Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Matthew 24:1 Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Matthew 24:1 Jesus left the temple area and was going on His way when His disciples came up to Him to call His attention to the [magnificent and massive] buildings of the temple. [Mark 13; Luke 21:5-36] |
Subject: EXPLAIN MATTHEW 24 VS. 1-10 |
Bible Note: More on the same; One finds modern Preterist sources relying heavily upon writings of Josephus, so far they can allege a "physical" type of "evidence;" In absence of physical evidence of the more substantial and important events (such as, Bodily Resurrection, Judgment), "interpretation" becomes another sort, it is alleged that these took place "invisibly," in some "spiritual" sense. Josephus makes no report of "seeing" Jesus, the Resurrection, or Judgment, so it is necessary for Preterists to make prophecies have an "unseen" fulfillment. This you must accept "by faith." The "hermeneutic" of Preterism is geared to writings by a Pharisee Priest (who was not a believer in Jesus Christ) being the "rule" by which to determine prophetic fulfillments, and where there is no "physical" evidence, one must resort to the "spiritual" sense. This parallels the usual "adjustment" of interpretation made by "predictors" whose "predictions" have failed, and some other "sense" is then adopted. Preterists simply do it in a "retrospective" manner. Preterism begins with the presupposition that the Return of Christ took place in A.D.70, then it proceeds to impose this idea upon Bible teaching of the "imminence" of the Return. Imminence becomes "prediction" in the mind of the Preterist! Thus, Scripture that implies the imminence of the Return of Christ is applied by the Preterist to A.D.70, in accordance with the presupposed theory. A basic error involves skirting of the fact that (1) Jesus said He did not "know" the time of His Return, and (2) that it was "not for you to know" the times or seasons for the events which the Father has put "in His own power" (1 Thessalonians 5:1-2; Acts 1:8; Matthew 24:36; Mark 13:32). Preterist interpretations rest upon the assumption that Jesus did in fact know when He would return, and that He "predicted" an alleged "time frame" for His coming; Preterism also imposes "prediction" into the teachings of the Apostles, as if they knew the "times' and seasons" were within a "time frame." Matthew 10:23 is obviously referring to the "coming" of Jesus into "cities" of Israel where He sent the disciples (see Matthew 11:1). The disciples were sent on a "short" mission to "cities of Israel," and they would not finish it before Jesus had also "come" to preach in those "cities." The Preterist view would have this mean that the Second Coming would occur before the disciples had completed this "short" mission! In fact, they would still be on this mission up to A.D.70! Matthew 16:28 could only be the "coming" described in 17:1-9, as Peter relates in 2 Peter 1:16-18. The Preterist view that this refers to a "coming" in A.D.70 makes this a "prediction," which would mean that Jesus did know when He would return. What Jesus did know (and state) was that only "some" (Peter, James, John) would see the "Transfiguration," which they did. Preterists teach that only John was alive in A.D.70, which would mean he alone would have "seen" the Coming, clearly contradicting what Jesus said ā "some." Matthew 24:34 has the word "generation," which the Preterists insist is a "40 year period of time," or "time frame," when in fact, it refers to the "progeny" that is traced as far back as Cain, and the case of the slaying of Zacharias in 2 Chronicles 24 (Matthew 23:35). The Preterists make a play on "the Greek," when in fact, the Greek words derive from the same word and all are defined to mean "progeny" by the New Analytical Greek Lexicon. The word is not referring to a "period of time." The Preterist view again is based on the error that Jesus knew when He would return and was making a "prediction," clearly contradicting Scriptures which teach otherwise. Other than these verses, on writings by the Apostles it is necessary for Preterists to allege that the Apostles knew the "times and seasons," and were making "predictions." With such erroneous presuppositions, all of the verses that teach the "imminence" of the Return are viewed erroneously as being predictions. But if it is accepted that Jesus did not know when He would return, and that it was not for the disciples to know, then all that is taught by Jesus and the Apostles is the imminence of the Return. And when Peter was met with an objection which related to the matter of "time" ā "Where is the promise of His coming?" (as if it had been "too long" for the promise of His coming to be taken seriously), Peter's reply discounted the significance of any length of time involved, as he referred to this in relation to God's "clock" on time (2 Peter 3:8). Viewed on God's "calendar," it's hardly been "two days" since Jesus went back to Heaven. And what Peter said about this matter in his epistle is just as valid today as it was in his day. Peace stj |