A Biblical Lesson on Spiritual Discernment

[Spiritual Israelite]

No, that is not what I claim! What I perceive from Preterits is that THEY use past history to prove a doctrine because the doctrine they espouse cannot be found in Scripture but must be read INTO the Bible!

So, seeing Jesus explicitly saying that the temple buildings standing at that time would be destroyed and then answering a question about the timing of that is a case of reading things into the Bible? You can't be serious. You are the one reading things INTO the Bible by trying to spiritualize a literal, physical event.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

In Luke 21, I understand verse 20 to refer to the events surrounding 70 AD, while I understand verse 27 to refer to the Second Coming at the end of this age. Under that interpretation, there is obviously a gap of at least 2,000 years between verses 20 and 27, assuming the Second Coming occurs sometime within that general timeframe after 70 AD.

However, Matthew 24:15-30 does not appear to allow for such a 2,000 year gap between verse 15 and verse 30. If verse 15 is referring to 70 AD, then verse 29 creates a problem. Verse 29 states that 'immediately after the tribulation of those days' the cosmic signs will occur, followed by the coming of the Son of Man in verse 30.

Using scripture to interpret scripture, why wouldn't you think that Jesus was talking about returning after the tribulation of the times of the Gentiles?

Matthew 24:29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.

Luke 21:25 “And there will be signs in the sun, in the moon, and in the stars; and on the earth distress of nations, with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring;

The similarities in these two verses are obvious. But, Luke's account doesn't say "immediately after the tribulation of those days". But, we know from the Matthew and Mark accounts, that is what Jesus said before talking about signs in the soon, moon and stars and such. So, why would you not relate Luke 21:25 to the previously described tribulation in Luke 21:20-24a the way you relate Matthew 24:29 to the tribulation described in Matthew 24:15-21? That doesn't seem very consistent on your part.

 

[IndianaRob]

Gentiles or those of the nations of the world in unbelief trample spiritual Jerusalem from above, heavenly Jerusalem. Spiritually speaking born again believers have entered into Jerusalem, we are "spirits of just men made perfect" when we have been born again. But as Paul below tells us "the desolate hath many more children than she which has a husband" we, born again believers have Christ as our Husband, and are children of the promise, but the children of the promise, born of the Spirit are persecuted by those born of the flesh. It is in this manner spiritually speaking that Jerusalem is being trampled by those in unbelief. This is why Paul writes for us to "Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman."

Hebrews 12:22-24 (KJV) But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

Galatians 4:26-29 (KJV) But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

Galatians 4:30 (KJV) Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

I disagree but thank you for the reply.

 

[Davidpt]

WPM and I are not preterists, so you are wasting your time with this nonsense. We are fully aware and do not deny the spiritual kingdom of God/Christ that was ushered in at Christ's first coming. Your attempt to lump us in with preterists instead of addressing what we actually believe is ridiculous.

Titles such as 'Preterist' or 'Futurist' are best understood as describing how someone interprets a particular passage rather than necessarily defining their entire interpretive system.

For example, consider Matthew 24:15–21 and Matthew 24:30. If someone understands Matthew 24:15-21 as referring to the events surrounding 70 AD, then that person is interpreting that specific section of the passage in a Preterist manner. However, that alone does not make the person a full Preterist, especially if they interpret Matthew 24:30 as referring to the 2nd coming.

In my view, labels such as 'Preterism', 'Futurism', and similar terms should be applied on a passage-by-passage basis rather than assuming that an interpreter must fit entirely into one category.

For example, an interpreter may conclude that Matthew 24:15-21 refers to 70 AD. In that case, their interpretation of that particular section is Preterist. However, the same interpreter may conclude that Matthew 24:30 refers to the 2nd coming. In that case, their interpretation of that particular verse is Futurist.

Therefore, using this example, the interpreter is neither fully Preterist nor fully Futurist. Instead, they are applying different interpretive approaches to different portions of the text based on how they understand each passage.

 

[covenantee]

No, that is not what I claim! What I perceive from Preterits is that THEY use past history to prove a doctrine because the doctrine they espouse cannot be found in Scripture but must be read INTO the Bible!

When a doctrine is at demonstrable variance with the independent benchmark of history, then said doctrine is speculative supposition.

Nothing more.

 

[rwb]

In Luke 21, I understand verse 20 to refer to the events surrounding 70 AD, while I understand verse 27 to refer to the Second Coming at the end of this age. Under that interpretation, there is obviously a gap of at least 2,000 years between verses 20 and 27, assuming the Second Coming occurs sometime within that general timeframe after 70 AD.

Luke 21:20 (KJV) And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

Why would Luke be speaking of the physical destruction in 70 AD since Matthew and Mark do not? One thing to notice in Luke is he speaks not of one army or the Roman Army, but of armie(s) plural. The way I believe this is spiritually discerned, "And when ye shall know/be aware of Jerusalem from above being encompassed with armies, then know/understand/perceive that the desolation thereof is nigh."

Armies come from the base G4756 stratiá - defined i.e. an army, i.e. (figuratively) the angels, the celestial luminaries. Is this army spiritual wickedness in high places? IOW could Luke be referring to spiritual wickedness coming from apostate Jews doing the bidding of their father, the devil which brings the city and temple to desolation as spoken by the prophet Daniel (Jo 8:44)?

In this way of understanding there is no conflict with what is written in both Matthew and Mark. No contradiction, no confusion. The Preterit reads 70 AD into this text using past history written, otherwise there is nothing in any of the three writers for when this AOD that makes desolate would come to pass.

Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Eph 6:13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

 

[rwb]

I disagree but thank you for the reply.

That's Okay, for at least you disagree nobly without any accusing or belittling. Btw, you're very welcome.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I don’t understand how “the times of the gentiles be fulfilled” would ever be interpreted as a time when Gentiles will not be saved.

Who in this thread is saying that?

The end of the times of the gentiles is talking about the gentile armies God used to judge Israel. That time ended in 70AD with the destruction of Israel.

Jerusalem still has no temple and is still being trampled by Gentiles to this day. You are a full preterist, right?

 

[rwb]

When a doctrine is at demonstrable variance with the independent benchmark of history, then said doctrine is speculative supposition.

Nothing more.

There is not biblical doctrine at demonstrable variance with past history. Because biblical doctrine gives us in written form the complete story of redemptive history without looking to outside sources to prove what is written. That's what the Preterit cannot seem to get a grasp of.

 

[IndianaRob]

Who in this thread is saying that?


Jerusalem still has no temple and is still being trampled by Gentiles to this day. You are a full preterist, right?

Im full everything has been fulfilled but I don’t adhere to Preterism. Most of the beliefs of Preterism theology are wrong in my opinion.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Luke 21:20 (KJV) And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

Why would Luke be speaking of the physical destruction in 70 AD since Matthew and Mark do not?

Do you think it is just a coincidence that earthly Jerusalem was surrounded by Roman armies just before 70 AD and then was destroyed and made desolate with "great distress in the land and wrath upon this people" occurring with many people being killed by the sword with the rest being taken captive to all nations, just as is described in Luke 21:20-24?

One thing to notice in Luke is he speaks not of one army or the Roman Army, but of armie(s) plural.

Have you never done any research on what happened in 70 AD? Rome did not just have one army. Here is information I found in a quick search about this using ChatGPT:

The force that besieged Jerusalem under Titus was not a single, undivided military unit. It consisted of several Roman legions, along with auxiliary troops and allied forces. Historically, the siege included:

• The Fifth Legion (Legio V Macedonica)
• The Tenth Legion (Legio X Fretensis)
• The Twelfth Legion (Legio XII Fulminata)
• The Fifteenth Legion (Legio XV Apollinaris)
• Numerous auxiliary units and allied contingents

These were distinct military formations that together surrounded the city.

The way I believe this is spiritually discerned, "And when ye shall know/be aware of Jerusalem from above being encompassed with armies, then know/understand/perceive that the desolation thereof is nigh."

Armies come from the base G4756 stratiá - defined i.e. an army, i.e. (figuratively) the angels, the celestial luminaries. Is this army spiritual wickedness in high places? IOW could Luke be referring to spiritual wickedness coming from apostate Jews doing the bidding of their father, the devil which brings the city and temple to desolation as spoken by the prophet Daniel (Jo 8:44)?

In this way of understanding there is no conflict with what is written in both Matthew and Mark. No contradiction, no confusion.

There is no conflict with what is written in both Matthew and Mark if you take them literally just as Luke 21:20-24 is clearly intended to be taken literally. You create conflict between them for no good reason.

 

[rwb]

The force that besieged Jerusalem under Titus was not a single, undivided military unit. It consisted of several Roman legions, along with auxiliary troops and allied forces. Historically, the siege included:

• The Fifth Legion (Legio V Macedonica)
• The Tenth Legion (Legio X Fretensis)
• The Twelfth Legion (Legio XII Fulminata)
• The Fifteenth Legion (Legio XV Apollinaris)
• Numerous auxiliary units and allied contingents

These were distinct military formations that together surrounded the city.

Having many legions does not mean there is more than ONE Roman Army. Would you also argue the USA has more than ONE Army because it has many divisions and companies and troops? Of course you wouldn't!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Titles such as 'Preterist' or 'Futurist' are best understood as describing how someone interprets a particular passage rather than necessarily defining their entire interpretive system.

I completely disagree. By doing that, you end up labeling some people as preterists who are not preterists and futurists who are not futurists. To label me as a preterist would be like labeling someone who believes that Jesus fulfilled prophecies about His first coming a preterist. It's ludicrous.

For example, consider Matthew 24:15–21 and Matthew 24:30. If someone understands Matthew 24:15-21 as referring to the events surrounding 70 AD, then that person is interpreting that specific section of the passage in a Preterist manner.

Notice how you worded that. You're not calling the person a preterist, you're just saying that they are interpreting a certain passage in a preterist manner in the sense of it having been fulfilled in the past. I'm fine with that. I'm not fine with someone labeling me as a preterist as if I agree with all of the things that preterists typically believe, which I do not. Not even close.

However, that alone does not make the person a full Preterist, especially if they interpret Matthew 24:30 as referring to the 2nd coming.

In my view, labels such as 'Preterism', 'Futurism', and similar terms should be applied on a passage-by-passage basis rather than assuming that an interpreter must fit entirely into one category.

I'm fine with that as long as you are not labeling people themselves as preterists or futurists. I interpret most of the Olivet Discourse in a futurist sense, but does that make me a futurist? No. I'm more of an idealist than a preterist or futurist, but my view is kind of a combination of preterism, futurism, historicism and idealism. My view doesn't fit completely with any of those labels, as is the case with many on this forum. Such as yourself. I'm sure you don't mind being called a futurist, right?

 

[claninja]

Luke 21:20 (KJV) And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

Why would Luke be speaking of the physical destruction in 70 AD since Matthew and Mark do not? One thing to notice in Luke is he speaks not of one army or the Roman Army, but of armie(s) plural. The way I believe this is spiritually discerned, "And when ye shall know/be aware of Jerusalem from above being encompassed with armies, then know/understand/perceive that the desolation thereof is nigh."

Armies come from the base G4756 stratiá - defined i.e. an army, i.e. (figuratively) the angels, the celestial luminaries. Is this army spiritual wickedness in high places? IOW could Luke be referring to spiritual wickedness coming from apostate Jews doing the bidding of their father, the devil which brings the city and temple to desolation as spoken by the prophet Daniel (Jo 8:44)?

In this way of understanding there is no conflict with what is written in both Matthew and Mark. No contradiction, no confusion. The Preterit reads 70 AD into this text using past history written, otherwise there is nothing in any of the three writers for when this AOD that makes desolate would come to pass.

Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Eph 6:13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

Be careful of the etymological fallacy. The meaning of a word is determined by its usage in context, not simply by the meaning of its root.

The word in Luke 21:20 is:

STRONGS NT 4760: στρατόπεδον

στρατόπεδον, στρατοπεδονου, τό(στρατός, and πέδον a plain), from Herodotus down;
a. a military camp.

b. soldiers in camp, an army: Luke 21:20.

Additionally, contextually, Jesus is answering the questions by the disciples about the destruction of the physical temple.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Having many legions does not mean there is more than ONE Roman Army. Would you also argue the USA has more than ONE Army because it has many divisions and companies and troops? Of course you wouldn't!

This is ancient text that we're talking about here. From almost 2,000 years ago. Why are you trying to think of it the way we think of modern armies? It's referring to multiple military camps or groups surrounding Jerusalem and that's exactly what happened around 70 AD.

 

[rwb]

Be careful of the etymological fallacy. The meaning of a word is determined by its usage in context, not simply by the meaning of its root.

The word in Luke 21:20 is:

STRONGS NT 4760: στρατόπεδον

στρατόπεδον, στρατοπεδονου, τό(στρατός, and πέδον a plain), from Herodotus down;
a. a military camp.

b. soldiers in camp, an army: Luke 21:20.

Additionally, contextually, Jesus is answering the questions by the disciples about the destruction of the physical temple.

Yes, but we also recognize there are hosts, and legions of spiritual beings, both demonic as well as angels of God.

Luke 2:13 (KJV) And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,

Host - stratiá: as encamped); camp-likeness, i.e. an army, i.e. (figuratively) the angels, the celestial luminaries:—host

There are legions of angels as well as legions of evil.

Mt 26:53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
Mr 5:9 And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many.
Mr 5:15 And they come to Jesus, and see him that was possessed with the devil, and had the legion, sitting, and clothed, and in his right mind: and they were afraid.
Lu 8:30 And Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? And he said, Legion: because many devils were entered into him


legeṓn - of Latin origin; a "legion", i.e. Roman regiment (figuratively):—legion

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

There is not biblical doctrine at demonstrable variance with past history. Because biblical doctrine gives us in written form the complete story of redemptive history without looking to outside sources to prove what is written. That's what the Preterit cannot seem to get a grasp of.

Tell me which early church fathers agreed with your interpretation of Matthew 24:15-22. I'm not aware of any. Tell me any respected Bible commentator from any time in history who has interpreted Matthew 24:15-22 the way you do.

 

[rwb]

Additionally, contextually, Jesus is answering the questions by the disciples about the destruction of the physical temple.

Yes, and the answer given can be known when we understand the abomination of desolation spoken by the prophet Daniel. Daniel links the AOD with the cross of Christ who is Messiah the Prince who was to come.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes, and the answer given can be known when we understand the abomination of desolation spoken by the prophet Daniel. Daniel links the AOD with the cross of Christ who is Messiah the Prince who was to come.

So, you acknowledge that the disciples were asking Him a question about the destruction of the physical temple buildings, but you think His answer had nothing to do with the destruction of the physical temple buildings?

 

[rwb]

So, you acknowledge that the disciples were asking Him a question about the destruction of the physical temple buildings, but you think His answer had nothing to do with the destruction of the physical temple buildings?

I've already told you what His answer to them was. They wanted to know what would happen and when to the physical city and temple, but the answer Christ gave them takes them and us back to the prophet Daniel that we would know the AOD is linked with the cross of Christ, and not the Old city and temple. They needed to look forward and stop looking back at that which was destined to destruction. Since the advent of Christ coming to earth a man, the Old, represented by physical things is gone, because Christ brought with Him the New that is NOT physical but spiritual and can only be known and entered when one has been born again.