Impactplayer quotes Jesus in Matt. 24:34, in the KJV, “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled,” complaining that futurists don’t agree with his preterist interpretation of this verse.
The reason we don’t is because of a different hermeneutic. The right hermeneutic has to be applied to this verse. In Matt. 24:34, Jesus wasn’t speaking to Gentiles, he was speaking to “the children of the prophets,” Acts 3:25, the foundation of the church.
I am referring to what some expositors call the “prophetic precursory phenomena,” or “the near-far prophetic phenomena,” very common to Jews in the OT. God could speak to a particular situation, yet beyond it having a future fulfillment in mind. Examples abound:
When God spoke to Eve in Gen. 3:15, the first prophecy in the Bible, He had a future woman in mind. The tremendous far into the future things that would be fulfilled in 3:15, were not fulfilled in Eve. What was said to Eve was precursory, the “near” projecting far into the future to Christ the seed of the “woman,” who would receive a minor wound at the hand of the serpent, the cross, but would ultimately crush the serpent’s head.
Another well known example is 2 Sam. 7:14, “I will be his father, and he shall be my son.” A superficial reading of the situation at hand would be Solomon, David’s son, was the son God had in mind, but Heb. 1:5, says no, God had Christ in mind. Solomon was the precursory near fulfillment, Christ the ultimate “far” fulfillment.
In Isa. 7, the situation at hand was dire, the kings of Syria and Israel (the northern ten tribes) were threatening war against Ahaz king of Judah. God said the alliance would not stand, nor come to pass, v. 7, the sign He gave in v. 14 was amazing indeed, the very famous prophecy that Christ would be virgin born, his name Immanuel (see Matt. 1:23). God used the situation at hand as the “near” projecting far into the future to the “far” fulfillment – Christ.
In Isa. 14:13-15, the subject was the king of Babylon, v. 4, lifted up in his pride, God used this king as prophetic of the devil’s ultimate destiny, “Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit,” v. 15. God had something else in mind, much bigger fish to fry than this king, something future.
One more OT example, Hos. 11:1 quoted by Matthew (2:15). Jews bitterly remonstrate against Matthew’s hermeneutic, saying this verse refers only to the Israelites being called out of Egypt, apart from the prophetic hermeneutic we have been using, yes, that is how the Hosea verse reads, but Matthew saw Christ in it, and interpreted it so in his gospel. Matthew had a futurist interpretation of this verse.
And it is this same Matthew, who records Jesus on mount Olivet, namely the verse at issue here, the one preterists claim can ONLY be referring to 70 AD (v. 34). We have already seen that Matthew, in his interpretation of Hosea 11:1, full well understood the prophetic precursory phenomena. And this is Jesus, the greatest prophet of all, the inspiration behind the OT examples we cited – we could cite many more - WHO SPOKE VERSE 34.
For a lot reasons (many brought out on this thread), Jesus could not have possibly meant ONLY the immediate situation. That “generation” he spoke of was precursory of the end time generation, the generation that would see “all these things,” ALL of the things he had described, fulfilled.
Jesus being the greatest prophet, like the prophets before him, simply looked beyond 70 AD to the end time. He used the prophetic projection used by the inspired prophets. AD 70 was but the precursory “near” fulfillment.
Thank you for taking the time to respond. However, I believe that Jesus came to re-establish the conditions which existed between God and Adam before the fall - the very conditions presented in Revelation. We now have the opportunity to be in full communion with our God - free of any remembrance of sin - and with Satan out of heaven and bound so that the Church could be successful among the nations. For me, to believe otherwise is to leave the work of Jesus uncompleted - which I find hard to accept. Many scientists have convincing arguments against the 6 day creation, and many theologians have convincing arguments against the completion of Jesus’ prophecy within the next 40 years. I just disagree with each.
Thanks again - this is truly a fascinating topic!
Thank you for taking the time to respond. However, I believe that Jesus came to re-establish the conditions which existed between God and Adam before the fall - the very conditions presented in Revelation. We now have the opportunity to be in full communion with our God - free of any remembrance of sin - and with Satan out of heaven and bound so that the Church could be successful among the nations. For me, to believe otherwise is to leave the work of Jesus incomplete - which I find hard to accept. Many scientists have convincing arguments against the 6 day creation, and many theologians have convincing arguments against the completion of Jesus’ prophecy within the next 40 years. I just disagree with each.
And when the Spirit says to the 7 churches in first chapter of Rev. “soon”, I believe it is in agreement with Jesus when he says “this generation shall see it all”.
Thanks again - this is truly a fascinating topic!
Jesus being the greatest prophet, like the prophets before him, simply looked beyond 70 AD to the end time. He used the prophetic projection used by the inspired prophets. AD 70 was but the precursory “near” fulfillment.
Jesus went to be with God long before the end of Revelation, also there was war in heaven and Satan was cast down to earth.
So I don`t see how all of revelation could be about the destruction of Jerusalem.
“Jesus being the greatest prophet, like the prophets before him, simply looked beyond 70 AD to the end time. He used the prophetic projection used by the inspired prophets. AD 70 was but the precursory “near” fulfillment.”
I agree, 70 AD was clearly just a shadow or type of the tribulation. Since trying to force it to fit the tribulation of the Bible leaves so many prophecies unfulfilled, it could not have been the actual “great” tribulation.