When did the 2nd temple literally initially cease being the holy place?

[covenantee]

Okay, but say that then.

Scripture says it. I agree with Scripture. Including "Immediately".

You said:
"But, the sun being darkened and moon not giving its light and such are said to be things that occur "AFTER the tribulation of those days" is over, not DURING the tribulation of those days, as you are trying to say."

Why did you omit "Immediately"?

You came across as if you believed the time of the "tribulation of those days" itself is when the sun would be darkened and the moon would not give its light and so on rather than that immediately occurring or beginning to occur after "the tribulation of those days" is over.

Link to the post where I believed that.

So, what amount of time exactly do you think the part which says "the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken" represents after 70 AD?

Scripture doesn't tell us. Nor does it tell us in the Scriptures I cited from Isaiah and Ezekiel.

What amount of time exactly do you think it represents in the futurized scenario?

I saw that claninja understood you to be saying that His second coming would occur long after (at least 2,000 years or so) the fulfillment of Matthew 24:29. Is that how you see it? Which would mean that you believe that there is a long gap of time between the fulfillment of verse 29 and verse 30? Is that accurate?

Yes. The definition of "then" in verse 30 applicable to the future does not mandate any specific duration.

But a long gap to us may not be a long gap to God.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Scripture says it. I agree with Scripture. Including "Immediately".

Because it had nothing to do with the point I was making. My point was not in relation to how soon "after the tribulation of those days" that the sun would be darkened and so on, but rather that it would occur after the tribulation of those days rather than during the tribulation of those days as you seemed to be saying. That's all.

For you to seemingly think that I purposely did not include the word "immediately" for some kind of deceptive reason is offensive. Do you not think any better of me than that? My goal is to be as honest as possible with the scriptures while avoiding the creation of any contradictions in scripture.

Link to the post where I believed that.

Obviously, that is what I thought you were saying in the post I was replying to because you seemed to be associating the darkening of the sun and so on directly with the destruction of Jerusalem rather than occurring or beginning to occur immediately after Jerusalem was destroyed. I did edit my post after you replied to it (I did not know that you already replied to it at the time) to say that it SEEMED like you were saying that.

Scripture doesn't tell us. Nor does it tell us in the Scriptures I cited from Isaiah and Ezekiel.

Okay. Fair enough. I wish others here would realize that "I don't know" or "Scripture doesn't tell us" are perfectly acceptable answers.

What amount of time exactly do you think it represents in the futurized scenario?

Well, since I see it as referring to the time of the increased persecution, deception, apostasy and wickendess that Jesus talked about, and that Paul also talked about in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 (which I see as Satan's little season), I don't think it really represents any amount of time or a very short amount of time, if anything, and just represents what will occur when Jesus returns. We know some very drastic things will happen to the heavens and the earth when Jesus returns, as described in 2 Peter 3:10-12.

Yes. The definition of "then" in verse 30 applicable to the future does not mandate any specific duration.

That is true. But, I personally have a hard time believing that there would be a long time gap between the fulfillment of verse 29 and verse 30. That would mean Jesus was saying that the sun would be darkened and so on immediately after the tribulation of those days but His second coming would happen a long time after the tribulation of those days. That doesn't really register with me that He was saying that even though I acknowledge that the definition of the word "then" could mean that He could have been saying that.

 

[covenantee]

For you to seemingly think that I purposely did not include the word "immediately" for some kind of deceptive reason is offensive. Do you not think any better of me than that? My goal is to be as honest as possible with the scriptures while avoiding the creation of any contradictions in scripture.

You need to take some of your own advice and cease the hypersensitivity and innuendo.

But, I personally have a hard time believing that there would be a long time gap between the fulfillment of verse 29 and verse 30.

What seems to be a long gap to us may be only days to God.

 

[claninja]

Your Greek "expert" has other experts disagreeing with his convoluted and confused definition of houtos.

Name one Greek expert that disagrees that that a Greek demonstrative pronoun is used as pronoun when it stands alone and as an adjective when it’s next to a noun.

Name one Greek expert, that disagrees “this” acts as an adjective to genea, and “these things” is a stand alone pronoun in Matthew 24:34.

Most saints only need to read the context of the passage. The same [houtos] generation that will see the signs will not pass until the things Jesus mentioned have passed.

I’m mean i absolutely agree that the generation that lives through ALL theses things will not pass away until the all these things have occurred. Thats pretty much implied in the text. The question is which generation is Jesus talking about that will see all these things?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You need to take some of your own advice and cease the hypersensitivity and innuendo.

What are you talking about exactly? ? I did say what I thought you "seemingly" were implying, so that means I wasn't 100% sure you were implying that. So, I misunderstood you? If so, what was the reason you asked me why I left out the word "immediately" when what I was saying didn't have anything to do with how soon after the tribulation of those days the sun would be darkened, etc.?

What seems to be a long gap to us may be only days to God.

That is true. So, I'm not saying that your view can't possibly be true. I don't personally think it is, but we can respectfully agree to disagree about that.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Name one Greek expert that disagrees that that a Greek demonstrative pronoun is used as pronoun when it stands alone and as an adjective when it’s next to a noun.

Name one Greek expert, that disagrees “this” acts as an adjective to genea, and “these things” is a stand alone pronoun in Matthew 24:34.

I don't think you are understanding his argument. I'm pretty sure that he is not arguing that "this" does not act as an adjective to "genea".

However, what I believe he is arguing is that Jesus is saying, in effect, "this same generation that I just described" (in the previous verse) will not pass until "all these things" that would indicate His coming is near are fulfilled. In that case, "this generation" does not have to refer to the current generation as of the time He was speaking, but instead could refer to the future time (as of the time He was speaking) He referred to in verse 33 during which "all these things" would occur before Jesus returns.

I’m mean i absolutely agree that the generation that lives through ALL theses things will not pass away until the all these things have occurred. Thats pretty much implied in the text. The question is which generation is Jesus talking about that will see all these things?

Yes, that is the real question we should all be answering. But, the word "this" (Greek: houtos), in and of itself, does not answer that question as you think it does.

The question is whether Jesus was meaning to refer to this same time or generation that He had just talked about in the previous verse (Matt 24:33, Mark 13:30, Luke 21:32) during which "all these things" would occur, which was unknown, or was He intending to refer to "this current generation" that He was living in at the time? I think it's the former and you think it's the latter.

Another question we need to answer is what exactly are "all these things" that Jesus was talking about? I've already made the point that it can't be literally all the things He had previously talked about because He specificaly indicated that the wars, famines, pestilences and earthquakes were NOT things that would indicate that His coming is near and were instead only "the beginning of sorrows".

But, let's address one question at a time.

 

[covenantee]

That is true. So, I'm not saying that your view can't possibly be true. I don't personally think it is, but we can respectfully agree to disagree about that.

Sure.

 

[claninja]

I guess he did mention that, but I don't really understand that, so I'd like a more detailed explanation. It's a bit hard for me to believe that Jesus could have jumped ahead at least 2,000 years from verse 29 to 30. Of course, at the time, even Jesus didn't know the day or hour of His coming since only the Father knew (Matt 24:36), so, from that perspective, I suppose it could be possible.

To be fair, you also draw invisible dividing lines in the text, jumping with 70ad and +2000 years later. Covenantee just does it in one spot. I think you do it in 2 spots?

I can't agree with this since I strongly believe that verses 15-22 relate to what happened in 70 AD and He did not return in 70 AD and the end of this temporal age did not come in 70 AD.

Right, according to your framework he didn’t. So your negotiation is to draw invisible divine lines.

You make the verses fit your framework as well, so quit acting as if I'm the only one doing that. We ALL do that. And, frankly, we all SHOULD do that because we should not interpret any verse or passage that contradicts how we interpret any other verse or passage. We need to find a way to interpret ALL scripture in a framework that does not include any contradictions.

Oh definitely. Don’t disagree with you there. We all negotiate with the text.

I’m just less inclined to negotiate against grammar and context. I’m more inclined to negotiate the nature of things, if grammar and context don’t agree.

You can't possibly convince me that He came in 70 AD or that the end of the age occurred in 70 AD. That's a joke. And thinking that He spoke of GLOBAL events as signs of the coming of a LOCAL event is also a joke.

I mean, the words of the apostles clearly stating “the coming of the Lord has drawn near”, “the end of all things has drawn near”, “the coming will occur in a little while and without delay”, and “it’s the last hour”, wont convince, so I already know i definitely can’t.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

To be fair, you also draw invisible dividing lines in the text, jumping with 70ad and +2000 years later. Covenantee just does it in one spot. I think you do it in 2 spots?

That is true, and I did acknowledge that his view could be true even though I don't currently believe that it is. It would obviously be hypocritical of me to try to say that his view wasn't even possible. Obviously, it is since the text does not specifically indicate how long after verse 29 is fulfilled that verse 30 is fulfilled.

Right, according to your framework he didn’t. So your negotiation is to draw invisible divine lines.

Yep.

Oh definitely. Don’t disagree with you there. We all negotiate with the text.

I’m just less inclined to negotiate against grammar and context. I’m more inclined to negotiate the nature of things, if grammar and context don’t agree.

I don't believe I'm doing that. What you're really saying here is that you are less inclined to think that what Jesus was talking about was not all in chronological order. Yet, there are plenty of examples of Bible prophecy where not everything written about is in chronological order. I think that's quite obvious in the book of Revelation, for example.

I mean, the words of the apostles clearly stating “the coming of the Lord has drawn near”, “the end of all things has drawn near”, “the coming will occur in a little while and without delay”, and “it’s the last hour”, wont convince, so I already know i definitely can’t.

Yes, just like how when Jesus and Peter associate heaven and earth passing away with His second coming (Matthew 24:30-39, 2 Peter 3:7,10-12), it's not enough to convince you that He hasn't come yet. And, how His parousia being accompanied by the changing of our bodies to be immortal, the resurrection of the dead in Christ, and our being caught up to Him in the air is not enough to convince you that He hasn't come yet even though that event clearly did not occur in 70 AD.

One of the verses you're talking about is 1 Peter 4:7. I would assume you would agree that what Peter was referring there is the same thing he wrote about in 2 Peter 3:3-13? If that passage doesn't describe "the end of all things", I don't know what does. Yet, what he described in 2nd Peter 3:10-12 has not yet occurred.

So, that should make you rethink what Peter was intending to say in 1 Peter 4:7. Was he speaking only from the human perspective and saying that the end of all things was literally near? Or was he talking from the Lord's perspective like he did in 2nd Peter 3 where he indicated that His coming might seem like it's taking a long time from man's perspective but that is not the case from the Lord's eternal perspective. From His eternal perspective, His return was near in Peter's day and is still near today because to Him there is no difference between a day and a thousand years (2 Peter 3:8-9). So, it makes sense to believe that the same person who pointed out from what perspective we should be looking at things in terms of how long it is taking the Lord to return in 2nd Peter 3 would have also been speaking from that perspective in 1 Peter 4:7.

 

[claninja]

He can't have been including the verses about wars, rumors of wars, famines, pestilences and earthquakes among "all these things" that would indicate His return was near because He specifically indicated that those things occurring would NOT mean the end was near and were only "the beginning of sorrows" instead. Without Jesus clarifying that, it would seem like the end was near with those kinds of things occurring, but Jesus made sure to let them know that would NOT be the case.

So, instead of physical disasters being signs that His coming and the end of the age were near, it would be increased persecution, deception, apostasy and wickedness which would indicate that His coming was near, and that lines up with what Paul talked about in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12.

Notice in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 that Paul talks about signs that would indicate that His coming and our being gathered to Him was near, and he said NOTHING about things like wars, famines, pestilences and earthquakes as being signs that His coming was near.

And, in my view, Jesus couldn't have been including Matthew 24 verses 15-22 as things that would indicate that His coming was near, either, because His coming is a global event while verse 15-22 only describe a local event. So, I believe the things that would indicate that His coming was near are the things that are actually associated as being near "the end", which are the increased persecution, apostasy, deception and wickedness that He talked about.

Unless you understand that Jesus was asked two questions about two different events, I don't think it's possible to make sense of what He said. When you try to make the whole Olivet Discourse about things related to what occurred in 70 AD, it causes you to contradict other scripture.

in vs 4-8, It doesn’t say the end “is not near”. It says the end “is not yet”. Vs 4-8 were just the beginning of birth pains, with more things still yet to follow before the end. The apostles generation lived through the events of vs 4-8.

As to vs 9-24, the apostles’ generation lived through all that. Their generation lived through many going out from the church (that’s how they knew it was the last hour). Their generation lived through persecution and death. Their generation lived through the gospel going to the whole oikoumene (as stated by Paul). Their generation lived through the rise of many false prophets and Christs. Their generation lived through the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.


Vs 34 states this generation will not pass way until “ALL these things” happen. The antecedents to “ ALL these things” would be INCLUSIVE of all the events previously listed —That’s literally why you have previously argued genea doesn’t meant generation, but instead means race, no?

 

[Timtofly]

If we allow for things like that then we can make scripture say whatever we want it to say without ever accepting that anything has ever been completely fulfilled yet.

So you are saying that Jerusalem can never be destroyed the 3rd time, even though it has been destroyed a few times in history? That is not making Scripture say anything. That is just applying Scripture to several events. Are you making Scripture say Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD? What if that was not the intention of the verse at all? Until the end of creation, you will not know which verses applied to which historical event. There is no Scripture any where saying 70 AD fulfilled anything. That is your private assumption, and a lot of people agree with you.

Josephus and any historian of the first century are not Scripture. You are most certainly taking historical documents and making Scripture say anything you want it to say. Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD is one fact. Saying it fulfilled prophecy is another point altogether. That is no different than stating that some prophecy can happen several times. Every time Jerusalem is destroyed it would fulfill that prophecy whether you agree or not. The prophecy does not state a particular date.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

So you are saying that Jerusalem can never be destroyed the 3rd time, even though it has been destroyed a few times in history?

I didn't say that couldn't happen. I actually think it will be along with the entire earth, according to 2 Peter 3:10-13. But, what I'm saying is that I don't believe that any verses or passages like Luke 21:20-24 have more than one fulfillment. Is that what you believe? Do you believe Luke 21:20-24 was fulfilled in 70 AD and the same passage will be fulfilled in the future?

That is not making Scripture say anything. That is just applying Scripture to several events. Are you making Scripture say Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD?

I'm saying that about Matthew 24:15-22, Mark 13:14-20 and Luke 21:20-24 which I believe are parallel passages.

What if that was not the intention of the verse at all? Until the end of creation, you will not know which verses applied to which historical event. There is no Scripture any where saying 70 AD fulfilled anything. That is your private assumption, and a lot of people agree with you.

LOL. Yes, it is my opinion and not a certifiable fact and I never said otherwise. But, we have historical documents that describe a time when Jerusalem was surrounded by armies and then destroyed and made desolate. That's what is described in Luke 21:20-24, so I think it's a safe assumption to see that as having been fulfilled in 70 AD.

Josephus and any historian of the first century are not Scripture.

I never said otherwise, but what reason would he, or anyone else who wrote about what happened back then, have to make anything up?

You are most certainly taking historical documents and making Scripture say anything you want it to say.

LOL! You are hilarious. So, when else were the temple buildings destroyed if not in 70 AD?

Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD is one fact.

Oh, now you're saying it did happen. You are hard to follow, dude.

Saying it fulfilled prophecy is another point altogether.

Again, what is described as having happened back then matches up with what is written in Luke 19:41-44 and Luke 21:20-24 (and Matt 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20), so it's not like it's just a random stab in the dark to see those passages as being fulfilled at that time.

That is no different than stating that some prophecy can happen several times. Every time Jerusalem is destroyed it would fulfill that prophecy whether you agree or not. The prophecy does not state a particular date.

Why would a prophecy have a dual fulfillment like that? How can we ever know when a prophecy has been completely fulfilled in that case?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

in vs 4-8, It doesn’t say the end “is not near”. It says the end “is not yet”. Vs 4-8 were just the beginning of birth pains, with more things still yet to follow before the end. The apostles generation lived through the events of vs 4-8.

Nowhere does it indicate that those things would indicate that the end was near. Also, since they were global things that He was talking about that means they were mentioned in relation to a coming global event and not to a coming local event.

Tell me this. Similar to what Jesus did in Matthew 24:9-13, Paul wrote about a time when there would be increased deception, apostasy and wickedness before Christ's return as well. I see no reason to think that 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 is about some other time period than Matthew 24:9-13. But, if the physical disasters (man-made and natural) that Jesus talked about that would not indicate that the end was at hand yet were meant as a sign that His return was near, then why did Paul make no mention of that? He talked about things related to deception and wickedness as being signs of the near return of Christ, but nothing at all about wars, famines, pestilences and earthquakes as being signs that Christ's return is near. I feel certain that if those were signs of Christ's return being near, then Paul would have written about that, but he didn't.

Vs 34 states this generation will not pass way until “ALL these things” happen. The antecedents to “ ALL these things” would be INCLUSIVE of all the events previously listed —That’s literally why you have previously argued genea doesn’t meant generation, but instead means race, no?

I never said at any time that "all these things" refer to literally everything that Jesus had previously said. Let me show you how erroneous it is to make that assumption.

Luke 21:25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; 26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. 27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh. 29 And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; 30 When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. 31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. 32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. 33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. 34 And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. 35 For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth. 36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.

Using your logic that you use to interpret what "all these things" in Matthew 24:34 are referring to, we would conclude that "all these things that shall come to pass" that Jesus mentioned in Luke 21:36 referred to all the things that Jesus had previously mentioned starting with Luke 21:8, including "these things" that Jesus said would be seen come to pass that would indicate that the kingdom of God was near. The things He previously mentioned included wars, famines, pestilences, earthquakes, persecution, Jerusalem's desolation, Jews being taken captive to all nations, the times of the Gentiles, the distress of nations and the coming of Christ.

But, was Jesus saying to pray to be accounted worthy to escape the things that He said would indicate that His coming was near, which were mentioned before Luke 21:31? Of course not, right? Why would anyone pray to escape the things that Jesus said would be seen as signs of His coming being near? That makes no sense. But, it makes sense if He was saying to pray to be accounted worthy of escaping the wrath that would come when He comes. Was He saying to pray to be accounted worthy to escape His coming and coming of the kingdom of God that He had previously mentioned? Of course not. So, taking "all these things" to mean literally everything He had previously mentioned is not reasonable and is not the right way to interpret that.

 

[Zao is life]

You can just say completely different time periods that are almost 2,000 years apart or something like that instead.

I apologize. I obviously have an articulation issue and besides me correcting the above, I can't guarantee that it won't happen again with some other word, because of my lack of articulation issue. But I'll try.

Well, if you look at Luke 21, it describes the same thing as Matthew 24:15-22 in Luke 21:20-24, but then it has Jews (or whoever you think they are) being taken captive into all nations and has a time period called "the times of the Gentiles" following what is described in Luke 21:20-24a.

This is what I see:. Jesus is in the Jerusalem temple, 48 hours before He was crucified. He tells the Pharisees that their house is left to them desolate, doing away with the old.

But He knows that in 48 hours in order to do away with the old, He Himself was going to have to bring about the new, and He knew that in order to do so, He was going to have to face the greatest mental anguish any human being has ever gone through, bearing our sin upon Himself, and this is besides the extreme torturous physical pain, mocking, being spat upon - all the things He had to go through to bring about an end to the old, and bring in the new.

Then He would finally breathe His last breath and die. His soul would go down into hades, where the Father would require Him to preach to the extremely evil spirits that were imprisoned in hades. Then He would rise again on the third day, preach for 37 days to His disciples and on the 40th day following His resurrection, finally ascend back to God His Father from whence He had been sent.

He told the Pharisees: "You house is left to you desolate". It was done. His mind would surely have been preoccupied with what was lying ahead of Him.

Then He comes out of the temple, and being fully aware of how Satan had used every opportunity to tempt Him and remembering Lot's wife, He's ready to turn His back on the temple in Jerusalem (the old) and head toward the Mount of Olives, KNOWING what agony lay ahead of Him because He it was who was to bring in the new - and then Satan uses His disciples again to tempt Him: "But Lord, look how beautiful, how magnificent this temple is, look at it's magnificent structure and beautiful buildings".

"Not one stone will be left upon another", Jesus said, and then, knowing what lay ahead of Him, He turns His back on the old and the temple that represented it, and begins making His way to the Mount of Olives, and remembering Lot's wife, not for one second does He turn and look back.

He was fully aware of the agony that He would have to shortly endure in order to bring about the new, fully aware of the persecution His disciples would have to experience, fully aware that at the end of the age before He returns the disciples would become hated of all nations for His name's sake, delivered up to tribulation and killed, fully aware of the false Christ's and false prophets - the deception - that would come. His first words in His reply to their question was, "See to it that ye be not deceived". He was fully aware that of the lawlessness at the end of the age, fully aware of the falling away of many Christians, and how they would become offended by the tribulation, hate one another and betray one another.

He was fully aware of His soon betrayal by one of His own - Judas Iscariot, His arrest, and all that would follow.


1. Would He have looked back at the old (the temple) after turning His back on it and beginning His short journey to the Mount of Olives?
2. Knowing what the disciples had said "But Lord, LOOK at how beautiful and magnificent this temple is", would Jesus, once having sat down on the Mount of Olives knowing what He was soon to face in order to bring in the New, have even looked at the temple?
3. He had told the Pharisees their house was left to them desolate, told the disciples not one stone would be left upon another, and turned His back on the old and the temple that represented the old and was facing what He would endure to bring in the new.

WHY would He have answered them by talking about the old?

 

[claninja]

I don't believe I'm doing that. What you're really saying here is that you are less inclined to think that what Jesus was talking about was not all in chronological order. Yet, there are plenty of examples of Bible prophecy where not everything written about is in chronological order. I think that's quite obvious in the book of Revelation, for example.

chronology of the OD is much less important if it’s summed up with “this generation will not pass away until ALL these things happen”. In other words, it Doesn’t really matter the exact order, if they ALL happen before “this generation passes away”.

But if you believe that the coming of the kingdom/coming of the son of man on the clouds, in the OD, must be a literal, visible, physical event, then you have to negotiate:

• genea doesn’t mean group of contemporaneous people, it means race spanning centuries, despite that’s how Genea is used in the majority, of the time outside mattthew 24:34, and despite the overwhelming scholarly and grammatical evidence to the contrary
• Genea means generation but, only in regards to certain events - negotiating “all these things” can’t actually refer all the events listed previously, and thus needing to draw dividing lines in the text.
• Genea means generation, but only the generation that lives through all the events in the still to come future, completely ignoring that the context is also about the destruction of the temple.

Yes, just like how when Jesus and Peter associate heaven and earth passing away with His second coming (Matthew 24:30-39, 2 Peter 3:7,10-12), it's not enough to convince you that He hasn't come yet. And, how His parousia being accompanied by the changing of our bodies to be immortal, the resurrection of the dead in Christ, and our being caught up to Him in the air is not enough to convince you that He hasn't come yet even though that event clearly did not occur in 70 AD.

One of the verses you're talking about is 1 Peter 4:7. I would assume you would agree that what Peter was referring there is the same thing he wrote about in 2 Peter 3:3-13? If that passage doesn't describe "the end of all things", I don't know what does. Yet, what he described in 2nd Peter 3:10-12 has not yet occurred.

So, that should make you rethink what Peter was intending to say in 1 Peter 4:7. Was he speaking only from the human perspective and saying that the end of all things was literally near? Or was he talking from the Lord's perspective like he did in 2nd Peter 3 where he indicated that His coming might seem like it's taking a long time from man's perspective but that is not the case from the Lord's eternal perspective. From His eternal perspective, His return was near in Peter's day and is still near today because to Him there is no difference between a day and a thousand years (2 Peter 3:8-9). So, it makes sense to believe that the same person who pointed out from what perspective we should be looking at things in terms of how long it is taking the Lord to return in 2nd Peter 3 would have also been speaking from that perspective in 1 Peter 4:7.

Like I said, If you require a literal understanding and can’t negotiate the nature coming of the kingdom/coming of the son of man on the clouds/passing away of heavens and earth, despite OT passages using this similar language in figurative ways, then you have to negotiate with grammar, context, and word usage.

As to 1 Peter 4:7, there is zero contextual and grammatical evidence that he is “speaking from the Lords perspective in regards to Gods time”. That is solely an argument based on your framework.

As to 2 peter 3, there’s zero grammatical and contextual evidence that it would contradict a literal understanding of 1 Peter 4:7. No where does it state the coming of the Lord or the passing away of heavens and earth are far off in 2 peter 3. The promises of the renewal and of the new heavens And earth were made several hundred years prior to Peter’s day. The promises of the son of man coming on the clouds, while also found in the OT, had been restated almost 40 years prior. God is not slow to fulfill the promises that he had made several hundred years prior to Peter, as some count slow.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I apologize. I obviously have an articulation issue and besides me correcting the above, I can't guarantee that it won't happen again with some other word, because of my lack of articulation issue. But I'll try.

That's all I ask, but at this point I don't think I will forget what you mean if you use that term again. So, it's fine.

This is what I see:. Jesus is in the Jerusalem temple, 48 hours before He was crucified. He tells the Pharisees that their house is left to them desolate, doing away with the old.

But He knows that in 48 hours in order to do away with the old, He Himself was going to have to bring about the new, and He knew that in order to do so, He was going to have to face the greatest mental anguish any human being has ever gone through, bearing our sin upon Himself, and this is besides the extreme torturous physical pain, mocking, being spat upon - all the things He had to go through to bring about an end to the old, and bring in the new.

Then He would finally breathe His last breath and die. His soul would go down into hades, where the Father would require Him to preach to the extremely evil spirits that were imprisoned in hades. Then He would rise again on the third day, preach for 37 days to His disciples and on the 40th day following His resurrection, finally ascend back to God His Father from whence He had been sent.

He told the Pharisees: "You house is left to you desolate". It was done. His mind would surely have been preoccupied with what was lying ahead of Him.

Then He comes out of the temple, and being fully aware of how Satan had used every opportunity to tempt Him and remembering Lot's wife, He's ready to turn His back on the temple in Jerusalem (the old) and head toward the Mount of Olives, KNOWING what agony lay ahead of Him because He it was who was to bring in the new - and then Satan uses His disciples again to tempt Him: "But Lord, look how beautiful, how magnificent this temple is, look at it's magnificent structure and beautiful buildings".

"Not one stone will be left upon another", Jesus said, and then, knowing what lay ahead of Him, He turns His back on the old and the temple that represented it, and begins making His way to the Mount of Olives, and remembering Lot's wife, not for one second does He turn and look back.

He was fully aware of the agony that He would have to shortly endure in order to bring about the new, fully aware of the persecution His disciples would have to experience, fully aware that at the end of the age before He returns the disciples would become hated of all nations for His name's sake, delivered up to tribulation and killed, fully aware of the false Christ's and false prophets - the deception - that would come. His first words in His reply to their question was, "See to it that ye be not deceived". He was fully aware that of the lawlessness at the end of the age, fully aware of the falling away of many Christians, and how they would become offended by the tribulation, hate one another and betray one another.

He was fully aware of His soon betrayal by one of His own - Judas Iscariot, His arrest, and all that would follow.


1. Would He have looked back at the old (the temple) after turning His back on it and beginning His short journey to the Mount of Olives?
2. Knowing what the disciples had said "But Lord, LOOK at how beautiful and magnificent this temple is", would Jesus, once having sat down on the Mount of Olives knowing what He was soon to face in order to bring in the New, have even looked at the temple?
3. He had told the Pharisees their house was left to them desolate, told the disciples not one stone would be left upon another, and turned His back on the old and the temple that represented the old and was facing what He would endure to bring in the new.

WHY would He have answered them by talking about the old?

I'm sorry, but I cannot understand what you're saying. To me, it's clear that the disciples were talking about the temple buildings standing at that time and how impressed they were with them and Jesus pointed to the buildings and said that they would be destroyed. Then the disciples asked him 2 questions (some think 3...whatever) and the first question was related to when the temple buildings would be destroyed. Naturally, they would ask about that. It had to be shocking for them to hear Jesus say the temple buildings that were the center of the Jews' religion would be destroyed. How could they follow their religion anymore in that case? The disciples had to be completely confused and had to wonder when that would happen. So, they asked Him. And I see no reason to think He didn't answer that question.

So, that's how I see it and we obviously see this very differently. So be it. I'm not sure we can have a fruitful discussion about it when our views are so far apart on that. But, we agree on what most of the Olivet Discourse means and that is not insignificant. I'm glad about that.

 

[Davidpt]

I apologize. I obviously have an articulation issue and besides me correcting the above, I can't guarantee that it won't happen again with some other word, because of my lack of articulation issue. But I'll try.



This is what I see:. Jesus is in the Jerusalem temple, 48 hours before He was crucified. He tells the Pharisees that their house is left to them desolate, doing away with the old.

But He knows that in 48 hours in order to do away with the old, He Himself was going to have to bring about the new, and He knew that in order to do so, He was going to have to face the greatest mental anguish any human being has ever gone through, bearing our sin upon Himself, and this is besides the extreme torturous physical pain, mocking, being spat upon - all the things He had to go through to bring about an end to the old, and bring in the new.

Then He would finally breathe His last breath and die. His soul would go down into hades, where the Father would require Him to preach to the extremely evil spirits that were imprisoned in hades. Then He would rise again on the third day, preach for 37 days to His disciples and on the 40th day following His resurrection, finally ascend back to God His Father from whence He had been sent.

He told the Pharisees: "You house is left to you desolate". It was done. His mind would surely have been preoccupied with what was lying ahead of Him.

Then He comes out of the temple, and being fully aware of how Satan had used every opportunity to tempt Him and remembering Lot's wife, He's ready to turn His back on the temple in Jerusalem (the old) and head toward the Mount of Olives, KNOWING what agony lay ahead of Him because He it was who was to bring in the new - and then Satan uses His disciples again to tempt Him: "But Lord, look how beautiful, how magnificent this temple is, look at it's magnificent structure and beautiful buildings".

"Not one stone will be left upon another", Jesus said, and then, knowing what lay ahead of Him, He turns His back on the old and the temple that represented it, and begins making His way to the Mount of Olives, and remembering Lot's wife, not for one second does He turn and look back.

He was fully aware of the agony that He would have to shortly endure in order to bring about the new, fully aware of the persecution His disciples would have to experience, fully aware that at the end of the age before He returns the disciples would become hated of all nations for His name's sake, delivered up to tribulation and killed, fully aware of the false Christ's and false prophets - the deception - that would come. His first words in His reply to their question was, "See to it that ye be not deceived". He was fully aware that of the lawlessness at the end of the age, fully aware of the falling away of many Christians, and how they would become offended by the tribulation, hate one another and betray one another.

He was fully aware of His soon betrayal by one of His own - Judas Iscariot, His arrest, and all that would follow.


1. Would He have looked back at the old (the temple) after turning His back on it and beginning His short journey to the Mount of Olives?
2. Knowing what the disciples had said "But Lord, LOOK at how beautiful and magnificent this temple is", would Jesus, once having sat down on the Mount of Olives knowing what He was soon to face in order to bring in the New, have even looked at the temple?
3. He had told the Pharisees their house was left to them desolate, told the disciples not one stone would be left upon another, and turned His back on the old and the temple that represented the old and was facing what He would endure to bring in the new.

WHY would He have answered them by talking about the old?

Personally, I found this post rather insightful. I don't know if you are entirely correct or not, but I can for sure see the logic in what you are proposing.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

chronology of the OD is much less important if it’s summed up with “this generation will not pass away until ALL these things happen”. In other words, it Doesn’t really matter the exact order, if they ALL happen before “this generation passes away”.

But if you believe that the coming of the kingdom/coming of the son of man on the clouds, in the OD, must be a literal, visible, physical event, then you have to negotiate:

• genea doesn’t mean group of contemporaneous people, it means race spanning centuries, despite that’s how Genea is used in the majority, of the time outside mattthew 24:34, and despite the overwhelming scholarly and grammatical evidence to the contrary
• Genea means generation but, only in regards to certain events - negotiating “all these things” can’t actually refer all the events listed previously, and thus needing to draw dividing lines in the text.
• Genea means generation, but only the generation that lives through all the events in the still to come future, completely ignoring that the context is also about the destruction of the temple.

You focus on the word genea, but what about what has been said about the word "houtos"? You assume that "this generation" must refer to the generation of the time when Jesus was speaking, but it's been shown that the word "houtos" can mean "the same" as well. In Matthew 24:33 Jesus was speaking of the time period "when ye shall see all these things". With the word generation referring to a time period (generally 30 to 40 years), there is no reason that Jesus could not have been saying in verse 34, in relation to the time period He just referenced in the previous verse, "this same generation that will see all these things that will indicate that my return is near will not pass until all these things are fulfilled". In that case, He would not have had to be speaking of the current generation, but instead of the generation that would exist during the time when "all these things" would be fulfilled.

You say "all these things" must refer to everything He talked about, but I showed in another post that "all these things" in Luke 21:36 are clearly not literally all of the things that He had previously talked about. So, that argument doesn't hold water.

Like I said, If you require a literal understanding and can’t negotiate the nature coming of the kingdom/coming of the son of man on the clouds/passing away of heavens and earth, despite OT passages using this similar language in figurative ways, then you have to negotiate with grammar, context, and word usage.

What evidence do you have to indicate that Peter was not speaking literally in 2nd Peter 3, knowing that He compared the future fiery event directly with the flood in Noah's day (2 Peter 3:6-7)? Why would he have compared a non-literal, non-physical event with a past literal, global physical event? That makes no sense.

As to 1 Peter 4:7, there is zero contextual and grammatical evidence that he is “speaking from the Lords perspective in regards to Gods time”. That is solely an argument based on your framework.

Do you disagree that he was speaking there about the same event that he described in 2 Peter 3? If so, do you think he said what he did in 2 Peter 3:8-9 for no reason?

As to 2 peter 3, there’s zero grammatical and contextual evidence that it would contradict a literal understanding of 1 Peter 4:7.

Yes, there is, and I've shown that. But, naturally, since you think far differently than I do, you're not going to see what I see. Which makes talking to you seem like an utter waste of time.

No where does it state the coming of the Lord or the passing away of heavens and earth are far off in 2 peter 3.

That isn't even the point. The point is that how long it's taking for Him to return should be looked at from the Lord's perspective, not ours, since that is all that matters.

 

[Davidpt]

chronology of the OD is much less important if it’s summed up with “this generation will not pass away until ALL these things happen”. In other words, it Doesn’t really matter the exact order, if they ALL happen before “this generation passes away”.

But if you believe that the coming of the kingdom/coming of the son of man on the clouds, in the OD, must be a literal, visible, physical event, then you have to negotiate:

• genea doesn’t mean group of contemporaneous people, it means race spanning centuries, despite that’s how Genea is used in the majority, of the time outside mattthew 24:34, and despite the overwhelming scholarly and grammatical evidence to the contrary
• Genea means generation but, only in regards to certain events - negotiating “all these things” can’t actually refer all the events listed previously, and thus needing to draw dividing lines in the text.
• Genea means generation, but only the generation that lives through all the events in the still to come future, completely ignoring that the context is also about the destruction of the temple.

Like I said, If you require a literal understanding and can’t negotiate the nature coming of the kingdom/coming of the son of man on the clouds/passing away of heavens and earth, despite OT passages using this similar language in figurative ways, then you have to negotiate with grammar, context, and word usage.

As to 1 Peter 4:7, there is zero contextual and grammatical evidence that he is “speaking from the Lords perspective in regards to Gods time”. That is solely an argument based on your framework.

As to 2 peter 3, there’s zero grammatical and contextual evidence that it would contradict a literal understanding of 1 Peter 4:7. No where does it state the coming of the Lord or the passing away of heavens and earth are far off in 2 peter 3. The promises of the renewal and of the new heavens And earth were made several hundred years prior to Peter’s day. The promises of the son of man coming on the clouds, while also found in the OT, had been restated almost 40 years prior. God is not slow to fulfill the promises that he had made several hundred years prior to Peter, as some count slow.

In my opinion it is rather simple if we come from the perspective of Luke 21.

Luke 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.


First He said this, then later He said this.

Luke 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

Where that logically has to include the fulfillment of this--until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled--before this can happen---This generation shall pass away

It seems to me that there are only 2 categories of people on the earth, that being Jew and Gentile. As we speak, we are either in the times of the Jews or we are in the times of the Gentiles. If the times of the Gentiles was already fulfilled 2000 years ago that would logically have to mean that we have been in the times of the Jews ever since. I of course don't see that making sense, since Gentiles to this day are dominating and governing most of this planet, not the Jews.

 

[claninja]

Nowhere does it indicate that those things would indicate that the end was near. Also, since they were global things that He was talking about that means they were mentioned in relation to a coming global event and not to a coming local event.

Tell me this. Similar to what Jesus did in Matthew 24:9-13, Paul wrote about a time when there would be increased deception, apostasy and wickedness before Christ's return as well. I see no reason to think that 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 is about some other time period than Matthew 24:9-13. But, if the physical disasters (man-made and natural) that Jesus talked about that would not indicate that the end was at hand yet were meant as a sign that His return was near, then why did Paul make no mention of that? He talked about things related to deception and wickedness as being signs of the near return of Christ, but nothing at all about wars, famines, pestilences and earthquakes as being signs that Christ's return is near. I feel certain that if those were signs of Christ's return being near, then Paul would have written about that, but he didn't.

Again vs 4-8 do not say - “the end is not near”. Vs 4-8 say the end is “not yet”, and that they are the beginning of birth pains

Birth pains:

“The term "birth-pangs" is used metaphorically in the Bible to describe intense suffering or distress that precedes a significant event or transformation. It is often associated with the end times, the coming of the Messiah, or the establishment of God's kingdom. The imagery of birth-pangs conveys both the inevitability and the intensity of the process leading to a new beginning.” (Topical Bible: Birth-pangs)

Using your logic that you use to interpret what "all these things" in Matthew 24:34 are referring to, we would conclude that "all these things that shall come to pass" that Jesus mentioned in Luke 21:36 referred to all the things that Jesus had previously mentioned starting with Luke 21:8, including "these things" that Jesus said would be seen come to pass that would indicate that the kingdom of God was near. The things He previously mentioned included wars, famines, pestilences, earthquakes, persecution, Jerusalem's desolation, Jews being taken captive to all nations, the times of the Gentiles, the distress of nations and the coming of Christ.

But, was Jesus saying to pray to be accounted worthy to escape the things that He said would indicate that His coming was near, which were mentioned before Luke 21:31? Of course not, right? Why would anyone pray to escape the things that Jesus said would be seen as signs of His coming being near? That makes no sense. But, it makes sense if He was saying to pray to be accounted worthy of escaping the wrath that would come when He comes. Was He saying to pray to be accounted worthy to escape His coming and coming of the kingdom of God that He had previously mentioned? Of course not. So, taking "all these things" to mean literally everything He had previously mentioned is not reasonable and is not the right way to interpret that.

You listed these events that would signal the coming of the kingdom was near based on Luke: wars, famines, pestilences, earthquakes, persecution, Jerusalem's desolation, Jews being taken captive to all nations, the times of the Gentiles, the distress of nations and the coming of Christ on the clouds.

Just to reiterate I believe the son of Man coming on the clouds is one of judgment, like how the ancient of days descended from heaven on the clouds to judge enemies, nations, and kingdoms in the OT

Additionally Luke 21:36 has variance between manuscripts - in the TR it’s “worthy”, in the Mgnt it’s “strength”

Pray that you have the “strength” to escape all these things. Pray that you have the strength to escape wars, famines, pestilence, persecution, and Jerusalems desolation = wrath, times of gentiles, son of man coming the clouds. not sure how that’s unreasonable.