would be regathered to the land of Promise, didn't he??? Perhaps Schofield read some of his notes on the subject, and was influenced by them.
Your analysis is correct. The Jews’ future is tied to faith in God by Messiah Jesus, and their being regrafted into the people of God along with believing gentiles, which now goes under the identity of the Church. This has been the view of the Church for 2000 years.
This article is intended to exposes the dispensation error; that there is a future for the Jews apart from the new covenant Church. In fact, the most interesting part of their future happens after the Church is "raptured" from the earth, just before the second coming.
Preterists ignore their own inconsistencies while gleefully pointing out everyone else's.
That view is not unique to Spurgeon. There were many churchmen throughout the centuries, but especially in the last two or three among the Puritans for example, who believe that God would reestablish the Jewish people in the land after they turned to Jesus as Messiah in faith. The key here is after they believed. They also believed that this would happen in conjunction with a general increase in the effectiveness of the gospel throughout all the world. Many people in many nation would be coming to Christ. The Jews would be provoked to jealousy, and they to would come to faith in Messiah.
All this happens without a "great tribulation" or massive murder of Jews living in Israel, and without the secret "rapture" of the Church, without an antichrist, etc. The dispensational scheme is unnecessary to seeing a blessed future for Jewish people who some to faith in Jesus as Messiah and are regrafted into the people of God/body of Christ.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.