Replies

Marcellus Kik

Sorry TC, Marcellus struck out and grossly failed to relate to the whole of scripture on the subject - choosing to only focus upon the clouds and associated metaphors. There was absolutely no linkage to the events in AD 70 in that little snippet. Speaking of failing to address the whole of biblical prophecy presented in Mt 24

The gospel was not spread throughout the whole world in AD 70 (24:14)
The "abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place" (24:15) Silence on Kik's part. Paul references the prophecy of the same even - so who was this guy? (crickets)
What evidence that Christ returned in AD 70 (24:30, 37).
There have been greater tribulations for Israel in the years past AD70 (24:21)

My, four significant areas of Jesus' prophecy that Kik completely fails to address with the exception of an obfuscation of Christ's return. And you accuse pretribs of shallow bible study practices"

Dispensartionalists, on the other hand, do not compare Scripture with Scripture, preferring the simplistic approach of reading the Bible in the light of the evening newspaper and claiming it is all "obvious". That does not trump sound biblical exegesis.

Ah, you seem to have all the one liners and grossly mischaracterize dispensational comparisons of scriptures across the bible. The more I review preterism, the more it seems like the flat earth society.

In order to make 70 AD the magic year, we would have to delete dozens of prophecies that were never fulfilled. When was the Gospel preached to all the nations? When was the Mark of the Beast implemented? What about China's 200-million-man army? When did 100-pound hailstones fall from the sky? And what date was it when the Euphrates River dried up?

See, a key component of Christianity is historical agreement. We find that in the OT prophecies regarding Christ's first advent, it is proper exegesis to expect to find the same/similar in NT prophecies. As the list above indicates, the overwhelming a priori demands that the NT prophetic events cumulated in AD 70. That is not sound biblical exegesis, particularly when the main prophetic NT book - Revelation - wasn't written until about 20 years after the fall of Jerusalem.

If you are really interested in understanding the issues, there amy many good articles and texts on the subject.

Well, at least this tells me where you got your ideas regarding the changing of 'signs'

However, the good Dr. runs aground on the use of PERI DE - it is more commonly translated But of . . rather than "now concerning" (try a key word search with bible software). He tries to link this to being a 'transition' - sorry, contextually Jesus was referring back to His statement in verses 29-31. Sorry, basic bible reading 101.

Do you believe with Dr Gentry that Zechariah 12—14 was a parallel passage to the Mt 24-25 (Olivet Discourse)?

Let me take just one of your objections and demonstrate how it is devoid of biblical perspective.

There have been greater tribulations for Israel in the years past AD70 (24:21)

Quoting from an excellent paper on the subject:

After quoting this passage [Matt. 24:21-22], futurists will argue that since Jesus refers to a tribulation that is the worst the world has ever seen or ever will see, that it must refer to events that have not yet occurred, that must immediately precede the second bodily coming of Christ. If we take Jesus' expression regarding the severity of this tribulation in isolation from the rest of Scripture such an objection seems irrefutable. After all, no one would argue that the destruction of Jerusalem was worse than the havoc caused by the black plague in the middle ages, or the slaughter of World War I or World War II. Certainly, it was not as bad as the holocaust where estimates of the Nazi extermination of the Jews reach six million souls. But, if one takes our Lord's statement and interprets it within the broad and narrow context of Scripture this common argument falls to the ground.
There are a number of solid scriptural arguments as to why Jesus' statement applies directly to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. First, (as we noted earlier) the time indicator in verse 34 ("this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place") cannot be dismissed by arbitrary forced interpretations of the word "generation." Our Lord was very specific in His statement. He did not say "some things" or even "the things" but "all these things." Christ's statement should not be ignored or redefined to fit one's own preconceptions about "the great tribulation."
Second, Jesus was using dramatic hyperbole or a proverbial method of speech taken directly from the Old Testament. Note the words spoken by Ezekiel regarding the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. "And I will do among you what I have never done, and the like of which I will never do again, because of all your abominations" (Ezek. 5:9). Does this passage teach that Israel endured the worst judgment in human history in the 6th century B.C.? No. No one believes that the destruction wrought by the Babylonians was worse than that of the Romans in A.D. 70. The point is that the destruction will be severe, excruciating and unique. Similarly Daniel says, "by bringing upon us a great disaster; for under the whole heaven such has never been done as what has been done to Jerusalem" (Dan. 9:12). "And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation, even to that time" (Dan. 12:1). "The language of v. 19 [i.e., Mk. 13:19 the parallel to Mt. 24:21], as also of Dan, 12:1, which it cites, uses traditional expressions to denote severe tribulation, not simply of Israel but of other people also." For example, such language is even used to describe the anguish of the Egyptians after the tenth plague. "Then there shall be a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt, such as was not like it before, nor shall be like it again" (Ex. 11:6; cf. 9:18; 10:14). "The cry of anguish sent up by this destruction will be unique, just as the disaster will be unique." Morison writes regarding Matthew 24:21, "It is superlative in its relation both to the past and to the future. We might explain this superlative mode of representation by the freedom which is universally assumed and accorded in popular speech. Men speak unhesitantly, when referring to anything remarkable, of the 'highest,' the 'greatest,' the 'extremist.' It is an idiom of hyperbolism."
If futurist interpreters want to insist on taking Jesus' words literally (meaning that a future tribulation is coming that will be by far the worst thing to happen in human history), then they must argue that Ezekiel, Exodus and Daniel were not meant to be taken literally while Jesus' words were. Such a view, however, is both arbitrary and inconsistent. If all are taken literally then Scripture contradicts itself, for two or more different events cannot all be the worst thing that ever happened.
Matthew 24 and the Great Tribulation by Brian Schwertley.

I would encourage you to read the entire paper. Apart from being non-dispensational, it thoroughly demolishes all your objections directly from the Bible.