Search results

If "end" refers to the end of the age when Christ returns, then the applicable word would be "sunteleia" as in verse 3. Not "telos". But it is "telos". So it is not referring to Christ's return.

Apologies. I'm confusing you with WPM. With regard to your argument, the "end" to which Jesus was referring was of relevance to His disciples ("you" and "ye" in verses 4 and 6). Obviously His return was not of relevance to His disciples.

If you check the descriptions and Scripture references for "telos" and "sunteleia", you will see significant differences. "Sunteleia" virtually always refers to the Second Coming. "Telos" does not.

You have just affirmed what Scripture and I are saying.

You're claiming that "end" refers to the end of the old covenant. Jerusalem was brought to an end in 70AD. Jerusalem was not the old covenant. But it was part of the OT Jewish system or economy. It was the end of Jerusalem (and of the entire OT Jewish economy) to which Jesus was referring.

Jerusalem was destroyed. It was brought to an end in 70AD. Was Jerusalem the old covenant?

It makes complete sense. What was/were God's reason/s for the destruction of Jerusalem?

The old covenant finished at the cross. The OT Jewish economy did not. Jerusalem, the temple, blasphemous sacrifices, et al continued until 70AD, as we all recognize. If the OT Jewish economy had finished at the cross, then 70AD would have served no purpose, and would not have been necessary...

Further Scriptural and historical confirmation. WARS AND RUMORS OF WARS Matthew: “And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars. See that ye be not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom” (24:6...

They were happening in the build up to 70AD - the end of the OT Jewish economy.

Not in Matthew 24. Jesus is describing to His disciples the signs and phenomena which they ("you" and "ye" in verses 4 and 6) would observe and experience prior to the "end". There is only one "end" which befits that context, and it is the "end" occurring in 70AD. It is not the Second Coming.

I wouldn't disagree, rwb, however, if we look at the descriptions... Matthew 24 4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. 5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. 6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye...

The focus on 70AD continues to at least verse 29, and arguably to verse 35, after which Jesus addresses His Second Coming.

The "end" in Matthew 24:3 is "sunteleia", referring to the end of the age at the Second Coming. cf. Matthew 13:39,40,49 The "end" in Matthew 24:6,13,14 is "telos". It does not refer in these instances to the end of an age, but rather to the end of the OT Jewish economy which occurred in 70AD.

I concur that the old covenant died at the cross. But virtually all of the Jewish OT temporal economy remained, e.g. Jerusalem and the temple, which Jesus addressed in His Olivet discourse, and which necessitated the judgment and destruction of AD70.

70 AD was the end of the OT Jewish economy. The word "age" is neither explicit nor implicit in verse 14. Consistent with the interpretation of verse 14 by historicist commentators. Adam Clarke Then shall the end come - When this general publication of the Gospel shall have taken place, then a...

Yes, the "end" in verse 14 refers to the end occurring in 70 AD. This is corroborated by verses which follow verse 14 which continue to describe events associated with and leading up to 70 AD.

Genesis 17:12 does not refer to the land of Israel. It describes the composition of the new nation of Israel, long before there was a land of Israel.

Keep on guzzling that "Ice T." :laughing:

Yes, that was God's covenant condition as a demonstration of faith and obedience. But circumcision did not preclude subsequent unfaithfulness and disobedience by thousands on various occasions, and did not save them on those occasions.