Interesting preterist argument

[NotTheRock]

None of the OD events were, nor did.

The guy in the video is (I understand) and "full preterist". I understand that there are also "partial preterists". What is one called who believes that the events described in the OD will occur in the future?

 

[ewq1938]

The guy in the video is (I understand) and "full preterist". I understand that there are also "partial preterists". What is one called who believes that the events described in the OD will occur in the future?

Futurist.

 

[claninja]

Yes, the interpretation of the OD events having already happened is incorrect. None of the events have happened and we know that because all the events have to be seen by one generation and that includes the second coming and when the SC happens, all the saved dead resurrect and reign on Earth with Christ. Look around, no resurrected dead are here reigning with Jesus.

The disciples did not know when the Coming would happen so anything that seems to suggest it happening during their lives was merely hopeful wording.

If your interpretation is right, and all of the writers claimed it would happen in their lives, they all would be wrong and NT scripture would be untrue. He hasn't returned and none of the second coming events like the resurrection of all the saved dead etc clearly did not happen and I am not ok with watering everything down to make the claim that the Coming happened but He doesn't have to be here reigning and no resurrected dead need to be here etc etc etc.

Full Preterism is a heresy for a reason, a good reason.






Misinterpretation, false claims of a historical second coming that clearly never happened, ignoring of most of the clear events described that had to happen, but historically has not happened. I've explained how your interpretation is wrong many times with no actual response to the actual evidence.

I’m having a hard time following your response here. My question was specific: What external framework is being applied to Matthew 24:1–34 to conclude that it has been fulfilled? Simply labeling opposing views as “misinterpretations” or “false claims” isn’t an actual framework—it’s a judgment about the outcome, not an explanation of the method.

For instance, you argue that certain events described in Revelation haven’t occurred yet. That’s fine—but when you use that interpretation to argue against the fulfillment of Matthew 24, you are importing an external interpretive framework from Revelation into the Olivet Discourse. Likewise, when you assume that “the coming of the Son of Man” must refer to a future, bodily descent of Jesus from heaven, you’re applying a theological assumption—again, external to the immediate context of Matthew 24.

That’s what I mean by importing external ideas: using conclusions drawn from other texts or theological systems to override or reinterpret what Matthew 24 may plainly say within its own literary and historical context.

What specific external framework or external theological assumption am i importing onto the olivet discourse in order to conclude it was fulfilled within Jesus’ generation?

Your evidence is basically, "It sounds like the disciples expected the return in their generation." Yes, they certainly did but that is not evidence. It's belief and hope, and they all were wrong and basing a position on that level of wrong is also wrong but multiplied into a fur5ther wrong unknown in their own generation.

Just a reminder: when Greek verbs are in the indicative mood, they express what the speaker presents as reality — a statement of fact, rather than hope, possibility, or command. The statements in James 5:8-9, Hebrews 10:37, 1 Peter 4:7, and 1 John 2:18-19, in regards to the nearness of the coming, are statements of fact from the author - NOT hope, possibility, or probability. so, right, your framework does require the writers of the NT to have been wrong.

Moreover, the belief that Matthew 24:1-34 was fulfilled within Jesus’ generation is not based on those external statements by apostles. Quite the opposite, those statements are interpreted through framework of a fulfilled Matthew 24:1-34. And what is more, The belief that Matthew 24:1-34 was fulfilled within Jesus’ generation is derived from the text itself, not something external:

• CONTEXT - Jesus answers the disciples’ questions
• GRAMMAR - the antecedent to “all these things” in Matthew 24:34 refers to a the events in Matthew 24:4-31
• LINGUISTIC - the majority of evidence points to genea meaning those living at the same.

So I’m still not sure what external framework you are claiming is being imported in order to draw the conclusion that Matthew 24:1-34 was fulfilled within Jesus’ generation?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Just a reminder: when Greek verbs are in the indicative mood, they express what the speaker presents as reality — a statement of fact, rather than hope, possibility, or command. The statements in James 5:8-9, Hebrews 10:37, 1 Peter 4:7, and 1 John 2:18-19, in regards to the nearness of the coming, are statements of fact from the author - NOT hope, possibility, or probability. so, right, your framework does require the writers of the NT to have been wrong.

You just won't stop with your promotion of false preterist doctrine. Peter indicated that we should look at things from God's perspective when it comes to the timing of Christ's return (2 Peter 3:8-9), so Peter was not saying that the end of all things was near from the human perspective in 1 Peter 4:7.

Also, Hebrews 10:37 has nothing to do with the nearness of Christ's second coming. You obviously have never taken a close look at the context of that verse.

Hebrews 10:36 For you have need of endurance, so that after you have done the will of God, you may receive the promise: 37 “For yet a little while, And He who is coming will come and will not tarry.

This is a reference to this Old Testament passage:

Isaiah 26:19 But your dead will live, Lord; their bodies will rise—let those who dwell in the dust wake up and shout for joy—your dew is like the dew of the morning; the earth will give birth to her dead. 20 Go, my people, enter your rooms and shut the doors behind you; hide yourselves for a little while until his wrath has passed by. 21 See, the Lord is coming out of his dwelling to punish the people of the earth for their sins. The earth will disclose the blood shed on it; the earth will conceal its slain no longer.

Notice that the "little while" does not refer to how long it will be until the Lord comes, but rather refers to how long His wrath takes upon "the people of the earth for their sins". So, what Hebrews 10:37 is saying that once He does come it will take but "a little while" for Him to come and deliver His wrath and He will not tarry once it is time for Him to come.

As for 1 John 2:18-19, John calling it the last hour or last time does not imply that the last hour or time would have a short duration. According to Peter the last days had already begun before the day of Pentecost because of how he applied the prophecy about the last days in Joel 2:28-32, but they would continue while people call on the name of the Lord and are saved (Acts 2:16-21). The last days continue until Jesus returns, at which point He will burn up the heavens and the earth (2 Peter 3:3-13).

Moreover, the belief that Matthew 24:1-34 was fulfilled within Jesus’ generation is not based on those external statements by apostles. Quite the opposite, those statements are interpreted through framework of a fulfilled Matthew 24:1-34. And what is more, The belief that Matthew 24:1-34 was fulfilled within Jesus’ generation is derived from the text itself, not something external:

• CONTEXT - Jesus answers the disciples’ questions
• GRAMMAR - the antecedent to “all these things” in Matthew 24:34 refers to a the events in Matthew 24:4-31
• LINGUISTIC - the majority of evidence points to genea meaning those living at the same.

So I’m still not sure what external framework you are claiming is being imported in order to draw the conclusion that Matthew 24:1-34 was fulfilled within Jesus’ generation?

All these things in Matthew 24:34 can't possibly include things like the wars, famines, pestilences and earthquakes in various places that Jesus mentioned. He very specifically indicated that those are NOT things that would indicate that His coming is near even though people would naturally assume that they would be. Also, there is NO evidence that Jesus came in 70 AD, that the gathering of the elect occurred then or that the judgment occurred then, etc., yet you act as if the majority of evidence points to that? No, it does not.

The external framework of ALL of scripture does not allow for the claim that Jesus returned in 70 AD, that there was an end to any age in 70 AD or that the judgment took place in 70 AD.

You throw the rest of scripture and spiritual discernment out the window in favor of your flawed context, grammar and linguistic rules when interpreting the Olivet Discourse.

 

[claninja]

You just won't stop with your promotion of false preterist doctrine.

this is a debate forum, so it should be pretty obvious by now that you are going to run into those who continuously promote different viewpoints than you.

Peter indicated that we should look at things from God's perspective when it comes to the timing of Christ's return (2 Peter 3:8-9), so Peter was not saying that the end of all things was near from the human perspective in 1 Peter 4:7.

The promises of a new heavens and earth and the restoration of all things were made long before the first century. Jesus affirmed those promises around 800 years later. Then a few decades after Christ, towards the end of that generation, scoffers were scoffing where are these promises? Peter’s statement that “God is not slow in fulfilling his promises, as some count slowness” refers to the long prophetic timeline—nearly 1,000 years had passed since those promises were first made through the prophets up to Peter’s time. A thousand years may seem slow to us, but not to God—and that is the context of Peter’s comment. It’s not a justification that near always means Gods time in other contexts, nor does it negate that Peter believed the end of all things was literally near in human terms, especially when Jesus told him he would know for certain it was near when the events of the Olivet discourse were to occur.

Also, Hebrews 10:37 has nothing to do with the nearness of Christ's second coming. You obviously have never taken a close look at the context of that verse.

Hebrews 10:36 For you have need of endurance, so that after you have done the will of God, you may receive the promise: 37 “For yet a little while, And He who is coming will come and will not tarry.

This is a reference to this Old Testament passage:

Isaiah 26:19 But your dead will live, Lord; their bodies will rise—let those who dwell in the dust wake up and shout for joy—your dew is like the dew of the morning; the earth will give birth to her dead. 20 Go, my people, enter your rooms and shut the doors behind you; hide yourselves for a little while until his wrath has passed by. 21 See, the Lord is coming out of his dwelling to punish the people of the earth for their sins. The earth will disclose the blood shed on it; the earth will conceal its slain no longer.

Notice that the "little while" does not refer to how long it will be until the Lord comes, but rather refers to how long His wrath takes upon "the people of the earth for their sins". So, what Hebrews 10:37 is saying that once He does come it will take but "a little while" for Him to come and deliver His wrath and He will not tarry once it is time for Him to come.

Hebrews 10:37 as a Composite Quotation from the LXX: Isaiah 26:20 + Habakkuk 2:3–4

Hebrews 10:37 reads:

“For yet in a very little while, the one who is coming will come and will not delay.”

This statement is not a direct quotation of a single Old Testament passage, but a composite citation—drawing together two LXX texts: Isaiah 26:20 and Habakkuk 2:3–4.

• Isaiah 26:20 (LXX):
  “Go, my people, enter into thy closets, shut thy door, hide thyself for a little while, until the anger of the Lord has passed away.”
• Habakkuk 2:3b–4 (LXX):
  “Though he should tarry, wait for him; for he will surely come and will not tarry… If he should draw back, my soul has no pleasure in him: but the just shall live by my faith.”

The author of Hebrews replaces the opening clause of Habakkuk 2:3a—which emphasizes that the vision is for a future, delayed fulfillment at the “end”—with Isaiah’s phrase “in a little while,” shifting the perceived timeframe from distant to imminent.

Whereas Habakkuk speaks from a pre-messianic context in which the fulfillment still lies ahead (“though he tarries… at the end…”), Hebrews reframes that expectation in light of the Christ event. The delay of the vision is over; now, “the one who is coming” will come in just “a little while.” The long-awaited moment is no longer distant but pressing.

This interpretive shift fits pretty well into the surrounding context of Hebrews 10:

• Hebrews 10:25 – “The Day” is drawing near.
• Hebrews 10:27–30 – Judgment and vengeance are imminent for those who have rejected Christ - specifically labeled “his people”.
• Hebrews 10:36 – A call to endure so as to receive what was promised.

As for 1 John 2:18-19, John calling it the last hour or last time does not imply that the last hour or time would have a short duration. According to Peter the last days had already begun before the day of Pentecost because of how he applied the prophecy about the last days in Joel 2:28-32, but they would continue while people call on the name of the Lord and are saved (Acts 2:16-21). The last days continue until Jesus returns, at which point He will burn up the heavens and the earth (2 Peter 3:3-13).

John knew it was the last hour because many antichrists had come, and many had gone out from the church, not because of Pentecost.

All these things in Matthew 24:34 can't possibly include things like the wars, famines, pestilences and earthquakes in various places that Jesus mentioned. He very specifically indicated that those are NOT things that would indicate that His coming is near even though people would naturally assume that they would be.

It in fact does NOT specifically state those events indicate the end is “not near”. It only says the end is “not yet”. not yet and not near, do not mean the same thing. The beginnings of Birth pangs indicate the baby has not yet been born, not that the birth of the child is not near.

Also, there is NO evidence that Jesus came in 70 AD, that the gathering of the elect occurred then or that the judgment occurred then, etc., yet you act as if the majority of evidence points to that? No, it does not.

I absolutely agree that the external theological ASSUMPTIONS you impose onto the text didn’t occur within Jesus generation.

My argument, is that based on the internal evidence of context, grammar, syntax, and linguistics, then maybe the nature of gathering and coming of the son of man on the clouds is not what your external assumptions demand.

The external framework of ALL of scripture does not allow for the claim that Jesus returned in 70 AD, that there was an end to any age in 70 AD or that the judgment took place in 70 AD.

You throw the rest of scripture and spiritual discernment out the window in favor of your flawed context, grammar and linguistic rules when interpreting the Olivet Discourse.

Sure, just show which context, grammar, syntax, and/or linguistic rules are wrong or being applied wrong. This has been what I am asking for. But if you say they are wrong, not because of the rules themselves, but only because of your external framework, then you are not actually addressing anything in my argument.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Hebrews 10:37 as a Composite Quotation from the LXX: Isaiah 26:20 + Habakkuk 2:3–4

Hebrews 10:37 reads:

“For yet in a very little while, the one who is coming will come and will not delay.”

This statement is not a direct quotation of a single Old Testament passage, but a composite citation—drawing together two LXX texts: Isaiah 26:20 and Habakkuk 2:3–4.

• Isaiah 26:20 (LXX):
  “Go, my people, enter into thy closets, shut thy door, hide thyself for a little while, until the anger of the Lord has passed away.”
• Habakkuk 2:3b–4 (LXX):
  “Though he should tarry, wait for him; for he will surely come and will not tarry… If he should draw back, my soul has no pleasure in him: but the just shall live by my faith.”

The author of Hebrews replaces the opening clause of Habakkuk 2:3a—which emphasizes that the vision is for a future, delayed fulfillment at the “end”—with Isaiah’s phrase “in a little while,” shifting the perceived timeframe from distant to imminent.

Whereas Habakkuk speaks from a pre-messianic context in which the fulfillment still lies ahead (“though he tarries… at the end…”), Hebrews reframes that expectation in light of the Christ event. The delay of the vision is over; now, “the one who is coming” will come in just “a little while.” The long-awaited moment is no longer distant but pressing.

This interpretive shift fits pretty well into the surrounding context of Hebrews 10:

• Hebrews 10:25 – “The Day” is drawing near.
• Hebrews 10:27–30 – Judgment and vengeance are imminent for those who have rejected Christ - specifically labeled “his people”.
• Hebrews 10:36 – A call to endure so as to receive what was promised.

As is typical of you, you completely ignored my argument and didn't address it at all. You are completely ignoring the context of what Hebrews 10:37 is referring to. The "little while" is not in reference to how long it would be until Jesus came, but rather would be the time of God's wrath that people would need to hide from while it occurred.

Isaiah 26:20 Go, my people, enter your rooms and shut the doors behind you; hide yourselves for a little while until his wrath has passed by.

This absolutely has nothing to do with how long it would be until He comes, but clearly has to do with the "little while" during which His wrath occurs. You completely ignored this.

John knew it was the last hour because many antichrists had come, and many had gone out from the church, not because of Pentecost.

I didn't say otherwise. I was just showing what similar terms like "the last days" refer to which is how "the last hour" should be understood as well. It refers to the New Testament era between the first and second coming of Christ. In the last days scoffers scoff at the promise of Jesus's future return and that is still occurring today. It may seem like it's been a long time for Him to return, but it hasn't been long from His eternal perspective where there is no difference between a day and a thousand years.

It in fact does NOT specifically state those events indicate the end is “not near”. It only says the end is “not yet”. not yet and not near, do not mean the same thing. The beginnings of Birth pangs indicate the baby has not yet been born, not that the birth of the child is not near.

Oh, that's right. Unless something is specifically stated in your mind, it can't be true. I forgot about that. But, I believe He was clearly implying that the type of things that people would think would indicate that His coming was near, like global wars, famines, pestilences and earthquakes would not be the things that would indicate His coming is near. Instead, it is things like increased deception, apostasy and wickedness that indicate that His second coming is near, just like Paul wrote about in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 as well.

I absolutely agree that the external theological ASSUMPTIONS you impose onto the text didn’t occur within Jesus generation.

My argument, is that based on the internal evidence of context, grammar, syntax, and linguistics, then maybe the nature of gathering and coming of the son of man on the clouds is not what your external assumptions demand.

And I think your argument is very weak. And your argument does not take into account all of scripture. You interpret scripture passages in isolation from the rest of scripture. Scripture very clearly teaches that Jesus would return ONE time only and it wasn't in 70 AD. You have Him returning in 70 AD and then a third coming in the future. Scripture never teaches that.

Sure, just show which context, grammar, syntax, and/or linguistic rules are wrong or being applied wrong. This has been what I am asking for. But if you say they are wrong, not because of the rules themselves, but only because of your external framework, then you are not actually addressing anything in my argument.

Why do you not care about what scripture teaches overall? Why do you want to look at the text in isolation from the rest of scripture? That's not how you should interpret scripture. That's what causes you to contradict other scripture.

 

[claninja]

As is typical of you, you completely ignored my argument and didn't address it at all. You are completely ignoring the context of what Hebrews 10:37 is referring to. The "little while" is not in reference to how long it would be until Jesus came, but rather would be the time of God's wrath that people would need to hide from while it occurred.

Isaiah 26:20 Go, my people, enter your rooms and shut the doors behind you; hide yourselves for a little while until his wrath has passed by.

This absolutely has nothing to do with how long it would be until He comes, but clearly has to do with the "little while" during which His wrath occurs. You completely ignored this.

Your argument didn’t really make sense. The majority of the quote in Hebrews 10:37 is from Habakkuk 2:3-4, not Isaiah 26:20. So I’m not sure why you are claiming it’s about the how long the wrath of God is? The author of Hebrews is not using Isaiah 26:20, in Hebrews 10:37, to argue God’s wrath will be “a little while”. The author of Hebrews removed Habakkuk 2:3a and replaced it with just a part of Isaiah 26:20 so that…..

This:

• For the vision [is] yet for a time, and it shall shoot forth at the end, and not in vain: though he should tarry, wait for him; for he will surely come, and will not tarry. 4 If he should draw back, my soul has no pleasure in him: but the just shall live by my faith.

Becomes this:

• yet a little while, the coming one will come and will not delay. but the just shall live by my faith.

In the context of:

• “the Day drawing near” (Hebrews 10:26), vengeance on “his people” for trampling the son of God (Hebrews 10:26-30), and the saints suffering knowing they will recieve a better possession according to the promises of God (Hebrews 10:31-36).

“Yet a little while “ is grammatically modifying “will come” in Hebrews 10:37.

Habakkuk speaks from a pre-messianic context in which the fulfillment still lies ahead (“though he tarries… at the end…”), Hebrews reframes that expectation in light of the Christ event. The delay of the vision is over; now, “the one who is coming” will come in just “a little while.” The long-awaited moment is no longer distant but pressing.

Oh, that's right. Unless something is specifically stated in your mind, it can't be true. I forgot about that. But, I believe He was clearly implying that the type of things that people would think would indicate that His coming was near, like global wars, famines, pestilences and earthquakes would not be the things that would indicate His coming is near. Instead, it is things like increased deception, apostasy and wickedness that indicate that His second coming is near, just like Paul wrote about in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 as well.

They just indicate the end is “not yet”.

And I think your argument is very weak. And your argument does not take into account all of scripture. You interpret scripture passages in isolation from the rest of scripture. Scripture very clearly teaches that Jesus would return ONE time only and it wasn't in 70 AD. You have Him returning in 70 AD and then a third coming in the future. Scripture never teaches that.

And I think your position is weak because it relies on the overharmonization fallacy, resulting in you needing to override context, grammar, and linguistics of passages in order to fit your theological framework - eisegesis.

Why do you not care about what scripture teaches overall? Why do you want to look at the text in isolation from the rest of scripture? That's not how you should interpret scripture. That's what causes you to contradict other scripture.

Bingo. You can’t actually demonstrate what rules of context, grammar, syntax, or linguistics I’m breaking. All you can do is claim that it doesn’t agree with your theologically assumptions imported onto the text.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Your argument didn’t really make sense. The majority of the quote in Hebrews 10:37 is from Habakkuk 2:3-4, not Isaiah 26:20.

So I’m not sure why you are claiming it’s about the how long the wrath of God is?

Because the "little while" is a reference to the little while that people are told to hide from God's wrath and it's not referring to anyone waiting a little while for Christ's second coming. Come on, man. Are you even trying? If you're not going to bother reading what I'm saying carefully, then this is obviously a waste of time.

 

[claninja]

Because the "little while" is a reference to the little while that people are told to hide from God's wrath

Right, IN THE CONTEXT of Isaiah 26:20 it is about hiding from God's wrath for a little while. Hebrews 10:37 doesn't sit in the context of isaiah 26:20. Hebrews 10:37 sits in the context of "the day drawing near", God's vengeance on "his people" for trampling the son of God, and the saints enduring persecution knowing they will receive a better possession through the promises of God (Hebrews 10:25-36). The author of hebrews is pulling out the phrase "yet a little while" from Isaiah 26:20 and replacing Habakkuk 2:3a with it, in order to modify the phrase "the coming one will come and not delay". The yet a little while is about the coming without delay.

The majority of the quote in Hebrews 10:37 is from Habakkuk, so i don’t know why you are interpreting it as if it’s about Isaiah 26:20?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Right, IN THE CONTEXT of Isaiah 26:20 it is about hiding from God's wrath for a little while. Hebrews 10:37 doesn't sit in the context of isaiah 26:20.

Yes, it does. It's clearly referencing that. And Habakkuk 2 as well, but the "little while" phrase is taken from Isaiah 26:20 and the context of the "little while" is in relation to the duration of God's wrath.

Hebrews 10:37 sits in the context of "the day drawing near", God's vengeance on "his people" for trampling the son of God, and the saints enduring persecution knowing they will receive a better possession through the promises of God (Hebrews 10:25-36). The author of hebrews is pulling out the phrase "yet a little while" from Isaiah 26:20 and replacing Habakkuk 2:3a with it, in order to modify the phrase "the coming one will come and not delay". The yet a little while is about the coming without delay.

The majority of the quote in Hebrews 10:37 is from Habakkuk, so i don’t know why you are interpreting it as if it’s about Isaiah 26:20?

It's partly about that, as you yourself are acknowledging, so where is your confusion coming from? You even acknowledge that the author of Hebrews is pulling out the phrase "yet a little while" from Isaiah 26:20, so what is the context of the little while in Isaiah 26:20? Why are you making it mean something else than what it says? There's no basis for that. Once Jesus comes in the future, His wrath will last only a little while. He's not going to mess around and tarry. He will be quick about it. He will bring "sudden destruction" from which those in spiritual darkness "shall not escape" at that time (1 Thessalonians 5:2-3, 2 Peter 3:10-12).

 

[claninja]

Yes, it does. It's clearly referencing that. And Habakkuk 2 as well, but the "little while" phrase is taken from Isaiah 26:20 and the context of the "little while" is in relation to the duration of God's wrath.


It's partly about that, as you yourself are acknowledging, so where is your confusion coming from? You even acknowledge that the author of Hebrews is pulling out the phrase "yet a little while" from Isaiah 26:20, so what is the context of the little while in Isaiah 26:20? Why are you making it mean something else than what it says? There's no basis for that. Once Jesus comes in the future, His wrath will last only a little while. He's not going to mess around and tarry. He will be quick about it. He will bring "sudden destruction" from which those in spiritual darkness "shall not escape" at that time (1 Thessalonians 5:2-3, 2 Peter 3:10-12).

Grammatically, In Isaiah 26:20 LXX, the adverbial phrase “a little while” modifies the imperative “hide…until”, expressing the duration of the hiding — the people are to remain hidden for a little while, until the Lord’s wrath has passed.

Grammatically, In Hebrews 10:37, the phrase “yet a little while” is drawn from the language of Isaiah, but it modifies a different clause — namely, “the coming one will come and will not delay,” from Habakkuk 2:3b (LXX). Here, the phrase modifies a punctiliar (point-in-time) future action, and thus it does not express duration, but rather when the coming will occur: after a short wait.


The majority of Hebrews 10:37 is drawn directly from Habakkuk 2:3–4, not Isaiah 26:20. The only element taken from Isaiah is the brief phrase “yet a little while,” and it’s used not to carry over Isaiah’s full context, but to reframe the timing in Habakkuk’s prophecy. The author of Hebrews is not importing Isaiah’s theme of hiding during wrath — he’s adapting a familiar phrase to shift Habakkuk’s “appointed time of the end that will tarry” to an imminent expectation: “in a little while” the coming one will arrive.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

This guy lays out a good argument for Jesus's return in 70 AD. I'm curious for your thoughts IF you watch the 25-minute video.

Guess He was the first Jehovah Witness in being invisibly returned!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Grammatically, In Isaiah 26:20 LXX, the adverbial phrase “a little while” modifies the imperative “hide…until”, expressing the duration of the hiding — the people are to remain hidden for a little while, until the Lord’s wrath has passed.

Grammatically, In Hebrews 10:37, the phrase “yet a little while” is drawn from the language of Isaiah, but it modifies a different clause — namely, “the coming one will come and will not delay,” from Habakkuk 2:3b (LXX). Here, the phrase modifies a punctiliar (point-in-time) future action, and thus it does not express duration, but rather when the coming will occur: after a short wait.


The majority of Hebrews 10:37 is drawn directly from Habakkuk 2:3–4, not Isaiah 26:20. The only element taken from Isaiah is the brief phrase “yet a little while,” and it’s used not to carry over Isaiah’s full context, but to reframe the timing in Habakkuk’s prophecy. The author of Hebrews is not importing Isaiah’s theme of hiding during wrath — he’s adapting a familiar phrase to shift Habakkuk’s “appointed time of the end that will tarry” to an imminent expectation: “in a little while” the coming one will arrive.

Your understanding of grammar is terribly flawed. You do everything you can to deny the obvious, which is that "the little while" reference is taken directly from Isaiah 26:20 and refers to the time of God's wrath and not to the time remaining until Jesus comes. Once He does come, He will not take His time in delivering His wrath. It will only take a "little while". He will bring "sudden destruction" when He comes from which unbelievers "shall not escape" (1 Thessalonians 5:2-3).

Jesus did not come in 70 AD. You can't get around that no matter what you do. That was God the Father's wrath that came in 70 AD, not the wrath of the Lamb. Read Matthew 22:1-7 and you should see that it talks about the king, representing God the Father, who took out His wrath on the unbelieving Jews and "burned up their city".

 

[claninja]

Your understanding of grammar is terribly flawed.

Your interpretation is really hard to follow. Could you please be more specific about what grammatical error you see in “yet a little while” modifying “and the coming one will come and will not delay” in Hebrews 10:37?

What else in the sentence does that adverbial phrase “yet a little while modify” modify if not “the coming one will come and not delay”?

There is no grammatical transition or grammatical clue that “yet a little while” and “the coming one will come and will not delay” are unrelated phrases. additionally, the majority of commentaries seem to recognize that his phrase is about the “soon coming”. so I don’t really know what you are talking about?

You do everything you can to deny the obvious, which is that "the little while" reference is taken directly from Isaiah 26:20 and refers to the time of God's wrath and not to the time remaining until Jesus comes. Once He does come, He will not take His time in delivering His wrath. It will only take a "little while". He will bring "sudden destruction" when He comes from which unbelievers "shall not escape" (1 Thessalonians 5:2-3).

The majority of Hebrews 10:37 is drawn directly from Habakkuk 2:3–4, not Isaiah 26:20. The only element taken from Isaiah is the brief phrase “yet a little while,” and it’s used NOT to carry over Isaiah’s full context, but to REFRAME the timing in Habakkuk’s prophecy from the distant time of the end, to in a little while.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Your interpretation is really hard to follow.

It really isn't, though. But, we think very differently, obviously. There shouldn't be anything hard about understanding that the "little while" refers to the duration of God's wrath, just as Isaiah 26:20 indicates.

Could you please be more specific about what grammatical error you see in “yet a little while” modifying “and the coming one will come and will not delay” in Hebrews 10:37?

I believe I have been very specific about the problem I see with your interpretation. Again, the "little while" comes from Isaiah 26:20 and the context of the "little while" is in relation to the duration of God's wrath once Jesus comes. If you can't understand something as simple as this (whether you agree or not), I don't know what to tell you. I guess this is just hopeless in that case. You are choosing to ignore that "the little while" reference comes from Isaiah 26:20 and should therefore be understood in the context of how it's used in Isaiah 26:20. That's on you.

 

[claninja]

It really isn't, though. But, we think very differently, obviously. There shouldn't be anything hard about understanding that the "little while" refers to the duration of God's wrath, just as Isaiah 26:20 indicates.

There’s nothing hard about understanding that the phrase “yet a little while” modifies “hiding until the wrath of the Lord passes”, grammatically indicating duration, WITHIN Isaiah 26:20.

But arguing that “yet a little while” means duration in the setting of Hebrews 10:37, doesn’t make any sense grammatically.

• “Yet a little while” modifies the punctiliar action of “will come and will not delay”. Grammatically, that indicates when not duration.
• Hebrews 10:36 and Hebrews 10:37 are connected by the conjunction γὰρ. It doesn’t make any sense, considering vs 36, that the author of Hebrews was saying “For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised For the wrath of God will be a little while once Jesus comes” .

So I don’t agree with importing the entire meaning of Isaiah 26:20 into Hebrews 10:37, because it just doesn’t make sense grammatically with anything in the passage.

I believe I have been very specific about the problem I see with your interpretation. Again, the "little while" comes from Isaiah 26:20 and the context of the "little while" is in relation to the duration of God's wrath once Jesus comes. If you can't understand something as simple as this (whether you agree or not), I don't know what to tell you. I guess this is just hopeless in that case. You are choosing to ignore that "the little while" reference comes from Isaiah 26:20 and should therefore be understood in the context of how it's used in Isaiah 26:20. That's on you.

You said my understanding of grammar is terribly flawed but didn’t give any examples. Please address your claim with evidence. What grammatical rules am I breaking?

 

[HappyOma]

When Christ returns, all the saved dead will resurrect as immortals and come with him. There are no immortal, resurrected people here so Jesus did not return in the first century.

Could you please provide scriptural support for this statement?

In many places, Jesus and His inspired writers placed His return in their generation/lifetime. Before Jesus sent out the Twelve to the lost sheep of Israel, He told them: "YOU will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man COMES" (Mat. 10:23). Later He said: "There are some standing HERE who will not taste death until THEY see the Son of Man COMING in His kingdom" (Mat. 16:28). In answering the disciples' questions about the destruction of the Temple, His coming, and the end of the age (Mat. 24). He told THEM about many things that would happen to THEM. They would hear of wars and rumors of wars; they would be hated and killed for His name's sake; they would see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet; they were to flee; they would hear of false christs but they were no to follow them; they were to recognize the signs of His coming as surely as they recorgnized the signs of the coming of summer in the budding of the fig tree ("and all the trees" - Luke 21). Then He told them when all of those things would happen: "Truly, I say unto you, THIS generation will by no means pass away until ALL THESE THINGS TAKE PLACE" (Mat. 24:34). Jesus used the expression "this generation" NINETEEN times. He always meant His contemporaries.

When brought before the Sanhedrin (Mat. 26), the wicked leaders of Israel accused Him of blasphemy for claiming to be the Son of God. He said to them: "YOU will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN" (verse 64). Those very rulers were part of the "every eye" of Revelation 1:7 and the "tribes of the land." They would mourn because of Him.

The inclination to avoid or redefine these time words comes from the prevalent misunderstandings of the nature of Christ's return, the nature of the resurrection, and the nature of the judgment. Christ was not to come "visibly and bodily" (an idea gleaned from a misinterpretation of Acts 1); the Resurrection was not about physical bodies popping up out of the graves; and the judgment was not to be a worldwide calamity concluded with the end of the earth. Jesus was to come in power, majesty, and authority in much the same way God "came" against nations in the OT. Metaphors depicting heavenly upheavals were often used by the prophets to express these comings in judgment--against Babylon (Isa. 13), against Egypt (Ezek. 32), against Edom (Isa. 34), against Israel (Amos 5 and 8). He left in the "clouds" of glory (Acts 1) and that is how He was to return and did return. Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin were told that they would see Him "coming on the clouds of heaven." And they did--metaphorically.

The resurrection was not physical; it was the restoration of full fellowship with God--that which was lost in the first Adam was restored in the Last Adam. The judgment was that which Jesus described in Matthew 23--it was against that apostate generation of Jews whom He pronounced guilty of "all the righteous blood shed on the earth." In that coming judgment against them, their house, the temple, would be left unto them desolate. And it was. The writer of Hebrews spoke of the Old Covenant as, even in his day, "growing old, becoming obsolete, and ready to pass away" (Heb. 8:13).

It was this coming that James said was "at hand" (James 5:8). It is why James wrote that the judge was even in his day "standing at the door" (James 5:9). It was the end of the Mosaic Age and the Old Covenant Age that Peter wrote about: "The end of all things is at hand" (1 Peter 4:7). Shortly before the destruction of Jersualem and the Temple in A. D. 70, the writer of Hebrews announced: "In a VERY, VERY LITTLE WHILE He who IS COMING will COME and WILL NOT DELAY" (Heb. 10:37). He did not delay!

John was given the entire time frame for the vision. He was shown those "things which were to shortly take place; the time was near" (Rev. 1:1, 3; 22:6, 10). John declared himself to be a "fellow partaker in the Tribulation" (Rev. 1:9)- the tribulation Jesus Himself placed in the lifetime of His first-century disciples (Mat. 24). The events depicted in the Revelation are those things leading up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in A. D. 70. At the very end of the Revelation, we find that John was told to NOT seal up the vision because the time was NEAR. Daniel, on the other hand, was told TO seal up the vision because it involved events that were far off (mere hundreds of years). Hundreds of years cannot be considered "far off" while thousands of years and counting are taken to mean NEAR. Jesus said, "Behold, I am COMING SOON" (Rev. 22). And He did.

When we understand the nature of His coming, the nature of the Resurrection, and the nature of the Judgment, we are free to properly acknowledge and accept the timing of them! There is conformity and compatibility.

 

[ewq1938]

Could you please provide scriptural support for this statement?

1Th 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
1Th 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

 

[HappyOma]

To whom is Paul writing in 1 Thessalonians 4? "For this WE say unto YOU by the word of the Lord, that WE which ARE ALIVE and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep." The things Paul wrote about to THEM were going to happen to THEM and to HIM (THEY are the "we") in their lifetime. We must recognize the audience being addressed in Scripture before making any applications to ourselves. Paul and those of his own day were to be gathered together with Christ at His coming. Your incorrect perspective of the NATURE of that coming and that gathering causes you to disregard the timing. This does NOT depict the modern conept of a "rapture."

Jesus told His disciples right there with Him in John 14 that He was returning to THEM to receive THEM unto Himself. They were the firstfruits of the gathering together with Christ. First Thessalonians 4 is NOT about US. The resurrection was NOT physical bodies popping up out of their graves. Paul is addressing those saints who had died and gone to Hades to await the Lord's return. It was THEY who were freed from the Hades and gathered together with Him to be with Him where He was. This occurred at His coming in A. D. 70. "Thus shall WE ever be with the Lord" was first about THEM in their time.

Please consider also Paul's second letter to the Thessolonian believers. He commended them for their great faithfulness in adversity--especially the persecution they were enduring from the JEWS. He told them in 2 Thessalonians 1 that THEY would be given relief and be vindicated at His APPEARING. Again, that appearing occurred in A. D. 70--in the generation in which Jesus said He would return. The context must not be ignored.

When Christ returns, all the saved dead will resurrect as immortals and come with him. There are no immortal, resurrected people here so Jesus did not return in the first century.

 

[grafted branch]

The judgment was that which Jesus described in Matthew 23--it was against that apostate generation of Jews whom He pronounced guilty of "all the righteous blood shed on the earth."

I agree with you on this.

The scapegoat gets released into the wilderness after having all their sins and transgressions put upon its head in Leviticus 16:21. Do you see that first century apostate generation of Jews as being the scapegoat?