This is where the living Christians were raptured to heaven or gathered spiritually in the Holy of Holies. This also refers to the gathering of the elect out of hades. Continue reading “David Timm: Olivet Discourse Comparison (2003)”
The problem is that the phrase “this generation” meant Jesus’ own generation and “all these things” seemingly includes Jesus’ second coming. Had a future generation been intended he should have said “that generation” Continue reading “Making sense of Jesus’ prophecy by taking Matthew 24:1-35 literally (1998)”
There is an astounding connection between what Jesus is teaching in Matthew 24 about the time of the Tribulation, and with what John sees in Revelation 6 about the same period of time. Continue reading “Geoffrey Grinder: The Six Seals of Revelation 6 and Matthew 24 In Order (2015)”
Jesus here mentions the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place—which was the inside part of the temple, so we know he is talking about the temple. Continue reading “Phillip Vanwinkle: Straight Outta Context – Matthew 24 (2016)”
Our Lord proceeds to declare that the signs which he had given would be as certain an indication of the time of his coming, as the fig-tree’s putting forth its leaves is of the approach of summer; and that the time of his coming was at no great distance. For he adds, This generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled, — Hereby evidently showing that he had been speaking all this while only of the calamities coming on the Jews, and the destruction of Jerusalem. Continue reading “Joseph Benson: Commentary On The Olivet Discourse (1811)”
Stein then argues, however, that the darkening of the heavens and the seeing of the Son of Man coming in clouds belong to a final parousia event, when history as we know it is brought to an end. Continue reading “Andrew Perriman: Jesus, the Temple and the Coming of the Son of Man (2015)”
one finds that though the preterist writers make a comprehensive case for preterism, it is neither consistent nor convincing. Continue reading “Mennoknight: The All-Of-It Discourse: Evaluating the case for Preterism (2010)”
Jesus’ prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple and His explanation to His disciples in the Olivet Discourse has produced a tremendous volume of scholarly interpretations, most of which fall into the historicist camp and interpret Jesus’ words as a threat or curse on the sacrificial institution represented by the Temple. Most of these interpreters assume that Jesus’ statements of destruction are pronouncements, as though He Himself were judging and condemning the city and sanctuary. This is generally because they view the Temple’s removal as marking the end of the Jewish age and symbolizing the removal of Israel as God’s Chosen People. Continue reading “J. Randall Price: Historical Problems for a First-Century Fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse (2003)”
The impetus for this analysis was skeptical claims that the Bible wrongly taught a “soon” coming of Jesus. Dispensationalists try to solve this problem by redefining “soon”. Our solution is that all along they and others have mis-defined “coming”.
if the destruction of Jerusalem be that coming of the Son of Man, which our Saviour spake of, then that coming in the clouds of heaven, and that destruction must have happened at one and the same time. But if we compare the three Evangelists together… we will presently be convinced that this is not true. Continue reading “Critical Review of the Olivet Discourse by Preterist Griffiths and Futurist Hardy (1770)”
the Olivet Discourse initially recaps Jesus’ prediction about Jerusalem’s temple, which was fulfilled in the first century, and then projects to the eschatological future
The FULFILLED interpretation, on the other hand, holds that the deceivers, wars, earthquakes, famines, and pestilences were things which Jesus said would soon happen—things that would happen before the destruction of the temple.
One of the most profoundly misunderstood passages in all the Bible is the Olivet Discourse found in Matthew 24.
Quite obviously dispensationalists and other who take a futurist viewpoint of the Olivet Discourse differ markedly from preterists on how that discourse is to be interpreted.
There are really only two dominant arguments against the literary interpretation of Matthew 24. These arguments are not only advanced by preterists, but it also by some partial preterists (those who do not adopt the entire theological program and realized eschatology of the Full Preterists). R.C. Sproul advances this first argument, for instance, in his recent popular book on the subject.