Logically, that does not make any sense. If the synoptics were written before AD70 (as most conservatives/evangelicals agree), what is the issue with Matthew 24:4-34 being a predictive reference to AD70? Even if there were written after AD70, the words of Jesus recorded there are still from the AD33 timeframe, approx. 40 years (“this generation”) from the prophecy to the events.
Dispensationalists are hard-pressed to deny some relationship between Matthew 24:4-34 and AD70. So what the clever ones have done is to invent a so-called dual fulfillment, where Matthew 24:4-34 speaks of both AD70 and the Second Coming.
My position is that Matthew 24:4-34 is speaking of AD70 while vv 36 and following is a reference to the Second Coming. The change in subject and emphasis makes it pretty clear. In vv 4-34 Jesus gives very specific predictors of the event (wars and rumors of wars, famine, persecution of believers, etc). All these things preceded AD70. In vv36ff, there are no specific events as predictive. Instead we read language like “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only.” “For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.” “Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect. “ Very non-specific.
Many who advocate a post AD 70 authorship date do so because they discount prophecy a priori. Since there cannot be a supernatural knowledge of the future, any "prophecy" written must be fulfilled by that event - no matter if the facts of the event are something completely different than described by the prophecy. Thus their paradox - they must also deny OT prophecy in a similar manner and by doing so, must rationalize away the clear prophecies regarding Jesus.
I appreciate your concern, but that is not the case here.
However, the passage cannot find fulfillment in AD 70's destruction of Israel.
That is only a truism for those who accept the dispensationalism system as the basic method for interpreting the Bible. You views on Israel are obviously tainting the way you are interpreting that passage, and others.
However, the passage cannot find fulfillment in AD 70’s destruction of Israel.
That is only a truism for those who accept the dispensationalism system as the basic method for interpreting the Bible. You views on Israel are obviously tainting the way you are interpreting that passage, and others.
= = = =
WHAT UTTER NONSENSE.
Understanding that NO [much less most] END TIMES UNRUBBERIZED BIBLICAL PROPHECIES were fulfilled in 70 A.D.
is true of virtually anyone, nearly everyone
with a microgram of fair-mindedness;
some functioning synapses above the level of an inebriated slug;
AN UNRUBBERIZED BIBLE;
an
UNRUBBERIZED history book;
and maybe the
courage to face truth vs one’s off the wall egotistical fantasies.
Were that the only instance of 'dual fulfillment', you would have a good arguement. However, the concept is also well based within the OT in regards to Jesus. That to me is not hard pressed, but consistent application of scriptural understanding.
My position is that Matthew 24:4-34 is speaking of AD70 while vv 36 and following is a reference to the Second Coming. . . . . All these things preceded AD70.
All well and good, so the gospel was preached into all the world before AD 70? (MT 24:14) How was MT 24:30-31 specifically fulfilled? (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. 31. 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. )
There are other specific points I could make demanding fulfillment in AD70, but I would propose that you would be hard pressed to show that this prophecy was fully and completely expressed by the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem should we review your designated sections verse by verse against history. It is a much stronger arguement to infer that Jesus and his disciples were refering to the end of the tribulation period/start of the messianic reign of Christ which clearly the two versed I cited above refer to.
“For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.” “Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect. “ Very non-specific.
LOL, Jesus' citation of Noah and the ark are also a common type of the rapture. Secondly, it was directed at non-believers, not believers. You may not be looking for the rapture, but that won't stop you from being raptured :)
That is only a truism for those who accept the dispensationalism system as the basic method for interpreting the Bible. You views on Israel are obviously tainting the way you are interpreting that passage, and others.
Not really, my adherance to the dispensational view is founded in part upon the historical fulfillment of prophecy and God's dealings with Israel as documented in the Bible. Secondly, I've pointed out the contextural focus of Jesus' discourse and my understanding and interpretation fits within that context. If you insist that Mt 24:4-34 deal specifically with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, you will have to do a lot of hard documentation to prove your points verse by verse.